Sitting of 22 November 1928

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

  PARLIAMENT SQUARE AND OTHER STREETS BILL.
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 15th day of November, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
  Parliament Square and other Streets Bill.

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

    TREATMENT ALLOWANCE (J. DRURY).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the application of J. Drury, case 3/M.D./3875, for treatment allowances was refused as not attributable to war service; whether his complaint, severe pains in the head, is the same as that which caused his transfer from Egypt to England, as per medical transfer certificate dated 17th May, 1916; and, if so, will he reconsider the decision arrived at on 28th September, 1928?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The man referred to was transferred to hospital in 1916 for Myalgia. As a result of a special medical examination of him which I caused to be made two days ago, I am advised that his complaint of pains in the head, for which no special treatment is required other than such palliative treatment as is being given by his private practitioner, is not considered to be connected with his pre-
    1882
    vious disability of which I am informed there is very little, if any, evidence at present. In these circumstances the case is not one for treatment by the Ministry with allowances.

    CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Pensions under what circumstances his department continues allowances to war orphans beyond the age of 16, and up to what age such allowances are continued?
    Major TRYON: Allowances for children normally cease at the age of 16, but where, on reaching that age, the child is an apprentice or learner in receipt of nominal wages only or is receiving higher education at a secondary school, university or technical institute, or is unable to earn a living through mental or physical infirmity, the allowance may, under the provisions of the Royal Warrants, be extended for a period, subject to the continuance of the qualifying conditions, but in no case beyond the age of 21.
    Mr. CROOKE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that these allowances might be allowed to continue as long as need and capacity exists?
    Major TRYON: No, Sir, and I have explained before the reasons why.

  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether factory inspectors ever notify in advance their intention to make visits to a factory; and, if so, whether this practice will be discontinued?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): I have observed in the Press that misleading statements have been made recently in regard to the practice of the Department in this matter, and I am grateful to my hon. and noble Friend for this opportunity of explaining the position again. The general rule enjoined on the Factory Inspectors is that their visits are to be surprise visits. Exceptionally an Inspector may give notice beforehand, if this is necessary for the purposes of the particular visit, as, for example, when he

  1883
  wishes to meet a particular person at the factory or to see a particular plant in operation; but in general visits are paid without notice.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the death of Samuel Coward, of 130, Bradley Street, Crookes, Sheffield, and to the statement at the inquest by the medical referee under the metal grinders' silicosis scheme that Coward died from silicosis contracted at his work; if he is aware that two of Coward's employers said they knew nothing about the silicosis scheme being in force; that Coward in recent years, though not working at a grindstone, did work in the same grinding hull as a number of grinders; and can he state whether, in view of the evidence disclosed in this case, he will consider the desirability for amended or additional regulations?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: My right hon. Friend has received a report on this case. It shows that Coward's last employer who had employed him since 1924 was quite aware of the Scheme which came into force in 1927. His evidence on this point at the inquest was not correctly reported in the press. The Scheme applies not only to employment on a grindstone but also to any work incidental thereto, and to glazing, when carried on in the same room, and it appears from the evidence that the deceased had been employed in glazing in a hull where several grindstones were in operation. If so, his case came within the Scheme.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: In view of the fact that this particular disease is so slow in manifesting itself, cannot further consideration be given to the matter, so that the payment, when made, can become retrospective?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: The whole question of the incidence of this disease and the compensation to which sufferers are entitled is under consideration by my right hon. Friend, as the hon. Member knows, but it is a very difficult and complicated matter.
  Mr. SMITH: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when there is likely to be a report on the matter?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: My right hon. Friend has set up, or is in process of setting up, a special medical committee to consider the possibility of compensation for partial disablement as opposed to total disablement, and then we may be in a better position to consider what we should do.
  Mr. TINKERasked the Home Secretary if it is his intention to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act this Session; and, if so, will he indicate what changes will be made?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: No such Bill is at present in contemplation.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary the total value of premiums paid as insurance against accidents to mine workers under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the last year for which figures are available, and the amount paid as compensation to mine workers during the same period?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: The total amount of the compensation paid in the mining industry in 1927 was £3,014,161. The amount of the premiums paid to insurance companies is not known, but I may point out that only quite a small proportion of the total compensation in the mining industry is paid by these companies. In 1927 it amounted to £274,289, or 9.1 per cent. of the total.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that this amount of profit ought to be obtained out of the men or boys who are injured in accidents in mines, or anywhere else?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: I do not see anything about profits in the question.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman separate, in plain figures, the amount of premiums paid, and the amount received in compensation?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: I have gone into the question, and it is not possible to give the exact information which the hon. Member wants in this matter.
  Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary the total premiums paid as in-

  1885
  surance against accidents under the Workmen's Compensation Act, for the last year for which figures are available; the total amount paid as compensation; and the percentage of costs for expenses and profits, separately?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: The premium income for 1927 of the companies which make returns to the Board of Trade was £5,907,576. The corresponding amount paid as compensation (including legal and medical expenses) was £3,319,046. The corresponding expenses and profits amounted to £1,924,846 and £663,684, respectively. I must point cut, however, that under the agreement between the Accident Offices Association and the Home Office employers insured with the companies concerned are entitled to have repaid to them, by way of rebate, the amount by which the compensation paid fell short of 62½ per cent. of the premiums paid.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied with the fact that about 47 per cent. of the premiums paid go for working expenses and profits; and does he not think the time opportune for the State to undertake the organisation of these compensation services?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: No, Sir. In answer to a similar question on 13th December, 1927, I tried to point out to the hon. Member that you cannot compare the working of workmen's compensation insurance with the working of unemployment or health insurance. They are entirely different.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I am not attempting to confuse workmen's compensation insurance with unemployment insurance? But he himself admits that 47 per cent. of the total premiums paid go for working expenses and profits, and therefore the injured workpeople only receive approximately 50 per cent. of what they are entitled to.
  Sir V. HENDERSON: My hon. Friend knows that the injured people are receiving what they are entitled to under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and they would not receive any more if the State organised the scheme instead of private enterprise.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that where States have undertaken the organisation of this kind of insurance, the insured workpeople receive approximately 100 per cent. better advantages than the work-people of Great Britain?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: I am not aware that the insurance systems of other countries are readily comparable with our own.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    ALIENS REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT.
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Home Secretary whether the official in the aliens registration department who assisted an Italian named Antonio Perotti to obtain a bogus registration certificate is still employed in that department; and whether any legal proceedings have been or will be taken against the person concerned?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: it has not been found possible to obtain evidence justifying a criminal charge against any individual in respect of the irregularity mentioned, which occurred more than two years ago.
    Sir F. HALL: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that although it occurred a long time ago it has only just been brought before us, and that this man has only just been sent back to Italy?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I am aware of that fact, but the fact is also that the incident occurred two years ago.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Have any other similar cases arisen since?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: No, Sir.
    Sir F. HALL: Does it take two years for these things to come to light?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: Many criminal acts never come to light.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: What happened to the official?

    Ex-SERVICE TEMPORARY CLERKS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any examinations have been fixed for candidates for the Civil Service; if so, on what dates are they to be held, or whether,

    1887
    on the other hand, the Government propose to retain the services of those temporary civil servants who have satisfactorily carried out their duties for some years past; and whether it is contemplated that they should be promoted to the non-pensionable permanent class?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The date for the next examination for entry into the established clerical classes, which I take to be the examination which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, has not yet been fixed. With regard to the second part of the question, the position is that promotions to the established clerical classes continue to be made in cases where individual ex-service clerks are found fully qualified to carry out the duties of those classes. Similarly, appointments to permanent unestablished status continue to be made in accordance with the Guinness Agreement of 1925. His Majesty's Government propose also to make arrangements whereby suitable ex-service temporary clerks, who may become redundant, will be re-employed where practicable on a temporary basis in posts normally filled by writing assistants (women). It is hoped that these arrangements will provide continuous employment for the ex-service temporary clerks within the scope of the Guinness Agreement.
    Sir F. HALL: Are any vacancies being filled by the appointment of those candidates who sat for examination last November?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I could not give an answer to that question offhand; it is not what was asked in the question; but if my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a question on those lines I will make inquiries.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Is it intended to discharge a considerable number of women who have been employed for some years?
    Mr. SAMUEL: In this case, also, I must ask the hon. Member to put down his question on this subject.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it the intention of the Government to do all that they can to retain the services of those competent
    1888
    ex-service men who have been able to carry on their duties in a satisfactory manner for the last six, seven or eight years, and may we take it they are not to be thrown out of employment?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My answer shows that we are doing that in this arrangement with regard to them.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Has the hon. Member seen the Report of the Estimates Committee on this subject, and has he the promise of the Treasury to carry out those recommendations? Is he going to do that?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have seen the recommendations. I am doing the best I can to find employment for these clerks.

  JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary whether he exercises powers to regulate the employment of boys and young lads engaged in carrying large and heavy loads of parcels on specially fitted foot-pedal tricycles; and what steps are taken to see that these often immature youths are not overworked and strained in propelling heavy loads long distances through congested traffic and frequently working very long hours?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: As regards boys under 14, I would draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the provisions of Section 92 of the Education Act, 1921. My right hon. Friend has no power to regulate the employment in the occupations referred to of boys over this age.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do not those Regulations refer simply to the instruction of the boys, and is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the trouble is that very often the boys are immature and weak and have to undergo very heavy strains affecting their health?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: No, Sir. As far as I remember this particular Section refers to boys moving and lifting heavy weights.
  Miss WILKINSON: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not realise the very serious gap in our legislation for all these errand boys over 14 years of age, who

  1889
  are not touched by any legislation—the Shops Act and the Factory Act—and cannot he consider the advisability of bringing in some legislation that will cover these boys?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: A Bill for the particular purpose is under consideration at the Home Office at the present time.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS.

    TRANSFERRED WORKERS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Home Secretary whether it is possible to arrange that unemployed persons transferred under the Government transference schemes shall be registered as absent voters in the district whence they are transferred?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I am afraid there is no provision of the Representation of the People Acts under which these persons could be registered as absent voters.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman recognise that many thousands of persons who will be transferred will, in consequence of this arrangement, be disfranchised?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I know that Quite well, but also, as the hon. Member knows, many people in the ordinary course of employment move about the country in the qualifying period and go back to their original places to vote.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Many thousands will be transferred in consequence of the Government's new proposals, and therefore is it not a matter for the Government's consideration?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I fail to see the difference between the one lot of people and the other.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tyke note that the Socialist party now admits that many thousands are going to be transferred by the Government's scheme?

    POLLING STATIONS.
    Mr. CLUSEasked the Home Secretary, in view of the expected increased poll at the forthcoming General Election, whether he is prepared to arrange for
    1890
    an increase in the number of voting stations in the various areas?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: This matter is one for the local authorities and returning officer in the various areas, and my right hon. Friend drew attention to it in the circular issued to registration officers on the 6th July last.

    LOUD SPEAKERS.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that one of the political parties intends to employ loud speakers in the forthcoming election campaign which will enable speakers to make their voices heard over a radius exceeding a mile; if he has considered the inconvenience which may be caused to the general public by this aggravation of the existing noise nuisance; and if he proposes to take any action to restrict the volume of such sounds?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I have not heard of any proposal to use loud speakers with the radius mentioned in the question, but if a nuisance is caused by their use there is a remedy under the common law. My right hon. Friend has no powers which would enable him to take any action in the matter.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Liberal party has announced that it is going to use such instruments; and will he make an appeal to that party, and any other parties who may be making use of loud speakers, in order to see that the public may not suffer in vain and that these ear-splitting speeches shall at least conk lain an element of sound sense?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I am not aware of the fact, but I would point out to the lion. Member that if the said loud speakers are going to create a nuisance I am certainly not going to appeal to the Liberal party not to use them.

  HYDE PARK (PROSECUTIONS).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions for offences in Hyde Park have been brought by the Metropolitan police during the last three months; how many have succeeded; and whether any decision has been reached regarding the better lighting of Hyde Park at night?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: During the three months to 31st October there were 264 prosecutions for various offences involving 298 persons. In every case except three, involving three persons, the offence was found to have been proved. As regards the second part of the question my noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works informs me that additional lights have been provided and are now in use in certain parts of the Park where better lighting was considered necessary, namely in the area behind the Achilles Statue and at two other points in the central part of the Park.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If this lighting is sufficient why is there this extraordinary number of prosecutions; and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman look into the matter of increasing the lighting? Further, is he aware that jest before the Recess the Home Secretary admitted that the police had been reluctant to carry out their duty in prosecutions for indecency? Has that reluctance been removed?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: As far as I am aware, in fact I am certain, the police always carry out their duty. As to the first part of the question, the lighting, which I have personally examined, was considered suitable and sufficient. in the eyes of the inspector who is in charge of the Park, and there is nothing to show that these particular offences are necessarily due to defective lighting.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was not in any way impugning the efficiency of the police, but is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, owing to the attacks made upon them, the police were reluctant to carry out their duty?
  Mr. HAYES: Is the report of the Street Offences Committee likely to have any effect on the methods by which Hyde Park is policed?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: The report has not yet been received by my right hon. Friend, and obviously I cannot say.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that if we had more qualified and trained policewomen matters would be improved?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That raises quite another subject.

  POLICE.

    STATION-SERGEANT GODDARD (DISMISSAL).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Home Secretary whether any decision has yet been taken regarding the case of ex-Station-Sergeant Goddard and his assistant in the C Division, Metropolitan Police?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: The enquiries are proceeding with all the despatch possible, and the Commissioner of Police is in consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the matter. No decision can be come to yet.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why it takes so long to decide whether or not there should be a prosecution in this case, when the Home Secretary has had in his possession for a considerable time £12,000 which he has taken?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: The hon. Member has forgotten the question which my right hon. Friend answered on this particular point, in reply to himself and the hon. Member for Edgehill (Mr. Hayes) only a few days ago.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I am asking why has it taken so long to decide upon a, prosecution in this case, when the right hon. Gentleman felt so strongly upon it that he appropriated £12,000?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: Who did?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The Home Secretary.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I am not aware that the Home Secretary appropriated £12,000.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: He said so.
    Sir V. HENDERSON: The fact that a certain amount of money in the possession of an individual may have been impounded, has nothing to do with the question of whether or not it is possible to prosecute that individual for bribery.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: He impounds the money, holds it for three weeks and is not sure whether he ought to prosecute or not?
    Mr. HAYES: Is the delay, perhaps, due to the fact that the inquiries arising out of this matter will now have to

    1893
    cover a period of years and issues other than the Goddard issue may possibly arise?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I think that is quite likely to be the case.

    LICENSED PREMISES (EXTENDED HOURS).
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Home Secretary, in view of the fact that applications for extension of hours on licensed premises in the Metropolitan area are granted by the police authorities without reference to the Licensing Justices, how many such extensions were granted during the 12 months ending 30th June last; and how many of these extensions were in the Vine Street Station area?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: Inquiries are being made but my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to give an answer. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his question next week or if he prefers it my right hon. Friend will have the information sent to him direct as soon as it is available.
    Mr. DAY: In cases where licences are unjustly refused by subordinate police officers, have the applicants any right of appeal to superior officers?

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    DANGEROUS DRUGS.
    Colonel VAUGHAN - MORGANasked the Home Secretary whether the alkaloid codeine has been added to the schedule under the Dangerous Drugs Act; if not, whether it is proposed to do so; and, if so, when this will be done?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. Coleine is not regarded by most authorities as a habit-forming drug and is not included in the International Conventions of The Hague and Geneva.

    CEMENT WORKS, MELTON (DUST).
    Major CARVERasked the Minister of Health if he has any further information regarding the nuisance caused by the cement works at Melton, East Yorkshire, regarding which complaints have been repeatedly made by the inhabitants of the surrounding villages?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The chief alkali inspector has recently visited the works. It appears from his report that unremitting efforts are being made by the company to solve the problem of the emission of dust, and that the provision of a high chimney is also being considered.

    MIDWIVES ACTS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that many registered nurses hold also the qualification of certified midwife, he will state the reason why the profession of nursing has been refused representation upon the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the working of the Midwives Acts, 1902 to 1916; and whether any organisation of nurses has declined to give evidence before that body because of that refusal?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not consider it necessary to appoint a registered nurse on this committee as it was open to the various nursing organisations to give evidence before the committee. I am glad to say that only one of these organisations declined to avail themselves of this opportunity.
    Mr. KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state his reason for refusing representation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have given that in the answer.

  CENTRAL DISCHARGED PRISONERS' AID SOCIETY.
  Mr. WALTER BAKERasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Central Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society deals with many thousands of discharged prisoners each year; whether he is aware that the Home Office regards this work as essential to the work of reclamation; and whether he will recommend a grant towards the funds of this society?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: The many thousands of discharged prisoners to whom the hon. Member refers are dealt with, not by the Central Aid Society, but by the local societies attached to each prison, and Government grants are made to these societies amounting to about £5,000 a year. The central society is a body representative of the local societies

  1895
  and does useful work by promoting cooperation amongst them and dealing with special cases submitted by the constituent societies. It does not itself share in the Government grant, but gives advice with regard to the distribution of a portion of that grant.
  Mr. BAKER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why this responsibility, which is admitted by his chief to be a national responsibility, is to be placed upon the backs of the charitable, instead of upon national funds?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: I do not think that exactly follows. I have told the hon. Member that the Government do give grants to these local societies.

  TRANSPORT (SLOW-MOVING TRAFFIC).
  Sir F. HALLasked the Home Secretary how long the by-law with regard to slow-moving traffic keeping near the kerb in London has been in force; what was the number of prosecutions for violation of the by-law in 1927; and in how many of these cases was a conviction obtained?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: The by-law has been in force since the 12th March, 1914. There were three prosecutions under it in 1927 (two convictions and one' dismissal). There were 20 cases under the analogous provision (Section 78) of the Highway Act, 1835, leading to 15 convictions.
  Sir F. HALL: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think it ludicrous to have a by-law of this nature with the congested traffic that we have in London; is he aware that much delay is caused by slow-going traffic keeping to the offside instead of to the inner side; and will instructions be given to regulate this matter in such a way that there may be an increase in the rate of locomotion in the London streets?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: I will see that my hon. and gallant Friend's observations are duly considered.
  Sir F. HALL: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman recognise the enor-
  1896
  mous loss of time and consequent loss of money resulting from this slow-going traffic?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: I think the point is being noted.

  HOUSING.

    EX-SERVICE MEN, COLERAINE.
    Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTENasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Irish Sailors and Soldiers' Trust have not as yet erected any cottages for ex-service men in the Coleraine Urban District, in the County of Londonderry, although soon after the constitution of the trust six years ago 10 cottages were allocated to that district; and whether he will hasten the erection of these 10 cottages and, in view of the fact that more than 1,200 volunteers from Coleraine served in the War and cottages for ex-service men are urgently needed there, he will take steps to secure that a fair proportion of additional cottages are allocated to and erected in that district without undue delay?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: My right hon. Friend is making inquiries, but he is afraid he is not yet in a position to give an answer.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also inquire into the case of Tullamore, where some 2,000 men volunteered and, served in the British Army and only eight houses have been built, and where they are desirous of getting more?
    Sir V. HENDERSON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question.

    IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. KIRKW00Dasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that public authorities are to-day giving compensation to slum owners for the removal of their slums; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation whereby owners of property condemned as unfit for human habitation will be treated on the same basis as purveyors of diseased fruit or meat?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Any compensation paid by local authorities to owners

    1897
    on the compulsory purchase of slum property included in a clearance scheme is calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Consolidation Act of 1925. In answer to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given by the Prime Minister on the 14th instant to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Hackney Central (Sir R. Gower).

    RURAL WORKERS ACT.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Health how many applications have been received and granted by the county councils of Wiltshire and Devon, respectively, for the reconditioning of cottages and other buildings for the housing of agricultural workers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The numbers of dwellings included in applications made for assistance under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, up to the end of September last were, in the County of Wilts 81, and in the County of Devon 232. The numbers of dwellings in respect of which assistance had been promised up to the same date were 21 and 97 respectively, and the numbers still under consideration were 22 and 71 respectively.
    Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the good record of Devon in this respect as compared with other counties?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Evidently they are people specially interested in the subject and have taken some trouble about it.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that many agricultural workers' cottages are in urgent need of reconditioning through the means provided by the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926; and whether he will take means to ascertain from the owners of such cottages why they are refraining from making applications to county councils under the Act?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that it would not be practicable for me to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. As, however, it seemed clear to me that in many cases the opportunities afforded by the Act were not fully realised, I have issued circulars to local authorities
    1898
    making certain suggestions designed to secure greater publicity and greater efficiency in administration. The number of dwellings included in applications made during the quarter ended 30th September, 1928, and the number of dwellings in respect of which grants or loans were made corresponding figures for the preceding quarter.
    Mr. HURD: Is it within my right hon. Friend's knowledge that owners of cottages which are ripe for reconditioning have been given to understand that it is no good putting in applications, and, that being so, could he make some inquiries of the Central Landowners' Association, or otherwise, to ascertain the causes that are impeding these cottages from coming under reconditioning?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No case of that kind has come to my personal knowledge, but if my hon. Friend will give me particulars, I shall be glad to look into the question.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health how many houses have been reconditioned in rural areas since the passing of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Up to the 30th September last grants have been promised under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, in respect of 1,022 houses, the total amount of grants involved being £74,036. In addition loans amounting to £4,008 have been promised. Work had been completed at the 30th September on 343 houses and was in progress on 518 other houses.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an idea how many centuries it would take on this basis to recondition the whole of the rural houses?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The rate of progress is continually increasing, and as I have already remarked in answer to another question, it has increased by 50 per cent. in the last quarter.
    Mr. HURD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any note of the number of refusals from county councils, and whether they have been due to political prejudice?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

    SUBSIDY HOUSES.
    Mr. TOMLINSONasked the Minister of Health what are the proportions of subsidy houses built among the different sizes by the municipalities under each of the housing schemes 1919–23 and 1924, i.e., what percentage of the total number of houses built under the schemes are A 1, A 2, A 3, A 4, B 1, B 2, B 3, or B 4; and what are the proportions of the subsidy houses built by private enterprise under the 1919 and 1923 Acts among these sizes?

    Housing Act.

    Houses arranged for by Local Authorities.

    Houses arranged for by Private Enterprise.

    Non-Parlour.

    Parlour.

    Non-Parlour.

    Parlour.

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    5.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Per cent.

    Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919.

    42

    58

    47

    53

    Housing, etc., Act, 1923

    67

    33

    22

    78

    Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.

    74

    26

    62

    38

    It is not possible to give the proportion of non-parlour and parlour houses erected under the scheme authorised by the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Minister of Health what is the total number of houses owned and let under the Housing Acts, 1919, 1923 and 1924 by each urban and each rural district in each of the following coalfields: South Wales and Monmouthshire, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Durham and Northumberland; and will be state the total arrears of rates and of rents to the 31st March, 1928, in each of the said coalfields?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will forward to the hon. Member a statement showing the number of houses erected under the Housing Acts of 1919, 1923 and 1924 by each local authority in the coalfields referred to, but I have no particulars as to how many of these, if any, have been disposed of by way of sale. Information with regard to the last part of the question is not in my possession.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer involves a tabular statement I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Precise information in the form desired by the hon. Member is not available, but the following statement gives, as at the 1st November, 1928, the ratio which the numbers of non-parlour and parlour houses arranged for bear to the total numbers arranged for by local authorities and private enterprise respectively.
    Mr. JONES: Do I understand from the Minister that the figures will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

    RURAL DISTRICT COUNCILS (LOANS).
    Sir HUGH LUCAS-TOOTHasked the Minister of Health how many rural district councils borrowed too much money under the Housing Act from the Public Works Loan Board for their actual requirements; in how many cases the Ministry has insisted on the repayment of interest upon the surplus; and how much the total of such interest amounts to?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no summarised information available in the desired form and to compile it from the departmental records over a period of years would involve considerable labour. If my hon. Friend has any special case in mind I shall be glad to furnish him with any particulars he may desire in regard to it.

    LAND PURCHASE.
    Miss BONDFIELDasked the Minister of Health if he will state at

    1901
    what price per acre local authorities in London or elsewhere are allowed to purchase land; is he aware that before the War the price of £268,000 for 15 acres, i.e., an average price of just under £18,000 per acre, was sanctioned in Bethnal Green and that certain portions of this 15 acres had a value of between £20,000 and £25,000 per acre; will he say whether this price of £18,000 an acre has been found consistent with fair and reasonable rents to genuine working-class tenants; is he aware that in Chelsea a purchase at just under £10,000 an acre was sanctioned last year; and what is the highest price per acre already sanctioned in Westminster, Kensington, Chelsea, or the City?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In considering whether sanction to a loan in respect of the purchase of land for housing purposes can be granted, I have to take into account all the circumstances of the particular case, and it is impossible to state any standard or maximum price. I may mention that the average price paid for housing sites outside London is £204 per acre. The land referred to in the second part of the question was an unhealthy area for which a clearance scheme was approved in 1891. The figure of £268,000 represented the net cost of acquisition and clearance of the unhealthy area at that date, but as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the basis of compensation in such cases has been materially altered since that date. The rents charged by the London County Council on this estate vary from 4s. 10d. for one room to 21s. 10d. for six rooms. I am aware that the Chelsea Borough Council purchased a housing site at just under £10,000 an acre, but I have no general information about the prices paid for land acquired in London, as the raising of loans for housing purposes by the Metropolitan Borough Councils and London County Council does not require my sanction, and I am not concerned except in so far as the Exchequer subsidy is payable in respect of the loss on carrying out a slum clearance scheme.

    RENTS, PAIGNTON.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Health why he has requested the Paignton Urban District Council to raise the rents of the 147 tenants of houses built under the 1919 Act; whether the council has
    1902
    agreed to raise the rents 1s. per week on and from the 1st April, 1929; and whether, when the rents were fixed, they were deemed to be adequate?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The present average rent, namely 8s. 3d., of the 147 houses mentioned which were built under the Housing Act, 1919, is considered too low in view of the rent of 12s. for which similar council houses provided under the Housing Act, 1924, are let. The extent to which the rents should be increased has recently been discussed with the council, and I understand that the council now propose to increase the rents by 1s. from 31st March, 1929. The rents originally fixed were 1s. a week higher than those at present charged, and were reduced on the representation of the local authority.
    Mr. KELLY: Is the right hon. Gentle-roan prepared to tell us on what he based his calculation that these rents should be increased?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have pointed out that the rents of similar houses built under the 1924 Act were 12s., against 8s. 3d., which are being charged here.
    Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that there is an obligation on the Government, in connection with the houses built under the Addison Scheme, to base the rent, not upon post-War, but upon pre-War rentals?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, the rents are revised from time to time.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the conditions laid down by the Tribunal when rents were fixed, it was definitely stated that the fixture had to be on the basis of pre-War, and not post-War houses of a similar nature?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has omitted to notice that the figure to which the rents are now raised was the original figure fixed.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Why are the rents of the 1924 houses so high?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Because the price of the houses has gone up by so much in consequence of the subsidy.

  EDUCATION.

    SIZE OF CLASSES.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Education how many classes in public elementary schools in England and Wales on 31st March, 1925, 31st March, 1926, 31st March, 1927, and 31st March, 1928, respectively, contained more than 50 children; how many such classes on those dates contained more than 40 but not more than 50 children; and how many such classes on those dates contained more than 30 but not more than 40 children?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): As the answer to the hon. Member's question is statistical, I will, with his permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. R. SMITH: Can the Noble Lord give the number of classes containing over 50 pupils?
    Lord E. PERCY: There were 21,332 in 1925 and 16,686 in 1928.
    Following is the answer:
    NUMBER OF CLASSES with more than 30 children on Registers in Public Elementary Schools maintained by Local Education Authorities in England and Wales.

    —

    Over 30, but not over 40.

    Over 40, but not over 50.

    Over 50.

    31st March, 1925.

    41,278

    43,323

    21,332

    31st March, 1926.

    43,442

    42,848

    19,969

    31st March, 1927.

    43,586

    43,062

    20,201

    31st March, 1928.

    44,686

    45,602

    16,686

    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in a number of infant departments in London County Council elementary schools, including the Franciscan Road School, the Shillington Street School, the Page's Walk School, and the Brecknock School, the teaching staff has been reduced in order to bring up classes to an average of 50 or 51 pupils on the roll per teacher; and is it the Board's policy that, where classes in junior departments have less than 50 pupils, they shall be brought up to this standard?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir; the policy of the London County Council is based upon what is generally known as the "40–48" agreement, made by them with the Board in 1912 and renewed in 1924. This agreement, which is resulting in substantially improved conditions, both in junior and senior classes, must be taken as a whole, and I agree with my predecessor that it would be undesirable for the Board to disturb it.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Can the Noble Lord tell me the percentages over the Board's figures for junior and senior schools?
    Lord E. PERCY: The 10–48 scheme is that the junior classes should not exceed 48 and that the senior classes should not exceed 40.

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, ROEHAMPTON.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that the Board have refused to sanction additional school accommodation on the new Roehampton London County Council Housing Estate on the ground that other schools in the neighbourhood are not completely filled up, he has taken into consideration the fact that a number of parents resident on the estate are withholding their children from school sooner than allow them to attend a Church of England school or a Roman Catholic school, or to walk a mile or more each way so as to attend a council school; and is it the intention of the Board, in order to utilise to the utmost the accommodation in existing schools, that parents should be compelled to send their children to denominational schools or to schools at a considerable distance from their homes?
    Lord E. PERCY: The Board have had no correspondence with the Council on this question since the year 1923. I understand, however, that the Council are now considering a proposal for the provision of additional school accommodation on the estate, and any proposal submitted will be considered on its merits.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Will the Noble Lord bring pressure to bear on the people in question to have this matter rectified?
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not understand the hon. Member.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Will the Noble Lord take the matter in hand?
    Lord E. PERCY: I understand that the council are now considering it.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: I agree that they are considering it, but they have been two years doing nothing, and I want them to do something.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Meanwhile, is the Noble Lord aware that some of these children are being obliged to go into denominational schools, and, if that be so, is any time taken for denominational teaching out of normal school hours?
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not know where the children are going.

  UNDERTAKERS' CHARGES.
  Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the charges demanded by undertakers in working-class areas; and will he consider the introduction of legislation which will give local authorities the power to licence all undertakers and to approve a scale of charges?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: I have been asked to reply to this question. No, Sir. The Home Secretary has received no complaints. In any event, I do not think this is a matter for regulation by Act of Parliament.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

    WEIGHTED POPULATIONS.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWNasked the Minister of Health the total amount estimated as the cost of applying each of the four factors for children, rateable value, unemployment, and density of population, respectively, under the Local Government Bill, 1928, for the purposes of weighting?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The object of the formula is to distribute any given sum of money and no specific figure of cost can, therefore, properly be attributed to any particular factor. Further,
    1906
    it would be very misleading to attempt to separate the values of the factors for children and rateable value since they have been used in combination with the basic factor of population as a general index of needs and relative wealth and poverty. If the hon. Member wished, however, he might regard a sum of £15,000,000 as distributable very approximately as follows:

    £

    Population weighted for children and rateable value

    11,700,000

    Exceptional unemployment

    1,200,000

    Low density of population

    2,100,000

    GLAMORGANSHIRE.
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Minister of Health whether he can submit a statement showing the probable financial effect upon the administrative county of Glamorgan of the Local Government Bill and the financial proposals connected therewith, and also show the probable financial effect upon each non-county borough, urban and rural district within the county of Glamorgan; and will he state separately the effect of the proposals in the said Bill as to Goschen and similar loans?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I have already explained, estimated figures based on the year 1926–27 for the County of Glamorgan and several other counties will shortly be published. In the figures which will be given no allowance has been made for the relief to the general ratepayers of Glamorgan consequent on the proposals as regards loans of poor law authorities. This relief will probably amount at the outset of the scheme to the equivalent of a rate of about 9d. in the £.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Will the paper show not only the total refunds to the county of Glamorgan, hut also the losses that will devolve on some authorities, particularly upon autonomous education areas?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it will show all the relevant figures.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Will the paper be available at the week-end?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: For the whole country?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, not for the whole country, but for about 20 or 25 counties in addition to those already published.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why not for the whole country?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Because it takes a very long time to get these figures out.

    EXPENDITURE.
    Mr. FENBYasked the Minister of Health whether he will state (1) for each administrative county the total estimated expenditure out of rates

    STATEMENT showing for each Administrative County in England and Wales, (1) the amount of rates called for by Boards of Guardians for their poor law and other common charges, and (2) the estimated expenditure of Rural District Councils out of rates on roads and highways: year ended 31st March, 1927.

    Name of Administrative County.

    Rates called for by Boards of Guardians for poor law and other common charges.*

    Rate-borne expenditure of Rural District Councils on roads and highways.†

    1.

    2.

    3.

    ENGLAND (excluding Monmouth).

    £

    £

    Bedford

    …

    …

    90,305

    10,504

    Berks

    …

    …

    107,600

    121,742

    Buckingham

    …

    …

    92,781

    120,986

    Cambridge

    …

    …

    66,382

    51,833

    Chester

    …

    …

    297,533

    160,700

    Cornwall (excluding Isles of Scilly)

    …

    …

    150,889

    156,363

    Isles of Scilly

    …

    …

    248

    448

    Cumberland

    …

    …

    180,139

    66,323

    Derby

    …

    …

    370,562

    175,187

    Devon

    …

    …

    164,149

    216,116

    Dorset

    …

    …

    128,507

    95,766

    Durham

    …

    …

    1,548,168

    325,889

    Ely, Isle of

    …

    …

    29,554

    22,889

    Essex

    …

    …

    821,483

    248,187

    Gloucester

    …

    …

    167,455

    124,382

    Hereford

    …

    …

    51,605

    40,966

    Hertford

    …

    …

    219,480

    13,208

    Huntingdon

    …

    …

    21,498

    766

    Kent

    …

    …

    691,618

    294,496

    Lancaster

    …

    …

    1,081,516

    198,783

    Leicester

    …

    …

    91,610

    103,539

    Lincoln, parts of Holland

    …

    …

    26,282

    46,102

    Lincoln, parts of Kesteven

    …

    …

    46,774

    59,797

    Lincoln, parts of Lindsey

    …

    …

    118,360

    136,769

    London

    …

    …

    10,395,619

    —

    Middlesex

    …

    …

    1,096,021

    49,167

    Norfolk

    …

    …

    158,798

    104,093

    Northampton

    …

    …

    91,914

    101,713

    Northumb Hand

    …

    …

    485,667

    132,017

    Nottingham

    …

    …

    284,114

    84,342

    Oxford

    …

    …

    61,238

    53,610

    Peterborough, Soke of

    …

    …

    24,448

    11,300

    Rutland

    …

    …

    5,039

    13,155

    Salop

    …

    …

    102,408

    82,067

    Somerset

    …

    …

    175,187

    201,265

    Southampton

    …

    …

    209,932

    203,530

    Stafford

    …

    …

    414,411

    141,451

    in the latest available year of Boards of Guardians within the area of each administrative county;
    (2) for each administrative county in England and Wales the total estimated expenditure out of rates in the latest available year on roads and highways by rural districts situate within each administrative county?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures in tabular form I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is tire answer:

    1909

    Name of Administrative County.

    Rates called for by Boards of Guardians for poor law and other common charges.*

    Rate-borne expenditure of Rural District Councils on roads and highways.†

    1.

    2.

    3.

    £

    £

    Suffolk, East

    …

    …

    112,777

    91,619

    Suffolk, West

    …

    …

    61,576

    36,336

    Surrey

    …

    …

    459,664

    202,365

    Sussex, East

    …

    …

    154,159

    141,064

    Sussex, West

    …

    …

    80,425

    115,873

    Warwick

    …

    …

    158,021

    164,150

    Westmorland

    …

    …

    17,005

    19,985

    Wight, Isle of

    …

    …

    35,038

    —

    Wilts

    …

    …

    118,374

    109,761

    Worcester

    …

    …

    137,742

    89,991

    York, East Riding

    …

    …

    85,746

    111,421

    York, North Riding

    …

    …

    240,066

    127,771

    York, West Riding

    …

    …

    1,161,249

    414,175

    WALES (with Monmouth).

    Anglesey

    …

    …

    24,569

    17,691

    Brecon

    …

    …

    45,914

    28,151

    Caernarvon

    …

    …

    65,339

    24,261

    Cardigan

    …

    …

    16,691

    25,143

    Carmarthen

    …

    …

    128,156

    86,097

    Denbigh

    …

    …

    92,424

    59,899

    Flint

    …

    …

    77,614

    41,788

    Glamorgan

    …

    …

    1,144,942

    188,016

    Merioneth

    …

    …

    17,374

    9,039

    Monmouth

    …

    …

    314,967

    34,174

    Montgomery

    …

    …

    24,748

    13,441

    Pembroke

    …

    …

    31,983

    35,861

    Radnor

    …

    …

    10,150

    10,358

    * Col. 2. Where a Union is not wholly comprised in one Administrative County, the total amount called for by the Guardians has been apportioned on the basis of assessable value.

    † Col. 3. Where a rural district is situated in more than one Administrative County the estimated rate-borne expenditure has been apportioned on the basis of assessable value of the parts in each County.

    Except in a very few cases, Rural District Councils do not when levying their rates, distinguish the rate-borne expenditure on highways from other general expenses. The amounts in this column have been estimated on the best particulars available.

    NON-COUNTY BOROUGHS.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Minister of Health the number of non-county boroughs in England and Wales with populations of over 20,000, 30,000, and 40,000, respectively?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The particulars asked for as at the middle of 1927 are as follow:—

    Between 20,000 and 30,000

    …

    31

    Between 30,000 and 40,000

    …

    30

    Over 40,000

    …

    34

    EXCHEQUER GRANTS.
    Mr. LONGBOTTOMasked the Minister of Health, with reference to paragraph 16 of the Local Government Bill (Financial Memorandum), if he will
    1910
    state the estimated effect of the original proposal in Cmd. 3134 regarding the relation of Exchequer grants to rate-borne expenditure?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is difficult to reply to this question within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, and I suggest the hon. Member should await the explanation which I shall hope to give in the course of the Debates on the Bill.

  POOR LAW RELIEF, WEDNESBURX.
  Mr. SHORTasked the Minister of Health the total number of persons resident in Wednesbury who were in receipt of Pour Law out-relief on 31st December, 1927, and on 31st October, 1928, respectively?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Separate particulars are not furnished to my Department as regards the number of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in Wednesbury, which is not a separate Poor Law area.
  Mr. SHORT: But the right hon. Gentleman can get these figures, can he not, seeing that he has supplied them to me before?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We have supplied them to the hon. Member before, and I have no doubt I could do so again, but I must point out to him that at the present time there is very great pressure, both upon my Department and on the local authorities, and I rather deprecate asking them to go to the trouble of getting out special figures if it is not really necessary.
  Mr. SHORT: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Clerk of the West Bromwich Board of Guardians suggests that a large number of people are being paid Poor Law relief because they are thrown off the Employment Exchanges, and these figures would indicate whether that remark was justified or not?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not agree that it would necessarily indicate that.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (MAINTENANCE GRANTS).
  Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Minister of Health if there are any hoards of guardians in the country which have sent to him at any time proposals for the payment of full maintenance grants to those out of work and, if so, which are they?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot trace any such proposals, but the guardians of Bethnal Green, Greenwich, Poplar and Shoreditch have informed me of their support of a resolution to the effect that the problem of unemployment should he dealt with at the expense of the Exchequer by the provision of useful work or adequate maintenance.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  Dr. DAVIESasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Mrs. Everett,
  1912
  of Royton, was granted a service dependant's pension in respect of her stepson under Article 21 (1) (a) of the Royal Warrant, but has been refused a widows' pension under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, on the grounds that the word "son" under Section 44, Subsection (1), of this Act cannot include stepson; and will he at an opportune time take steps to remedy the difference between the two Acts?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, the point which arises on Section 24 (1) of the Act of 1925 has been noted for consideration when amending legislation is contemplated.
  Mr. LONGBOTTOMasked the Minister of Health what local authorities in England and Wales have dismissed their employés on obtaining the age of 65 since the passage of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The information asked for is not available.

  NATIONAL HEATH INSURANCE.
  Dr. V. DAVIESasked the Minister of Health, in view of his decision under the National Health Insurance Regulations that a spinal jacket required for the treatment of tuberculosis of the spine is regarded as a splint, but that a spinal jacket required for the treatment of lateral curvature of the spine, which is often due to tuberculosis, is not a splint and therefore cannot be supplied to insured persons, if he will state his reasons for arriving at such a decision?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reason why a different view was taken with respect to the appliances in the particular cases in question is that I have to look not to the name given to an appliance but to the precise object which it is intended to serve. I have invited the Insurance Acts Committee of the British Medical Association to discuss with my Department the difficulties of defining splints for the purposes of medical benefit, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the letter conveying the invitation which will indicate to him what are the points at issue.
  Mr. ERSKINE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many osteopaths who cure curvature of the spine completely, without any appliances whatsoever?

  HOME-PRODUCED MILK (PROPAGANDA).
  Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Minister of Health whether any further steps have been taken to discourage the use of imported foreign condensed skimmed milk and to encourage the use of home-produced milk?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I have been asked to reply. My hon. and gallant Friend is aware of the recent milk publicity campaign of the Empire Marketing Board, the position regarding which was fully explained by the Secretary of State for the Dominions in a reply to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) on 13th November. I would add that my Department makes every endeavour to keep the various brands of home-produced condensed and dried milk before the public by including them in the home-produce section of Empire Marketing Board displays at exhibitions in London and the provinces. Propaganda with respect to home-produced milk is also carried out by the National Milk Publicity Council and by the staffs of the agricultural colleges and county authorities for agricultural education.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has my right hon. Friend's action yet had any effect on the imports of condensed skimmed milk?
  Viscountess ASTOR: Cannot the Government help by advertising milk in post offices instead of drink?
  Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he would also help in the direction desired if he raised the incomes of working-class homes?

  STAMP DUTY (RECEIPTS AND VOUCHERS).
  Mr. DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have had their notice drawn, during the 12
  1914
  months ended to the last convenient date, to receipts or vouchers being issued for amounts of £2 or over without a stamp; can he state what action has been taken in these cases; and will he consider the introduction of legislation having as its object making all persons who receive a payment of £2 or over affix a twopenny stamp to the voucher given in acknowledgement?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The number of cases in which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have been informed of the issue of unstamped receipts for amounts of £2 or more during the 12 months ended on the 31st July last was about 150. In all these cases the offenders provided duly stamped receipts after being warned of the penalty to which they had exposed themselves. The full amount of the penalty is £10, but the Commissioners in the exercise of their statutory powers remit occasionally the whole, but more often a part of the full penalty after considering the circumstances of each case. With regard to the latter part of the question, my right hon. Friend does not propose to alter the law so as to make it compulsory to give a receipt in cases where the payer does not require one. Vouchers of the kind that the hon. Member has in mind are not receipts.
  Mr. DAY: Have any statistics been got out by the hon. Gentleman's Department of the millions of vouchers that are issued in the departmental stores in the nature of receipts?
  Mr. SAMUEL: If a voucher is not a receipt, I do not see how I can find the information.
  Mr. DAY: What, therefore, is a receipt?
  Mr. SAMUEL: If there are rulings of law on the point, and if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will be glad to find out for him.

  MOTOR CARS (IMPORT DUTY).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the disparity between the works invoice price of a foreign imported car or of the chassis and parts ultimately reassembled in this country on which the Imports Duty is levied and the retail price of the same car; and on what price

  1915
  the duty is levied in the case of the Lancia 17 horse-power chassis retailed at £645, the 21.7 horse-power Chevrolet retailed at £185 to £250, the 18 horsepower Belgian Minerva retailed at £575, the Studebaker retailed at £365, the 18 horse-power Delage chassis retailed at £420, the Overland retailed at £180 to £210, the Buick retailed at £425 to £475, the Chrysler Model 75 retailed at £515 to £575, and the Citröen retailed at £215 to £225?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The statutory value on which duty is charged in the case of a motor car, or chassis or component parts of a motor car, is the price which an importer would give for the article, if it were delivered, freight and insurance paid, in bond at the port of importation. Many factors which are irrelevant to this statutory value may come into play in connection with the retail selling price of the article in this country, and it is especially difficult to draw any deduction as to the true import value from this price in the case of motor cars, which are imported largely in the form of unassembled units and of which components are in some cases manufactured in this country. In any case it would be improper to disclose the figures of duty paid in individual cases, but my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the Customs have this matter under constant observation in order to secure that the duty is charged according to the full statutory value of the article imported, whether a car, chassis, or component part.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the retail price has increased by the amount of the duty if it is the foreigner who pays the tax?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I rather apprehended that, upon the whole, the price of motor cars has gone down.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the cars which Members bring here and leave in Palace Yard, will he not find that there are more of foreign origin than of British make?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the original question.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: They all pay duty now.

  GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (COPYRIGHT).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the German Government has issued an extensive summary and an index of the six volumes issued by the Committee on Industry and Trade; if any Reports involving the Government in considerable expense are copyright; whether he is aware that the British charts of the world, surveyed at great expense to the nation, are reprinted in a similar way in other countries, though fully available for sale here; and whether the whole question with be considered?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that the German Government has now issued translations of the introductions to the volumes issued by the Committee on Industry and Trade. The necessary permission for this was granted by the Stationery Office, and a royalty has been paid. With regard to the second part of the question, the copyright in all Government publications is vested in the Controller of His Majesty's Stationery Office. With regard to the last part of the question, there is an international understanding that any country is at liberty to reproduce the charts of any other country, provided that full acknowledgment of the origin of the chart is made on the reproduced copy. This understanding was formally ratified by the International Hydrographic Conference of London in 1920.

  STATE SERVICES (REDUCTIONS).
  Dr. DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the number of persons dismissed as a result of the following economies, namely, reduction in the Defence Forces, reduction in cruiser programme, closing of naval dockyards and reductions in the Civil Services?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. Friend will find in the Estimates for the Fighting Services under Vote A the reduction in the total personnel of the Defence Forces and in the Quarterly Return of Staffs Employed in Government Departments

  1917
  the reduction in civil staffs. I cannot say what increase in the numbers employed in the Government yards would have resulted from the carrying out of the cruiser programme as originally proposed. The reduction of Rosyth and Pembroke Dockyards to a care and maintenance basis has involved reductions in those yards of 2,974 and 1,484, respectively.
  Mr. KELLY: Were any of the people who were discharged from Rosyth and Pembroke transferred to other yards?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I believe so.

  POSTAL RATES.
  Mr. DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated loss to the Treasury would be by the re-introduction of the penny post on the pre-War basis; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation in the near future to modify the present postal rates?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: In reply to the first part of the question, the loss would be between £6¾ millions and£7¼ millions. The reply to the second part is in the negative.
  Mr. DAY: Then may I ask whether the apparently inspired articles which have been appearing lately in the Press with regard to the return to penny postage are not correct?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: They are absolutely without authority or foundation.

  EUROPEAN LOANS (BRITISH BOND- HOLDERS).
  Mr. WELLOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether apart from Great Britain, any European country which took part in the Great War has paid or proposes to pay its debts in full or has paid interest to British bondholders in sterling?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: It is scarcely possible within the scope of a Parliamentary answer to deal with all the cases that might fall under the hon. Member's question; and I must not be taken to be covering every case. But, generally speaking, the currencies of all the European belligerents, except Great Britain, have depreciated in varying degrees and
  1918
  public debts contracted in those currencies, although paid in full, may represent considerably less than their pre-War sterling equivalent. Pre-War debts expressly contracted in sterling are, so far as I am aware, normally being paid in full save where the bondholders have agreed to a partial remission as they have done in the case of the Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian pre-War loans. The main exceptions are Turkey and Russia; and Turkey has signed an agreement with its bondholders which I hope will shortly be ratified, leaving Russia alone in its repudiation.

  LANDSCAPE DISFIGUREMENT.
  Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the increasing disfigurement by industrial enterprises of districts of natural beauty and holiday resort, such as parts of North Wales and the Lake District, he will consider introducing legislation to schedule such areas as national parks, as is done in some other countries?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member's suggestion has been noted for consideration.
  Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that considerable disfigurement of the natural beauties of North Wales has been caused by the erection of overhead transmission standards for electrical power; that at least one municipality is protesting; and whether he will take action in this matter?
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The hon. Member does not state the precise locality he has in mind, but it is the case that some applications for consent to the erection of overhead lines in North Wales are now before me to which the local authorities concerned have not given their approval. In any such case the local authorities would be given an opportunity of being heard, and my consent would not be given except after careful consideration of their representations and of all the circumstances of the particular case.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that considerable discussion has taken place over the disfigurement of the Llanberis Pass?
  Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, but it must not be assumed that I agree that it is a disfigurement.

  TRADE FACILITIES ACT.
  Sir W. de FRECEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount which the Treasury has guaranteed to date under the Trade Facilities Act and the amount which must be regarded as definitely irrecoverable?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The total amount guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts at the expiration of the Acts on 31st March, 1927, was £74,251,780.
  The amount in respect of which guarantees are still outstanding is £67,969,423.
  The Treasury has paid so far in fulfilment of these guarantees a net sum of

  £

  Principal

  …

  …

  287,755

  Interest

  …

  …

  51,664

  making a total of

  …

  …

  £339,419

  Of this amount £125,146 is definitely irrecoverable.

  SUPER-TAX PAYERS.
  Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give the number of persons liable to Super-tax in the years 1920, 1927 and 1928, respectively?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member will find information regarding the number for the year 1920 on page 101 of the 69th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Command Paper No. 2783). Corresponding information for the years 1927 and 1928 is not yet available.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: That answer does not convey very much. It is an evasive answer. I want the figures. In the question, I asked the hon. Member to state the figures, but he is referring me to papers. Why should we not get the figures? We do not want any papers. That is what the Minister of Health did with a question of mine the other day.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has given the hon. Member an answer. He has told him where he can find the figures.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The answer has been given.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: I appeal to you again to protect us here. The question asked was the number of Super-tax payers in 1920 and in 1927 and 1928. What is to hinder the Minister from saying exactly what the numbers are and giving us a straightforward answer? If he cannot do that, he is not fit for the job.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has received his reply, and I am afraid that he must be content with it.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Miss WILKINSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received representations from the Middlesbrough and other old age pensions committees to the effect that the reductions as to means which are imposed on applicants for old age pensions under the Act of 1908 are a cause of serious dissatisfaction, particularly the method of calculating the yearly value of property as set forth in paragraph (a) of Section 4 (1) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1919; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take steps at an early date to deal with the matter?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. For the rest I would refer the hon. Member to the answer to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir R. Newman) on 15th December last, of which I am sending her a copy.
  Miss WILKINSON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the present method of assessing the almost insignificant property of these old people places them at a very serious disadvantage under the new Act?
  Mr. SAMUEL: On that point, I must refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Exeter on 15th November, which she will find deals with that point.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: In view of the proposals of the Government for making generous arrangements for members of

  1921
  the Diplomatic Service, does not the hon. Member think that we might abolish the income limit altogether in these cases?

  AGRICULTURE.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has had any further information from the Dutch veterinary authorities regarding an alleged cure fur foot-and-mouth disease, which was brought to his notice last Session; and, if so, whether he will lay the particulars before this House?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Inquiries have been made of the Netherlands Department of Agriculture as to the results of tests of this preparation. Earlier tests did not show that the preparation has a preventive effect against foot-and-mouth disease, but the Ministry has asked to be informed of any matters of interest which may arise as a result of any further trials.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: May I ask the Minister once again whether he will consider the question of the Government offering a really substantial reward for a definite cure, for a definite preventive serum for foot-and-mouth disease?
    Mr. GUINNESS: As my hon. Friend is aware, we are working on this problem through the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee, and it is very doubtful whether the proclamation of a reward would do anything to stimulate that scientific research by which alone a cure can be found.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Can the Minister say whether the officials engaged on this research work have inspected the experiments which have been made in Holland?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am not sure whether they have actually seen the experiments, but I will inquire.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of sending experts over there to investigate?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We have had so many of these alleged preventions that it would be quite impossible for the staff of the Ministry, without a great deal of incon-
    1922
    venience, to hold themselves at the disposal of foreign departments who may carry out tests with supposed cures.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is not a supposed cure, but that it is stated in Holland that it is a definite cure?
    Mr. GUINNESS: That is not the information which we have received from the Netherlands Department of Agriculture.
    Mr. ALFRED WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give any further information as to the origin of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease near Plymouth?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on the 10th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tavistock (Brigadier-General Wright), to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong opinion in the district that this case was caused by swill from the barracks, and is there any ground for that opinion?
    Mr. GUINNESS: There is ground for the belief that it may have been caused by this swill, and we are considering the question of prosecuting the farmer who disobeyed the Regulations of the Ministry and neglected to boil the swill.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is not that an argument for the use of English meat for the soldiers?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The contract meat supplied to the Army and Navy comes entirely from Empire sources, where there is no question of foot-and-mouth disease.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman is telling us what is not true. I challenge the statement made by the Minister that this meat comes from the Dominions, because the Government changed it from Australia to the Argentine. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are wrong!"] I am not wrong at all.

    OUSE DRAINAGE.
    Sir H. LUCAS-TOOTHasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the recent remarks of the chairman of the Ouse Drainage, Board with regard to the serious situation

    1923
    of the South Level; whether he is prepared to take any steps to assist in setting up a separate South Level Board with powers similar to the Middle Level Board; and whether he is willing, in view of the Chancellor's recent statement with regard to drainage grants, to provide some financial assistance?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am aware of the views of the chairman of the Ouse Drainage Board on this matter. I have no objection to the constitution of a separate drainage district for the South Level, but before I can take any action a petition must be submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Land Drainage Act, 1918. As regards the last part of the question, I may say that the Ouse Drainage Board is already carrying out a large scheme of works in the South Level, and that my Department is making a grant of 50 per cent. of the cost of the scheme, which is estimated at £140,000. The Ministry is also making grants towards the cost of other schemes within the Ouse drainage district, and will be prepared to consider any fresh proposals which may be submitted.
    Sir H. LUCAS-TOOTH: Is there to he an exchequer grant of 75 per cent.?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think so. As a matter of fact, we are still discussing the details of the new conditions, and, as soon as I am in a position to do so, I will make an announcement.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it intended to put into force the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage in the case of this river as well as others?
    Mr. GUINNESS: Certainly, when general legislation is introduced it will apply to the Ouse as well as to all other catchment areas.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: When is the primary scheme for the Doncaster district likely to be ready.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I hope there will be an opportunity of dealing with it at a very early date. As the hon. Member is aware, it is not a matter of a general amendment of the law, but of agreed legislation to apply to a particular district.

    SUGAR-BEET.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information as to the progress of the new experimental treatment of sugar-beet which is being undertaken at Oxford?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to the process carried on at the Eynsham Beet Sugar Factory which began manufacturing sugar on a commercial scale in May, 1928. Up to date, subsidy has been paid on 113 tons of sugar and 219 tons of molasses. The factory has been in operation for too short a period on a commercial scale for any reliable deductions to be drawn as to the progress made.

  AIR ESTIMATES.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air what savings he anticipates in next year's Air Estimates as a result of the signing in Paris of the treaty for the renunciation of war, commonly known as the Kellogg Peace Pact?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am not prepared to make any statement in anticipation of next year's Air Estimates.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Air Council have tins question of the Kellogg Pact before them when they are making their calculations.
  Sir S. HOARE: Yes, we shall certainly consider that question and any other relevant matters.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the idea expressed in his speech on Armistice Day in regard to the application of the principle of equity to all the air services of Europe can possibly lead to a reduction in the Air Estimates?
  Sir S. HOARE: That certainly does not arise out of the question on the Paper, and I should like to have notice of it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us what business it is proposed to take next week?
Mr. CHURCHILL: On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday we shall take the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill.
On Thursday, the Committee stage of the Money Resolution for the Local Government Bill.
Perhaps it will be more convenient if the business for Friday is announced later.
If there is time on any day other Orders will be taken, including outstanding Re- ports of Supply and the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask when the Money Resolution will be tabled?
Mr. CHURCHILL: To-morrow.
Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Scottish Local Government Bill will be taken?
Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I cannot say, but it will not be taken next week.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means and on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 201; Noes, 116.

Division No. 13.]

AYES.

[3.49 p.m.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

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

Looker, Herbert William

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Apsley, Lord

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

Everard, W. Lindsay

Lumley, L. R.

Astbury, Lieut.-Commander, F. W.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

McLean, Major A.

Astor, Viscountess

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Macmillan, Captain H.

Atholl, Duchess of

Falls, Sir Charles F.

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Fermoy, Lord

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Forrest, W.

Margesson, Captain D.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

Foxcroft, Captain C T

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

Fraser, Captain Ian

Meller, R. J.

Berry, Sir George

Frece, Sir Walter do

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Blundell, F. N.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Gates, Percy

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Goff, Sir Park

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

Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

Gower, Sir Robert

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Grace, John

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Briggs, J. Harold

Grant, Sir J. A.

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Grotrian, H. Brent

Nelson, Sir Frank

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Neville, Sir Reginald J.

Buchan, John

Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

Buckingham, Sir H.

Hacking, Douglas H.

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

Burgoyne, Lieut. Colonel Sir Alan

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

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Burman, J. B.

Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

Penny, Frederick George

Carver, Major W. H.

Hammersley, S. S.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

Harrison, G. J. C.

Perring, Sir William George

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Hartington, Marquess of

Power, Sir John Cecil

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)

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

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

Preston, William

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Price, Major C. W. M.

Chapman, Sir S.

Heneags, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Radford, E. A.

Chilcott, Sir Warden

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Raine, Sir Walter

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

Ramsden, E.

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hilton, Cecil

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Clayton, G. C.

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

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Holt, Captain H. P.

Ropner, Major L.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

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

Cooper, A. Duff

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cope, Major Sir William

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Salmon, Major I.

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

Hurd, Percy A.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Illffe, Sir Edward M.

Sandon, Lord

Culverwell, C. T, (Bristol, West)

Iveagh, Countess of

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

Savery, S. S.

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

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Lamb, J. Q.

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

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

Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Drewe, C.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

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

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Smithers, Waldron

Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

Loder, J. de V.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Ellis, R. G.

Long, Major Eric

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

Steel, Major Samuel Strang

Waddington, R.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel Georgs

Storry-Deans, R,

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

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Wolmer, Viscount

Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Tasker, R. Inigo.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Watts, Sir Thomas

Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. sir W. Mitchell-

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

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Captain Wallace.

NOES.

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

Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

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

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Ammon, Charles George

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Shinwell, E.

Baker, Walter

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Smillie, Robert

Barnes, A.

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Batey, Joseph

Kennedy, T.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

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

Snell, Harry

Bellamy, A.

Kirkwood, D.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Benn, Wedgwood

Lansbury, George

Stamford, T. W.

Bondfield, Margaret

Lawrence, Susan

Stephen, Campbell

Briant, Frank

Lawson, John James

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Lee, F.

Sutton, J. E.

Buchanan, G.

Longbottom, A. W.

Taylor, R. A.

Charleton, H. C.

Lowth, T.

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Cluse, W. S.

Lunn, William

Thurtle, Ernest

Connolly, M.

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

Tinker, John Joseph

Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

Mackinder, W.

Tomlinson, R. P.

Dalton, Hugh

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Townend, A. E.

Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Day, Harry

March, S.

Viant, S. P.

Dennison, R.

Maxton, James

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Dunnico, H.

Morris, R. H.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Fenby, T. D.

Naylor, T. E.

Wellock, Wilfred

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

Owen, Major G.

Westwood, J.

Gibbins, Joseph

Palin, John Henry

Whiteley, W.

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

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson end Colne)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Williams, David (Swansea. E.)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Grundy, T. W.

Potts, John S.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Hardie, George D.

Ritson, J.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Harney, E. A.

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

Windsor, Walter

Harris, Percy A.

Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

Wright, W.

Hayday, Arthur

Sakiatvala, Shapurji

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Hirst, G. H.

Scrymgeour, E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Scurr, John

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Hayes.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL.
"to amend the Northern Ireland Land Act, 1925," presented by Sir William Joynson-Hicks; supported by Lord Eustace Percy and Sir Vivian Henderson; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Coatbridge Drainage Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they
1928
had selected the following Ten Members to be the Chairmen's Panel, and to serve as Chairmen of the Five Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47: Major Sir Richard Barnett, Mr. James Brown, Sir Cyril Cobb, Mr. Ellis Davies, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. William Nicholson, Sir Samuel Roberts, Sir Robert Sanders, Mr. Short, and Sir Edmund Turton.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL) (PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of Section 1, sub-section (3), of the

1929
Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed Mr. Short and Sir Edmund Turton from the Chairmen's Panel, with whom Mr. Speaker shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a Money Bill.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLA TION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899) (PANEL).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following Twenty Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Sir George Berry, Major Broun-Lindsay, Sir Samuel Chapman, Sir Patrick Ford, Mr. Hardie, Sir Harry Hope, Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Mr. Livingstone, Major MacAndrew, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. MacIntyre, Mr. Maclean, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Stephen Mitchell, Dr. Shiels, Mr. Shinwell, Mr. Skelton, Sir Alexander Sprot, Mr. James Stuart and Mr. M'Lean Watson.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had agreed to the following Resolution, which they had directed him to report to the House:
That, after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection.

STANDING COMMITTEE A.
Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee A: Lieut.-Colonel Acland - Troyte, Lieut. - Commander Astbury, Mr. Walter Baker, Rear-Admiral Beamish, Major Birchall, Mr. Briggs, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Cape,
1930
Sir Arthur Churchman, Brigadier-General Sir George Cockerill, Mr. Cove, Mr. Cowan, Sir Henry Cowan, Captain Crookshank, Major George Davies, Captain Fairfax, Lord Fermoy, Lieut.-Colonel Gault, Mr. Gibbins, Mr. Greene, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Harland, Mr. Harris, Mr. Haslam, Sir Sydney Henn, Mr. George Hirst, Captain Holt, Mr. Hopkinson, Mr. Robert Hudson, Mr. Jacob, Mr. Hadyn Jones, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Lumley, Sir William Lane Mitchell, Mr. Hugh Morrison, Mr. Nuttall, Mr. Purcell, Major Ropner, Mr. Shepherd, and Mr. Cecil Watson.
Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Western Highlands and Islands (Transport Services) Bill): Brigadier-General Sir William Alexander, Colonel Ashley, Mr. Barr, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Sir Herbert Cayzer, Mr. Couper, Earl of Dalkeith, Captain Fanshawe, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Thomas Kennedy, Mr. Livingstone, Major MacAndrew, Mr. MacIntyre, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Macquisten, Sir William Mitchell-Thomson, Major Steel, Mr. Westwood, and Mr. Roy Wilson.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.
      CLASS VI.

        RAILWAY FREIGHT REBATES.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000,000, 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, 1929, for a Grant in Aid of the Railway Freight Rebates (Anticipation) Fund."
        The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): It will, of course, be within the knowledge of the Committee that the proposals of the Government dealing with unemployment and depression in industry group themselves naturally into two divisions. There is the main proposal, which will be debated at length next week, and which seeks to de-rate industrial hereditaments as to 75 per cent., and all agricultural land and farm buildings. But a very useful adjunct and reinforcement to this proposal is that represented by the reduction of freights which forms an integral part of the Measure which will be discussed next week, and which, in my humble and considered opinion, will just give that further stimulus which will enable our industries in the depressed areas to compete far more successfully with foreign competitors than they are able to do at this moment. The freight reduction proposals have, however, been singled out for special treatment in anticipation, and it is my duty to-day to propose a Supplementary Estimate of £1,000,0000 as an instalment of the total sum which will be required for carrying this proposal into effect.
        4.0 p.m.
        It is, of course, impossible, as the Committee will understand, for the Government to be able to say exactly what the amount should be which they should ask the House of Commons to provide for this purpose, but, to the best of their knowledge, they
        1956
        have ascertained and reckoned that a 75 per cent. de-rating of transport hereditaments on the railways, as defined in the Act to which this Parliament gave assent last summer, would roughly amount to £4,000,000 a year. Of course, as the Committee knows, that £4,000,000 is not to be paid to the railway companies for their own uses, but is, under the permanent scheme, as it will be under this temporary anticipation, to be passed on to the users of those railways who send merchandise and goods over those lines. It is not intended, nor would it be right that this relief should go to anything but merchandise. The Committee will also appreciate that though £4,000,000 a year is a large sum, yet if you spread that amount over the whole of the railway freights in this country, the relief would be so small, something round about 4 per cent., that the effort would be dissipated. The basic industries which we wish to stimulate would not get that help which we all desire to see given, and that 4 per cent. would be really frittering away the nation's resources without giving anybody any great advantage. Therefore, it has been decided, as the Committee no doubt knows, that we must concentrate on basic industries—coal, steel, iron and agriculture. As regards coal, the relief is to be, if I may put it that way, super concentrated. The relief is not to be given to all classes of coal, but to certain classes of coal, which are used in export or in certain industries in this country.
        Hon. Members can see in the White Paper the technical definition of these selected traffics, but if the Committee will allow me, I will, in a very brief form and more colloquially, put before them what these traffics are, as some of the phrases used in the White Paper are technical, and might not he understood by people outside the trades. The super-concentration would he on coal, coke, patent fuel for shipment overseas, foreign bunkers and bunkers for fishing vessels, and on coal, coke and patent fuel for blast furnaces and steel works. Those are the freights which will receive a reduction under the permanent scheme and also under the temporary scheme. The industrial traffics are pit-props., iron ores, lime and limestone, and certain waste products containing iron for blast furnaces and

        1957
        steel works. The agricultural traffics will be manures used in Great Britain, feeding-stuffs, potatoes—except new potatoes, which get no advantage—milk not condensed, and live stock, and I may say that all these items, these selected traffics, have been agreed with the representative associations of the various trades.
        Mr. KELLY: Does that include engineering?
        Colonel ASHLEY: The Committee consulted all the iron and steel associations.
        Mr. KELLY: Those are not engineering.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The Minister says that associations have been consulted. Is he aware that the agriculturists of the East Riding are very dissatisfied about the differentiation between washed carrots and dirty carrots? Who was consulted? Who represented himself as speaking on their behalf?
        Colonel ASHLEY: We consulted the Farmers' Union as representing the trade as a whole. I am very sorry that they did not deal with carrots, but we had to consult the Farmers' Union as representing agriculture as a whole. As for coal, in concentrating on this coal we are only carrying out the desires of those representing the coal and the steel trades, on the ground that the whole relief should be made effective and go where it was most needed, namely, iron and steel and coal sold in competitive markets.
        Mr. TOWNEND: It is surely incorrect to state that the effect of this rebate will go to the iron and steel engineering. It does not do so by any means.
        Colonel ASHLEY: We say that generally it goes to the iron and steel trade. Hon. Members can raise this point in debate later on. This super-concentration resulted from representations made to us. It also agreed with the views of the Government, which were announced by the Prime Minister on 24th July in the Debate on Unemployment. This freight relief with which we are more particularly concerned to-day was, I think, hon. Members will agree, although naturally they offered criticism, generally welcomed as an effort to help our de-
        1958
        pressed industries. The greatest criticism that was levied—and I can understand the criticism—was: "It is very nice to have this concession in October next year, but meanwhile the sands of our industrial life are running out. Cannot you do something to anticipate it? "This pressure, which was put upon us by many associations, was very well reinforced by a speech which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) on 7th June last, and I would ask the attention of the Committee for a moment to this extract from his speech.
        He said:
        "I proposed two nights ago that there should be given now that relief in railway rates and railway freights which was contemplated to be offered to industries which are overburdened in this country at the present time. In the main these are the coal trade and the iron and steel trade. As I pointed out, I was not then suggesting that the coal carried for ordinary purposes for sheltered trades should obtain the relief, but only that the coal carried for the purposes of iron and steel works and for export should have the reduction in order that the coal trade might receive a stimulus which it so much requires at the present time. How would that work out? As far as I can estimate the results, it would mean in the ease of coal for export something like 8d. per ton."
        I think he rather over-estimated it. It is something like 7d. or 7¼d.
        "Hon. Members are aware that a relief of 6d. per ton on coal at the present time would he an enormous help in competition with our rivals in such markets as the Argentine where we are now competing under the greatest possible difficulties. I think the Minister of Health will now understand the position I have taken up, and I urge the Government to take this question into their most serious consideration, because I believe that in this way we could confer an immediate benefit upon these industries which at the present moment are in a crippled condition and most in 1need of help."—[OFFICIAL RRPORT, 7th June, 1928; cols. 401–2, Vol. 218.]
        I could not put the case better than the right hon. Member for Hillhead put it, and, because he put it so well, because we are convinced of the justice of the case and because we have had deputations urging that this should be carried out, I am now bringing in this Supplementary Estimate. In fact., we are now asking the Committee to give to the depressed areas what the coalowners are asking, what the miners are asking, what the local authorities are 'asking, and what the Members of Parliament want for

        1959
        these depressed areas. Before we deal, as we shall next week, on Second Reading, with the permanent scheme, we have got to tackle 10 months, from 1st December to 30th September.
        Mr. LAWSON: May I 'ask the right hon. Gentleman if the miners really asked that they should put 7d. a ton against a great number of the colliery companies in this country? Did the miners ask that the Government should sabotage a great deal of the industry in the North of England?
        Colonel ASHLEY: What they did ask, along with a great many other authorities, was that freights on railways should be reduced as much as possible.
        Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the Government's policy is with regard to the private lines'?
        Colonel ASHLEY: The hon. Member need not be afraid that I shall shirk the discussion about the private lines, but I propose to deal with that at the end of my speech. We have got now to deal with the 10 months. We are not taking a Vote now for the whole 10 months; we are taking it simply to the end of the financial year for £1,000,000. Though it may seem insufficient, the Committee will realise that claims for payment will not come in till probably Christmas, or about then, and, therefore, the £1,000,000 ought to take us to the end of the financial year. There will be another Estimate for the balance to carry us to the end of September next. Hon. Members will see that in the Second Schedule certain selected traffics are set out in detail, and I will not say any more about them, because I have dealt with them in general terms.
        There is also the rate of rebate which, I submit, is the most important point of all which arises on the Schedule. We have got to find for these 10 months five-sixths of £4,000,000. That is, £3,333,333, which does not come like rain from Heaven, but has to come out of the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health described the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a fairy godmother, and I think he is, except in one respect, in that a fairy godmother, we assume, has unlimited resources at her disposal,
        1960
        whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these hard times has the greatest difficulty in making both ends meet. Therefore, what I am trying to put is that the interests concerned are lucky to have found a Chancellor of the Exchequer to have met them so handsomely. But there must be some limit to the amount of money which can be found from the Exchequer for this particular purpose, and, as far as I can make out, it will be impossible for us to proceed any considerable degree further than we are going under the present proposals.
        We have then this £1,000,000 that we are voting up to 31st March. From that must he deducted a half of one per cent. for administrative purposes and the remainder, after you have deducted that, must be what we can give to cover the cost of all rebates, leaving a small margin for contingencies. What is the scale of the rebates? Agricultural traffics and industrial traffics will get a rebate of 10 per cent on their carriage charges. That is on the basis of the amount of the total traffics to which each section is entitled. Coal has been very generously treated, as that is the industry which is the most hard hit. It comes into most of our other industries and it is in the most depressed areas. Coal will receive a deduction, roughly, of very nearly 30 per cent. of the freight charge on the public railways. That must be a very sensible addition to the means of meeting hard times which the coal trade will have at its disposal. Hon. Members will see in the White Paper that it is not in the form of a reduction of 30 per cent. but 1½. flat rate plus 25 per cent. deduction on the remainder. The Mining Association pressed very strenuously for the inclusion of a flat rate. The railways, on the other hand, were equally vehement in the expression of a wish that a flat rate should not be included. I need not go into the merits of whether a fiat rate should or should not be included, but a fairly happy compromise was arrived at of 1½d. flat rate and 25 per cent. of the remainder. [Interruption.] There was no understanding at all that 26 should be given.
        Mr. ELLIS: When the Mining Association left the meeting 26 had been agreed on. It was afterwards altered to 25 without any communication with them.
        Colonel ASHLEY: I think the Committee will agree that the difference between 25 and 26, as long as you get your rough average of 30 per cent., is not a matter of the most vital importance. What I want to make clear is that the railway companies, when the permanent scheme comes on, and when the scheme which they have to put up is gone into, investigated and decided by the Railway Rates Tribunal, reserve their right of putting before the tribunal that there should not be a flat rate, just as the Mining Association reserve their right. Similarly, agriculture can put its case, and industry can put its case. For the purpose of this 10 months scheme it is to be 1½d. flat rate plus 25 per cent. of deduction on the remainder. This is how it works out; the relief on coal is approximately equivalent, on an average, to 7d. a ton on export coal and 10d. a ton on iron and steel coal.
        May I say a word as to the machinery for working the scheme? In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the White Paper it is provided that the moneys provided by Parliament will be paid to a fund to be administered by the Railway Clearing House. The Railway Clearing House is a well-known institution, the best known in the railway world, and it commands the confidence of everyone, and I do not think you could have found a better channel through which to distribute the money. In this connection, I should like to pay a tribute here to the way in which the railway companies met us. They are doing it willingly, and primarily it is because they think it is their patriotic duty to do so. It has given them a good deal of trouble. It may be said, and I hope it is true, that eventually this will result in an increase of traffics and that therefore they will benefit, but they met us at the beginning of these negotiations, not with that in their minds, but simply because they felt it was their duty to help the country when it wanted help, just as Sir Josiah Stamp came forward in a public-spirited way and helped us with transportation in the Western Highlands in the Bill which we discussed only the day before yesterday.
        Then I should like to draw attention to paragraph 12, which I think is favourable to the Exchequer and to the nation. If at the end of this period of 10 months,
        1962
        that is 30th September next, there is a surplus in the fund, that surplus is to go to the permanent fund, which I hope Parliament will sanction in the Bill to be introduced next month, and be carried over to the credit of the fund for rebates from 1st October next, but if there is a deficit the railway companies have undertaken to carry that deficit themselves and not come on the fund to make up any money they may lose. Then, as far as the payments of these rebates is concerned, we have endeavoured to make the accounts simple so as to be understood by all—by the farmers, and other people who are not accustomed to making out accounts—and to secure that persons entitled to the money shall not he kept out of it and be obliged to claim these rebates from the fund. Therefore, in all cases except coal exported coastwise, there will be a bill sent to the person who is entitled to the rebate, the payer of the railway charges, showing him what the amount of charge is, and what the rebate is, and what the amount is that he is due to pay, and there will be no difficulty or delay in recovering the money. He will only have to pay the net cost after the rebate is deducted. But when the coal is sent coastwise for export—it first goes on the railway to a port, then down the coast to another port, where it is transferred to the bunkers of a fishing vessel or a foreign steamer or is exported—we must insist upon a claim being made for the rebate. It is a very complicated procedure to be able to trace it, and it is our duty to see that, if this Committee votes money for a certain purpose, that money is not improperly spent and goes to the purpose for which it is designed.
        Now I come to the hon. Member's question: who can come into the scheme? All railway companies, including light railways, who are freight-carrying lines and whose premises will be entitled to be de-rated as freight transport hereditaments by the Bill of last summer. We have received an assurance from the four great lines, from the Metropolitan line, and from, I think, a number of the light railways, that they are prepared to come into this scheme on the terms of the White Paper, and therefore I see no reason, if the House of Commons agrees to these proposals, why the freight reduction charges should not come into operation

        1963
        on practically all the public railways on 1st December.
        The subjects I have been dealing with have really been, I hope, non-controversial, because really it would be a pity if there were any controversy on the main principles of the scheme, and the machinery, as far as I can judge from the attitude of the Committee, seems fair to them and as good as human ingenuity can devise. But there is one subject which has been raised at Question time and by other means which is exercising the minds of certain members, namely, why should mineral lines belonging to collieries which carry the coal from the collieries to the sea or to the local port be excluded from the scope of the scheme? It is said that it is very hard on them, and that it is unjust to them that they should be excluded. Of course, we must all have sympathy for practically all those engaged in the coal trade, especially as many of these mines served by these private mineral lines are among the least prosperous. If anything could be done to improve their position, one would naturally like to do it.
        The case of these private lines was urged with considerable force by Members, not only from the opposite side of the House, but. by one or two on the Government side in the Debate that took place in July. They were then excluded altogether from the permanent scheme, and the Minister of Health dealt at some length with the difficulties, insuperable he thought, of bringing them in. But eventually he said, "I will do the best I can for you. I will de-rate your lines not as transport hereditaments hut as industrial hereditaments," and, if my recollection is correct, that is incorporated in the Bill that will be discussed next week. I am bound to put before the Committee what I consider to be absolutely overwhelming reasons why the Government cannot possibly agree to this proposal of bringing these private mineral lines into the Railway Pool with the public railways. I should like the Committee, if they will, to pay attention for a few minutes while I read a letter which I received yesterday from The Railway Companies' Association. It was sent to the Ministry of Transport:
        "SIR,
        "I am directed by the four Amalgamated Railway Companies and the Metropolitan
        1964
        Railway Company to refer to your inter view"—
        it is addressed to the Secretary of the Ministry of Transport—
        "with Sir Ralph Wedgwood on the 19th inst when you informed Sir Ralph Wedgwood that a suggestion had been made that railways privately-owned by colliery companies should be brought within the scope of the Railway Freight Rebates Fund to be set up under the provisions of the Eleventh Schedule to the Local Government Bill and to be administered by the Railway Clearing House and generally of the machinery set out in that Schedule for securing the allowance of rebates.
        "I am desired by the five Railway Companies to inform the Minister that they will strenuously oppose any such proposal as involving serious injustice to the Railway Companies and to state that if it be given effect to in the Bill they will have no alternative but to oppose the Bill and take every step in their power to make such opposition effective.
        "I am desired to remind the Minister that the basic principle of the whole scheme of Railway Freight Rebates is that the Railway Companies' rate relief shall be passed on by them through the machinery of the Pool to their own customers whereas if the privately-owned lines are to be included it will mean, in effect, that the funds and the machinery of the Pool will he used to distribute subsidies to the traders who are not customers of the railways and in fact who may not unfairly he described as competitors. Further, in the case of a deficiency these traders will be subsidised by the Railway Companies out of the Railway Companies' own pockets, an injustice which the Railway Companies are confident the Minister will net for one moment' countenance."
        Mr. R. RICHARDSON: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman states that the railway people say that these traders are not customers of theirs. May I point out that a vast amount of traffic is taken over the public railways before reaching the private lines and therefore these people are customers of the railways. Pit props and all kinds of things are conveyed in this way.
        Colonel ASHLEY: They will get rebates in those cases.
        Mr. HARNEY: Do I understand from the reading of that letter that the public railways state that they would be subsidising the private lines? Is it not the whole scheme that the public railways pass the benefit on to the owners of the freights?
        Colonel ASHLEY: My next point may probably answer the hon. and learned

        1965
        Gentleman's question. What would happen? As I see it, if these private lines come into the Railway Pool on the same terms as the public railways, they will take out very much more than they put in.
        Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: There is no suggestion.
        Colonel ASHLEY: The suggestion I understand was that they should come in on the same terms as the public railways.
        Mr. LAWSON: Have the Government ever understood what these people want at all?
        Colonel ASHLEY: I was going to say that if they came in on the same terms as the public railways, which, after all, it seems to me, is that for which they have been asking—perhaps the matter will be elaborated later on in the Debate—they will take our; very considerably more than they put in. They pay in the value of their de-rating as an industrial hereditament, that is 1½d. a ton. The value of a rebate of 1½d. flat rate, plus 25 per cent., is 4d. per ton to them, and therefore they would be penalising the general fund by 2½. I submit to the Committee that that cannot be right. I do not know what the representatives of private lines may suggest later in the Debate, but I am bound to assume that they want to come in on the same terms as the public railways, and on that I would point out that they would pay in 1½d. and take out 4d. That obviously cannot be done. I want to point out that, after all, this is a proposal to benefit trade and industry, and the whole basis of the proposal is that the charges, the heavy charges, on the public railways should be reduced. Those using private lines, even after this extra help is given in the case of the public railways, will still have an advantage over those using the public lines. At the present moment, there is a difference in costs. I think that my figures are quite correct as I have gone into them very carefully. In the North Eastern area, the average cost per ton on the private mineral lines, is 1s.0¼d. whereas on the public lines it is 7½.
        Mr. LAWSON rose—
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman cannot be interrupted in his speech unless he is prepared to give way to the hon. Member.
        Mr. LAWSON: The point is that these figures—
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member rising on a point of Order'? If not, I cannot allow him to interrupt the Minister unless the Minister gives way.
        Mr. LAWSON: My point is that these figures have been given continually in this House.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.
        Mr. POTTS: On a point of Order. The Minister has given figures. Are they per ton or are they not?
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members not to ask questions of the Minister under the guise of a point of Order. Hon. Members may ask as many questions as they please afterwards, but they must not interrupt.
        Colonel ASHLEY: I hope that I am not refusing to give way to hon. Members, but it is difficult to make a statement involving figures if one is constantly interrupted. I will give way as much as I can when hon. Members really want information, and I am able to give it. Let me come back to the point that I was trying to make. The figures which I gave have never, as far as I know, been disputed, and they have constantly been given in public. If at the present moment and for a number of years those using these private lines are and have been receiving an advantage of 7¼d. per ton on an average over those using the public lines, I do not see that they have so great a grievance as they make out. The grievance really is with those who use the pubic lines, who all that time have been paying 7¼d. a ton more than those who are fortunate enough to have private lines attached to them. I gave yesterday to an hon. Member opposite a statement that in the North Eastern area the reduction from the freight relief would, amount to 5¾d. per ten. The figures show without any fear of contradiction that although those using the public lines have been in a worse condition all these years and have had to pay 7¼d. per ton more they are only going to receive a benefit under these proposals of 5¾. a ton. The users of private lines will still be 1½d. better off,

        1967
        even after these proposals, than the users of public lines. If that is so, I really cannot see where the grievance comes in. They will still have an advantage of ½d. a ton over the public lines.
        After all, what are the Government doing? Are the Government going against the wishes of the mining industry? Hon. Members from South Wales and Monmouth came to see my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and myself in March last and pointed out the terrible state of affairs in South Wales and the mining areas generally. The burden of that the whole time was: "Reduce the charge on the public railways; it is killing us. We cannot stand it; we must have some reduction." Except. a deputation representing private lines we have not had a single deputation—and we have had many of them from the mining industry—which has asked us to include the private lines in this scheme. What absolutely convinces me that we are only following public opinion in this matter is what the Durham and Northumberland Coal Owners' Association themselves say. One would think that the Durham and Northumberland Coal Owners' Association—if there was really much in the case of hon. Gentlemen who are generally putting forward the case, of these private lines—would be in favour of it. Not at all. They are not supporting it. May I read the letter which is signed "Reginald Guthrie" and sent from the Durham and Northumberland Coal Owners' Association, Coal Trade Offices, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, dated 10th of November, a little more than 10 days ago, to W. A. Lee, Mining Association of Great Britain:
        "DEAR MR. LEE,
        Private Railways and Railway Relief.
        With reference to your's of the 9th inst., a special meeting of the North of England United Coal Trade Association was held in June. This was convened at the request of the owners of private railways specially to consider the question which they were then raising that some special arrangement should ho made for them to secure a greater proportion of the relief under the Government proposals than that which was provided in the arrangements then under consideration."
        That I think is the de-rating of their railways.
        Mr. L. THOMPSON: But they were not included then.
        Colonel ASHLEY: I know.
        "This Association represents the coal-owners both of Durham and Northumberland. The decision of that meeting was that the Association could not support the application of the owners of private railways, but would raise no objection to the owners of such railways themselves taking such action as they thought fit."
        Then at a meeting of the Mining Association the representatives of the Northumberland and Durham Coal Owners stated that his Association were not prepared to support the private railways case, having regard to the fact that the railways concerned did not. suffer to the same extent from the handicap of increased railway and shipping charges. When you have the association which represents these owners not supporting it, when you have the Mining Association not asking for it, when you have the fact that they propose to take Out three times what they put in; and when you consider the fact that even when this concession is given those who use private lines will be 1½d. better off than those who use the public lines, I say that the proposals which are put forward here today have no justice, have no foundation in fact and the Government cannot possibly agree to them.
        Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Does the Minister intend to make any statement concerning the participation of the docks?
        Colonel ASHLEY: Docks are not proposed to be included.
        Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
        The Minister said he thought that on the main issue there would be no controversy. He was over-sanguine in that view. He said, further, that this scheme was, in effect, what all sections in the depressed areas were asking for. That statement was entirely without foundation. When he came to the question of the railways and the partial treatment of one set of railways against another, I think he had against him not merely a considerable section of feeling on one side of the House but the bulk of Members in all parties. The proposal which he puts forward so far from being fair and reasonable, as he suggests, will not

        1969
        commend itself to the approval of this House and to the public on which this House ultimately depends.
        The whole scheme is an attempt to alleviate the terribly distressed condition in which industry is at the present time. It is perfectly evident, whether we look at the figures of industry or whether we look at the great and growing figures of unemployment, that the condition of things is very serious indeed. The patient is sick from a grave malignant malady and the doctors, in the shape of the Cabinet, have been called in to diagnose the disease. What have these doctors said? They say, "We are quite unable to diagnose the disease of unemployment. We are quite unable to discover the cause."
        Only the other day in this House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, one of the most self assured members of the Government, who would not fail to say that he understood and fully comprehended the cause of unemployment if he thought he did, made this statement: "We really do not know why we have this great slump in trade." He was speaking not only for himself but for the Cabinet and the Government, and he admitted that they were quite unable to say what was the cause of the present disaster. If they are unable to discover the cause, naturally they are quite unable to discover a remedy or to attempt to cure the disease. Therefore, the nimble wits of the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the aid of the Cabinet, and he said something to this effect: "Never mind, Gentlemen, about the cause. Never mind about a remedy which will go to the root of the trouble. What the country will swallow, if we give it to them, is some patent remedy which will deal not with the cause but with some symptom of the trouble. I suggest that we should deal with one of the symptoms and that we should send a bunion plaster, with our best wishes for the happy recovery of the patient from the ills which he is suffering." Therefore, at the bidding of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Government ventures to send a bunion plaster to deal with the sickness of the whole capitalist society of this country.
        Seven months ago, by way of putting this plan into operation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed a Petrol Duty to bring in £14,000,000 during the current
        1970
        year. He said that it was proposed to raise this money during the present year and to spend some of it after October, 1929. I was very interested at the time to notice that some members of his own party, the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) and others, protested that it was an unconstitutional procedure to raise money in one year which was not to be spent during that year but was to be spent later. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, stuck to his proposal until he found that industry did not at all appreciate being mulcted in £14,000,000 of taxation, in the hope that later on they might get some of it back again. Therefore, we have the scheme which has been put before the House to-day. This scheme creates a precedent. We have here a Bill or part of a Bill with several Clauses and Schedules embodied in what the Minister in a rather airy way has called the White Paper; this Railway Freights (Anticipation) Supplementary Estimate, it seems to me to he a very curious procedure that we should have what is in effect a Bill with Clauses, Mandatory Clauses and Schedules carried through this House, without the usual methods by which Pills are carried through, and that the procedure by Estimate prevents any party in the House from making any Amendments to the scheme or altering it in any way.
        The Minister of Transport suggests that this is something on the lines of what was passed in the summer of this year. What we passed last Session was not this scheme at all, but a mere proposal preparatory to the scheme which has been put into the main Bill. This novel procedure may just come within constitutional requirements, but it certainly creates a precedent. We have to discuss what is really, in effect, part of a Bill the Second Reading of which is to be taken next Monday. That places the House in a rather peculiar position. We can, if we like, regard this scheme as standing on its own legs. If we do that we can suppose that even if the Bill which is to be introduced for Second Reading next Monday were to be thrown gut, this scheme would still remain in being. In that ease, we could regard this proposal as a definite subsidy out of the Exchequer for the relief of freights and it would be open to the Opposition to take the

        1971
        view that that could be supported and the main Bill could be rejected. On the other hand, it is quite clear from the White Paper that this scheme is in anticipation of the main Bill. Those who take that view will realise that it is, in effect, part of a Bill and that if the main Bill fails this particular scheme must ultimately fail with it.
        It seems to me that this scheme is a kind of seven months' baby that has been cut out of the living body of the Local Government Bill, before the proper time to deliver it. Because it is of that peculiar character it will present considerable difficulties in this Debate and it will no doubt rest with the Chair to consider as the Debate proceeds how far speeches which really belong to the Bill are relevant to this part of the scheme. That difficulty will not arise in my case, because I am equally as opposed to this particular scheme as I am to the complicated and elaborate Bill of which it forms a part.
        What are the real facts of the position? There is great trouble at the present time in productive industries, which find it exceedingly hard to make a living. I am referring not only to the workers, many of whom are unemployed, but to the producers of this country, whether they be employers or workers, engaged in what the Government have chosen to call productive industry and distributive industry. That applies, in the first instance, to coal, iron and steel and farming, which are referred to specifically in this scheme. It refers also to the whole industrial world. Why is it that these industries find it difficult to make a living at the present time? Why is it that they are so much worse off to-day than they were in 1924, and still more so than they were in 1920? There is no question as to the cause of this trouble. It is perfectly well known that it is due to the fall in prices. Every industrialist who thinks about it knows that owing to the fall in prices he is unable to make the living that he did in years gone by. If we note what has happened since December, 1924, we find that there has been a fall in wholesale prices of something like 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. Every industrialist realises that a fall of 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. in prices for his finished product has been the cause of his present disastrous plight.
        1972
        I was very much surprised when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a few days ago, in answer to me let the cat out of the bag, when he said that the fall in prices was part of the Government policy. He practically admitted that the Government policy was responsible for the serious position of trade. Why is it that this fall in prices remains such a tremendous handicap on British industry at the present time? Why is it that the handicap on British industry is greater than the handicap on foreign industries which has been caused by the fall in prices? The answer is provided quite clearly by Sir Josiah Stamp. Hon. Members on the Government side must realise that Sir Josiah Stamp is one of our greatest economists and one who cannot be the subject for any attempt at ridicule, because in addition to being a great economist he is a great industrialist and one of the governors of the Bank of England.
        The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): He strongly supports the proposal.
        5.0 p.m.
        Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is rather trivial on the part of the right hon. Gentleman; I am dealing with a larger issue than he realises. Sir Josiah Stamp said quite clearly in a letter that in every fall it general prices the receivers of fixed national payments took a larger toll of the national production. What is the real position and the root of the trouble in this matter? It is this; there are two classes of persons in this country who share the production between them. There is the active producing element, in which I include not only the workers but the employers as well, those who actually produce, and there is the passive element, the rentier class, who get rents and debenture interest and the proceeds of war loan. The effect of the policy of the Government in altering the purchasing power of money has been enormously to increase the share which the passive element has taken out of production, and this has also been further increased by the taxation policy of the Government who have done everything they can to shift the burden from the direct taxpayers of the country to indirect taxes and rates. That is the great cause of the trouble through which we are pass-

        1973
        ing at the present time; the producing element is injured and handicapped by the immense toll which the rentier class the passive element, extracts from industry.
        Now I come to this particular scheme and see how far these proposals will really deal with what is the fundamental cause of the trouble. This particular scheme proposes to relieve some of the most hard hit industries to the extent of £1,000,000 in a period, or 3⅔ million pounds, if you take a whole year. Let us see how much that is of the whole handicap on industry. It is something less than one-thousandth part of the national income; it is a minute fraction of 1 per cent.; and if we were dealing with the whole scheme of the Bill it would still be a figure far less than 1 per cent. of the national income. It has been calculated by the very eminent man who represented this country on the Financial Commission of the League of Nations, Sir Henry Strakosch, that a fall of 20 per cent. in the price level gives to the rentier class an increased share of the national income of no less than 5 per cent., so that this particular scheme and the larger scheme of the Government. is only giving to productive industry a very small fraction indeed of what they are losing through the whole policy of the Government. But it is a great deal more than that. The proposals of the Government are not to alter the very thing which is causing this trouble, the great share which the rentier class is extracting from industry, all they are doing is to transfer from one lot of shoulders to another lot of shoulders a sum of money. The money which is going to be paid through this scheme in relief of industry is coming out of industry itself. We have imposed a £14,000,000 tax on petrol, and it is only a very small part of that tax, most of which falls on industry already, which is going to the relief of industry through this scheme. We are really doing nothing to relieve industry by putting the burden on the shoulders of the passive element, who have gained so much by the policy of the Government. We are feeding the dog on its own tail, taking away from one part of industry in order to give to another. It will do nothing to benefit industry or bring prosperity to the country, because it does not go to the root of the evil, which is that industry is
        1974
        being starved and bled white because the purely passive element in the country is extracting from the national product far more than it did in years gone by and far more than it is entitled to take.
        This scheme is not merely inadequate to relieve industry, it is entirely unfair and unjustly discriminating. The general Bill, of which this is really a part, has been described by us as capricious, because it divides, quite arbitrarily, industry into what are called productive and distributive. That division has no real foundation for effective purposes. The only division which might have done some good is to divide them into prosperous and unprosperous trades. But this scheme goes further in its capriciousness than the general Bill. It attempts to drive a further wedge between productive industries by dividing them into certain trades and certain other trades. There is no justification for these divisions. Take the most important matter, the question of private railways. It is perfectly clear that if you are going to deal with coal and the carriage of coal you have to see that you deal equitably with all sections of coal freights, and it is not in accordance with equity that your public railways should get all the relief to be given. I think the letter that has been thrown at our heads by the Minister of Transport in his speech this afternoon is really an attempt to intimidate this House. I am quite sure hon. Members do resent a railway company coming to this House and, through the person of the Minister of Transport, saying that if there is an extension of the scheme they will not work it at all.
        What we have to do is to put in a scheme which is really just and fair, and when we have found a scheme which is fair and equitable and one section says that they will not work it the Minister should consider what powers he must take in order to compel any recalcitrant sections to toe the line. The question is: Is it a workable and fair scheme? The Minister has said that if he were to do all that he thought the private railway wanted he would exceed the amount of relief they are entitled to get from rating merely as industrial hereditaments. That is not the issue at all. It is clear that where a railway is being used for all kinds of traffic the relief given to it

        1975
        should he different from the relief given to a railway used solely for the transport. of those things which the Minister desires to relieve. I should have thought that. it is not above the wit of the Minister to devise some scheme which is equitable, and if he comes to the conclusion that some particular proposals would be unfair in their favour towards private railways it is his business to find some scheme which would be fair and equitable. It is quite clear to me that the scheme which the Minister of Transport is supporting now is not fair or equitable as between different private interests.
        Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member does not agree with the scheme it is up to him to show how it can be better arranged and how it should be done.
        Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is quite true, and I have no doubt: it will be done during the course of this Debate. I do not profess to be an expert on the matter of these private railways but there are other hon. Members on this side who are experts in this matter, and. I have no doubt they will devote their special attention to this particular question and put forward equitable proposals. I do not want to take up too much time of the Committee, and I will leave it at that. I want to pass on and say that this is by no means the only unfair discrimination in this Bill. It not only discriminates between railway and railway, but also between trade and trade. It picks out certain trades which are to have the relief of freight on coal and it excludes other trades. It excludes the textile trade, the engineering trade, and the shipbuilding trade from the use of coal, and this discrimination is a matter of grave concern to every hon. Member. That is not all. It discriminates—I am really surprised hon. Members opposite have not noticed it—against the home producer in favour of the foreigner in certain cases. Hon. Members opposite twit us sometimes that because we do not believe in certain kinds of preference we are not supporting the home producer as against the foreigner. I hope they realise that this scheme goes in exactly the opposite direction. There are many manufacturers who use coal for other purposes than in producing iron and steel. If there is a foreign manu-
        1976
        facturer who wants British coal for his purpose he is to get the relief provided by the freight charge on the coal, but if the home manufacturer is also going to use coal he is debarred from the relief on the freight of coal. That is a very grave proposal for which I can see no reason whatever. Not only does that apply to the foreign producer as against the home producer, but it also applies to the domestic consumer abroad as against the domestic consumer at home. I do not see why the domestic consumer abroad should get a benefit which is denied to the home consumer.
        The fact is, however we look at the scheme, that we must realise that it is patchwork, and in patching it, botches the business it sets out to do. Hon. Members opposite are wont to attack Socialism, as they understand it. There is an idea that Socialism means a general sort of interference with industry by the State. If this scheme is their idea as to how the State should interfere with industry, if this is their idea of the kind of thing Socialism would do on a larger scale, I am not at all surprised at their opposition to Socialism. If this is their idea of Socialism I should certainly be on their side. The fact, however, is that Socialism contemplates dealing with industry on a broad and generous scale, in a comprehensive way, which will take all facts into consideration. This scheme, on the contrary, is a pettifogging scheme, a muddling scheme, differentiating capriciously between one and the other in a way which is bound to he detrimental to many interests. In view of that, whether you regard it as a temporary expedient or as a wide and carefully thought out plan, it is bound to fail. You cannot build up a reliable structure on the pettifogging and muddleheaded methods which are the basis of this scheme.
        I may be asked, if this scheme is not satisfactory what is my alternative? Of course any detailed consideration of such a thing as that would he outside what I am entitled to say if I am to keep within the rules of order, but I would not like hon. Members to run away with the idea that we have no constructive proposals, and therefore very briefly I shall indicate what our ideas would be. In the first place, in order to find a remedy we have

        1977
        to diagnose the trouble, and that is what I have already tried to do. We realise that the only remedy that is going to be of value is to transfer burdens from industry and from the general productive work of this country back from the producer to the rentier class. It is only in so far as you really lift the burdens from the producer and place them back on the rentier that you are really doing anything to relieve the productive forces of this country. On the question of rates we believe emphatically that rates have to be relieved. We have to relieve the burden of rates that deal with the able-bodied unemployed, with the roads, and with a large number of other things. But when you do that it is no good merely transferring the rates to indirect taxes on petrol and pottery and all the rest of it. They have to be put on the passive element in the community.
        The same remark applies to the penny post. I should welcome the penny post, and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bring it in. But it will be of no use if what is required to make good the money for the penny post is merely taken out of some other charge upon industry. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer finds the money out of the passive element in the community then only will the penny post be of any great benefit. Equally, if there is some other scheme for freight reduction, if it is to be of benefit it must be found in the same way and must be adequate and fair. This scheme fulfils none of those conditions and if the Government had designed it to buttress the capitalist system, I can only say that it will entirely fail in its purpose.
        Mr. ELLIS: I want to put one or two questions to the Government, but in no sense of hostility. I was taken to task a moment or two ago as to the difference between 25 per cent. and 26 per cent. of the relief afforded. The difference to the coal trade is between £60,000 and £70,000. That may seem a small thing in percentages but it is not in total. There is another point. In that part of the White Paper which deals with relief to selected traffics exported coal is mentioned. If we are told one thing more than another to-day it is that we have to do everything we can with coal in order to make it a more saleable article, and that we should treat it in
        1978
        every possible way. I want to know whether under that term there is included any form of patent fuel made at the ports for export. I ask the Minister to consider this question seriously. In South Wales, in prosperous times in the past, we have had an export of something like 2,000,000 tons of patent fuel. At the present time the export is only about half that total, although there is a hope of recovering the trade. Is the remission in rates to he given to coal alone and not to patent fuel?
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If my hon. Friend will look at page 5 of the White Paper he will see that "coal" means "coal, coke and patent fuel."
        Mr. ELLIS: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend. That reply answers one question satisfactorily. There is another question which I do not want to press now, though I bring it before the Committee because it may come up in future. What kind of rebate will be allowed in the case of coal that is sent to central washeries or cleaners from the constituent collieries? A further point but rather a remote one is very important to us in the coal trade. It will be found on page 8 of the White Paper, in Part. I of the Third Schedule that:
        "The carriage charged in the case of coal shall be that which would he made for the conveyance of the traffic in owner's wagons."
        I believe the arrangement of percentages is based on the total charge to us, including an estimate for wagon hire. That is a reduction of the benefit that we were to receive. That basis does not worry us very much, but what does worry us is that apparently it is going to be left for the railway company to decide how much of the charge shall be ascribed to rent of wagons and how much shall belong to the freight to be charged. This does concern Northumberland and Durham, for there you often have very short haulages, and it might well be that the railway company in that locality might charge more for wagon hire than for haulage, and so defeat the object of the relief. If that happened a good deal of the benefit that might have been derived from this scheme for the coal industry would stick in the pockets of the railway company. Before the matter is finally settled it would help us in the coal trade if we could know the basis on which the railway company is to

        1979
        work. Those who are connected with the trade are well aware that the rates for wagon hire are to-day very small indeed and not remunerative to wagon owners. Is the railway company going to calculate the hire for wagons on the open market basis, or is it going to take the capitalised basis and then say, "The wagons cost so much and our interest is so much," and then charge accordingly? If the company is to be allowed to settle for itself how it shall divide these charges, are we not to be allowed to appeal to the Railway Rates Tribunal to settle the matter?
        Mr. HARNEY: I am very interested in the private mineral railways, because the question very largely affects my constituency. I do not think that the Minister in charge of this Vote has realised the gravity of the position, and I therefore would like, before saying something about what he called his "overwhelming arguments," to bring before the Committee what is the real position. Under the scheme so far there are two classes of colliery that are differently affected. You have collieries that load their coal on to the public railways, and you have collieries, the older ones, that load their coal on to their own railways. If a colliery loads its coal on to a public railway it gets two advantages: three-quarters de-rating of its own undertaking, and it has passed on to it its proportion of the three-quarters de-rating that is given to the railway. If 'a colliery sends its coal by its own railway it has only one of those advantages, namely, its own de-rating. The grievance put forward here is that the second class of colliery is very badly handicapped in competition with the first class.
        I want the Committee to appreciate the extent of this grievance. In Northumberland and Durham the output from the collieries that have private mineral lines is 18,822,000 tons, that is one-third of the whole output of the North-Eastern coalfields. There are 16 collieries involved and there are 69,000 miners employed. What will be the effect upon them if something is not done? The reply is not in doubt. It will put the collieries with private railways at a greater disadvantage than they suffer now against the other collieries by about 5d. or 6d. a ton. You may subtilise as much as you like,
        1980
        but the broad fact is that the collieries that have private lines will be 5d. or 6d. a ton worse off than they are to-day. The effect of that will be to transfer the output of coal from the old to the more favoured mines, with the further result, undoubtedly, that some of the weaker pits will close and that in all the pits there will be wholesale dismissals. It is very likely, indeed, that half of those 69,000 men who are now working will be thrown out of employment. Yet we are calmly told that the scheme has been introduced to aid in production, particularly in the hard hit industries.
        I do not know whether the Government realise the consequence of what they are doing. Visualise it in that locality. The Government say, "Vote for a scheme that is going to give employment." They vote for it, and what do they find? That 20,000, 30,000 and perhaps 40,000 men are thrown out into the streets. The Minister of Transport has said that he really has no sympathy with my proposal. Up to the moment that he spoke I thought the position was that there was great sympathy with these privately-owned railways and collieries, but that there was a difficulty in giving effect to the sympathy. To-day the statement is, "We have no sympathy with you, and no sympathy because of overwhelming arguments."
        Colonel ASHLEY: I did not say I had no sympathy: I said I had a great deal of sympathy, but that the proposal that they should come in on the same lines as the public railways was an impossible one.
        Mr. HARNEY: I do not know how that meaning can be translated into the words at the end of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech. He said, in effect, that he really could not see why they should get this; that they were better off now than in times past and so forth. That was the tone which he adopted. Let us take some of the "overwhelming" arguments to which the Minister referred. The first, which certainly overwhelmed me, was a bullying, arrogant, blackmailing letter written by five railway companies. I do not know whether they authorised the Minister to read that letter, but they ought to be ashamed of it. This thing is no business of theirs. They have the impudence to

        1981
        say in that letter that., if the proposal regarding collieries with private lines is carried out, it will have the effect of making the public railways subsidise private mineral railways. If the public railways do not mean theft, they are not entitled to a penny piece out of that pool. How can they suffer any loss? How can they do any subsidising out of the money which goes into the pool when they are bound, if they act honestly, to pass on every penny?
        The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): They are responsible for any deficiency.
        Mr. HARNEY: Indeed We were told —I suppose as a little bit of honey to prepare us for what was coming—that these benevolent public railways, if this £3,500,000 or £4,000,000 did not prove quite sufficient to make all the payments necessary, would generously fill up the deficiency out of their own pockets. They will take jolly good care that there is no deficiency. I wonder why these five big railways are so determined against the claim of the private mineral railways as to write a letter threatening to oppose the whole Measure if the Minister gives way on this point. There is such a thing as a big man starving out a little man. It may be that they think this is their chance to hit the private mineral railways to starve them out of existence and then to take over the lines themselves to get the benefit which they are denying to others. What is the second argument? With all respect, I do not think the Minister understood what was put before him by the deputation. I understood his argument to be that the private mineral railways would only pay into the pool the amount of their industrial de-rating and would take out of the pool their due contribution as in the case of public rail ways. Does the Minister really intend that argument? The private mineral railways have two things included in the industrial hereditament, one the actual colliery, and the other the railway.
        Mr. CONNOLLY: Not all of them.
        Mr. HARNEY: I refer to collieries with private mineral railways. The railway is treated as part of the industrial hereditament. They get the benefit of de-rating on the composite heredita-
        1982
        ment—on the two, the railway and the colliery. The colliery without a line is, of course, only de-rated in respect of the actual colliery. The proposal of the private mineral railways is this. They very justly and fairly say: "Our industrial de-rating gives us an additional benefit on account of our railway being included as part, of the industry. If we give back the benefit which we get upon the industrial de-rating of our railway, then there can be no complaint and we stand on the same footing as the other collieries without private lines." I may be allowed to give an illustration. Here is a colliery with a private mineral railway. Its owners say: "Our colliery itself is de-rated X; our private railway is de-rated Y; you who have no private railway are de-rated X on your colliery, but you have not the benefit of being de-rated Y because you have no railway." Then the owners of the colliery with the private railway say: "Anything we get upon Y we put into the pool, and then we stand without any advantage over you. We now are only de-rated with reference to our colliery, the same as those concerns using public lines." It is in order that they may put themselves on a footing with those who use the public railways that they put anything into the pool. The exact figure which they would put into the pool to right matters in this respect is £27,000 and that £27,000 represents the whole of the industrial de-rating benefit which they receive through all these mineral railways in Durham and Northumberland. That being so, they would stand de-rated only to the extent of three-quarters on the actual collieries. Their competitors are also de-rated three quarters on the actual collieries. All they ask now is that they should be put on a like footing with reference to the railways.
        Colonel ASHLEY: Quite so, but my point was that if they paid in on the same terms as the public railways they would pay in 1½d. per ton in respect of their private mineral lines, and to get the same advantages as the users of the public railways are getting, namely, a fiat rate of 1½d. plus 25 per cent. they would have to take out at the rate of 4d. per ton. Therefore, it would be unfair to put in l½d. and take out four-pence.
        Mr. HARNEY: Let me put it as I see it. If you pay into the pool the full industrial de-rating that you get on your railways, are you not in the same position as your competitor as regards your actual colliery? You have no advantage over him. Now as to the contribution from the pool. What does the man who uses the public railway get out of the pool? He gets his due proportion of the reduction of rates to the public railways —that is in proportion to the coal carried. The private lines, of course, have no freights but they have the equivalent of freights, namely, the cost of running. The private lines being now on an equality as regards industrial de-rating, having put back into the pool such advantages as they previously had, claim that, just as the users of the public railways get a proportion on what they pay for transport in freights, so they, the private railways are entitled to a proportion upon what they pay for transport in the form of running costs. They do not ask for a farthing out of the pool that is not in direct proportion to their running costs. They take up this position. Supposing the freight paid to public railways to be in or about the figure mentioned, namely, 1s. 7d. a ton, and the running cost of a private railway to be one shilling a ton, they ask that the shilling shall be treated in the same way as the 1s. 7d. Whatever the user of the public line gets in respect of the is. 7d., they claim in respect of the shilling. They say that they have a certain position to-day relative to the other collieries, and they ask no more than the maintenance of that position, and I am pointing out the method by which that position can be maintained.
        The Minister in effect agrees that their position, after the scheme is in operation, is going to be worse than it is to-day, but his argument is, "Why should it not be worse?" That very argument is an answer to all the former part of his speech, because it necessarily involves that you are doing something to alter the existing footing. I would ask the Minister, was this scheme brought in to alter the relations between collieries with private railways, and collieries using public railways? Was such a thought present to the minds of the authors of the scheme? Is not the whole purpose and justification of the scheme to create employment and relieve production? It was never intended
        1984
        that it should be taken advantage of to right what is now alleged to be some sort of injustice in relation to the collieries using public lines. But that is what it is being used for in this case. Is that the purpose of the scheme?
        When you ask people to vote for a Measure the sole intent of which, you say, is to better productive industry, is it right or fair to add, "here is an instance where, admittedly, it is going to prove injurious to a certain section of productive industry, but it is quite right that it should do so, because what we really had in mind was to equalise matters in this respect."? The Minister himself must know that that is twisting the whole purpose of this policy to something with which it was never intended it should deal. The Minister says that the coalowners association are opposed to giving the mineral railways any rights. They are not, but they are not enthusiastic in favour of these railways. Why should they be? What are you doing? You are giving an advantage to persons who use public railways over those who use private railways, and you expect those who get this immense advantage to say, "Do not be so generous to us; really, we do not want the advantage." Of course they are not enthusiastic, and it shows how monstrously unfair the scheme is, and what honourable men a good number of the coalowners must be, when men whose every interest is to down those with private lines—because the more the owners of private lines are killed, the more coal output there will be for the others—take this attitude:
        "In the discussion which followed it was pointed out by various Members that the owners of private railways had not suffered so much as the users of public railways through the large increase in recent years of railway charges, and it was considered that the private railway owners should not expect the association, as a whole, to take up their case. It was unanimously agreed that the owners of private railways should take such steps as they considered best to bring their case before the Government."
        In face of all that, to come forward and tell the Committee that the North of England United Coal Trade Association were against the attitude taken by the private owners—
        Colonel ASHLEY: I did not say that I said they did not support it.
        Mr. HARNEY: This is not mere barren criticism on my part, because the Minister must know, from the deputation that called on him, that this can quite easily be remedied. The Act we passed a few months ago was really a definition, defining mineral railways, public railways, and so on. Now you are coming in with your Local Government Bill to say how you are going to fit material things into the definitions already made. There is no difficulty whatever. I have the draft of an Amendment here that will bring private mineral railways, as regards the relief intended by this scheme, on precisely the same footing as those who use public railways; and, if I am not mistaken, I think the Department has already had a copy of the suggested Amendments, which I do not think they can deny would effect their purpose. If there is no real argument against drawing the distinction between these two classes of owners in the future, how is it logical or right to subject one of them to a penalty even for a short time, thus giving the other the advantage? There would be no difficulty in bringing in, within the next few days, a Supplementary Estimate in order to meet the Amendment that you know is going to be pressed into the Local Government Bill in favour of mineral railways; and I press upon the Minister once more to consider this question, because it is a very grave thing, indeed, not to say a serious smirch on the whole of the Government's policy, that a scheme should be brought into operation the first outward and visible effects of which will be that 30,000 or 50,000 miners are thrown upon the streets.
        Mr. LAWSON: I am one of those who, although a member of the mining industry, do not believe that this grant will prove in the long run to be a relief to the mining industry at all. If anyone had lived in the mining districts, seeing the effects of the Eight Hours Act and reduced wages being frittered away and given to the foreigner in the cut-throat competition of one company with another, the only thing that they would feel would be that this too was going in the same direction and that the miners would ultimately be no better off. In regard to the mineral railways, what I object to about this relief is that it is given in such a way as will enable certain companies to
        1986
        sabotage other companies in certain areas and thus close down pits and reduce wages. What this Committee is doing to-day is not merely considering, a business proposition; I venture to say that if the Government insist on giving this 7d. a ton to the disadvantage of the other companies, what we are taking part in to-day is a great human tragedy, that will ultimately impress itself upon this House in the most direct form.
        The process of the enlightenment of the Government on this matter has been very interesting, and I wonder what, the industrial Members behind the. Front Bench opposite think about the Government's activities in this connection, On the Committee Stage of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill, the Minister of Health did not seem to understand that there was a problem of this kind. Here in the North of England you have the oldest colliery area, and the continual trouble of collieries inland, from the beginning of the industrial era, was to get the coal down to the river and the sea. It was the continual effort to do that that gave us George Stephenson's engine, as a matter of fact, and so you got a great area of these railways laid. I think there are about 100 miles of them in the North of England, in Northumberland and Durham, with 69,000 workers concerned, and about 16 companies. In 1927 they exported 19,000,000 tons of coal, and that was 30 per cent: of the whole produce of the North of England. The Minister of Health, on the committee stage of that Bill, was rather, staggered to know that there was such a problem as this, and on the Report stage the Government said they would make it an industrial hereditament. Some of us did not agree with that, and we pointed out that it would lead to all kinds of complications, of which this is the first.
        Stage by stage it was impressed upon the Ministry that probably all was not right. I remember the President of the Board of Trade defending this business, and he seemed to think that all was well, but gradually it has dawned upon them that there is a difficulty and a problem, and so much so that they sent a letter to the railway companies, impressing upon them the fact that probably a certain wrong had been done to the owners of private railways. Con-

        1987
        viction was sinking in upon the Government, and then the representatives of the private railways wrote this letter. The Government attempted after that to defend their refusal to include private railways, on the ground that they were asking for an advantage, but what they did in fact was to admit that the Government of the day was going to be bossed by the five railway companies. This is the Government of which a leading light once told us that Labour was unfit to govern, and now the Government, when they, clearly realise that a wrong has been' done, are prepared to accept the dictation of the railway companies and to hide behind a mere subterfuge in order to avoid a difficulty. The Minister of Transport says, "Of course, we have sympathy with those concerned," but that is 'all very well. As they say in the North of England, "Sympathy without relief is very much like mustard without beef," and that is exactly how it is ping to work out with us. The Minister of Transport began to argue about the' relative costs of the private and the public railways, but I would like to ask -the President of the Board of Trade- if that is the only difficulty?
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It was not quoted as showing the difficulty. What my right hon. Friend quoted that for was to show that private railways were very much better off than public railways, and that even when the full anticipation was given on the public railways, the average costs on the private railways would still be lower than the average on the public railways.
        Mr. HARNEY: But you have changed their position for the worse to-day by your scheme.
        Mr. LAWSON: Apparently the Government are not open to a reconsideration of this question at all, judging from the right hon. Gentleman's answer, because we could tell him this, that the only difficulty about this question has been to get the Government representatives to sit, down with those interested in order to work out a scheme which would give strict justice and equality in this matter as between the public and the private railway companies. I do not accept for a moment the statement that those who own private railways are in a
        1988
        better position than the public railway owners, and the Minister of Transport, in a moment when he rather forgot himself, said that these companies were among the least prosperous. It is a well-known fact that some of these companies that own their own private mineral railways are in the very areas which most need help.
        6.0 p.m.
        Take the Chester-le-Street area. In my Division I think practically every company, either directly or indirectly, runs its coal, either in part or wholly, over a private railway. In that Division there is what is known as the Pelaw Main group of collieries, which run their coal over their own railways. In 1925 they closed their collieries down, and there were about 4,000 workmen stopped. There were six collieries, and the Committee will understand that that amounts to something like 20,000 people affected. If the Minister of Health were here, he would admit that this is the whole difficulty in Chester-le-Street. Stage by stage the conditions became worse, until, finally, the whole area was almost overwhelmed with debt, mainly owing to this situation. In January, 1926, the collieries began, and they continued after the stoppage of that year. The men have suffered reduction after reduction. In that group of collieries there is an instance of co-operation between workmen and owners which is far beyond what is talked about by Members an the other side of the House. They had so many reductions that in the end those working in the collieries said, "We have taken so much off you that we do not like to ask you for any more, but we will ask you for 10 per cent. for six months; if you do not like it, we will close the collieries, and we will make things right for you to carry on with the benefit." The men suffered the 10 per cent. reduction, but at the end of three months the company said that they could not carry out their bargain and that they would have to close the collieries. The men asked what would enable the company to carry on, the books were examined, they discussed matters, and finally the men agreed to give 5 per cent. for three months, this reduction to be treated as a loan. The men were so anxious to work at that group of collieries, that they were prepared, even when the owners could not carry on, to say, "We will give you

        1989
        5 per cent. on loan." That was given and it was repaid, but since then they have had another reduction. That company has been just holding on by the skin of its teeth. It employs 4,000 men, it is the very heart of the great industrial area, and it has its own private railways. That is one of the companies which has an advantage over the public companies according to the Government.
        What is to happen to the collieries in a case like that, if 7d. per ton advantage is given to their opponents in the market? As a piece of political propaganda it would be all right for me, and I should be able to go to my people at the General Election and say that these pits are idle, and the men are getting reductions, because the Government give what they call relief. I do not want to be placed in a position like that. I would rather lose my seat at Chesterle-Street than see these men, knowing their tragedy of the past few years, suffering as they have suffered, and contemplate what is going to happen. It is all very well for the Government to give us fine figures, but we know very well that in the Chester-le-Street area, and in the North of England, this scheme will put pits out of action, and it will be a tragedy for the whole of our people.
        The Minister of Transport read a letter from the secretary of the Railway Corn-parties' Association; it was a brutal letter, and shows that there are companies and coalowners who do not care what happens even to their own fellows in the same association, so what can they care about what happens to the people under their charge? It is an example of that ruthlessness and brutality from which our people have suffered during the last few years. I oppose this Bill, because I do not think that it will bring relief, because it means directly handing to certain coalowners a weapon with which to sabotage other companies in which the lives and well-being of great masses of people are involved, and because the result will be tragedy for the whole of the North of England.
        Major CARVER: The Minister of Transport put this case very fairly before the Committee, and I should like to support this Scheme in my position as a railway director. I have not been in that position for a very long time. This Scheme has been approved by the four
        1990
        great amalgamated companies and the Metropolitan Railway Company, and they have signed the Schedule to the Scheme. [Interruption.] I do not know why the railway companies should be attacked. After all, what are they going to make out of it themselves? They have to pass on this rebate, and the issue is very problematical. We hope that more trade will ensue to the railway companies, but it is very doubtful. This money has to be paid into a pool, and if at the end of the time the pool has not sufficient money in it, the railway companies have to make up 50 per cent. of the balance. As this is to be administered by the Railway Clearing House, why should the privately-owned railways come in at all? The Railway Clearing House is very well managed, and in this Scheme it is pretty well under the thumb of the Minister of Transport, who has access to all their books; and I do not see why the railways should consider what is apparently an application from the privately-owned railways. If the privately-owned railways want to come in, why should they not bring forward a scheme of their own, and ask the Government to give a Supplementary Estimate for themselves, but the public railways object to their coming into this Scheme.
        Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was astonished to hear from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Howdenshire (Major Carver) that he was one of the railway directors to pass this Schedule. This is the first point I want to make, arid I ask Members not to laugh when I talk about carrots, because carrots are produced by smallholders in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's constituency, and 'also imported from the Continent. In the Schedule, on page 7 of the White Paper, is an example of the anomalies in this scheme. I apologise to the Minister of Transport for looking at the teeth of his gift horse, but I have to do it. I am surprised also that the Minister of Agriculture was not here when the Minister of Transport was speaking. Carrots, unwashed, are brought from abroad for cattle-feeding, and also, of course, are grown on our own farms, and they are to get 10 per cent. reduction; but I have found out from the Minister of Transport that carrots which are washed and shipped in bulk for human consumption are to get no reduction. There will be

        1991
        a 10 per cent. reduction on imported carrots, but the same old freight rates for the home-grown product. I am a Free Trader, and I object to a discrimination against the market gardeners and the smallholders, who largely produce these carrots, which are a valuable article of food.
        The same thing can be seen with regard to potatoes. New potatoes get no rebate, but the others do. This will affect the smallholders and the market gardeners, and such is the proposal that comes from the Conservative party, the friends of the land workers, the Protectionists, the Imperialists, and all the rest of it, and I draw attention to it as one of the extraordinary anomalies of the scheme. Grain for brewers and distillers gets the 10 per cent. reduction. We were told on Tuesday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to a supplementary question put very optimistically by the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain Evans), that all these reductions to the brewers will not be passed on to the consumer. All the other freights are apparently expected by the Minister of Transport to be passed on to the consumer, indirectly at any rate. I can only tell him that he has got "some hopes." These are some of the teeth of the gift-horse, and I plead with the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture to alter this Schedule. I know that they want the British farmers and smallholders to have fair play, and I ask them sympathetically to consider that matter. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Howdenshire will use his best endeavours with me to get this anomaly removed.
        Major CARVER: I am immensely interested to find that the hon. and gallant Gentleman takes such a great interest in something that is grown so largely in my constituency—carrots. I went into that question, and I was informed by the Minister of Agriculture that washed carrots are a vegetable, and as such come under the international railway scheme; they cannot, therefore, be put into this Schedule.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The washed carrots of Howdenshire are eaten in my constituency!
        Major CARVER: I am anxious that they should be included, and I am only trying to give the explanation why they are not.
        Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I hope that the result of the hon. and gallant Member's interruption is that he will join me in having this anomaly removed. The other point I wish to raise is in regard to the docks. If the Government wish to help the export trade, why have the Government left out the docks? If the scheme is to help the export trade, the docks should have had this advance in relief as well, and I protest on behalf of the docks and the sea ports that they have been omitted. I have a telegram, which other hon. Members have had, from the Shipping Committee of Hull, of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Howdenshire is a member, and they have asked us to press upon the Government the necessity of giving some relief to the docks at once. They asked us to point out that during the War they had great inconvenience and loss through the railway rebates, and they are afraid of a repetition of this confusion. I ask the Minister of Transport to use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have the docks treated as fairly as the railway companies. My constituency will be one of those which will be relieved at the expense of Chester-le-Street and other areas which are going to be hit. I am quite certain the coal exporters, the workers and the dockers in Hull and the other ports who are—apparently—going to benefit by this scheme do not want to benefit at the cost of Northumberland and these other distressed areas. I am quite certain that those working men, who are quite prepared to risk their jobs to help the miners at the time of the General Strike, and will never get any abuse from me for doing it, are prepared to accept a scheme that is fair all round, and although this particular proposal would be of advantage to my constituency I am quite prepared to vote for this reduction with my hon. Friends.
        Mr. L. THOMPSON: It will be within the recollection of the Committee that last July I was intrumental in raising the question of private railways by an Amendment which I put down to the-Eating and Valuation Bill. I mention

        1993
        that because I was conscious when moving that Amendment that the Committee was somewhat ill-informed upon this question, which affects an important area in Durham and Northumberland, but since that time both the House and the Ministry have acquired such a fund of information on the subject that I was in hopes this afternoon that the claims put forward by the private railways would be really irresistible, and I must express not only surprise but amazement and dismay at the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Minister in charge. The Committee will agree with me that, generally speaking, his speeches in this House are marked by an assurance, fairness and lucidity which we all appreciate, but I think they will also agree that he showed to-day a certain amount of uncertainty and was to a certain extent uncomfortable, because the position taken up in the earlier proceedings was so clear, both to the Members of this House and to the country, that I do not see how the Government can now deviate from it. I recall that I made a special point of going to Newcastle to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain the proposals of the Government on this subject. We were told distinctly in that distressed area that the benefits accruing from the de-rating of industrial hereditaments and the relief which was to be given to the railways would be passed on in their entirety to the whole of the coal trade.
        I would point out that the Schedule of this Bill includes all coal; there is no differentiation. It includes coal for export purposes and coal for the iron and steel industries, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he intends deliberately to exclude from benefit the coal which passes over private railways for the use of these industries? His answer to us is a twofold one. He says, first, that private railways have an advantage over public railways. I think there is a confusion of thought in his mind, and I wish to try to help the Committe to decide the issue. It is true that in the early days, before public railways were instituted, private railways were attached to collieries, but any advantage gained by private railways in those circumstances has long since been merged in the whole colliery undertaking. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) cited the case of the Pelaw Main Collieries, which changed
        1994
        hands three years ago. When the new company bought them they bought them at a price which was in accordance with the state of the market, and to argue that the pelaw Main collieries have any advantage in their private railway is simply begging the question, because they have not. We must look at the trade as a competitive trade, the members of which are engaged in competing for export trade and for the home market on an equal basis, and I cannot understand the attitude of the Government in differentiating between private and public railways.
        I do not wish to continue this Debate too long but I can give the House instances of what I mean. The private line of one of the biggest group of collieries passes right through Sunderland, and the major part of their coal for export is sent over that line. Their price for export, based on the working costs of that line, is in competition with that of other collieries; but we are going to exclude that line from the benefits which are going to accrue to the public railways. That will be a very serious thing for the constituents whom I represent. I will give another case, and I would like the Minister to give attention to these cases, because he is entirely wrong in his point of view in assuming that there is an advantage of 4d., or whatever sum he mentioned, in favour of the private railways. I will take the case of Seaham Harbour, where there are three collieries merging and shipping their coal into Seaham Harbour Docks. The centre one of those three collieries has a private railway; the two other collieries, one at either side, send their coal over the public railways. We are going to give these two collieries an advantage of 7d. a ton over the central one. What will the result be? We shall either squeeze the central one, or squeeze out of possible existence this private railway against which we are differentiating in this way. I wish the Minister to appreciate the seriousness of this position, because collieries in Durham and Northumberland, and particularly the latter county, have been experiencing an exceedingly hard time, due to competition from Poland and other Continental countries. A question of 1d. or 2d. a ton in their prices makes all the difference. In spite of this competition we are going to say to these

        1995
        exporting collieries, "We will handicap you, or at any rate we will give you no benefit in your competition with Poland and the other Continental countries."
        I hope the Minister will seriously reconsider this position. The Minister made two points. He said first that the private railways have better conditions. My answer is that the private railways have no better conditions, and as a matter of fact they seek no greater advantages than are given to the others. In specific terms we were asked by the Minister to give some idea of what they want, and I think he rather threw out an olive branch to us. He asked whether the private railways wished to come under the same terms. The private railways have never advocated being admitted on the same terms. What they do wish for is that selected mineral traffics carried over private mineral railways should receive relief at the same rate as the same traffics carried over public railways, the percentage being calculated on the working costs of the mineral railways as ascertained and certified under the terms of settlement of 1921.
        Reference was made to the North of England United Coal Trade Association. I think the Minister was just a shade unfair in his reference to them. He quoted the date 11th June. The decision of that association was taken before anything was introduced into this House, before the question had been seriously raised in this House. If the minutes and the whole of the discussion on that question when it was in embryo were laid before this Committee, I feel sure it would be seen that there is no ground for the suggestion of the Minister that the association are in opposition to the private railways. It was ultimately agreed that the association should take such steps as they considered best to bring their case before the Government; and
        "It was further decided that the Association should press the Mining Association to endeavour to secure that private railways and shipping places shall be included in the undertakings.—"
        This was on the 11th June. It was not until 4th July when I moved my Amendment that that was included.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Read on.
        Mr. THOMPSON: What it goes on to say is—
        "which are to obtain the concession of relief from three-fourths of their rating."
        That refers to a suggestion higher up in the minutes. There is no other demand whatever. It has given me the greatest concern this afternoon to hear the letter which was written by some representative of the big railways. If the policy of the Government has to be decided by what any particular group of railways or anybody else suggests, it is a very serious statement. Private railways are not receiving the benefit which has been suggested. The Minister asked if we had any proposals. We have proposals. Our proposal is that the sum arising from the de-rating of the private railways should be paid into the pool and that the private railways should participate in the pool, not to the full extent of the relief given to the public railways but to an extent which relates the cost of the railways to the average charges over the public railways. That is a definite offer, and I hope, in the interests of trade, and of Durham and Northumberland in particular, and also in the spirit of equity and fair play, that the Government will really reconsider this matter and, if possible, bring forward another Supplementary Estimate under which fair play will be given to the private railways.
        Mr. BECKETT: After listening to the speeches which have been made in this Debate, I think hon. Members generally will resent a Minister of the Crown coming to this Committee giving as his reason for not performing an elementary act of justice advocated by all parties that he has received the letter from the railway companies to which he has referred. If any trade union had conveyed anything like a threat of that kind, the Government would at once have told us that they would never yield to such threats. I want to deal with a more general aspect of this question. This is not an isolated proposal. It is the first swallow, the first harbinger of an industrial revival which the Government have promised to bring about in the few short months which remain of this Parliament. It is the first concrete section of the great de-rating proposal upon which the Government profess to place so much hope and confidence in the future. There-

        1997
        fore we cannot regard this entirely as a casual million to be given to the railway companies in the hope that they will give some to the colliery owners or that they will give something to the consumer or the worker. We cannot regard it as a casual million thrown out to the vested interests and we must regard it in a more serious light. It is positively alarming if we regard this proposal not merely as a million to be devoted to the purposes which have been explained to the committee, but as the first instalment of further sums to be spent without any kind of safeguard for the working producer or the interests which the Government claim to have. I have read paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Report, and they appear to contain the main conditions which the Government have made to see that the Railway Clearing House does its duty.
        I think we can wipe out of our minds any idea that the railway companies or any great interests will be more successful because they are going to be managed by patriotic people who will do exactly what we ask them to do. There is not the slightest ground in the history of British railways for the assumption of the Minister of Transport that these patriotic gentlemen will not expose us to very great risks and expense in carrying out their duties. Those who are managing these great railways at the present time are the people who took over the canals in our country districts and destroyed them in order that they could not compete with the railway companies, and in order to place those companies in a position to make very great profits. If the railway companies were going to do what the Minister of Transport has suggested, no one would deny that one of the best things they could do at once would be to recondition the canals which they have destroyed in order to assist in the carriage of goods which are not wanted very quickly. When we have dismissed from our minds those two safeguards which sound well in after dinner speeches, but which are of very little use in a Committee Debate, we find that practically the only other safeguard is that contained in Clause 8 of the White Paper, where we have been told that the Minister of Transport will have access to the accounts. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not understand them any
        1998
        better than he understood the accounts of the private railways they will not be much help to us.
        Besides all these safeguards, we have been told that there is another important provision: that the decision of the Minister of Transport shall be final and conclusive. After hearing the Minister read that letter from the railway companies I cannot have any confidence in the Minister being able to control the Railway Clearing House, which is the only safeguard we have in this Bill. I suggest to the Committee that the whole principle upon which we are granting this £1,000,000 and upon which we are to grant many more millions, is thoroughly unbusinesslike, wasteful, and useless. Very large sections of the coal industry are in a very parlous condition. It is equally true that there are certain sections of the coal industry, especially those fortunate companies which are also interested in pit-prop supplies and coal by-products, which are making very large profits and paying large dividends. It has already been admitted that this Committee will not be able to grant sufficient money to put the mining industry on its feet. If that is so, it becomes our duty to see that the little we can give to those industries should go directly to the root of the industries where assistance is most needed. To give a sum which will ultimately amount to nearly £4,000,000 to the Railway Clearing House in the hope that it will distribute it among the just and the unjust and among the rich and the poor alike is a wasteful, uneconomical and a very badly thought-out way of handling money which the nation can ill afford to provide for the assistance of industry. I suggest that this money will be spent in helping companies who are doing very well at the present time, and that it will not do any good to the majority of those who are doing very badly. As for the miners' wages, you could put the whole £4,000,000 into the coalowners' deficit and a good many years would pass before the miners would get any increase in the wages which were awarded to them under the agreement which they were forced by the Government to sign in 1926.
        This proposal is completely unfair to our consumers and to many of our own first-class industries. We are going to send abroad coal which has been sub-

        1999
        sidised by the British taxpayer to be sold at a cheap rate in order that foreigners may be able to make glass and wool and other goods more cheaply, and this will all be done at the expense of Lancashire and Yorkshire manufacturers. The goods made by the use of this cheap coal will be sent to compete with British manufacturers. We often hear hon. Members opposite speaking very eloquently about protecting British workmen from the British capitalist who employs sweated labour overseas. I suggest that this policy produces one of the most Gilbertian situations which anyone can imagine, because the Government are subsidising foreign industry and supplying them with cheap coal in order to compete with our manufacturers in this country who will not have the advantages of cheap coal. Not only are you assisting foreign industry by cheap coal, but you are setting up a horrible internecine war in our own industries. Under these proposals, three or four industries which are well represented in this House and are very popular with the party opposite will have the benefit of cheap coal in England, whereas some other British industries will not receive any benefit at all.
        Where are you going to draw the border line? The Schedules of the Local Government Bill show how many border lines there are between one industry and another. You will find one British industry using specially subsidised British coal purchased at a cheap rate, and the other industries will have to pay for it. That is an irremovable objection to this scheme. In view of an early election, and of the fact that the Government have nothing else upon which to go to the country, I ask: Is it wise to rush through a scheme which subsidises your foreign competitors, which sets British industry against British industry, and which breaks up a very important section of our coalfields? This scheme is going to put a lot of money into the pockets of the railway companies, and I ask the Committee even for the sake of any electoral advantage which you may be misguided enough to think you are going to get: Is it wise to press forward such a hastily prepared scheme devised by people who obviously do not understand the facts and figures? I suggest that such a course is
        2000
        not a wise one and that it is not good policy. It is not good statesmanship to commit the country to a scheme like this which will waste the money we need so badly for other more useful purposes.
        Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Let us return to business. There are two small points which I desire to put to the Minister of Transport, and they will not take me nearly so long as it has taken the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) to make his speech. My first point is in regard to an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Ellis) in the course of this Debate, and it relates to the question of the rebate on patent fuel. When the question was put to the President of the Board of Trade by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, the right hon. Gentleman referred my hon. Friend to a paragraph on page 5 of the White Paper about 10 lines from the bottom of the page, where it states:
        "Coal 'means coal, coke and patent fuel."
        I think the President of the Board of Trade will admit that that reply did not quite meet the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. It only concerns one coalfield that is worth bothering about to any extent, namely, South Wales, and so I took the precaution of consulting one or two of the mining Members from South Wales before venturing to bring it to the notice of the President of the Board of Trade. They were in complete, agreement with my view of the matter, which was that, although patent fuel taken over the railways to the ports for export gets the full rebate, as being coal under the section in question, yet small coal taken from the colliery to the patent fuel works, although the patent fuel is going to be exported, does not, I think, on the wording of the White Paper, get that rebate. Let us trace exactly what that would mean, unless we can get it altered, in South Wales, which is the chief patent fuel exporting coalfield of this country. The patent fuel works are, for the most part., for natural reasons, in close proximity to the shipping ports and the docks. Small coal is hauled over the railways to these patent fuel works, and no rebate is given. It will, therefore, pay the briquette works owned in foreign ports to take the small coal from the

        2001
        collieries and get the rebate, on that as export coal, which will place them in a position of advantage in competing with the manufacturers of patent fuel in South Wales.
        I know that the point has simply escaped the Government's notice, and I would ask the President of the Board of Trade to try to give South Wales some assurance upon it. I believe it has been suggested, in the discussion on these matters, that the wording of the White Paper can be stretched to cover that, but I think one may try to stretch words a bit, too far, and they are apt to snap in the process. Therefore, let us, if possible, have an undertaking from the Government that, if they cannot put the matter right on the basis of the White Paper, they will at any rate, in the Bill that is to be brought forward subsequently, endeavour to meet that point and help this very hard-hit industry in South Wales. I am sorry to have taken up so much time over this, but it is rather a technical point, and took some explaining.
        The other point also is a rather technical one. It affects chiefly the County of Northumberland, which, as everyone knows, is, like South Wales, having a peculiarly hard time. It so happens that the North Eastern Railway Company on the North-East Coast in Northumberland and Durham, from, I believe, time immemorial, has always insisted that the colliery owners shall use the railway company's wagons for shipping purposes. There is a certain amount of justification for that, owing to circumstances into which I need not enter here. Under this scheme, that gives rise to the possibility of very great injustice to exporting collieries, and for this reason. The railway company quotes an overhead rate for conveying the coal from the colliery to the shipping staithes, including the use of the railway company's wagons, and there has never been any separation of that rate into what represents wagon hire and what represents the actual freight on the coal. What a number of exporting collieries on the North-East Coast fear—and, with all deference to the hon. and gallant Member for Howdenshire (Major Carver), the railway companies in the past have been, perhaps, a little selfish in their outlook towards the collieries of this country—what they fear is that the railway com-
        2002
        panies, reading the White Paper as it stands, will have the right to say how much of that through rate is wagon hire and how much is mere freight on the coal. Let me take an example that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield.
        Mr. HARNEY: The less they charge for the wagons, the more they will make.
        Mr. HOPKINSON: Let me give an example, and then, perhaps, even the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) will understand.
        Mr. HARNEY: The hon. Member is exceedingly impudent in his remarks.
        Mr. HOPKINSON: Let me take an actual instance, in which the haul to the colliery shipping staithes is comparatively very short, as it is in many cases in Northumberland. The haul to the staithes is not more than four or five miles, and the actual overhead rate is in the neighbourhood of 2s. 3d. per ton. Supposing that that 2s. 3d. were all freight, and none of it were wagon hire, the rebate to the exporting colliery would be based on the whole 2s. 3d.; but supposing that the North Eastern Railway Company says that only 1s. is the actual cost of the freight, and the other 1s. 3d. is for the hire of the wagons supplied to the colliery, then, of course, the rebate will be given on less than 50 per cent. of the total payment. I again seek an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will either correct this in the subsequent Bill or, as an alternative, give the colliery companies some right of appeal against the North Eastern Railway Company—a right of appeal to the Ministry of Transport or some other authority who will be able to say whether the railway company has fairly divided this charge, or whether it has taken advantage of the wording of the White Paper to make an unfair charge against the colliery company. [Interruption.] These are the two points which I wanted to put, and I must apologise to the Committee for having taken up time equal to quite 50 per cent. of that taken up by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields.
        Mr. JOHN: I should like to emphasise the point that the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) has raised with regard to the position of patent fuel. I think there is a misapprehension with

        2003
        respect to the reply of the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Ellis). We are exporting from South Wales at the present time about 1,000,000 tons of patent fuel per annum, and 99 per cent. of that is exported from the Swansea and Cardiff areas. It is quite passible that, by the fact of the small coal sent from the collieries to the patent fuel works—which are in close proximity to the docks—not being entitled to the 75 per cent. reduction, those works will be placed at a disadvantage, and, moreover, unless the collieries in question are able to get rid of their small coal, it will be impossible for them to work. The effect of the anomaly will, therefore, be to create unemployment at those collieries which are producing small coal for the manufacture, of patent fuel. There is also, as the hon. Member for Mossley has said, the possibility that this small coal may be shipped to France, when it will get the rebate, and France, which is the greatest competitor with South Wales in regard to patent fuel, will he able to compete by sending patent fuel back to this country at a cheaper rate than that at which it can be produced in South Wales.
        The real object of these proposals is to deal with the question of unemployment, and evidently the Government believe that, by the provision of this sum of £1,000,000, they are going to increase employment. A large number of colliery companies in South Wales, however, evidently do not take this view. There is in my constituency a large combine which has gone into liquidation during the past three weeks. If the Cambrian Combine really thought that the Bill which the Government are going to introduce, providing for a 75 per cent, relief in railway freights, was going to be of any advantage to them, the natural supposition is that they would have held their hands for a short time and would not have gone into liquidation, but would have attempted to keep their collieries working. The shutting down of these collieries is going to have a direct effect upon the other collieries that are working. From the reports in the South Wales Press to-day we find that people who are suffering as the result of accidents in collieries that have gone into liquidation, and who have not been paid
        2004
        their compensation, have, with their dependants, had to go to the Board of Guardians. The result, in the case of the Pontypridd Board of Guardians alone, owing to the number of people and their dependants who have not been paid their compensation, has been to increase the Poor rate in that area by £50,000 per annum. That increase in the rates will mean that collieries which can barely work at the present time are going to have an increased burden cast upon them. Therefore, these people do not believe that the policy of the Government is going to solve their difficulties in any way.
        The Minister of Transport, in introducing the Estimate this afternoon, said that this is going to give relief to the extent of 7d. per ton, but the actual increase in railway freightages in South Wales as compared with 1914, including dock charges, works out at about 94 per cent., or 2s. 3d. per ton; and 2s. 3d. per ton upon the output of South Wales last year meant a sum of £3,000,000. How is 7d. per ton going to assist collieries that are at the present time only barely able to hold up their heads, and, indeed, unable even to do that, for they are at present in the hands of the bankers? How are those collieries going to work which have to pay an increase of 2s. 3d. per ton in railway freightage and dock charges, when the actual relief that is going to be given is 7d. per ton?
        My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) pointed out the effect with respect to international competition. An hon. Member opposite made some reference to the competition of Poland with Northumberland and Durham. The international competition is such that, even assuming for a moment that there is anything at all in the policy of the Government, the Governments of those countries are taking much more drastic steps in the direction of assisting their coal-winning districts. Poland has reduced the freightage during the last three years to 3s. 3d. per ton, and Germany has been doing the same thing. Germany has been reducing the freightages since 1926 to 2s. 6d., 2s. 3d., and in some in-stances 1s. 10d. per ton. Belgium, Holland and France have been doing the same thing, and even America has been assisting her shipping companies. Therefore, if the Government believe that this

        2005
        policy is going to assist the mining industry, they should at least do something comparable with the assistance that is given to competing coalowners in other parts of the world. Even supposing that they said they would give assistance to the same extent as the Polish Government, how is it going to apply? It is going to apply in precisely the same way in which the subsidy applied in 1925. Whether pits were in a bad way, an indifferent way, or a good way, whether they were making profits or losses, the subsidy was paid to the coalowners, and the same principle is going to apply so far as this subsidy is concerned.
        7.0 p.m.
        Colliery owners who are making profits at present will get the subsidy of 7d. per ton; colliery owners who are simply upon he margin will get the subsidy of 7d. per ton; colliery owners who are suffering a loss of 2s. or 2s. 6d. per ton will only get the same. The result will be to intensify competition, as far as South Wales coal-owners are concerned, for export purposes, and, as far as the coalowners of Great Britain are concerned, for internal purposes. To the extent that that intensity of competition prevails, the natural effect will be that the collieries, which are at present suffering a loss, are not going to be put in a position to continue working by this 7d. per ton, but that it is going to put the coalowners who are earning 2d., 4d., or 6d. a ton in a better position to work, and will provide them with a better margin. That will be at the expense of other collieries who are only working part-time. They will be forced out of competition, and the burdens upon those working part-time will be increased. The ultimate result of this method adopted by the Government will be to intensify competition for export purposes and for internal purposes at the expense of the Durham miners, the South Wales miners, the Yorkshire miners, and the Nottingham miners. I do not believe that this policy is going to relieve the situation at all. It is not going to relieve it to any appreciable extent. It has been suggested that the miners have been asking for this method. I do not think that any instance can be given where the miners' representatives have asked for this form of subsidy.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Minister of Health and myself received a
        2006
        deputation from the Mining Association of South Wales and the Miners' Federation of South Wales, and the thing that both the miners and the coalowners pressed most keenly upon the Government was a reduction of railway freights on coal.
        Mr. JOHN: That was a question entirely apart from the de-rating scheme. The Government at the present time is putting up this as part of a general scheme, which is going to revise the relationship of national and local government, a general scheme which is not going to ease the situation so far as the necessitous areas are concerned. To argue that the workers' representatives asked that the Government should introduce a Measure of this kind, believing that its introduction would relieve the situation, is wrong and entirely misleading.
        Major PRICE: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that it was put forward, on behalf both of the miners and of the mine owners, at a conference at which he was present, as something that would assist the coal industry.
        Mr. JOHN: The hon. and gallant Member knows quite well that when we discussed the situation it was agreed that there was no obligation upon us as the deputation that met the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister to suggest ways or means.
        Major PRICE: I know perfectly well that, at the Conference which was held of both parties, it was decided to put it forward as a matter that would give great assistance.
        Mr. JOHN: I would suggest that if the President of the Board of Trade would take the trouble to look at the statements submitted to the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which I can give him copies—
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was not citing anything said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Prime Minister. I was saying that a deputation of what is called the Joint Conciliation Board, representing the employers and workmen in the whole of South Wales, working together, came in a deputation to myself, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Transport. The spokesman was the

        2007
        president of the south Wales Miners' Federation. Every speaker on that deputation begged the Government to do something to decrease the railway freights on coal.
        Mr. JOHN: I was referring to the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Price). He made a statement with which I disagreed, and in order to jutify myself I appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to inquire about what was submitted to the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer. We do not know about the deputation to which the President of the Board of Trade refers, but at the Conference at which the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke and I were present—
        Major PRICE: What I said was that at the Conference we had between the miners' and mine-owners' representatives there was unanimous agreement that to accelerate the relief in rates would help the coal industry in Wales, and they all agreed that we should put it forward and press it upon the Government.
        Mr. JOHN: I do not want to pursue this matter for the reason that I am still contending I am correct while the hon. and gallant Member will still contend that he is correct. I have kept signed copies of both the memoranda we sent, and I have resolutions in the minute book where it was definitely decided that we were not to suggest anything at all, that all we were to do was to meet the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and point out to them the serious condition of the mining industry and the burden it had to carry, and ask them to give adequate relief, not a relief of 7d. a ton when in the last three months the average loss in South Wales was 1s. 8d. a ton. We wanted some freight relief given to the mining industry which would enable it to work and to absorb the unemployed miners in the South Wales coalfields. Sorely, the Government are not going to put this forward as a relief to the unemployed miners in South Wales. It is not going to provide work for any more miners than are employed at the present time. If the Government wanted to do something to ease the unemployed problem, they could devise various ways
        2008
        and means. There is the question of the absorption of the unemployed. If the Government spent the £24,000,000 in providing work for the unemployed, it would have a much greater effect upon the unemployment problem than this mere pittance of 7d. a ton in relief on railway freights.
        Sir EVELYN CECIL: It is desirable that I should repudiate emphatically one or two suggestions which have been made during this Debate. As a representative of a railway company which has practically nothing to do with the private mineral railways, it may be that the contradiction comes better from me. It has been suggested during this Debate that the railway companies were intending to blackmail the Government in connection with the small private mineral railways. That is a very strong word to use. On behalf of all the railway companies, I most emphatically and definitely repudiate that attack and say that no intention of blackmailing anybody was ever in the minds of the railway companies. To say otherwise is absolutely untrue. I know what I am saying, and I know that from the very beginning of the negotiations, when the Government approached the railways as to what they could do to help traders and suggested that the relief of rates for the railways should be passed on to the traders, the railways most willingly accepted the suggestion, most willingly entered into negotiations, and were anxious to do it through thick and thin in order to benefit the trade of the country. I cannot speak the plain truth more strongly. We were most ready to pass on the rating relief which would otherwise have come into our own pockets. Surely that is a praiseworthy object. It was done to benefit the traders of the country who are the customers of the companies. It is clearly unfair to suggest that those rates are not to be passed on by us to our customers to help the trade of the country, but are to be passed on to other privately-owned railways who are possibly our competitors and who would in any case benefit by the relief of rates on the collieries by which they are owned.
        There is one other point in regard to the position of the railway companies. The pool, which it is proposed shall be managed by the Railway Clearing House, is one which, as the Minister of Trans-

        2009
        port showed when he was speaking, is designed so that the surplus balance which is not required under this scheme should be paid to the new fund. The railway companies have made no objection to that. In other words, it means that any profits from the relief of the rates, any balance, should go to the public benefit and not to their own. On the other hand, as the Minister of Transport also pointed out and as is stated on page 5 of the White Paper, if there is a deficiency, the amount of the deficiency is to be apportioned by the Railway Clearing House between the several railway companies. So that, while we are undertaking to pass on all profits to the traders or to the Exchequer, we are ourselves undertaking to bear any deficiency that may occur. What can be better evidence of a real desire to help the country's trade in the present emergency? I trust that during the course of this Debate no further suggestion will be made that the railway companies are out merely for their own benefit. What they are banking on is that the general trade of the country will improve, and therefore improve for them also, but that, after all, is problematical. I again say most emphatically that there is no question whatever of blackmailing anybody.
        Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I want to refer to what has been said by the right hon. Member who has just sat down and to say that the relief given to the railways was given on the understanding that it was to be passed on to their customers, so that they have nothing to boast about in giving something which the Government said was to be passed on. The right hon. Member sneaks as if they they were doing something great and giving something which they were not compelled to give. As one well acquainted with the mining industry, I am bound to say that the rapacity and neglect of the railway companies are very largely responsible for the position of the mining industry to-day. A few years ago practically the same rates were being paid on a greatly increased price for coal. Prices of coal have tumbled down but their rates have remained stationary, so I do not think the railway companies can take much credit to themselves for having done anything to help the industry.
        2010
        But I rose for another purpose. Probably my division will suffer mere than any other in the country if the Government's proposals are carried out. The miners have made great sacrifices. No one else can claim to have made any sacrifice whatever to keep the pits going except the miner. He has done everything to help trade along. If this proposed scheme goes through I am afraid he will again be called upon to make great sacrifices. The Minister in introducing the Bill said he hoped that trade was going to increase and that we should be in a better position to fight the foreigner than we are to-day. If the foreigner is fought by a reduction of prices in the foreign market, the burden again comes on to the back of the miner. Under the present agreement, as prices fall so do the wages of the miner. His wages to-day are 6s. 6d. a day—25s. to 30s. a week. If the price is reduced by another 6d. a ton, I am afraid the whole of the miners in my division, with the exception of one colliery, are going to be out of employment. There are 20,000 to 30,000 of them, and it would be a serious matter. God knows there are enough derelict colliery villages in Durham and Northumberland now, and to make more would be the greatest crime any Government could take responsibility for.
        I have been hoping that something would be done to help employment. I have no faith in your sending your 10,000 harvesters abroad. When the time comes for auditing the accounts I think it will be found to have cost more to send them and bring them back than it, would have cost to keep them here doing some useful work. All the local authorities are asking for schemes of work, but they have been denied them up till now. Instead of making work, thousands of men, with their wives and children, are being sent to the boards of guardians. I ask the Minister to reconsider the position. In the name of the men, women and children, I ask the Government to see if something cannot be done that will give employment rather than make more unemployment.
        Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: The hon. Member who has just spoken has fallen into the same error that many others have done in imagining that the

        2011
        great railway companies are opposing the inclusion of the private railway com-panics—
        Mr. RICHARDSON: Did the hon. Baronet hear the letter read from the railway companies in which they said if they were brought in they would try to defeat the whole scheme?
        Sir G. COURTHOPE: If the hon. Member had allowed me to finish my sentence he would have realised what I was going to say. He has fallen into the error of assuming that the amalgamated railway companies are opposing the inclusion of the private mineral railways in this scheme owing to some desire to redress alleged advantages enjoyed by those private railways in the past. He is overlooking the fact that the scheme that is embodied in this Estimate was calculated upon the traffics not of all the railways, including the private ones, but of the great railways. The suggestion that the mineral railways, however deserving their case, should be brought in after the scheme is drawn, bringing in a contribution quite inadequate to meet the demands which their traffic makes upon it, is only piling up a certain loss which under the scheme the great railways would have to bear, and that is the reason why the railway companies are opposing the proposed inclusion of other railways in the scheme upon which the whole of this Estimate is based.
        Mr. RICHARDSON: Does the hon. Baronet know what the difference would be? It is the difference between 5.875d. and 5.7d.
        Sir G. COURTHOPE: If it is so infinitesimal as that I wonder that the hon. Member is so keen about it. My information is that it is a very different figure and that the inclusion of the private mineral railways in the scheme now, after it is drawn, would involve a certain loss to the pool which would have to be borne by the great railways, and anyone who has been watching the railway returns in recent years knows that the great railway companies are not in a position to face a certain addition to their loss.
        May I say one or two words with regard to the schedule of agricultural
        2012
        selected traffics, because there is a great deal of misunderstanding evidently in the mind of the hon. and gallant, Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and, I gather, in the minds of others on the point. He argued that because what he calls unwashed carrots are within the schedule and washed carrots are not, an advantage was being given to foreign growers of carrots at the expense of small holders in his constituency. He used a similar argument about potatoes. The facts of the matter are that a certain sum of money will be available in relief of agricultural traffic, and the desire is that the whole of that, money shall go into the pockets of British farmers in order to lighten their costs of production. For that reason fertilisers and feeding stuffs were included—two subjects which figure largely in every farmer's cost of production. Wherever the source of origin of the fertiliser and feeding stuff, the cost is borne by the farmer who puts it on his land or feeds his stock with it, and therefore any relief given to these two categories will be a definite relief to the farmers cost of production.
        If the relief was extended to washed vegetables intended for human consumption it would include the carriage of all imported vegetables as well as the carriage of the home-grown vegetables, because our commercial treaties prevent us from discriminating between the same classes of goods produced at home and abroad, and even if that were not so, it would be impracticable to have two classes of freights on precisely the same goods according to their different source of origin. But it is a fact that our commercial treaties prevent any discrimination against the foreigner in eases like that. That is precisely the reason why new potatoes are excluded. New potatoes come very largely from abroad. If they were included, it would mean that some part of this sum of money available for the relief in transport, freight on agricultural produce would go to the foreigner. Part I of the Second Schedule in the White Paper is so drawn as to provide, as far as possible, that the English farmer, the home farmer, shall get the whole benefit. It was approved, and, as a matter of fact, it was settled, in consultation with the National Farmers' Union of this country, and I believe that

        2013
        it is so drawn as to achieve its purpose and to secure that the whole of the advantage shall go to the farmer.
        Mr. CONNOLLY: The scope of the Debate has been fairly wide, but it has come back again and again to the narrow issue as to whether this Estimate is going to include a provision, or at least whether the Minister is going to give an undertaking, that private mineral railways shall be brought under the provisions of last Session's Act. It is to the Minister's main argument that I propose to direct my remarks. Before doing that, however. I would like to reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope), who made the extraordinary statement that if private mineral railways were brought in under the provisions of the Act of 1928 it would pile up such an expense as would nullify altogether the benefits that are going to he given to the users of public railways.
        Sir G. COURTHOPE: No, I did not say so at all.
        Mr. CONNOLLY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not say that literally, but that is what he meant. I take this opportunity of giving him the figures which have been drawn up by the experts. The proposal at present is estimated to bring a rebate of 5.75d., and if the private mineral railways are brought in it will be 5.7d. or a difference of slightly less than one-fifth of a penny per ton. Those are the figures which have been given to us by those who have gone very carefully into the matter. They say that if private mineral railways are included it will make a difference to the aggregate value of one-fifth of a penny. Before answering the Minister's main argument, I want to do what other hon. Members have done on these benches, namely, completely to dissociate myself from the general principles of de-rating in the 1928 Act and from the provisions of the Bill that is to come on next week.
        The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): The hon. Member must not pursue that line. This question deals with transport freight.
        Mr. CONNOLLY: I dissociate myself from the de-rating provisions of both the Act and the Bill, and I want to say that which has perhaps been said in another
        2014
        way from these benches and from the other benches. As far as the whole of these proposals are concerned, including the Estimate we are asked to put through to-night, they will have little or no effect in benefiting industry generally. I am thinking of the North of England with apprehension. I am anxious to prevent more mischief, and that will be the purpose of my remarks. I believe that, instead of bringing employment, if this Estimate goes through to-night without an undertaking by the Minister to bring in the private mineral railways, the last state is going to be worse than the first.
        I wish to deal also with the ultimatum that has been issued by the Railway Companies. It has been said truly in regard to this House of Commons that there never was a man who set himself the task of breaking it but who was himself broken in the end by the House of Commons. It appears to me that the Railway Companies are making an attempt which has been made before to overawe and to cow the House of Commons. I would say this to every Member of the House of Commons: If they have any strength or dignity they will resist that which was read at that Box this afternoon. It practically amounts to an ultimatum on the part of the Railway Companies to the Legislature of the country. I come to the main argument of the Minister against the inclusion of the private mineral railways in this system. To me it was extraordinary—and yet it was his main argument—to state that the private mineral railways, even classed as industrial hereditaments, will, despite the provisions that cover the public railways, be at least 2½d. per ton better off than the users of the public rail ways.
        Colonel ASHLEY: A penny-halfpenny.
        Mr. CONNOLLY: Yes, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman compared 1½d. with 4d. and said that the private railways would be to that extent better off even after the users of the public railways received the full rebate under the provisions of the Act. That would be a very good argument if we were discussing excessive railway rates. If this Estimate was for the purpose of giving relief to the users of railways because they had to pay excessive rates, the argument would be a fair one. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister

        2015
        to the fact that railway freightage is only one of the overhead charges. If he is going to make a comparison between overhead charges of those who own private mineral railways and collieries and their competitors who do not use private railways but the public railways he mast take into consideration the whole of the overhead charges. You have in any business, whether it be a distributive industry or a productive industry, at least six overhead charges relating perhaps to a dozen different establishments. You may find that in regard to No. 1 overhead charge you have a difference between one establishment and another. It is the same in regard to No. 2 overhead charge, and right along you will find a variation of overhead charges in each of those establishments.
        I want to remind the Minister that coal freight rates comprise only one overhead charge. In comparing the position of the collieries that use public railways and the position of those that use their own private railways, why should he not consider whether they have coal cutting machinery in one case as against another, whether they have electrical haulage or horse haulage or man haulage and take account of these different overhead charges. Is it fair to bring in a comparison that private mineral railways transport coal at an average cost of 1s. 0¼d. as against the 1s. 7½d. which is estimated on the public railways. These are only estimates, and I am only taking them because they have been given. But even if they are true, for the Minister to make a comparison with reference to one single overhead charge and to make that the main plank in his argument is a travesty of business principles. I say that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's main argument here this afternoon has broken down. The point raised in this House, and it was raised in another place, with regard to the inclusion of the private mineral railways was the difficulty of assessing the running costs. The Minister of Health here and Lord Peel in another place spoke about the difficulty there would be of bringing private mineral railways under the provisions of this proposal and pointed out the difficulty of assessing the running costs and work-
        2016
        ing out a rebate pro rata. That has been overcome. The companies that are using the private railways have pointed out that there is a sure ascertainment in the 1921 Coal Agreement, that is, to take the basis of ascertainment for miners' wages. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) reminds me that they are known as T.S. Returns. The owners of private railways believe that this could be taken as a basis of ascertainment if it were brought in under the provisions of the Act of 1928.
        I want to ask a question of the Minister. It is one about which my hon. Friends are very anxious. What is going to take place to-night if the Estimate goes through? If this Estimate goes through without any undertaking from the Treasury Bench, will the Government, when the Bill is introduced by the Minister, look upon an Amendment to bring in the private railways as being in Order? If we cannot get an understanding of that kind to-night, it will mean that this Debate will settle once and for all the question as to whether the private mineral railways are to be brought on to an equal footing with those who use the public railways. I would like to ask that question and have your ruling. Mr. Chairman, on the matter.
        The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I am not quite clear as to the hon. Member's question. I am not sure that my answer will quite meet it. This Resolution, of course, is not the foundation of a Bill. If funds are required for a new object I should imagine that some' Amendment of the Act which was passed in the summer will be necessary. Anyhow, no Amendment by any Rule of the House could be put to this Vote which would bring in any kind of hereditament which is not covered by the Act.
        Mr. CONNOLLY: My experience of this House is very limited in comparison with your's, Mr. Chairman, but I have always thought that before a Bill authorising expenditure of public money is introduced something in the way of a Money Resolution is necessary. The point I wish to put is this: Will this be looked upon as a Money Resolution to cover a provision to be embodied in an Amendment to be brought in in respect of the new Bill. Will that be the position? If this is looked upon as a Money Resolution and there is no

        2017
        undertaking with regard to an Amendment, it appears to me that the case of the private mineral railways is settled once and for all.
        The CHAIRMAN: I should not like to say that, and, without a very careful study of the existing Act, I could not say off-hand whether another Estimate could be brought in in connection with that Act and in consequence of that Act to give this relief. Anyhow, when an item like this is brought in in Committee of Supply as a Supplementary Estimate it is not possible to move an Amendment as to its purpose. The purpose is either settled by the recent Act or may he simply combined with some existing service by reason of former legislation. It is impossible to bring in any Amendment to this Vote which will divert for some particular purpose something which is not already covered by the existing laws.
        Mr. CONNOLLY: I am glad to have your advice upon that matter, because I think that the Government view is entirely out. Our concern on these benches is not for vested interests either one side or the other. We believe sincerely that the de-rating proposals of the Government will not bring employment. We are assured by those who are in a position to know—I have been assured by the Manager of the Cramlington group of collieries in Northumberland—that if the private mineral railways are not put on to an equitable footing with the public railways it will mean the closing down of collieries and a very serious increase in the unemployment figures. It is because we believe that something very serious will result in connection with the private railways, that we are pressing upon hon. Members in all quarters of the House—I am glad to know that in every part of the House we have some support—to try to bring about what we claim is pure equity for one section of the employing class.
        Sir WALTER RAINE: After the speeches which have been delivered by north country Members on this question, quite regardless of party, I hope the Government will recognise the seriousness of this question and that it is not too late for them, even now, to take some steps to remove what is undoubtedly going to he a very serious
        2018
        matter. How serious the question is can be recognised from the fact that out of the quantity of coal produced by the collieries with private railways last year, nearly 19,000,000 tons, which represented one-third of the total output of Durham and Northumberland, just under 9,000,000 tons were shipped over the private railways on what is known as the selected traffics. On a previous occasion I gave some figures in connection with the Port of Sunderland and this matter is so serious for my constituency that I intend to repeat them. I pointed out that up to the end of last month out of a total quantity of about 4,500,000 tons of coal shipped from Sunderland, not less than 2,700,000 tons, or three-fifths of the quantity, had been shipped over the private railways. Therefore, it will be seen that we view with some concern any interference with the private railways or any impediment being put in the way so as to make unfair competition as between the private and the public railways.
        We have heard during the past four hours what the Mining Association said and what the Durham and Northumberland colliery people said, and there have been various contradictory statements. I do not intend to go into that matter, but I should like to inform the House that both the River Wear Commission, of which I am a member, and the Tyne Commission view this matter very seriously, so much so that in connection with the Wear Commission I was present at a meeting a month ago when the members unanimously authorised the chairman of the Commission to take what steps he could in order to assist the private railways to obtain what they are seeking. I do not think the Government recognise quite sufficiently the fact that if this rebate were being given back to the component parts of the traffic upon any particular railway, the point which the private railways are making would not be so strong, but it is being given back to certain selected traffics. When you pick out certain selected traffics it is quite a different matter and it becomes, I have no hesitation in saying so, nothing short of a subsidy. While we are very glad to have any help in the coal trade, not only in the North of England but in other places, there can be no doubt that this particular assistance is a subsidy.

        2019
        Therefore the case is very strong that the private railways should share in the subsidy. I hope it is not too late for the Government to view this matter with the same seriousness as we do. I would ask them also not to regard the red tape so much as they seem inclined to do, but to take all reasonable steps in order to give us the relief which we require in the North of England, because if we do not get it, we are very apprehensive about very large numbers of miners being thrown out of employment.
        Mr. SMILLIE: I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House in dealing with this matter, because practically everything that can be said has been said by people who speak with authority coming from the mining districts, not merely on the side of the miners but on the side of the mineowners. I believe that this proposal is intended to give some little relief chiefly to the mining industry: incidentally it is intended to help the iron and steel and other industries, but it is chiefly to help the mining industry in its present deplorable condition. Speaking as a representative of a mining district in Northumberland, I may say that I have been approached by a considerable number of mineowners in my own Division and also by those representing the miners there. While this scheme is intended to give some little help to the miners, those of us who know the position of the mining districts of Great Britain realise that it is only a drop in the bucket. We do not for a moment imagine that this is all that the Government ought to do to relieve the poverty and distress at present existing in the mining districts, but, although it is small, we welcome it as a beginning and as a step in the right direction.
        I want to make an earnest appeal to the representatives of the Government that even at this late hour they might extend the relief to those collieries which have private railways. I fear that if the Government cannot do that, instead of this scheme being a help to the mining industry it will throw many thousands of miners out of employment. It will put the colliery owners who carry their coal over their own private railways at a serious disadvantage as compared with those who carry their coal over the public
        2020
        railways. Knowing the mining industry well, I know that the competition at the present moment between the two classes of mine owners is as keen as it can be and that if one section of mine owners are assisted to the extent of 6d. or 7d. per ton, it will mean, with the competition so keen between the two classes of mine owners, that those who carry their coal over their private lines will have to shut down their mines and throw a very large number of miners out of employment. I do appeal to the Government to extend the relief to the colliery owners who have their own private lines.
        Major PRICE: I should like to support the appeal made by the last speaker. Some of the speeches from the Opposition benches were calculated to put anybody against giving any concession, because it was suggested by speaker after speaker that the scheme was no good, that the rating relief would not help anybody and that it would be much better to leave the thing alone, and damn the Government for all time. I do appeal to the Minister to find some means of bringing the privately owned railways into this scheme. The objection of the great railway companies seems to he to bringing the private railways into this particular scheme by this particular method. I am certain that the owners of the collieries which have their own railway tines do not mind into what scheme they are brought or what method is adopted, so long as they get the fair play to which they are entitled. It is not beyond the wit a the Mines Department to devise something which would enable these particular colliery owners to have the benefit which they seek. I have in my own constituency a, small anthracite colliery which has a great deal of private railway lines. They have that railway not so much because it is an advantage, but because they must have it in order to get the coal down to the main line or down to the small harbour. They are put to this disadvantage that the railway rates when they get to the main line are very much heavier than the railway rates to the other collieries that are near the centre. We do not ask to be given an advantage, but we do ask not to be put at a disadvantage, and I am certain that we have sympathy from all quarters of the House in making our appeal.

        2021
        It has been suggested that neither the mineowners nor the representatives of the miners ever asked for or suggested relief of this kind. I take exception to that, statement, because I have a very clear recollection of conferences held between the South Wales Members of Parliament and the miners' representatives in South Wales and the mineowners' representatives, to discuss and consider what could he done to help the industry in that part of the country. We met many times and had long discussions, and the one practical suggestion that emerged from that conference was that what was wanted was some measure of relief in regard to railway rates. I do not say that it went any further than that and that when the deputation met the Minister it was put forward by representatives of the miners who sit in this House, but it was a suggestion of the mineowners and the representatives of the mineowners that that would give them some measure of help. I do not put it any higher than that.
        With regard to the Third Schedule, Part which relates to agriculture, there is a provision that
        "In the case of live stock conveyed to or from Northern Ireland or the Irish Free State and carried at a throughout charge, which includes a charge for carriage by railway in Great Britain, two-fifths of that throughout charge shall be taken to be the proportion thereof attributable to carriage by railway in Great Britain and treated accordingly as the carriage charge from which rebate is allowable."
        I do not know whether it is possible to make that particular Clause apply to other articles that are imported into this country from abroad which also have a through carriage. I do not know whether they are excluded, but I hope the Government will include them so that benefit may come to the British farmer and not to the foreign farmer.
        8.0 p.m.
        Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to ask the representative of the Government to agree to report Progress on this Vote. Appeals have been made to him from his own side which I should have thought were enough to convince him that this matter ought to be reconsidered. The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken reproved us for wanting to get this proposal extended, while at the same time we object to the main proposition in the Local Government Bill. Our position is simple. We say that, if the
        2022
        Government carry their proposal to assist the big colliery companies, they have no right to carry it in face of the knowledge which has been given to them to-night, that by doing so they will penalise a number of other traders and industrialists in Northumberland and Durham and make the position in those districts very much worse than it is at the present time. No one on behalf of the Government has contraverted the statements which have been made from this side of the House and from the benches opposite. I am asking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to agree to report Progress in order that the Government may consider the speeches of their own supporters. Hon. Members opposite pride themselves on having so much more knowledge and intelligence and capacity than hon. Members on this side so that when they happen to agree with us it is an overwhelming reason why the Government should agree to report Progress. I desire to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."
        The CHAIRMAN: Many other hon. Members may wish to speak on other matters during the Debate, and this is not a Motion which I can accept.
        Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Is it within your discretion to refuse to accept the Motion?
        The CHAIRMAN: Yes.
        Mr. BARKER: I want to say a word in reply to what the hon. Member for Pembroke (Major Price) and the Minister of Transport have said in regard to the South Wales miners. We did not ask for these de-rating proposals—
        Major PRICE: I do not think I ever suggested they did. What I said was that the mine owners and the miners suggested that they might obtain relief by a reduction in railway rates and dock dues and they asked that it should be put forward as a suggestion.
        Mr. BARKER: I want to say emphatically that it never entered into the brain of the most inventive member of the party on this side that the Government would bring in such a grotesque scheme as this. It arose, however, in a very natural way. The repeal of the

        2023
        Seven Hours Act intensified competition on the Continent, and in order to meet this intensified competition the Polish Government subsidises freights from the mine right up to the frontier. That created a serious position for the coal-owners in this country, and especially in South Wales. The Minister has been supplied with the information in documentary form, and it is to meet the request which the coalowners made in order to try and compete successfully with the subsidised railways of the Continent that these proposals have been brought in. In South Wales the railway freights are a serious proposition. On export coal the freight is 1s. 9d. per ton and the dock charges average 10½d. per ton. That is a serious handicap to our people. These charges have increased since 1914 by 94 per cent. The freight charges on inland coal are a perfect scandal to the country. They amount to 4s. 3d. per ton. We never anticipated that the Government would deal with the problem in this way, and we refuse to be entangled in this policy. The scale of relief is totally inadequate. It may relieve the position in certain cases, but, there will be no general relief to industry, especially to the mining industry because the loss per ton on export coal is 1s. 6d. The coalowners of South Wales lost over £2,000,000 in 1927, and will lose about £3,000,000 in 1928.
        Let me point out the dilemma of the Government. They have come to the relief of the mining industry by reducing coal freights; they have protected the mineowners from being exploited by the railway companies, but they have done nothing to prevent the coal mining industry being exploited by the shinning industry. I have a quotation here from a respectable authority and I think the Committee should have the benefit of it. I will read it. It is from "Lloyds Bank Monthly," and hon. Members will realise that the shipping companies have stolen all the swag already. As a matter of fact, they have increased the shipping rates by 1s. per ton, and the most the Government can do is to give relief to the amount of 7d. per ton. They cannot prevent the shipowners exploiting the situation. They have taken advantage of the position and this is the result:
        2024
        "The recent rise in freights is causing a considerable amount of uneasiness in the coal market which has been badly affected owing to the shortness of tonnage, consequently contract shipments are being postponed wherever practicable and the advance of freights, which has increased the delivered cost of coal on the Mediterranean and other markets by at least one shilling per ton since the beginning of October, has seriously hindered new business, particularly as there is no immediate prospect of securing concessions from the collieries to offset the dearer transport."
        I do not envy the Government; they have placed themselves in a most ridiculous position. They bring in a de-rating scheme, which is supposed to revolutionise everything. It is supposed to bring salvation to everybody, and here are the shipowners of the country who have actually put up freights by one shilling per ton. They have discounted everything the Government has done. If the Government had doubled the subsidy the shipowners have got away with it. No Government in history was ever in such a grotesque position as the present administration. They have my sympathy, if it is worth anything. They are not dealing with the situation, and things will be much worse when they have done than before they started. This scheme will not add one penny to the wages of the workers. All it can do is to reduce in some small measure the huge losses of the owners, but there will be huge losses still, and even greater if the shipowners continue their nefarious policy. I do not know how the Government are going to get out of this dilemma, unless they bring in an Act of Parliament to curb the rapacity of the shipping industry. However, it is their funeral, not ours, and it is not my place to get them out of the difficult position in which they have placed themselves. It only shows how utterly helpless any Government is under a capitalist system in assisting any particular industry. The Government are wasting the time of the Committee and destroying the allegiance of some of their best friends by these de-rating proposals. We are prepared to take whatever small thing there is in them, but it can be done much better by a direct grant from the Treasury. I shall, therefore, support the Amendment.
        Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: It is one of the ironies of the forms of discussion which take place in the Committee that

        2025
        the point which I have risen to bring to the notice of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not deal with the wonderful profits being made by shipowners but With the serious loss which may possibly fall upon them. The Committee will be relieved to know that at any rate there is one hon. Member who is not following the long procession of speeches which have been made on the subject of private railways. It is not that I do not feel strongly on that matter, but I think the case has been presented very ably from all quarters of the House, and I rise to bring before the Government one point only. I want to ask whether they have considered the question of the coastwise shipping services of this country and the possible effect which this Estimate, and the scheme behind it, will have upon them. I need not tell the Minister of Transport the great importance of these services to the country and the disaster which will fall on the country if they are in any way forced out of existence. Those who remember the days of the War and after, and who can visualise what might happen in the case of an upheaval in this country, will realise how important it is that these coastwise shipping services should be maintained.
        This is the position which arises as a result of the anticipation of the relief in railway rates; it upsets the balance of transport services as between railways, canals and coastwise shipping companies. That balance is based upon a ratio of freights or, land and by sea which is very easily upset. The position is a difficult one for these coastwise shipping companies, if this relief is given to the railways and by them passed on in the way of relief, and no similar relief is given in the case of coastwise shipping. I have in my hand an illustration of what will be the result of the proposal. One company alone, manifestly I do not mention any names, has carried 30,000 tons of potatoes, other than seed potatoes, from Scottish ports to English ports at an average rate of about 20s. per ton. This traffic is very highly competitive. If they must reduce their rates by one-tenth, a reduction of 2s., the result will be that during the period of the year when this traffic is usually carried the company in question will be really unable to carry on at all. The loss which will
        2026
        fall on them is not a loss of 2s. per ton, it is a loss of their total traffic; and the consequence is that we shall imperil the future of these companies in which I need not say I have no personal interest at all—
        Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it the argument of the hon. Gentleman that the traffic will be carried by the railways and not by the shipping companies?
        Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Yes. We may seriously imperil employment at the docks and various other places. I would give one other illustration only. There is another line carrying traffic from Liverpool to London. It has already been told that with the passing of this Measure it will be forced, on something between 50,000 and 75,00 tons of cattle cake, to reduce freights by 2s. 6d. a ton. I am entirely in favour of this Measure and the passing on of this relief, but the Government should consider whether it is not possible to put the coast-wise shipping companies in the same position as the railways—no better and no worse—to get relief and to pass it on in the same way to those who entrust traffic to them. Financially, the matter is not a big one. In fact, it is comparatively a small one, having regard to the £3,000,000 which is under consideration to-night. I have no figures on that point, because is is probably impossible to get them without a great deal of research, but the probability is that the total amount required to enable the coast-wise service to be put in the same position as the railways, and to enable the same amount of employment to be obtained in the docks, and to prevent this relief to industry from benefiting one form of transport at the expense of another, is not more than £100,000 to £200,000. I believe in the great necessity of getting this Measure through, but I hope that the Minister will consider by what means he can help the coast-wise shipping companies to maintain their services and enable them to give to their clients exactly the same advantages as the railways are to give to theirs.
        Mr. MARDY JONES: The speech of the last hon. Member goes to show how absurd the whole policy of the Government is in mixing up relief to depressed industries with local government reform and the rating system. The case of coast-

        2027
        wise shipping is on a par with the case of the private mineral railways, which apparently the hon. Member does not support.
        Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I do support them. I merely refrained from saying so in order to avoid repetition.
        Mr. MARDY JONES: Then I hope that the hon. Member will come into the Lobby with us. It is true that private railways are part of colliery hereditaments, but the rating officials in those counties where private mineral railways exist must have taken the values of those railways into account when fixing the rateable value of the colliery. Therefore, these private lines have always paid their contribution to the rate burden of the county. It is a comparatively easy matter for the rate officials in the colliery areas to look up the capital value and the mileage of the lines, and to decide what is the share of the rate burden that they pay as industrial hereditaments. The Government should at least agree to deduct that proportion when they are considering what they will do in the case of the public railways.
        I wish to refer to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Price). I am sorry he is not in his place at the moment. I certainly do not agree with his interpretation of what has taken place when the joint deputations, representing the coalowners, the Miners' Federation and Welsh Members of Parliament, have met the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other members of the Government from time to time. I have no knowledge of the deputation referred to by the President of the Board of Trade, but I say definitely that the deputation which put the case before the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very careful not to suggest any specific way of assisting the coal industry. It is true that we submitted memoranda showing the lamentable condition of the industry and the heavy charges upon it, but we did not specify in what direction we wanted the Government to assist us. The method was left entirely to the Government. Not a single miner committed himself to de-rating or any of the other proposals now put forward by the Government. In the joint appeal that
        2028
        was made the coalowners said that they required a relief of 2s. 6d. a ton, and when it was suggested that they might get a relief of 6d. to 8d. per ton, they simply sneered at it and said it was of no use to them. The remarkable thing is that Mr. Finlay Gibson, who was chiefly responsible for preparing the data submitted to the Government, is reported in last week's issue of the official organ of the coalowners in South Wales to have said this in an interview:
        "Referring to the rebate on railway rates and its effect on coal prices, he emphasised that it is not the intention of the South Wales Marketing Association to make any reduction in the minimum prices in consequence of the reduction in railway rates which is to take place as from December 1st."
        Then he went on:
        "It would be the policy of the colliery owners to retain the whole of the small benefit which it is estimated will average about 6½d. a ton on export coal, towards the mitigation of their losses. In any case the minimum price schedule would not be affected at all by the coming into force of the reduced railway rates."
        I want the Committee to realise that what we are doing under this proposal is simply to hand over a lump sum of money to the coalowners, and that we are not exercising any control over the way in which they are to use that lump sum when they get it. Mr. Gibson has admitted that they propose to keep it in their own pockets as compensation to some extent for their losses in the industry. That is quite unfair and unjustified. I do not deny that they are making heavy losses now. The South Wales and British coal trade as a whole has made losses from time to time during periods of depression, hut it has made up for them handsomely whenever there has been a boom of trade. That fact is notorious in the coal industry more, perhaps, than in any industry in the country. I do not think anyone can say that, bad as the outlook is now, we are not going to get another period of prosperity in the near future. Whenever it comes, the big profits in the few years will easily make up for the lean years.
        The coal industry should not seek to recoup itself for its losses out of this loan that the Government are to give the industry. The money should be used in an effort to put the industry on its

        2029
        feet, and the first who have a call upon any money are the miner and his wife and his children, who are suffering to-day in a way that the coalowners never have suffered and never can suffer. It is a gross injustice to hand over this money to the coalowners without any control over the method of using it. In the evidence submitted to the Government—agreed to by the coalowners as well as the miners—it was pointed out that cut-throat methods of competition had brought down the price of coal to within 10 per cent. of the average pre-War price and that the costs of materials for running collieries were still 10 per cent. higher than the pre-War costs. Emphasis was also laid on the outstanding increase in the charges for transport., which were said to be 200 per cent. higher than before the War. It is true that the coalowners tried to induce the miners' Members of Parliament to bring pressure on the Government to relieve the industry by reducing transport charges, but we refused to commit ourselves to that proposal. Everybody knows that miners' wages to-day are at rock bottom. Many of the men are working half-time; a great number are out of work altogether.
        There are other and better ways of using this money than handing it over, without conditions, to the coalowners, and that is what this proposal means. The Government will have to account very seriously to the country, when all the facts become known, for ignoring the position of the miners and the miners' families while helping the coalowners in this way. The Miners' Federation put several practical suggestions before the Government for the relief of the industry. For instance, they pointed out that we have something like 65,000 veteran miners in the industry. These men are aged 60 and upwards, and many of them have been miners from the age of 10 or even younger. A miner of that age who has been employed as such all his life has probably spent 50 or 55 years cutting coal for the country's needs. Surely these older men should be pensioned off in order to make room for younger and stronger men who are idle. At the other end of the scale, there are some 70,000 boys in the industry, between the ages of 14 and 16 who in the present condition of the industry ought not to be employed in the mines at all. They
        2030
        ought to be maintained at school and educated. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Health and other Members of the Government have repeatedly said that they see no possible opening in the future for at least 200,000 miners in the coal industry. If that be so, the coal industry is becoming a blind alley. And yet we have all these boys in it, and when they grow up the majority of them, on the Government's own showing, will not get work. Let me give an illustration.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to give me an explanation of how this refers to the subject before the Committee.
        Mr. MARDY JONES: The sum of money which we are discussing is meant partly to assist the coal industry. I say that that method of assisting the coal industry is wrong, and I am free, I take it, to suggest an alternative method.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can do so up to a certain point, but he must devote his attention mainly to the proposal at present before the Committee instead of to an elaboration of suggested alternatives.
        Mr. MARDY JONES: The only way I can illustrate the mistakes of the Government is by showing the value of other methods. I submit that if the Government found means of getting these old men and boys out of the industry, and found work for the younger men who are now idle, it would be a better thing. There is a growing practice among coal-owners of employing boys to do the work of men. That is very general in the coalfields. The Government have admitted that the industry is in need of assistance. The general taxpayers and the country as a whole, will have to bear the burden of relieving the industry but the Government have not thought fit to tap another source of revenue which ought to have been tapped long ago. I refer to the landlords and their mineral royalties and ground rents.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the lion. Member is getting far beyond the matter which is before the Committee. He must really confine himself to it.
        Mr. MARDY JONES: In that case I would only point out that the money which the Government are offering is not enough. Instead of this small sum of 6½ a ton, they ought to bring it up to 1s. 6d or 2s a ton. The money which they are now offering is not going to assist the industry at all. I doubt whether it will keep one additional colliery open for six months. I fear that what will happen is that the coalowners will simply put it in their own pockets and that we shall have no change in the condition of the industry.
        Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The constituency which I have the honour to represent has in it a large and important dock, namely Immingham Dock, which, in the past, used to depend largely on the coal export trade of this country. I rejoice to see—and I thank the Government for it—that among the reliefs given in the scheme is relief to export coal and also to pit props. When the coal industry became so bad some years back, Immingham had a very bad time, but latterly the pit-prop trade has increased. As far as I can see the pit-prop trade in Immingham is likely to establish itself, and it will certainly be assisted by this freight relief scheme. As far as Immingham is concerned and, as far as the employment of dockers there is concerned, I see a great chance not only of retaining the work which they have at present but of increasing it.
        I should like to say a few words on the agricultural side of this question. I think the Government also deserve thanks, not only for bringing forward the scheme, but for hastening the time of its operation. The agricultural industry, naturally, would like to see the whole of the de-rating scheme brought into operation six months earlier than the time fixed; but, if it cannot get that concession, it acknowledges that the freight relief scheme is a considerable help. In explaining to the Committee how agriculture tends to gain by this scheme, I would divide the industry into two parts, the cattle-raising side and the arable side. On the cattle-raising side, it would appear that smallholders and farmers will have lower freights to pay on feeding-stuffs, and will be to send their live stock by rail for considerably less than the existing rates. The smallholders especially ought to benefit in
        2032
        this respect. If they use the railway at all, they get their consignments and send them away in small bulk. Small bulk freights are more than large bulk. The foreigner, who has sent over his produce in large bulk, has had a great advantage from the freights in this country as compared with the smallholder. The assistance in the freight scheme, therefore, will tend to help the agriculturists in this country as compared with the agriculturists abroad.
        But I am not quite so sure that the arable farmer is going to have quite as much assistance as those who get their living from live stock. As far as I can see, the main assistance is going to be the saving in the cost of transport of his manures and his lime. There is no provision for lessening the cost of his produce as a whole. I should like very much if the Government would say how much it would cost to reduce the freights on grain in this country, because, as far as I can tell, that is not dealt with in the scheme. It is true that offals are reduced, but not the grain, and we must acknowledge that the arable side of Agriculture this season is suffering intensely. I hope very much that if there is any extension of the Government's scheme, the freight costs on grain will be included in it, if they are not included at the present time.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That would mean foreign as well as English grain.
        Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: It prevents the scheme being as much use to the purely arable agriculturists as it is to those who raise cattle, but we realise that the Government have gone some way to help us, and for that we are thankful.
        Mr. GEORGE HALL: I think there is some doubt as to whether patent fuel is now included in the scheme or whether the manufacture of patent fuel will benefit as a result of these proposals, and I wish to call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the position in South Wales, where the small coal is conveyed from the collieries to the patent fuel works, which in almost every case are situated at the dock side. The patent fuel is manufactured at the dock side, and is not conveyed by rail, but placed into the ships, which are

        2033
        at the dock side and very near the fuel works. As I read the proposals of the Government, the coal that goes to make up the patent fuel, which has to travel distances of from 12 to 20 miles from the pit to the patent fuel works, is not included in the present proposals of the Government, and I would like to impress, if I could, on the right hon. Gentleman the importance of including that small coal. The patent fuel industry is a very important one in South Wales. We are not unfortunately manufacturing as much as we did, but even to-day we are exporting something like a million tons of patent fuel from this country to the Continent, and I think it is right, to say that something like 90 per cent of the patent fuel is manufactured in South Wales. If we are going to do anything to interfere with the use of small coal for purposes of this kind, it will be a serious handicap to the steam coal trade of South Wales, because I think it is admitted that the drier small steams are taken to make up the patent fuel in the way it is made up now, and I hope the President will direct his attention to this question.
        I want to follow the points which were put by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Manly Jones), and ask the President whether the Government have any guarantee from the mineowners that the amount of subsidy which they are going to receive as a result of these proposals will be used for the purpose of benefiting the mining industry, because the position, as I see it, is this, that whatever the Government have done during the last three or four years in the way of so-called assistance to the industry has unfortunately made the industry very much worse off than it was before the Government commenced tinkering with it. In my own division one of the oldest colliery companies, owned by an individual who was the pioneer of the steam coal trade in this country, a company that has given good employment to thousands of workmen for 45 or 50 years, closed down last week and, I understand, is going into voluntary liquidation. It is now waiting for one of the big trusts to come along and buy out the concern at a knock-down price, and while these transactions are going on something like 6,000 or 7,000 workmen, their wives, and families are,
        2034
        unfortunately, destitute. That is the condition which exists in almost every district in the South Wales coalfield, and I want to impress on the President of the Board of Trade that it is of no use the Government coming forward with proposals year after year unless there is some guarantee from the mineowners who will benefit as a result of this scheme that the industry will get the full advantage of it.
        I would like to deal with the history of Government interference and its effect upon the industry in the last four or five years. In 1925 the Government gave a subsidy of £23,000,000, without any guarantee at all from the coalowners as to how it was going to be used. The money was spent, and at the end of the period of subsidy the industry was very much worse off than it was at the commencement. In 1926 we had a coal stoppage, and unfortunately the Government came along again with proposals. They passed through this House the Eight Hours Act, which, when it was put into operation, left the industry even worse than it was when the subsidy was paid, and not only left the industry in this country worse off, but also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) has said, encouraged our foreign competitors to subsidise railway rates to enable Silesia, Poland, and Germany to compete in the export market. Take the position in Poland, which is one of our chief competitors in the export market. Almost as soon as the Eight Hours Act was put into operation in this country, the Polish Government reduced railway rates, with the result that for some time, and even to-day, I understand, the railway rates these for the conveying of coal from pit to port are less than they were in 1913. That has been brought about very largely as a result of the attitude of the Government to this question.
        I have heard several hon. Members opposite, railway directors, dealing with the position of railways and asking us to believe that the railway companies will not benefit as a result of this scheme. They may not directly benefit, but the railway companies have benefited considerably as a result of the mining industry during the last five or six years. The hon. Member for Abertillery referred to the fact that the rail rates

        2035
        in South Wales are nearly 100 per cent higher to-day than they were before the War, and dock dues are over 200 per cent. higher than before the War, yet now the railway companies pretend that they are coming along as philanthropists and going to assist the mining industry with something that they are going to get from the Government themselves! In regard to the condition of the industry before the Government interfered, in 1924 the average free-on-board price of coal in this country, before the subsidy was given, was 25s. 1d. per ton, South Wales price. At the present time it is 17s. 10d a ton, or 7s. 3d. per ton less than before the subsidy was given in 1924. In 1926, after the Eight Hours Act was passed, the average price of coal in South Wales was 21s. 8d. free-on-board; at present it is 17s. 10d., which is really 2s. 4d. less than it was immediately after the Eight Hours Act came into operation.
        The whole cry of the mine-owners has been: "Give us these concessions, do this year after year, "and almost every time it is done, they pass the advantage on to the foreigner. Notwithstanding the very low free-on-board price, the export trade in this country is worse than it was 12 months ago. Take the figures for the 10 months ending 31st October this year, and compare them with the same period in 1927. In 1927, with the price of coal about 1s. 6d. per ton higher than it is now, free on board, we exported 43,136,000 tons. In the first 10 months of this year, with the price of coal at is. 6d. per ton lower, we exported 41,639,000 tons, or nearly 1,500,000 tons less than we exported when the price was higher during the first 10 months of last year. While the tonnage exported is 1,500,000 tons less than it was last year, the actual price received for this coal is £6,500,000 less than was received for the smaller quantity during the first 10 months of last year
        Everyone admits that the mining industry is in a bad way. Prices have tumbled, profits have gone out of existence, and quarter after quarter during the last 12 months the position has gradually got worse. For the quarter ending 30th September, 1927, the loss in South Wales was 1s. 5d per Lon; for the quarter ending 30th June of this
        2036
        year, the latest figures available, the losses are 1s. 8.72d per ton. Conditions in the industry are worse than they were 12 months ago, notwithstanding reductions m price. I would ask the Government to get to grips with the cause of the difficulties in the mining industry. I will not minimise any little advantage that will be obtained as a result of these proposals, but in common with everything the Government have done, they are merely tinkering with the situation.
        Sooner or later the real causes will have to be dealt with, but I have almost given up hope that this Government will ever realise what the real causes are; if they do realise the causes, they have not sufficient courage to put the remdy into operation. Year after year, month after month the export of coal from this country is being reduced. There is a cause, and if the Government would only attempt to understand it and would deal with it, it would be much better than bringing forward proposals such as those in the de-rating Scheme. While they are tinkering with this problem, hundreds of thousands of the best men and women are suffering agonies. I read in the "Morning Post" yesterday of the condition of things in Merthyr, where for the last two years no less than 75 per cent of the male insured workers have been unemployed. In my own division nearly 50 per cent of the men are unemployed, and in the mining industry generally there are 300,000 mm unemployed. The industry is losing money, old established companies are going out of existence, big trusts are coming in, proposals are made by colliery owners that they should restrict output, adding again to the difficulties of employment, and all this because the Government will not get to grips with the difficulties with which the industry is confronted. I beg the Government to endeavour to understand the problem, and, understanding the problem, not to tinker with it as they are doing by these proposals, but to bring in a scheme chat will really benefit the industry and put it on its legs.
        Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I wish to put a totally different point or two to the President of the Board of Trade, or perhaps to a Treasury official if it be necessary. The principle of a subsidy is comparatively new in our financial

        2037
        arrangements. We remember the Sugar Subsidy, and the big Mining Subsidy, but this is a comparatively new thing for the Committee of Supply to be engaged in. Therefore, it is desirable that as a Committee of Supply we should examine with great care what machinery is being set up in giving the subsidy. The machinery of Supply is for an Estimate to be presented with the necessary details of how it is to be spent, and the Committee votes the Supply; it is then reported to the House, which confirms the Vote, and it is embodied in the Consolidated Fund Bill. The money is spent by the Department, and then the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is an official independent of this House, goes through the actual expenditure in order to see whether the wishes of this House, which has voted the money on account of the taxpayers, have been properly carried out. If they have not been properly carried out, he makes a report and he has it in his power to impose, if necessary, very severe penalties.
        If this procedure be necessary for the ordinary routine Vote for the Supply of the country, it is far more necessary when we come into the area of a subsidy. I am not talking about the merits of the subsidy, but of the financial purity—I do not use the word offensively—the financial strictness which is necessary in dealing with the money. What has happened? We get an Estimate which says that £1,000,000 on account is to be voted. There is some description in a footnote of what the Department is going to do. Whether that actually carries the weight and authority of an enactment, I am not sure, and whether that footnote will be embodied in the Consolidated Fund Bill, I do not know. I am assuming that it does carry the authority of an enactment. This footnote appears at the bottom of page 12 of these Estimates, and it is a very surprising thing:
        "The expenditure out of this Grant in Aid will not be audited in detail by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, nor will any balance of the sums issued remaining unexpended at the close of the financial year he liable to surrender."
        There is a certain check upon a spending department in regard to Estimates, because the practice is that if too much money has been voted, the money has to be surrendered in a very unromantic way to the Sinking Fund. Here we
        2038
        are setting up a new fund to be fed out of the subsidy, which is not to be subject to a detailed control by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and the residue of which, if any is not to go to the Sinking Fund, but is to be apparently accumulated in some sort of new minor Consolidated Fund. I imagine that the answer of the President of the Board of Trade will be to quote this White Paper, Cmd. 3215. We had another of these White Papers yesterday, and I feel bound to ask the Government: What is the value of this thing? It is couched in language of the most ridiculous pomposity. We have legal preambles to many of our Acts of Parliament stating "Whereas," but those are Acts of Parliament. This thing, so far as I can gather, is a sort of hymn-sheet issued by the Ministry of Transport. It has no authority; it means nothing. Although I have read it from beginning to end I cannot discover that the Minister of Transport has any statutory power in this matter. I suppose he can print what he likes—we cannot stop that; but he has not, so far as I can gather any statutory power to issue these regulations at all. I take the strongest objection to these regulations. Even in Acts of Parliament we constantly find the little phrase "Subject to regulations issued by the, Minister," but at any rate such regulations have got the shelter of a Clause or sub-Clause in the Act. But what is this thing:
        "Whereas His Majesty's Government have introduced legislation."
        Whoever has heard of an Act of Parliament beginning "Whereas His Majesty's Government." What is His Majesty's Government? There is a House of Commons, there is a House of Peers, and there is the Crown, but who ever has heard of His Majesty's Government as being one of the estates of the realm? This is a diverting novelty, but I do not think it is a wise thing. It has no authority, and it is no good pretending it has. Then it says further:
        "And whereas His Majesty's Government desire that such legislation should be passed."
        This might be very suitable to the Ministry of Corporations in Rome but I have never seen any official document stating that His Majesty's Government desire anything, nor do I think anyone cares

        2039
        twopence whether His Majesty's Government desire it or do not desire it. Now we come to the next sentence, which says:
        "And whereas His Majesty's Government intends to ask Parliament to provide."
        I may be wrong, but I certainly think the President of the Board of Trade will have the greatest difficulty in producing any document which forms a precedent for language of this sort. From the greater majesty of His Majesty's Government we pass to the minutiae, and we read:
        "Now, therefore, the Ministry of Transport hereby issue."
        What I would like to hear from the Minister of Transport, or from the Lord of the Treasury whom I see on the Treasury Bench.
        Major Sir WILLIAM COPE (Controller of the Household): No.
        Mr. BENN: What is he?
        An HON. MEMBER: Controller of the Household.
        Mr. BENN: Well then, he is much more important to this occasion, because if he is an Official of the Household I would point out to him that the Royal prerogative is now being attacked. This document goes on to say:
        "Now, therefore, the Ministry of Transport hereby issue the following scheme."
        Quite apart from joking, do not hon. Gentlemen of all parties think it would be wise, as we are distributing subsidies, to construct some financial scheme or some set of rules which would enable a grip to be kept upon the expenditure? If every Clause in this scheme were infringed I cannot see that anyone would have any redress. The Auditor-General has no redress, because he is expressly excluded, and the House of Commons has no redress, because this is not an Act of Parliament; speaking of it in the most respectful way, this is merely an arbiter dictum of a Government Department. I am not making a joke of this at all, and I would ask the President of the Board of Trade, quite seriously, exactly what is the machinery by which the expenditure of this subsidy can be controlled by those who are sitting in Committee of Supply to exercise control?
        9.0 p.m.
        Mr. PALIN: I desire to address myself to another phase of this great question. With others of my colleagues, I do not think that any real benefit will accrue from this scheme to those whom it is desired to benefit, and there is grave fear that the fact of all coal not receiving this subsidy may intensify the difficulties with which some of our manufacturers are beset in their competition with other countries, particularly those who are engaged in the textile trades. Sixpence a ton will be taken off the coal used by their competitors in, say, Germany, and that may be an important factor in determining whether we are able to increase production or whether machinery is to go out of production. However, there are a good many people on the other side who feel, apparently, that this is going to confer some benefit; and if there be any virtue in the scheme, then, like everyone else, I wish to claim that the constituency which I represent should share in the benefit. In my part of the country we deserve a share even more, perhaps, than does South Wales, though their plight is a grievous one. In Northumberland we are in a great difficulty by reason of the pits being exceedingly old. One pit in my constituency is reputed to have been worked in the time of the Romans; I do not know how far that is true, but it is certain that the opening of the pit is lost in the mists of antiquity. These old pits are placed at a great disadvantage in competition with the newer pits, with their superior equipment, in Nottinghamshire or South Wales.
        The pits in my part of the country are engaged, for the most part, in producing coal for export, and unfortunately for them, it goes direct from the pithead along private railways to, in many cases, private staithes. In respect of these private railways and private staithes these collieries are placed at a great disadvantage with their competitors. I do not know whether it is in keeping with our dignity to plead with the President of the Board of Trade. He seems absolutely incapable of appreciating the fact that another 60,000 men in Northumberland are going to be thrown out of work. Whether 60,000 men are to be thrown out of work here or there does not seem to matter. We are assured by

        2041
        the coal-owners—I have to take it from them—that if they are placed in this disadvantage some of the pits will have to dose down, others may struggle on for a time. A colleague sitting in front of me says, "Or they may seek to impose a reduction of wages." So far as the miners in Northumberland are concerned, they would have a difficulty in reducing wages, because the men are drawing so little now, and you cannot reduce men or women beyond the existence level, or they will die. You cannot do with a man as it is related was done with a donkey—you cannot put a pair of green spectacles on him and persuade him that shavings are grass.
        The crisis already existing in Newcastle and Northumberland is not one of recent growth. It has existed there, as on Tyneside generally, for eight years, and there are many men who will tell you they have done no work for eight years and have exhausted unemployment benefit and savings. There is a welter of poverty and wretchedness, If this subsidy is to work in this unfair way we shall exclude from benefit the majority of the collieries in Newcastle and Northumberland, and that will not only make confusion worse confounded but will produce a state of things which we do not like to contemplate. If the Government have any bowels of compassion at all, they ought to consider this difficulty and meet it here and now.
        Mr. HILTON: I would like to put what I have to say in the form of one or two questions. So far, those hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate have approached this question either from the point of view of their own particular constituencies or from the point of view of trade unionists. Judging from what has been said in favour of the Govern-merit's proposals, it seems to me that our foreign competitors will have a preference over us in regard to the de-rating of coal. I want to ask: Will the German and Belgian companies be in a better position than those in the Lancashire cotton trade in relation to the price of coal? We have many thousands of cotton spinners in Lancashire, and I would like to point out that we could consume in Lancashire to-day 2,000,000 tons of coal per annum more if all those engaged in the cotton trade were working full time.
        2042
        We have in Lancashire perhaps the worst coalfields in England, in the sense that some of them are getting old. I know some of them are doing very well, but we have the two extremes. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) knows the condition of the pits in Lancashire better than I do, but I know all about the state of employment in the cotton trade, and I know that there are more employed to-day in the cotton trade than were employed five years ago.
        Yesterday I accompanied a deputation to the Board of Trade asking for some consideration for the cotton trade. I do not think we shall get very much, and even if we get all that we have asked for it will not make much difference, but every little helps. I do not care whether it is on a pre-War basis or any other basis, but I want to know: will our competitors abroad have an advantage over the cotton spinners in Lancashire? Another question I wish to ask is: are we too late for the anticipatory period? I think we may be too late, but, if we are, I ask: can we come in at the later stage? I am sure that I can prove that the cotton trade of Lancashire at the present moment is as distressed an industry as any in England. I do not propose to do that now, but I do submit that for the last seven years we have had a really bad time, and our rate of unemployment has been extremely bad. More than 50 per cent of the whole of those engaged in the cotton industry have been working halftime. We have 450,000 workers actively engaged in the cotton industry, and 250,000 of those have been working halftime. I do not want the President of the Board of Trade to think that I am trying to embarrass him in the slightest degree, because I would not do that, and I know that if any help can be given the Government are prepared to give it. Even if we could get 1s per ton off the price of coal it would be a great advantage. We are paying 17s and 18s a ton for coal, and even 1s per ton from that charge would be a great help. It is from that standpoint that I ask the President of the Board of Trade to give his consideration to the Lancashire point of view.
        Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I want to follow the points which have been raised by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Hilton) a little further. I want to recall to the

        2043
        Committee a statement which was made by an hon. Member opposite during one of our comparatively recent Debates upon the mining industry. I remember that during that speech the hon. Member said that the competition between individual owners, counties, and so forth had culminated in such a riot of competition that coalowners were fighting hand over heels in order to give British coal away. The hon. Member to whom I refer alluded to the different conditions obtaining in England and abroad as well as to the general results of internal and external competition, and he said that British sellers of coal had actually approached German steel firms who had made contracts to purchase coal in Germany at a certain price, and had persuaded them to break their contracts with the steel manufacturers and contracts made with coal companies in Germany, although that involved them in having to pay compensation for breaking their contracts. In these cases, the British exporters not only undertook to sell coal at a price below the German price, but they also undertook to indemnify the steel manufacturers for the breaking of contracts with their local colliery companies. If that is going to be the process which will follow the concession which the Government are making to exporters of coal, it will not result in any great advantage to our mining industry, although it will be of further assistance to the German producers. We shall simply be whittling away the taxpayers money and certainly we shall not he assisting the distressed mine workers in this country.
        Most of the speakers in this Debate have referred to these proposals as they affect the great railway companies and the privately-owned railway companies. In the past, the President of the Board of Trade has been closely identified with the mining industry, and he knows very well that there are occasions when colliery proprietors with a comparatively large output have been obliged on account of the obstinacy of the railway companies to make arrangements quite apart from the railway companies. In my own Division there is one of the most modern and most costly collieries that has ever been sunk in this country, nearly 1,000 yards deep. It has, I believe, cost the proprietors well over £1,000,000 so far.
        2044
        Because of their easy distance from a very good port, it seems to them that they would be well advised owing to the lack, of railway facilities, to build a private railway direct to the nearest dock. If this Supplementary Estimate is accepted, and the process of distribution continues as explained by the Minister of Transport, it seems to me that this large colliery, upon which so much money has been spent, will be willy-nilly driven into the hands of the huge railway company, who may or may not provide the necessary transport facilities to enable the charges of the colliery company to be reduced to the lowest possible minimum, and so enable it to compete with other collieries which are much nearer to the large railways.
        I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to understand that, in a case like this, where obviously a private railway direct from the colliery to the nearest port would be a distinct advantage to the colliery company, they are never going to get any benefit from these freight reductions? If that be so, obviously the colliery companies will be obliged to accept any facilities that the great railway companies may care to place at their disposal, whether such facilities are good, bad or indifferent; and, if a colliery company should want to make any private sidings, they will probably be involved in large sums of money for the purchase of land, because the landowner must know, and does know in advance that, if they wish to dispose of their coal, they must take it across his land. It seems to me that in the development of the newer coalfields there will be many cases where it will be absolutely necessary for colliery companies to make private railways in order to avoid the imposition upon them of unnecessary and extortionate charges. Otherwise, it seems to me that it will be possible for this freight reduction to be used in such a way as to be most inequitable and in no way helpful, particularly in those areas where collieries are such a costly luxury, now that the seams have gone so deep down. I should like the right hon. Gentleman at least to make one or two observations on that phase of these proposals, for, unless some hope, and probably also some assistance, is forthcoming, the inequities pointed out by previous speakers will be multiplied as time goes

        2045
        on and the newest Yorkshire coalfield is opened, if, owing to this differentiation, colliery companies are obliged to accept indifferent facilities, which in some cases now mean just the difference between making a colliery a paying proposition and driving it into insolvency. I think the right hon. Gentleman should hold out some hope that colliery companies will not be exploited, either by railway companies, landowners or anyone else, because of the inequities of these proposals.
        Mr. LANSBURY: A couple of hours ago I asked the Chairman of Committees to allow me to move to report Progress. He declined to put the Motion, on the ground that a number of hon. Members wished to speak, and he thought that it was not an appropriate time. I wish now again to move to report Progress, and I will give the reason. This has been an extraordinary Debate, because most of the effective criticism of the Government's scheme has come from Members on the opposite side of the Committee.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER indicated dissent.
        Mr. LANSBURY: I want to point out that the right hon. Gentleman himself has riot been here during the whole evening.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been here the whole time since a quarter to four, except for three-quarters of an hour.
        Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman's clock and the one that I have seen do not seem quite to tally. If, however, he has been here all the time, he cannot question the truth of the statement that I am making, that the strongest criticism of his proposals has come from his own side of the Committee, and I cannot believe that the Government were cognisant of the facts that his own friends have brought forward during this discussion. They have told us that already the shipowners have raised freights, and that this subsidy will go into the pockets of the shipowners. We have also been told that certain people who will be carrying coal, or carrying potatoes, will be put at a disadvantage because of the fact that railways are going to be subsidised. I cannot think that a Cabinet of intelli-
        2046
        gent men can be aware of the fact that they are going to make another huge blunder similar to that which they made when they passed the Eight Hours Act, or rather, repealed the provisions of the Seven Hours Act. That Act threw a lot of men out of work, and we have been told to-night by the right hon. Gentleman's own friends that this proposal, this subsidy, will in effect just mean robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that, if some advantage is given from one direction, it will be taken away in another.
        What made me rise was the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Hilton). He has told us that there is another industry which ought to be brought in, and which would be very considerably helped if arrangements were made by which it could receive some of this money, or some extra money which might be voted in a similar manner. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman or the Whips ought not to put such a strain on the loyalty of their supporters as to compel them, like sheep, to go into the Lobby and vote for a proposal which by speech they so thoroughly condemn. Therefore, I wish to move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that, on the hon. Member's own showing, the Committee has formed its own opinion and is ready to come to a decision, and I cannot accept the Motion.
        Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. I was ruled out because other Members wished to speak. I was not ruled out on the question of the Committee having expressed its opinion.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must rule the Motion out of order as being an abuse of the Rules of the House.
        Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: If you do not accept my hon. Friend's Motion, I should like to have the opportunity of putting one or two questions to the President of the Board of Trade before he replies. The Debate, so far as I have been able to listen to it—I have not been able to be here all the time—has dealt very exhaustively with various producers' aspects of the rebate provided for in the Estimate, and I want to put one or two questions to the President of the Board of Trade as to what is likely to be the

        2047
        position of the consumer in the country as the result of the operation of some of these rebates. Would the President kindly look at the first part of the Second Schedule, in which a whole list of rebates is provided for in respect of agricultural requisites? It is not my intention to take up a long time in dealing with each one, but many of them have a very important effect upon the market price of commodities which are the actual common needs of the people. I will take one, the question of milk. You are going to give special rates which will mean a reduction of 10 per cent on the carriage charges in respect of milk. It is only a few weeks since we had what was described as a national war in respect of the settlement of milk prices in this country. A national settlement has been arrived at and we are told that as a result of that national settlement, in London, at any rate, it will be necessary to increase the price of milk to the consumer to a figure that has not been reached in any previous winter in recent years and for a longer period of winter months. I want to know from the President of the Board of Trade, as there has been a national agreement arrived at in regard to milk prices—
        Mr. REMER: There has been no such increase in Cheshire.
        Mr. ALEXANDER:—I am talking about the national settlement. There may have been variations in certain localities, but the London agreement has been based on fixing milk prices, and in fixing those prices due regard has been paid in the negotiations to the amount to be paid for the carriage of the milk from the producer to the consumer. I take it there is to be given, from 1st December, a reduction of 10 per cent in the carriage of milk, and, unless the President of the Board of Trade says anything to the contrary, the whole of that 10 per cent. saving in carriage charges goes to the farmer. I want particularly to get an answer to that. I take it that the whole of the 10 per cent. goes to the farmer, although this winter the consumer is to be mulcted in an additional price for one of the staple commodities of food as a result of the national settlement. It is a very important question for the Government to address themselves to. There are two
        2048
        ways of looking at some of the most important products of the country. There is, of course, the necessity of providing that the producer engaged in particular operations should have, at least, his cost of production and a reasonable margin of profit, but there is also the question to be looked at on the other side, and that is whether you can enable the consumer, by prices, to take so much of the commodity that it enables the producer to produce at a profit.
        If you go on raising prices of important foodstuffs of the community and the Government subsidise, in some form or another, the carriage of that commodity, then surely we ought, both in the interests of the producer as well as of the consumer to see that they produce in such a way as to secure the largest amount of consumption of that commodity. If the national settlement has been come to on the basis of the old fixed rate of railway charges, then I submit that the Government ought not to give a further rebate in respect to milk, unless they make a provision that the price to the consumer does not rise in consequence. I am aware that the President of the Board of Trade will hardly be in a position to answer that question as definitely as I should like, but, at least, he may be prepared to give an assurance that, in view of the reduction which his Government are going to give in respect of the carriage of milk, he will refer to the Food Council for action the question of the price of milk this winter as a result of this additional saving which he proposes.
        There is another point to which I should like to call attention. We have had a most extraordinary position in the last 12 months in this country in regard to the fixing of sugar prices. We have by public subsidy in the last three or four years expended very large sums from public moneys for the subsidising of the British beet sugar industry, but at the end of the whole period of subsidising that industry you have the bottom knocked out of the sugar market, and prices to-day are very close to pre-War prices, so that it is almost impossible, even with the subsidy, for the beet sugar industry of the country to carry on with anything like a reasonable profit. I shall not, in view of what I have said in past years upon that particular matter, shed

        2049
        very many tears over that, but when I think of the orgy of extravagance of the Government in the past in subsidising the industry, and when I look at the prices of sugar being obtained to-day on the market, and when I take up the Schedule of selected agricultural products and I cannot find any special rebate allowed them in the carriage of the sugar beet to the beet sugar factory, then it seems to me that the Government have not been very mindful of the special difficulties of the industry which they have been so heavily subsidising in the last few years.
        The other point is also a consumer's point. We have had considerable experience in the last five or six months of the difficulty of dealing with domestic coal. The Five Counties Scheme has been working, and has resulted at times in London in an actual shortage of supply and, in consequence, in an actual raising of price to the consumer. We are still working in London to-day, and I believe in other parts of the country as well, upon a production of coal, fixed by the coalowners, which may be delivered and, as a consequence, coal is higher in price than it ought to be, and therefore less coal is consumed by the domestic consumer. When one looks in the Schedule one finds absolutely no assistance given in regard to railway freights for coal to be used by the domestic consumer. There are pits in this country to-day which are producing little else but domestic coal, and they are experiencing such difficulty that they have to combine in order to restrict output, and yet those people and the miners who are working in those areas are to get no share of the relief to be given. Why should that be? I have had on one or two occasions in the last few years to get for my own household a truck-load of coal coming from the Midlands. Hon. Members are probably not less able than myself to take advantage of a reasonable step for economy. It is a class of thing in which we are trained in the Co-operative movement. When you get the bill in detail for a truck-load of coal delivered from the Midlands to London, and you examine the charge made to the domestic consumer for railway freight on that truck you find that you have to pay anything from about half a guinea to 12s. per ton for freight alone. Surely the consumer of coal in
        2050
        this country has some right to be considered in relation to the reduction of railway freights. I want to know why not.
        Major PRICE: The railways are not paying now.
        Mr. ALEXANDER: I know that. I am not for one moment suggesting that you should penalise the railways, but if the Government come to the House with a Supplementary Estimate for money out of which they are going to relieve the users of coal from railway freights without damage to the railway company, then why should not the domestic user of coal be entitled to the same relief on railway freights?
        Major PRICE: Because there would be no benefit to the miner.
        Mr. ALEXANDER: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member does not seem to see that the miners wish to sell domestic coal just as they wish to sell export coal. If you could make it easier to sell domestic coal, you would make it easier for the miner who is working in production. I want to put that case to the President of the Board of Trade as well. We have had considerable difficulty, as probably his Department has informed him, with regard to the coal situation in London for domestic purposes in the last three or four months. It has been easier in the last few weeks, but we have had considerable difficulty, and we are as much entitled in regard to that trade to have relief from railway freights as any other part of the country.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have been accused by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) of not having heard sufficient of this Debate. I have heard all of it except for about three-quarters of an hour, and very interesting I have found it. If the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and who admitted that he had not had that advantage, had heard the opening speech by the hon. Gentleman who led off the grand attack on behalf of the Opposition, he would hardly have delivered a speech so entirely in conflict with that of his leader. I will not traverse all the wide range of subjects that was covered by the opener, but the gravamen of his charge was that the Government

        2051
        had reduced prices. He said, "Prices have come down 20 per cent. since the Labour Government went out of office; that is our charge." Now we know. I listened for several days during the unemployment Debate. I wanted to find out what was the, remedy of hon. Members opposite for unemployment. We did not get it in that Debate. Now I know. The remedy of the Opposition for unemployment is to put up the prices of your food and all your other commodities. The hon. Gentleman did not like the Vote, not because prices had come down, but because he was afraid prices might not come down. He said: "Why do you give this benefit to agriculture and to the farmers? It is very wrong unless you make quite sure that the farmer is going to pass on every farthing he receives to the consumer." Now we know where he stands vis-a-vis the farmer. He is determined that the farmer, however hard pressed, shall not get any of this benefit for himself. We know now one chapter of the agricultural policy of the Opposition. Long before the arrangement was made between the farmers and the milk combination about prices, it was perfectly well known that this Estimate would be introduced, because the Prime Minister announced the anticipation of railway relief in July last and the arrangement in question was made in September. I was watching it to see what arrangement was come to. The negotiations were going on all through September. But the hon. Gentleman was not even consistent with himself. While objecting to what he called a subsidy to farmers, he said: "I do not believe the prices will come down, and it is very wrong of the farmer to benefit." He contrasted it, or in the same breath he alluded to the subsidy given to sugar beet, and be said: "When you gave a subsidy to beet sugar, the benefit did pass on to the consumer." I am very grateful, and I am sure all my friends are grateful, for these opposite contributions which have been made in the Debate.
        I should like to confine myself to the ambit of the Vote and to justify it and to answer those specific questions, some of considerable importance, which have been raised in relation to the subjects that are dealt with in the Vote. In the
        2052
        first place, the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) said that, while he objected to the Vote on merits, he also objected to it on form. He objected to it, because it was contrary to precedent. As a matter of fact, it is not contrary to precedent at all. There are many Votes which have been presented in this form with a White Paper setting out the terms. The Wireless Broadcasting and the Coal Mines Votes were taken in this form and the Colonial Services Vote on the settlement with the British South Africa Company was taken in precisely this form. Of course, if his object was to hold up the relief that is going to be given, naturally he would wish for a more lengthy procedure, but to those who want to give this benefit, whether it be great or small, as soon as possible—and I think they are the majority of people on all sides of the House—to these hard pressed industries the simple answer will carry conviction that it is only by presenting a Vote in this way that we can bring the scheme into operation on 1st December.
        Then I must make my acknowledgments to the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn), whom I am glad to see back. The document from which he read selected extracts, which suited him best, is after all not what he supposed, a kind of recital of the excellent deeds of the Government, though we should not be ashamed of that if it was. It is an agreement that is going to be made between the Government and the railway companies. There are many agreements which begin with "whereas" and continue with an operative part. The benefit of this agreement will continue for our successors in the improbable event of our successors not being ourselves. I am surprised that he should have made an error in Parliamentary procedure, because he is a great expert in that. He said: "Here is a unique Vote. Never before has a Vote been presented to the House in this form. In every other case the Auditor-General has to audit the account. Here the Auditor-General is not in." In every single case of a grant-in-aid as long as grants-in-aid have been in existence, certainly all the time that the hon. Member has been in this House, that is the common form and the Auditor-General does not, in fact, audit the accounts in

        2053
        detail. He will find that in every Vote, or probably in a good many Votes in every successive Parliament whatever Government have been in power, that is the common form. The precise form in which the accounts are to be kept is laid down in Clause 9 of the Agreement.
        Let me pass from that to the main case for these proposals. I think that, however the Committee may criticise them in some quarters, it is generally recognised that they will be of considerable value to these industries. I very much question whether there is anyone who, really divorcing himself from politics and party issues, doubts for a single moment that this assistance in railway freights which is to be given to coal, iron, steel and agriculture is not going to be of great benefit. At any rate, I am quite sure that when we get outside this House, when we come to the people who really do talk business, who come to discuss these things in a businesslike way, we find that the one thing for which they have been asking in these basic trades is some relief of their railway freights. I take the deputation to which I have already referred. It came not at my invitation, but as a result of spontaneous action on the part of the whole of the mineowners and miners in South Wales. People who have often differed in matters of policy or of expediency, for once were absolutely in agreement. They said "We have often come to argue against each other. We come to-day absolutely unanimous." They were led by Mr. Thomas Richards, a man who is held in honour not only in his own country of Wales, but by everybody who has ever had anything to do with the mining industry. He and the chairman of the coalowners came together. They both spoke, the miners' leaders and the leaders of the other side both pressed two things on to us. They said:—this was early in the year, before the Budget—"Coal to-day suffers from two things, the burden of local rates and the burden of railway rates. If you want to help—and the more depressed the industry is the more these burdens fall upon it—if you really want to do something which will give substantial benefit to the coal trade of this country, tackle railway rates and tackle local rates." That is what we are doing to-day. That, I think, is a complete answer to
        2054
        all those who have asked what value they should attach to this.
        Certain special points were raised. There was a question raised by several hon. Members—by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. H. Hall) and by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson)—about patent fuel. They put to me this question: "Does patent fuel come within your scheme?" The answer to that is, of course, yes. Then they put a question which I find it more difficult to answer, and it is a point which has only been raised at the last moment. It is this: Granted that patent fuel comes within the definition of coal, take the case where the coal itself is taken to the factory and is converted into patent fuel, which is then exported—would this come within the scheme as laid down in the White Paper? I would hesitate to give a final opinion upon that. I would require further legal advice. I will certainly give this undertaking. We cannot alter this agreement. It will have to come into force. The question, as I say, has been raised rather at the last moment. I am very glad the question was put in this Debate as to the correct construction of the agreement as it stands during the temporary anticipatory period. I think it is a good point. The position ought to be met if it can be met, and I will certainly direct my attention to it with a view to seeing that if it is not covered by the terms of this agreement, it shall be covered during the permanent period, and the case met in the Bill.
        The second point which was put was a very technical question about the basis of wagon hire. The point, as I understand it, is this. In the agreement the rebate has to be given upon the freight charge of coal carried in owners' wagons. That is, of course, quite a, simple matter where the coal can be carried in owners' wagons. Then arises the question, how are you to calculate the rate on which the rebate is to be given where the coal is, in fact, carried in the companies' wagons and at an inclusive rate? I was asked whether it would be possible for the railway companies in making their rebate to charge an exaggerated figure for the cost of wagon hire and a relatively small figure for the cost of actual carriage of freight charge? The answer to that is certainly, no. In the

        2055
        first place I think I can say with confidence that the railway companies have not the least intention of doing anything of the kind. The intention of the railway companies is to carry on the whole system exactly as it is carried on at the present time. One of my hon. Friends asked me whether, if any such case should arise or if there was no question of bad faith, but a question of a genuine dispute as between the coal industry and the railway, as to whether the division between freight charge and wagon hire was properly made, the Minister would have the right to decide. The hope was expressed that he would. If hon. Members will look at Clause 8 of the agreement they will say that it is positively stated. Clause 8 reads:
        "Any question as to whether any rebate is or was allowable or as to the basis on which any rebate should be or should have been calculated under this scheme, may be determined by the Minister or by some person appointed by him."
        It is perfectly plain that in the event of a dispute, appeal rests with the Minister to arbitrate and to decide.
        Major PRICE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether "may" must be read as "must."
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think my hon. and gallant Friend may take it that there it means "must."
        "And, in the event of any such question being in dispute between the Minister, the companies, the Railway Clearing House, or any of them, shall be so determined; and the decision of the Minister or such person as aforesaid upon any such question shall be final and conclusive."
        Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Will the Minister appoint an arbitrator?
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is power for the Minister to do it himself or I think he can appoint an arbitrator. I would not like to be explicit on that point, but if the hon. Member will put a question upon the Order Paper a considered answer can be given. The point which was raised was whether the Minister had certain power, and the answer is that the Minister has such power. Some of the speeches which have been made have dealt with this scheme as if it was just some casual subsidy passed on to the mining industry. It is nothing of the sort. If that were the
        2056
        intention, no doubt everybody would come in and draw equal sums. That is not at all the policy. This is one stage, and an important stage, in the very great policy of de-rating and the rationalisation of our local government system. The railways are being de-rated because that is part of the de-rating scheme. They are passing their relief on to their customers, and it would be unreasonable to ask the railways to pass relief in respect of their rates on to people who are not their customers.
        A question was raised as to the Government being blackmailed by the railway companies. I do not think that suggestion was fair to the railway companies. Certainly, I can assure the House, if it needs such an assurance, that the Government have not the least intention of being blackmailed by anybody in this matter, and that in submitting their policy to the House of Commons they will submit just precisely those proposals which they think to be just and expedient. I would point out that throughout the six months' negotiations which have taken place I have been met in a thoroughly reasonable way. I went to the railway companies with a proposition which was not, on the face of it, very attractive; because everybody else seemed to be getting something out of de-rating, something direct given to the producer, and then there was to be considerable remission given in railway rates. I said to the railway companies: "You will be de-rated, but you must pass on the benefit to your customers." With that they agreed. What is more, they have agreed that if there is a surplus in the Fund it shall be carried forward. If there is a deficit in the Fund during the temporary period they will carry the whole of the deficit, and during the permanent period which is to be in the Act of Parliament, and which will go on year after year, the railway companies will carry half the deficit themselves.
        When we come to look at the question of traffic, where the rebate is as much as 30 per cent., as it is in the case of the coal trade, that is a very great concession by the railway companies. It would be most unreasonable to expect the railway companies not only to pass on to their customers the whole of the relief which is given in rates, but to tax themselves

        2057
        for that purpose. That is what the proposition amounts to. That is the specific proposal. It is proposed that there should be a tax upon the railway companies and that the proceeds of that tax should be paid out not only to their customers but to people who are not their customers, but who are, indeed, their competitors. The private railway companies propose to pay £27,000 into the pool and to draw out £146,000. Those are not my figures; they are the proposals made by the private railway companies in the memorandum which I think every Member of Parliament has received. The railways are being de-rated because of the heavy burden of freight charges on the public railways. That is the sole justification for this proposal. We have been impressed with the need of reducing public railway rates because those rates were so high and so large a burden on special trades, and we have selected those trades on which the heaviest burden falls.
        10.0 p.m.
        I would like to remind the House, and this is very relevant to some of the arguments that have been advanced to-day, of the history of the proposal to concentrate the coal relief upon special types of coal. The House will remember that when we originally proposed this scheme we proposed that all the coal should benefit equally; that the railway relief should be passed on to every single ton of coal carried on the railways, whatever its type and whatever its destination. That would have meant general relief of 7 or 8 per cent. at the outside. What happened? The coal industry met and came to an agreement within the industry. Each area in the coal industry agreed, and the whole of the coal industry came to the Government and said "We ask that instead of this general relief of 8 per cent. over the whole of the coal trade you should concentrate the relief upon selected coals, the coal for export, the coal for iron and steel, and the coal for bunkers. We have made that concentration, and we are proposing that concentration not on our own initiative, because our original proposal was equal distribution, but because the coal industry unanimously begged us to concentrate it in that way. They said that in that way the greatest possible benefit would be given to the coal industry. We thought that that was a reasonable proposition
        2058
        and that we ought to accede to it. It has been suggested by one of the speakers that in doing so we are helping the foreigners. I think that is a very superficial view. If there were really any truth in that argument would not the first people to object be the iron and steel trades of this country, who are the people who are always complaining of foreign competition? [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] The hon. Member must have stopped his ears and have become deaf, because I have certainly heard many complaints from the iron and steel trade of the volume of foreign competition. The iron and steel trades have joined in supporting this proposal.
        Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The iron and steel trade are satisfied because they are getting their relief; there is no preference for the foreigner against them. It is other trades in which the foreigner gets an advantage.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think they will stand more or less upon an equality. I would put the case on another ground, which I do not think will be disputed. It is very easy to put forward a general theory and to say that if we assist the coal trade in this way, the coal will go out as bunker coal, and the foreigners will benefit; but I do not find hon. Members saying that when they are deploring the absence of coal exports. I have never heard that argument advanced. Month after month I have heard hon. Members opposite say: "Why do you not do something which will increase the coal exports from this country? That is the most important thing. Why do you not address your mind to that? It is vital to the coal trade; it is vital to the balance of trade of this country and it is vital to our shipping industry, seeing that our ships take out coal and come back loaded with other commodities." So long as that was being said I suppose they never thought that they were advancing an argument to help the foreign competitor. They thought that they were helping the British coal industry, and they were perfectly right.
        If you analyse the uses to which British coal exports are put you will find that they do not go largely into foreign industries. Take the great export which goes in foreign bunkers; no question arises on that. A great deal

        2059
        of the coal goes to foreign power stations. I know from my own experience how large are the orders which South American power companies place in this country. That does not go into foreign competitive industries. A large part of the coal of Northumberland and Durham is high-class gas coal. It is sold in great quantities. That does not come into competition; the gas works in Berlin do not compete actively with the gas works in Birmingham. Who are the other great buyers of coal. They are the foreign railways; the railways of Italy and Sweden and countries all over the world. These railways are not competitors of ours, and however specious may be the argument advanced, when you look at the facts and see where the exports of coal go, you will find that the argument which hon. Members opposite advanced is the right one, that is, to try and stimulate our coal exports, and the argument which they now advance is not real.
        Let me come to the claim which is made on behalf of private railway companies; and I am prepared to take my stand on the test advanced by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). He asked that they should be treated with strict justice and equality. Let us supply that test, because it is a fair one. Are we, in fact, treating these private railways with strict justice and equality? I think we are, and I hope to satisfy the hon. Member on that point. On the 16th of July Parliament decided that these railways ought to be treated as industrial hereditaments. It is, of course, open to Parliament on an appropriate occasion, and I do not think the present is the occasion, to alter an Act which A has passed, but I quote that date on which Parliament took its last decision, on which we stand at the present moment, in order to point this out. It is suggested that the scheme now before the House was not within the knowledge of the coal trade when Parliament on the 16th July decided that these railways should be industrial hereditaments and have relief as such. That is not true. It was well known to the whole of the coal trade that what they were asking for and pressing the Government to accept was that there should be a concentration of relief in the coal trade. On the 28th Jane a deputa-
        2060
        tion from the coal trade waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself and urged on behalf of the whole trade that we should concentrate the coal relief in the way proposed by our present scheme. Therefore Parliament and the coal trade were well seized of the position and the demand of the coal industry that the relief to be given should be concentrated in that way; and we all knew that it was very probable that the request of the coal trade would be agreed to.
        Mr. LAWSON: The Government's policy had not then been announced.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, but what had been announced was that we would consider the proposal very carefully. What was in everybody's minds was the proposal of which the coal trade made no secret as it was in all newspapers, that we should concentrate the relief in the way that is now proposed. Therefore I say that this House in taking the decision it did on the 16th July, took that decision with full knowledge of the desires of the coal trade and the probable intentions of the Government. But there is a much more important consideration than that. The claim which is made on behalf of private railways is really not one which can be sustained in equity on its merits. It is not backed by the Mining Association although I do not say that that is conclusive. But it is a claim which was made to the Mining Association and also to the Mining Association of Durham, where the conditions were specifically known. I want to read an extract, which I think all Members have had, from a resolution passed at a meeting of the Durham Coal Association itself:
        "In the discussion which followed it was pointed out by various members that the owners of private railways had not suffered so much as the users of public railways through the large increase in recent years of railway charges, and it was considered that the private railway owners should not expect the Association as a whole to take up their case. It was ultimately agreed that the owners of private railways should take such steps as they considered best to bring their case before the Government."
        Everybody can always come and have another tilt at the Government. But this is the important conclusion of the Durham Coal Association as to what they thought

        2061
        was fair, and what the whole Mining Association pressed upon us as being fair:
        "It was further decided that the Association should press the Mining Association to endeavour to secure that private railways and shipping lines shall be included in the undertakings which are to obtain easement or relief from three-quarters of their rates."
        That is the recommendation of the Durham Mining Association and the Mining Association of Great Britain which this House carried out in its decision of the 16th July.
        Mr. LAWSON: On what date was that decision arrived at?
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: On the 11th June, 1928.
        Mr. LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman in his statement said it was only known towards the end of July what the Government's policy would be.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-L1STER: I am not misleading the House; nor is the hon. Member. He will not deny that at this moment that is the position of the Durham Mining Association.
        Mr. LAWSON: I do not wonder that it is.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The hon. Member does not deny it. He will not deny that when that resolution was passed at the Durham Mining Association they knew that they intended to press on the Government the policy that coal relief should be concentrated in the way that is proposed now. Therefore, Parliament has laid down proposals which the whole of the Mining Association of Great Britain and the Durham Mining Association thought to be just. Let me go one step further and justify the Bill. What is the position of these companies? The figures I am going to quote are not in dispute. I take the figures which private lines have given in communications they have made to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Transport and myself, and to this House. I will accept their figures. The other figures that I give are the official figures worked out by the Ministry of Transport and the railway companies. Therefore in connection with the private lines there can be no dispute as to the correct-
        2062
        ness of the figures. What, then, is the position? On the private lines the average cost is a shilling per ton. On the public railways of England to-day the average freight, with owner's wagons, is 2s. a ton for the whole country.
        HON. MEMBERS: The cost per ton-mile?
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: You must bring in averages in this matter.
        Mr. REMER: For hauling coal?
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, coal, hauling coal. On the private lines the average cost is 1s. per ton and on the public lines on the North-east coast it is 1s. 7½. per ton. Therefore to-clay the man who owns a private line is 7½. a ton better better off than the man whose coal is carried on a public line. Indeed that was emphasised by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who drew attention to the advantage which a colliery company might get by establishing a private line. He spoke of a new pit and of the railway freights being very high, and suggested that it would pay the colliery company to make a railway of its own. Does not that show what an advantage the private line is? The hon. Member visualised the making of a private railway as a paying proposition, and that shows that the private railway, constructed a long time ago when the cost of construction was far different from what it is to-day, is probably under a considerable advantage. Then what of the time when the scheme comes into operation on 1st December? The average charge to the user of the public railway on the North-east coast will be 1s. 1½d. as against 1s. on the private line.
        Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea as to the price per ton per mile? Otherwise the comparison is not fair.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is a perfectly fair comparison and it is a comparison which the private lines themselves have taken in a Memorandum which they have addressed to the Government.
        Mr. LEE: Generally speaking, on the average, the private railway has a shorter haulage than the public railway.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I shall deal with that point in a moment. If you had a flat rate that would be a very relevant observation, but you are giving a percentage reduction. Instead of taking 1s. off everybody, you are giving a percentage reduction. Therefore, the only fair standard of comparison is the average rate paid. There is no dispute about it. That is the argument which the private lines have addressed to Members of this Committee, and, obviously, if the average rate is greater, then equally the general rate is greater. The cost per ton-mile on a private line is probably cheaper than the freight per ton-mile which people have to pay to the railway companies. Even after anticipation has taken place these private lines will still be better off than the pubic companies.
        Mr. L. THOMPSON: That is just exactly where we differ from the right hon. Gentleman. I can give two specific cases in one of which the line is removed 13 miles from shipping and the average cost to the private owners is 2s. 6d. a ton and in the other there is an average cost of 1s. 9d. a ton. They will get no rebate, and you are giving the other collieries, on your own statement an advantage.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It. is no good arguing like that. I can give the hon. Member quantities of cases of collieries in the Midlands, which have to ship coal, not at a rate of 1s. 7d. but at. 3s. 4s. and 5s. Of course the benefit of any rebate must vary with the length of the haul. That is quite irrelevant to the argument. If we are going to argue whether every colliery is to get the same advantage then of course—
        Mr. THOMPSON: We want a proportional rebate.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Really, the hon. Member should allow me to answer his point. There are many collieries in England which are served by public railways and which do not sell a single ton of coal, either for steam pur-
        poses or for export., and they will get absolutely nothing while collieries competing with them in the industrial market will get an advantage.
        Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Except the higher price.
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yet it is the coal industry as a whole which has asked for this. In addition to that, when the permanent scheme comes into operation next October these private lines will get that measure of de-rating which Parliament has thought it right to give—that measure of de-rating which the Mining Association as a whole has asked that they should get. They will get the further advantage of 1½d. a ton. I submit, on those facts—and there is no dispute about those facts—that these private lines have no claim to a special subsidy, for that is what they are asking. They will still be better off. It may be that some advantage which they have enjoyed, as against those who use the public railways, will be somewhat reduced. I do not for a moment deny that, but why should it not be so.
        Mr. LAWSON rose—
        Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not going to sit down. What did the hon. Gentleman ask? He asked that strict equality and equity should be preserved between these two sorts of lines. I say that strict equality and equity is being preserved; and if there is a balance that balance will still be on the side of these private lines. The case has been eloquently argued, but. I say most emphatically that on those facts this House would not be justified either in compelling the railway companies of this country to tax themselves for the benefit of these lines or in forcing the taxpayers of the country to pay an additional subsidy.
        Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £999,900 be granted for the said Service."
        The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 197.

        Division No. 14.]

        AYES.

        [10.27 p.m.

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

        Batey, Josepn

        Bromley, J.

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

        Beckett, John (Gateshead)

        Brown, Ernest (Leith)

        Amnion, Charles George

        Bellamy, A.

        Buchanan, G.

        Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

        Benn, Wedgwood

        Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

        Baker, Walter

        Bondfield, Margaret

        Charleton, H. C.

        Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

        Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

        Cluse, W. S.

        Barnes, A

        Briant, Frank

        Connolly, M.

        Dalton, Hugh

        Kennedy, T.

        Shinwell, E.

        Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

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

        Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

        Duncan, C.

        Kirkwood, D.

        Slesser, Sir Henry H.

        Dunnico, H.

        Lansbury, George

        Smillie, Robert

        Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

        Lawrence, Susan

        Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

        Fenby, T. D.

        Lawson, John James

        Snell, Harry

        Gardner, J. P.

        Lee, F.

        Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

        Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

        Lowth, T.

        Stamford, T. W.

        Gibbins, Joseph

        Lunn, William

        Stephen, Campbell

        Gillett, George M.

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

        Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

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

        Mackinder, W.

        Strauss, E. A.

        Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

        Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

        Sutton, J. E.

        Griffith, F. Kingsley

        March, S.

        Taylor, R. A.

        Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

        Maxton, James

        Tinker, John Joseph

        Grundy, T. W.

        Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

        Townend, A. E.

        Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

        Morris, R. H

        Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

        Hardle, George D.

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

        Viant, S. P.

        Harney, E. A.

        Naylor, T. E.

        Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

        Harris, Percy A.

        Oliver, George Harold

        Watson, W. W. (Dunfermline)

        Hayday, Arthur

        Palin, John Henry

        Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

        Hayes, John Henry

        Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

        Wellock, Wilfred

        Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

        Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

        Westwood, J.

        Hirst, G. H.

        Potts, John S.

        Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

        Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

        Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

        Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

        Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

        Riley, Ben

        Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

        Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

        Ritson, J.

        Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

        John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

        Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

        Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

        Salter, Dr. Alfred

        Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

        Scrymgeour, E.

        Windsor, Walter

        Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

        Scurr, John

        Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

        Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

        Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

        Kelly, W. T.

        Shiels, Dr. Drummond

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

        Mr. Whiteley and Mr. B. Smith.

        NOES.

        Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

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

        Kindersley, Major G. M.

        Apsley, Lord

        Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

        King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

        Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

        Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

        Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

        Everard, W. Lindsay

        Knox, Sir Alfred

        Atholl, Duchess of

        Fairfax, Captain J. G.

        Lamb, J. O.

        Atkinson, C.

        Falle, Sir Bertram G.

        Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

        Balfour, George (Hampstead)

        Falls, Sir Charles F.

        Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

        Barnett, Major Sir Richard

        Fermoy, Lord

        Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

        Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

        Forrest, W.

        Long, Major Eric

        Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

        Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

        Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

        Bevan, S. J.

        Fraser, Captain Ian

        Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

        Frece, Sir Walter de

        Lumley, L. R.

        Blundell, F. N.

        Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

        Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

        Ganzoni, Sir John

        McLean, Major A.

        Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

        Gates, Percy

        Macmillan, Captain H.

        Brass, Captain W.

        Goff, Sir Park

        Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

        Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

        Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

        Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

        Brittain, Sir Harry

        Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

        Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

        Brocklebank, C. E. R.

        Grotrian, H. Brent

        Makins, Brigadier-General E.

        Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

        Gunston, Captain D. W.

        Malone, Major P. B.

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

        Hacking, Douglas H.

        Margesson, Captain D.

        Burman, J. B.

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

        Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

        Carver, Major W. H.

        Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

        Meller, R. J.

        Cassels, J. D.

        Hammersley, S. S.

        Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

        Harrison, G. J. C.

        Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

        Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

        Hartington, Marquess of

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

        Chapman, Sir S.

        Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

        Moore, Sir Newton J.

        Churchman, Sir Arthur C

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

        Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

        Clarry, Reginald George

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

        Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

        Clayton, G. C.

        Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

        Murchison, Sir Kenneth

        Cobb, Sir Cyril

        Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

        Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

        Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

        Henn, Sir Sydney H.

        Nelson, Sir Frank

        Cope, Major Sir William

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

        Neville, Sir Reginald J.

        Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

        Hilton, Cecil

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

        Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

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

        Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

        Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

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

        Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

        Holt, Captain H. P.

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

        Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

        Oman, Sir Charles William C.

        Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

        Hopkins, J. W. W.

        Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

        Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

        Owen, Major G.

        Davies, Dr. Vernon

        Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

        Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

        Hume, Sir G. H.

        Perkins, Colonel E. K.

        Dawson, Sir Philip

        Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

        Perring, Sir William George

        Drewe, C.

        Hurst, Gerald B.

        Pilcher, G.

        Eden, Captain Anthony

        Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

        Power, Sir John Cecil

        Edmondson, Major A. J.

        Iveagh, Countess of

        Price, Major C. W. M.

        Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

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

        Raine, Sir Walter

        Ellis, R. G.

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

        Ramsden, E.

        2066

        2067

        Rees, Sir Beddoe

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

        Watts, Sir Thomas

        Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

        Smithers, Waldron

        Wayland, Sir William A.

        Remer, J. R.

        Southby, Commander A. R. J.

        Wells, S. R.

        Rentoul, G. S.

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

        Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

        Ropner, Major L.

        Steel, Major Samuel Strang

        Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

        Salmon, Major I.

        Storry-Deans, R.

        Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

        Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

        Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

        Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

        Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

        Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

        Winby, Colonel L. P.

        Sandeman, N. Stewart

        Tasker, R. Inigo.

        Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

        Sanders, Sir Robert A.

        Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

        Withers, John James

        Sanderson, Sir Frank

        Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

        Wolmer, Viscount

        Sandon, Lord

        Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

        Womersley, W. J.

        Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustava D.

        Tomlinson, R. P.

        Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

        Savery, S. S.

        Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

        Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

        Waddington, R.

        Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

        Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

        Wallace, Captain D. E.

        Shepperson, E. W.

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

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

        Warrender, Sir Victor

        Major Sir George Hennessy and

        Smith, Louls W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

        Waterhouse, Captain Charles

        Mr. Penny.

        Question put, and agreed to.

        Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
        Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
    Resolved,
    "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, the sum of £1,575,710 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. A. M. Samuel.]
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.
  REPORT [19TH NOVEMBER].
  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20 th November],
    "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution:
    'That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £559,000, he 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, 1929, for the payment of Old Age Pensions, for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith, and for Pensions under the Blind Persons. Act, 1920.'"
    Question again proposed.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: At eleven o'clock on Tuesday night I was addressing a few remarks to the House on the subject of these pensions. I was dealing with the case of the woman who
    2068
    is drawing a small pension in respect of a son killed in the War. When she reaches the age of 65, under the contributory pensions scheme or 70 under the non-contributory pensions scheme, this pension is stopped. I was saying I was convinced that when these pensions were granted to mothers who lost their sons in the War the House had no intention that when they reach an age when they are really beyond earning capacity, and get the small old age pension, they should lose the other pension of 5s. or 6s. a week.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: On a point of Order. I submit that this discussion is out of order. This Vote deals with old age pensions, and has nothing to do with widows' pensions.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On that point of Order. I was not talking about widows' pensions, I was talking about old age pension at 65.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Further to my point of Order. I submit that this Vote has nothing to do with pensions granted at the age of 65, but only with pensions at the age of 70.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The Rule with regard to Supplementary Estimates is perfectly clear. The only subject open for discussion there is the reason for the increased Estimate—except, of course, in the case of a new service—and so far I have not come to the conclusion that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was discussing the reasons for the increase. As far as I followed him, he was suggesting some change in the law, and, of course, that would be out of order.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was actually in the midst of a sentence. Part of this Vote is for administrative purposes, and I was arguing that if the investigations and correspondence about the protests which are always made could be avoided a smaller staff would be required and so less money would be needed.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to raise that question on the main Vote. The only thing we can discuss now is the reasons why the increase has been brought about.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think I can show that if the procedure were simplified, and if there were not all these inquisitions into the means of people and so on, the administration of the pensions would be cheaper.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The proposal says that the number of pensions is greater, not that the expenses are greater. Either the hon. and gallant Member is discussing the question generally or he is suggesting new legislation, and that is quite out of order.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was discussing the expenditure of the Pensions Committee, and I was suggesting that there might be some saving.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I have just noticed that what we are discussing is the number of new pensions awarded, the payment of old age pensions, and the widows' contributory pensions.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: The pensions referred to are old age pensions which are granted in lieu of and by virtue of the Widows' Contributory Pensions Act, and they merely refer to the number granted in excess of the previous number by a removal of the means disqualification.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not dispute the proposition of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley), but the Vote deals with old age pensions and not widows' pensions. I only mentioned widows' pensions, and I endeavoured to show that they were administered by the same Committee. I also rely on a very old Parliamentary procedure, namely, that one attempts to reduce the Vote in order to draw atten-
    2070
    tion to the fact that perhaps more money should be spent. I know that that is one of our Parliamentary anomalies. I need not speak at any length on this question, but if the Ministry would simplify the whole system, and try and avoid all this cheeseparing and saving at the expense of these poor women I am sure the country would not lose in the end. What is more, a smaller staff would be needed and this extra £9,000 a year would not be required. It is common knowledge that in some parts of the country the officials, and more especially the lady officials, who go round making inquiries about the means of these people, whether they have any savings, and whether their sons are helping them or not—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is entirely irrelevant to the Question which we are now discussing.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I now come to the only other point that I want to make. Part of this money is not to go in pensions at all, but is to go to the repayment of sums advanced by Poor Law guardians. Some of this extra £500,000 is to pay the guardians and the Poor Law authorities for the keep of old age pensioners, or people who reach pensionable age, in infirmaries. When the Act was passed, the Minister of Health gave an undertaking that such persons should not be compelled to refund unless they were in private nursing homes, but I find that this matter has been stretched—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That really has nothing whatever to do with what the hon. and gallant Member is talking about. I think I see what he is trying to point out, but this is not the occasion on which to point it out.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Should I not be in order in protesting against part of this money, provided in a Supplementary Estimate, being paid to Poor Law guardians?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that this is due to an increased number of pensioners, and that it has nothing to do with Poor Law guardians at all.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will make one last submission, and, if it fails, I shall have nothing more to

    2071
    say. I have known it to be the case that, when there has been a Supplementary Estimate of large amount—and I submit that £500,000 is a very large amount—a general discussion on the possible savings has been permitted. If, however, I am out of order in entering into even a brief general discussion of certain anomalies and hardships which might lead to extravagance in the long run, then I have nothing more to say.

    CLASS I.

      THE MINT.
      Fifth Resolution,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, 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, 1929, for the salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage, and the Expenses of the preparation of Medals, Dies for Postage and other Stamps, and His Majesty's Seals,"
      Considered and agreed to.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 16 th November.]
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

    SCHEDULE.—(Acts Continued.)
    Amendment proposed [16 th November]:
    In page 6, to leave out lines 15 to 17 inclusive.—[Mr. Scurr.]
    Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    Captain GARRO-JONES: The London Traffic question is not one to which I would ask the Committee to address their attention at this late hour were it not for the fact that it is approaching the critical stage. There is an Amendment before the Committee to provide for the omission of the London Traffic Act from the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and, as there will be few further occasions between now and the General Election when we shall be able to raise these points, I am going to ask the Committee to bear with me while, as briefly as possible, I ask the Minister what is his attitude towards two or three of the more
    2072
    important questions which are disturbing the minds of the inhabitants of London at the present time. The first of these questions is the question of horse-drawn traffic. The number of horse-drawn vehicles on the streets of London is daily increasing, and I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is not fully alive to the total extent of the delay caused by this form of traffic. The delay caused by horse-drawn traffic does not only arise in places where there are only single lines of traffic—there the delay is obvious to everyone—but also where there are double lines of traffic, for there the horse-drawn vehicles drive out the slower ten to fifteen mile an hour lorries into the only other line of traffic available, and thus hold up the fast traffic. The delay is cumulative, and mounts up at the busiest hour. I only mention that in passing, because I am afraid that the Minister has paid too much attention to the interests of the people who own these horse-drawn vehicles, chiefly brewers and railway companies. Both in their way serve useful purposes, but not so useful as to warrant this continued congestion which they are causing in London traffic.
    The second point I wish to raise is the question of accidents on the roads, a question closely allied to that of horse-drawn traffic. There are more than 1,000 people killed on the streets of London every year. Strangely enough, more than 50 per cent, of those accidents are caused in respect of vehicles proceeding at less than 10 miles an hour. I will quote a short extract from the report of the London Traffic Committee:
    "There is no doubt that the hazards of the streets are serious and likely to become more serious. The number of children killed each year is a matter for deep concern."
    I will also quote a statement by Sir Henry Maybury:
    "Speed and accidents are by no means synonymous: 56 per cent. of the accidents in London happen at a speed of less than 10 miles per hour."
    Only the other day Sir Henry Maybury stated before the Royal Commission on Transport that there are steps which can be taken to diminish these accidents. The right hon. Gentleman has not, as far as I know, taken any of these steps, and has not accepted any of the recommendations which have been made with a view

    2073
    to decreasing this large number of accidents. For example, there are the cases of ill-lighted streets, streets where the lighting is not uniform, streets where you have lights on one side of the road, and no lights and no kerb on the other side, so that motorists are unable to distinguish between the road and the footpath. In addition, there are a large number of definite, practicable proposals for the diminution of this growing number of accidents which the right hon. Gentleman has not put into operation at all. The truth is that the Ministry of Transport requires a type of man whom the Minister would probably regard with disapproval. It requires a man of great energy and determination to overrule these conflicting interests and petty objections. I was reading the other day something by Sydney Smith, who described someone as "a steam engine in trousers." The Minister smiles at that. There is a type more amusing than that, and that is the horse-drawn type. The right hon. Gentleman has the horse-drawn mind, slow, staid, resentful of any hurry and complaining of any who try to push him on a little that they are obstructing traffic. When they complain of our obstruction on this side of the House there is more obstruction on that Front Bench than there ever has been from here, and the difference between their obstruction and ours is that they are obstructing progress while we are doing our best to obstruct reaction.
    I want to come to what is probably the core of this problem, that is the London traffic combine. There are three salient facts in this connection. The first is that every railway in this country had its maximum charging powers settled by a tribunal after a full public inquiry except the London traffic combine, secondly that a passenger, or any person interested, can go before the Railway Rates Tribunal, if he thinks the charges are unsatisfactory, and state a case and get it rectified, but that is not so in the case of the London traffic combine. Only the other day we passed a Bill giving the railway companies extensive road powers, but we were careful to provide that any aggrieved person could go to the Railway Rates Tribunal in respect of those road powers given to the companies and make his complaint and have it remedied. None of those provisions apply to the London traffic
    2074
    combine at all. In this House ever since the first monopolistic powers were given to the railway companies in 1854 the House has been careful to provide machinery under which those aggrieved can secure redress. The one outstanding exception to that is the London traffic combine. Even in the case of the Mersey Railway, which merely goes from Birkenhead to Liverpool, a passenger can appear before the tribunal to have a grievance remedied. I should like to ask the Minister why it is that this anomaly is allowed to exist. One answer the Minister gives us continually is that he has an Advisory Committee. I am sure we shall all agree that he needs it, but the trouble is that those who need advice most are generally the most reluctant to act upon it, and the Minister is one of those.
    I should like to say something about the Advisory Committee, because there are two or three respected Members of the House who are members of it. I think the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) has devoted long labour to the work and there is also Sir Henry Maybury, who is so greatly admired by the Minister of Transport that he allows him to remain on the Committee in spite of the fact that he is free to undertake private employment which may conflict with his duties. That Committee has embarked upon a prolonged inquiry into the question of London traffic and has produced almost unanimous recommendations.
    11.0 p.m.
    The London Traffic Advisory Committee have recommended the establishment of a common management and a common fund, and, above all, the effective public control of the London Traffic Combine. I am not in entire agreement with everything that the London Traffic Advisory Committee suggested, but there, at any rate, were practical suggestions, arrived at with unanimity, reconciling all the conflicting interests, which were put forward to the right hon. Gentleman. I have here quotations. Provided that the right hon. Gentleman does not dispute them, I will not read the quotations, as they are somewhat long. I will summarise the position in this way: The scheme carefully prepared by the London Traffic Advisory Committee, representative of every possible interest, was unanimously

    2075
    arrived at by them, and that it secured the support of the municipal authorities of London and even of the London Traffic Combine itself. There was urgency and unanimity in the demand that this scheme should be put into effect.
    What was the position at the end of 1927? There was no doubt about it that the hour of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had come. This Committee had been sitting for three years. Witnesses had been examined. The poor folk who have to put up with the inconveniences of the traffic twice daily had told their tale to the Committee. Members of Parliament, who were naturally anxious to impress their constituents with their forensic ability, had made several voluble appearances before the tribunal. Learned counsel, considerably refreshed by fees from time to time, had employed their arguments to the finest point. The Committee had acted on all these representations. They produced a unanimous scheme and secured the adherence of organised labour so that at the end of 1927, if ever, the time for hesitation had passed, and clearly the day of action had arrived. The eyes of the whole community was fixed on the Minister of Transport. Even his Cabinet colleagues were looking at him with expectancy and with some anxiety expecting him to take some definite action. But he did nothing. He merely made a few uneasy wriggles and then relapsed into his usual attitude of contented repose. I am going to leave him in that happy position owing to the lateness of the hour, hoping that some day, at any rate, we shall have someone at the Ministry of Transport who will have a little more vision, because where there is no vision the people perish. London traffic in a very few years is going to be in a much worse state than it is to-day unless it is tackled firmly at the present time.
    Mr. BARNES: In our discussion of this matter on Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) referred to a subject to which the Minister, in our view, did not give an adequate reply. I desire to-night again to refer to this matter and to ask the Committee to give it more consideration. The issue to which I wish to draw the Minister's
    2076
    attention is the resignation of Sir Henry Maybury and the subsequent intentions of the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, may I remind the Committee that in the policy which led up to the formation of the London Traffic Advisory Committee it is recognised generally that Sir Henry Maybury played a very large part. Since the formation of that Committee Sir Henry Maybury has been the nominee of the Minister on the Committee, and has occupied the position of chairman. In asking the Committee to discuss this matter we do not desire to cast any personal aspersion on the character, ability or intentions of Sir Henry Maybury who in addition to being chairman of the London Traffic Advisory Committee has also occupied the important position of Director-General of Roads. We understand that it is now his intention to engage in private practice as a consulting engineer. Of course it is quite within the province of any civil servant to leave his present occupation and engage in any other that he considers will be to his advantage, but in view of the statement by the Minister that it is his intention to continue Sir Henry Maybury as the nominee of his Department on the Advisory Committee, we are entitled to address this pertinent, question to the right hon. Gentleman: "Are we to understand from that decision that there is no officer at the present time in his Department who is capable of performing the functions which Sir Henry Maybury has carried on during the past few years?" If so, we claim that a serious precedent is being established. Perhaps I can best illustrate my point by dealing with the constitution of the Committee. The Committee is composed of 19 members, 12 of whom are described as ordinary representatives and are drawn from public departments. Primarily, their responsibility is to safeguard the public interests. When we were discussing the constitution of the Advisory Committee the House made a very clear distinction between those who were ordinary members and the additional members who specifically represented interests. The Section in the Act which governs the selection of ordinary members has special significance because it was not in the original Bill drafted by the then Minister of Transport, but was inserted by the Committee upstairs, with the common

    2077
    consent of members of all parties, as representing an important principle:
    "Every ordinary member appointed by a local authority or group of local authorities, other than the representatives of the city police, shall be a member of a local authority or one of a group of authorities, as the case may be, and if he ceases to hold such qualification shall cease to be a member of the committee."
    I clearly remember the discussion that took place when we inserted that proviso. It was clearly the view of hon. Members that it was not desirable to have as one of the ordinary members on the Advisory Committee any person who was not directly connected with a public authority in his representative capacity. We had not the slightest conception that either the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the Minister of Transport would ever think of appointing any person in their private and personal capacity, other than one of the chief officers of his Department. Another reason why this safeguard was not applied to the two national Departments was because it was known that Sir Henry Maybury, who had taken a prominent part in the negotiations which led up to the London Traffic Act, would occupy an important post on the Committee. That officer is now going into private practice and we have the Minister of Transport continuing his appointment as a member of the Committee. That is a point which I consider of major importance. I should like to support my general argument by referring to Section (4), which deals with the constitution of this Committee. Again, there is a differentiation between the duties of the ordinary members and the additional members, which emphasises the point that it was clearly the intention of the House that the ordinary members should be responsible to public authorities. The obligation imposed upon ordinary members was that they should attend all meetings of the Committee, whereas the additional members, who were appointed to represent interests, were only called together from time to time.
    Section (5) also supports my general contention, as it states that a person shall be disqualified as a member of the Traffic Advisory Committee if he was a director of a company or a partner in a firm, or in the employ of a firm engaged in providing means of transport within the
    2078
    London traffic area. It shows clearly that the ordinary members were to sit as members of local bodies. If there had been any idea that the Minister of Transport would ever make a departure of this sort I am sure the same governing Clause would have been applied to the representatives of the national departments. At the present moment one cannot argue that Sir Henry Maybury will ever come under this description, but when we reach a situation like this in public affairs it is only natural that suspicions should be aroused. It has already been suggested that Sir Henry Maybury may obtain a directorship of one of the bodies connected with London traffic.
    Colonel ASHLEY: He would have to resign.
    Mr. BARNES: The right hon. Gentleman on Friday stated specifically that he intended to appoint him—
    Colonel ASHLEY: But if he comes under the disqualifications mentioned in the Act he would automatically have to resign.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Is it not the ease that his resignation has been tendered and that he leaves next month?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The point I am making is that if I appoint Sir Henry Maybury and he comes under these disqualifications he will automatically resign his position, but until he does something contrary to the Act, why criticise him?
    Mr. BARNES: There are certain eases in which resignation must follow, but it must be remembered that there are border-line cases. The London Traffic Advisory Committee is a body which spends large sums of public money.
    Colonel ASHLEY: It does not spend a single sum. I spend the money.
    Mr. BARNES: The London Traffic Advisory Committee's recommendations and advice to the Minister affect the expenditure of large sums of public money.
    Colonel ASHLEY: The responsibility and the decision rest with the Minister and not with the Committee.
    Mr. BARNES: That is the reason why we raise the point to-night. Although the Minister accepts full responsibility one assumes that the advice of this

    2079
    Advisory Committee affects his decision. Otherwise, why appoint the Advisory Committee? Therefore the connection between the Minister's position and the spending of large sums of public money is directly involved. Let me mention two schemes that this Advisory Committee has been considering—the East London Dock Road, the reconstruction of Waterloo Bridge and the shifting of Charing Cross Station to the South side of the river. In these two schemes from £13,000,000 to £14,000,000 is involved. Does the Minister mean to say that the profession of a consulting engineer does not in any way touch the two schemes referred to? When we are discussing an officer like Sir Henry Maybury, who has unique experience in these problems that affect London traffic, does the Minister mean to tell me that it is not natural that persons whose interests are involved should go to an expert like Sir Henry Maybury? If his advice is obtained under circumstances of that sort we claim that there are grounds for public suspicion, and that leads to an invidious situation that is not necessary.
    Perhaps I can better illustrate the point by reminding the Committee of what took place recently. Everyone recognises that the police service as a whole does not deserve to have public suspicion cast upon it, but we know that certain incidents have occurred, certain border-line cases, which to a very large extent have destroyed public confidence in the service. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members say "No!" When their own Government have appointed a Commission what is the use of stating that that does not represent some loss of public confidence. It is obvious to the man in the street, if it is not obvious to the hon. Member who is lolling on the benches opposite. Situations of that sort are likely to produce a similar feeling with regard to the London traffic policy, especially in view of the fact that in London to-day there is a very widespread belief that special vested interests are manipulating the whole of the policy behind London traffic control. We have seen in recent years the Americanisation of British industry to a large extent. We do not want to see the Americanisation of the British public service in the same
    2080
    way. There have been tendencies in that direction in the last year or two. We have seen a procession of civil servants who had occupied important positions, passing out of the Civil Service into private business. What is the inevitable development? We have found in a fair number of cases that these persons have immediately taken up directorships of companies that are connected in a variety of ways with Parliamentary policy—companies like sugar companies, and traffic companies, and other companies of that description which come to Parliament for powers to assist them in their business policy.
    Why should public servants obtain directorships so easily? No business appoints directors for the fun of the thing. They appoint directors, obviously, because it serves their business interests to do so. Companies appoint directors, because it will help their revenue or sales. When we come up against incidents like this, we are entitled to ask the Minister to clear up the position and give an assurance that if Sir Henry Maybury leaves his present position he is not to occupy the position of an ordinary member of that committee. There are no circumstances which warrant the present proposal. The Minister should have officers in his Department fully capable of performing these functions. We register our protest. It is sometimes difficult to find a word and I do not want unduly to exaggerate the situation. We wish to be assured that in the public mind there shall be no feeling that behind the scenes there have been intrigues or arrangements, or a personal understanding, whereby a public officer is to pass out of the public service and yet retain a position which he occupied as a public servant. We ask the Minister not to deal with this matter in the light, irrelevant manner in which he dealt with it on Friday last, but that he shall treat it as a matter of urgent public importance.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I think it may be to the advantage of the Committee if I answer the three main points which have been raised in the Debate so far. First there is the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) about the fares on the underground railways. I have not had

    2081
    time to look them up, because I did not know the exact point which the hon. and gallant Member was going to raise, but my recollection is that the fares on those lines are fixed by statute and that in Measures passed by this House, maximum fares are imposed. Therefore, it is not correct to say that there is no control. There is such control as Parliament has deemed it right to exercise in the past and I cannot be held responsible for Acts of Parliament passed some years ago, if they are wrong.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said. Maximum fares were fixed by statute, but not after a full public inquiry, and they are not now alterable on application to a public tribunal as in the case of other railways.
    Colonel ASHLEY: The complaint of the hon. and gallant Member is against what Parliament has done in the past. I cannot be held responsible for that. If the hon. Member brings in a Bill to change all this, perhaps hr can rely on the justice of his case to induce the House of Commons to give it a Second Reading and pass it into law. The hon. and gallant Member, after a few personal remarks about myself, proceeded to ask me why I had done nothing to carry into effect the recommendations of the London Traffic Advisory Committee with reference to common management and a common fund for the means of transport in the traffic area. I am as anxious as anyone in this House or outside it that something should be done to coordinate the means of transport in this great city and, above all, by co-ordination to do what I and every London Member wishes to see done, namely, to provide better means of transport by tube or otherwise for the inhabitants of the Eastern and North Eastern suburbs. We all wish to see that done, but the hon. and gallant Member knows that there is such a thing as Parliamentary time.
    If a Government Department has had the good fortune to succeed in getting a good slice, as mine has, of Parliamentary time allocated to it to carry through one or two projects, it is quite impossible—because every Government must balance the various interests that some to it—to do everything they would
    2082
    like to do. That is the answer. Whatever sympathy I have for the labours and the recommendations of the Traffic Advisory Committee, the lack of Parliamentary time is an insuperable bar to anything being done. I hope and trust that when we see the Bills which will be brought forward by the London County Council and by Lord Ashfield's combine for a voluntary common management and common fund, we may find that there is something in those Bills which will go towards a just solution of the traffic problem.
    The hon. Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) raised a personal note, or rather he dealt with my declared intention to appoint Sir Henry Maybury to be a member of the London Traffic Advisory Committee as my nominee. In the Debate we had three or four days ago I expressed my intention to appoint him, and to that intention I adhere. I have not the faintest intention of changing my mind. Sir Henry is not appointed to the London Traffic Advisory Committee because he happens to be an officer of the Department. There is no obligation on the Minister to appoint an officer of his Department. He can choose anybody he likes who is a British subject to represent him on the Committee, and Sir Henry was chosen in the past to represent the Department of which he happened to be an officer because he was obviously the most qualified person to be on that Committee. I propose to re-appoint him because, in my mind, he is a most extraordinarily good member of that Committee. He has served as Chairman for a number of years. It will be for the Committee when they reassemble, and not for me, to decide whether they will have him as their Chairman. All I do is to place at the disposal of that Committee, Sir Henry Maybury, whose name is a household word in road transportation, who is liked by all the local authorities in this country, whose name is known as that of an expert in traffic everywhere.
    He does not, of course, get a salary; he is doing all this work voluntarily. If he took up any of these posts which the hon. Member seems to be so frightened he will take up, he would automatically have to resign, and from conversations I have had with him and from my knowledge of hill character, I know that if he

    2083
    undertook any work which would in the slightest degree conflict with his presence on that Traffic Committee, he would resign long before I heard anything about it. I refuse to change my mind, and I think I am very fortunate, and the Committee is very fortunate, if they induce Sir Henry Maybury to take up this very responsible post of my nominee on the Committee, and I do not think the criticism that has been levelled at him is likely to help him to take up this post with joy and gladness.
    Sir GEORGE HUME: I do not think the Minister of Transport quite realises the serious consequences of not having the courage to try and get better conditions for London traffic on his own behalf instead of through private legislation. This question of the traffic of London is an old standing question, and for many years the London County Council has been trying to deal with it and recognising the difficulties that were existing. When Mr. Long, later Lord Long, was President of the Local Government Board, an effort was then made, and the London County Council and the Combine came before him, and long negotiations were carried on, but they broke down because of political suspicions. Later on agreement was come to between the parties, and the whole thing broke down because the Minister of Transport would not go forward with a public Bill, and the controversy was such that the whole effort was killed.
    When this Act came into force, and an Advisory Committee was established, we at last had some hope that some body outside the controversy—outside the suspected bodies, such as the County Council and the Combine—would take this matter up and bring forward their own proposals. We saw their long work go on, and I want to pay my tribute to the Advisory Committee for the work that they did. Three separate sub-committees were set up, they made inquiries all over the area, and were impressed to such an extent with the need of getting rid of the difficulties existing, and making facilities for further development, that, irrespective of parties, they came to a unanimous report. But at that moment, what happened? Just when we thought that this matter would be able to go forwards without heat and political
    2084
    controversy, without having the whole thing smashed and spoiled by bringing in a party spirit, we found that the Minister could not go forward. I agree that it might well be that the Minister could not find time—I realise that that is so in this Session—but I am saying that the responsibilty for the Measure was placed with the local authority in London. The position of the London County Council is most difficult; in view of its past efforts, in view of the known difficulties of the situation and the necessity fo doing something, it would be pusillanimous for the County Council to lay the matter down and say that they would do nothing.
    The result is that this has become once more a burning political question, and, if it comes before this House, it will be fought on lines, not of the good of London's services, but on lines of suspicion. I deplore it. I worked in the best years of my life to get the tramways out of politics. Now I see them back again in the cockpit of politics, not because it is hoped that that will settle the question on sound lines, but because of the suspicions that are aroused, and the charges that are made that the London County Council are handing the system over to private enterprise, and that private enterprise will want to take an undue advantage of the situation. I plead with the Committee, and I ask all parties to consider very carefully, for the good of London, whether they should not treat these Bills with respect; I mean in this way: The London County Council are, I believe, going to try and shape their Bill in such a way that, as far as it is possible in a private Bill, the views of the Advisory Committee shall he embodied in it. It will be for the House to decide whether it is a success or not, but I hope that we shall be able to come to the matter with a judicial mind for the sake of London, instead of leaving this big problem to the cockpit of politics.
    Mr. BRIANT: I am glad to support this Amendment, not only because I fought the Act when it was introduced by the Labour party, but because I hope it shows signs that the Labour party desire to make some amends for the mistake they then made. The Act bore all the signs of Toryism in its Clauses. I feel that all the arguments to-night about the

    2085
    difficulties of the Minister leave our of account the main question. If the traffic of London is to be properly managed it must be in the hands of an elected body, and not of a body nominated by other bodies. At present all we have is an Advisory Committee; and all its recommendations may pass for nothing if the Minister does not endorse them. That may be all right if we have a benevolent and able Minister, and I believe we have both, but no matter so large as this, affecting the interests of 9,000,000 people should rest in the hands of any Minister and Advisory Committee composed partly of those who have definite interests in certain branches of the traffic in London. We suggested that those with pecuniary interests in London traffic should not be on the Advisory Committee, but that suggestion was declined. I know that there were some like my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn), who then belonged to this party, who took that view. I remember his saying it was a sight to make the angels weep to see hon. Members of the Labour party voting in the same way as those who were proud of supporting the interests of the big combines. All that we thought would happen has happened. There are very few hon. Members of the Labour party who would not now be glad to see this Act out of the way to enable us to start afresh in dealing with the traffic of London. So long as this Act remains on the Statute Book we shall be handicapped in dealing with the problem.
    This is not only my view, or the view of some who may be prejudiced, but is the view of some of the most competent authorities even in the Labour party. I have used some strong words, but not so strong as those used by one who was then a member of this House and is now, I believe, Chairman of the Labour party. Mr. Morrison said that if he had voted for the Act he would have been voting against the interests of Labour and in favour of one of the most insidious financial corporations with which London was
    cursed. This is a Measure on which the Tories had agreed before the present Government came into office and it is anti-Labour in principle. That is what the present Chairman of the Labour party thought of it, and I am sorry he is not in the House—though not as sitting for a particular seat which he is ambitious of occupying. No one would make any criticism of Lord Ashfield's capacity. In fact, I am afraid of his capacity. His capacity for managing is so great that I am afraid of him being in the position of dictator of London in traffic matters. But we cannot get away from the fact that out of the position has come another Measure which is tending towards putting the whole of the trams, and, indeed, the whole of the traffic, under him.
    I do not think that there is anybody in the House who does not believe that the traffic of London would be managed better if it were in the hands of a representative body and not in the hands of nominated persons. The more I see of this Act the more I am convinced that we shall never see this question settled until the old Act is swept away and the whole business is placed in the hands of the London County Council. I do not agree with the present composition of that Council, but I would rather have an elected body than a nominated body to deal with the traffic problem. In the case of an elected body the members have to face the electors, and they are subjected to public criticism which is not possible in the case of a nominated body. If the Amendment were carried, it would be the best step that could be taken for the future of London, because we could then start afresh with a new plan for the management of the traffic of our great City.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 92.

    Division No. 15.]

    AYES.

    [11.43 p.m.

    Alexander. E. E. (Leyton)

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Bevan, S. J.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

    Blundell, F. N.

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

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Burman, J. B.

    Atkinson, C.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Ramsden, E.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hilton, Cecil

    Remer, J. R.

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Ropner, Major L.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

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

    Rye, F. G.

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

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

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Sandon, Lord

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Savery, S. S.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Drewe, C.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

    Ellis, R. G.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Smithers, Waldron

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Long, Major Eric

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Looker, Herbert William

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

    Falls, Sir Bertram G.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Falls, Sir Charles F.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lumley, L. R.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Forrest, W.

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

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    McLean, Major A.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Margesson, Captain D.

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

    Gates, Percy

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Wells, S. R.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

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

    Grace, John

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Wilson, ft, R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

    Womersley, W. J.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Hartington, Marquees of

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

    Perring, Sir William George

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Pilcher, G.

    Mr. Penny and Sir Victor

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Warrender.

    NOES.

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Ritson, J.

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

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

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

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hirst, G. H.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Scurr, John

    Bellamy, A.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Benn, Wedgwood

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Briant, Frank

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Snell, Harry

    Buchanan, G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kirkwood, D

    Sutton, J. E.

    Connolly, M.

    Lansbury, George

    Taylor, R. A.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lawrence, Susan

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Day, Harry

    Lawson, John James

    Tomilnson, R. P.

    Duncan, C.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Townend, A. E.

    Dunnico, H.

    Lunn, William

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

    Viant, S. P.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Mackinder, W.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Maxton, James

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gillett, George M.

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

    Westwood, J.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Whiteley, W.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Owen, Major G.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Palin, John Henry

    Windsor, Walter

    Groves, T.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Potts, John S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hardie, George D.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Riley, Ben

    Barnes.

    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
  Considered in Committee and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question, put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Six Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  SECOND-CLASS DRAUGHTSMEN (EXAMINATIONS).
  SECOND-CLASS DRAUGHTSMEN (EXAMINATIONS).
  CRUISERS, CHATHAM (PAINTING).
  CRUISERS, CHATHAM (PAINTING).
  DOCKYARD DISCHARGES.
  DOCKYARD DISCHARGES.
  WAR OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS (EMPLOYES).
  WAR OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS (EMPLOYES).
  COAL INDUSTRY (CLOSED MINES, MOUNTAIN ASH).
  COAL INDUSTRY (CLOSED MINES, MOUNTAIN ASH).
  CENTRAL SCHOOL, LIMEHOUSE,
  CENTRAL SCHOOL, LIMEHOUSE,
SCOTLAND.
  SHEEP STOCK, WATERNISH.
  SHEEP STOCK, WATERNISH.
  WOMEN MEDICAL STUDENTS.
  WOMEN MEDICAL STUDENTS.
  SCORRYBRECK ESTATE (SPORTING RIGHTS).
  SCORRYBRECK ESTATE (SPORTING RIGHTS).
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  POSTAL FACILITIES, BARSBY.
  POSTAL FACILITIES, BARSBY.
  SUB-POSTMASTERS (REMUNERATION).
  SUB-POSTMASTERS (REMUNERATION).
  ALSATIAN DOGS (ATTACKS).
  ALSATIAN DOGS (ATTACKS).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (GAS POISONING).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (GAS POISONING).
  WAGES (ILLEGAL WITHHOLDING).
  WAGES (ILLEGAL WITHHOLDING).
  BETTING DUTY (PROSECUTIONS).
  BETTING DUTY (PROSECUTIONS).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  SILVER COINAGE.
  SILVER COINAGE.
  TURKEY (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  TURKEY (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (PRESS ADVERTISING).
  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (PRESS ADVERTISING).
  IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).
  IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).
  KENYA (ABYSSINIAN RAIDS).
  KENYA (ABYSSINIAN RAIDS).
  STEAMSHIP "LORD GUILFORD" (DROWN ING ACCIDENT).
  STEAMSHIP "LORD GUILFORD" (DROWN ING ACCIDENT).
MERCANTILE MARINE.
  CREWS (FOREIGNERS).
  CREWS (FOREIGNERS).
  LIFEBOAT SERVICE (BOATS).
  LIFEBOAT SERVICE (BOATS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  EXPORTS.
  EXPORTS.
  WHEAT STOCKS.
  WHEAT STOCKS.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS.
  STEEL AND PIG IRON.
  STEEL AND PIG IRON.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS, DEWSBURY.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS, DEWSBURY.
  INSURANCE FUND.
  INSURANCE FUND.
  BUILDING INDUSTRY.
  BUILDING INDUSTRY.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.
  EXPORT COAL (RAILWAYS).
  EXPORT COAL (RAILWAYS).
  CLAMORGANSIIIRE AND CARMARTIIENSUIRE.
  CLAMORGANSIIIRE AND CARMARTIIENSUIRE.
  LOANS, WEST HAM.
  LOANS, WEST HAM.
  CARNARVONSHIRE.
  CARNARVONSHIRE.
HOUSING.
  RURAL WORKERS.
  RURAL WORKERS.
  RENTS.
  RENTS.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
POOR LAW.
  CASUALS.
  CASUALS.
  BEDWELLTY INSTITUTION (VISIORS).
  BEDWELLTY INSTITUTION (VISIORS).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  INFANT MORTALITY, DEPRESSED AREAS.
  INFANT MORTALITY, DEPRESSED AREAS.
  SMALL-PDX AND CHICKEN Pox.
  SMALL-PDX AND CHICKEN Pox.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (OVERTIME, BRISTOL).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (OVERTIME, BRISTOL).
  STAFFS (REDUCTION).
  STAFFS (REDUCTION).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, this is a very short Bill of one clause, to amend Section 3 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. I will read Section 3, in order that I may show your Lordships exactly what is done. Section 3 provides:—
"If the owner of any animal shall be guilty of cruelty within the meaning of this Act to the animal, the Court, upon his conviction thereof, may, if they think fit, in addition to any other punishment, deprive such person of the ownership of the animal, and may make such order as to the disposal of the animal as they think fit under the circumstances."
That is the law as it stands at the present moment and I propose to add this further enactment:—
"Further, if the owner of any dog shall be guilty of cruelty to that animal within the meaning of this Act, the Court upon the owner's conviction thereof, may, if they think fit, in addition to any other punishment, direct that such owner shall not thereafter for such time as they may direct, be granted any licence for keeping a dog or dogs, and a direction so given shall be effectual to prevent such person so convicted from holding such licence."
Your Lordships will see that the whole of this clause is permissive. It gives power to the magistrates to do certain things if they think fit. It is somewhat on the lines of the power given to the magistrates to deprive the driver of a car of his licence, and it applies that power in respect of the dog because the dog is the only animal for which the owner is required by law to have a licence. I have so drawn the title of the Bill that no Amendment can be made by means of it to the Act of 1911 other than that which I now introduce, and I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, while sympathising with the suggestion of the noble Lord I should like to put this to him. The difficulty of adding a provision like this is brought home when one realises that a number of terms are defined in Clause 15 of the original Act. For instance, the expression "domestic animal" is defined, as well as the expressions "animal" and "captive animal" and "horse." There are a number of definitions, and yet, remarkable to relate, there is no definition of "cruelty." Since the noble Lord is proposing to amend the Bill, again introducing the term "cruelty," I would suggest to him the advisability of taking the opportunity this small Bill affords of supplying that omission in the original Act and agreeing that words shall be added to define "cruelty." I have not had an opportunity to consult any of my legal friends, but I would suggest that it is most important, in view of the controversies that have been going on of late as to what is cruelty in connection with experimentation on animals, to take this opportunity of defining "cruelty." And I would suggest for the noble Lord's consideration that he should consent to a small paragraph being added, which will be an addition to the definition clause in the original Act, to define "cruelty" as "pain inflicted wantonly and needlessly"—which I believe is a definition supported by considerable authority. I think probably he will accept a definition of that description.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure we must all feel great sympathy with the object with which my noble friend has introduced this Bill. We are well aware of his long efforts with the object of preventing unnecessary and wanton cruelty to animals. I should like to point out to my noble friend, however, that there are certain features of the Bill which would make it, in the opinion of the Government, almost impossible to carry it out. In this country licences are issued at Money Order Offices on behalf of counties and county boroughs in England and Wales and on behalf of the Customs in Scotland. I believe there are 12,000 of these Money Order Offices, where licences can be taken out. This matter has been referred to the General Post Office for their consideration, and they have come to the conclusion that it

267
would be almost impossible for them to issue valid notices to all these 12,000 offices of the names of those people concerning whom the magistrate had to issue a direction that they were people who must not take out licences for dogs, for one, two or more years. Anybody can go to any one of these Money Order Offices and take out a licence for a dog. These small offices are often occupied with various other matters besides the issue of dog licences; how are they to know whether the applicant for such a licence is a person against whom the magistrates have issued a direction that he is not to hold a dog licence? In the opinion of the Government this is an almost insuperable objection to the working of the Bill.
Then, supposing I were a person who had cruelly ill-treated a dog and the magistrates had issued a direction against my holding a dog licence for a certain period, and supposing I nevertheless wanted a dog in my house, there would be nothing to prevent my getting my sister or my cousin or my aunt to go round to the Post Office and take out a licence for the dog. The dog would then be licensed, it would be in my house, and it would practically be my dog. Thus any person who wanted to keep a dog could easily get out a licence in somebody else's name. He might send his butler to get the licence. There are, therefore, two objections to my noble friend's Bill, first, that it would be almost impossible to enforce it, and, secondly, if it were enforced, it would be very easy to evade it. My noble friend mentioned the case of motor licences, but a licence to drive a motor car is absolutely different. The motor car licence is a personal licence, enabling the person who holds it to drive a car. You cannot get somebody else to take out a motor licence for you: you can get somebody else to take out a dog licence. The motor licence is issued to the person himself, and, if his licence has been endorsed before, he has, on making application for a new licence, to fill in a form and say so. However, the Government, as I have said, have full sympathy with my noble friend in his efforts to prevent unnecessary and wanton cruelty to animals, and they will not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill; but they do think that, in the first place, the proviso which he proposes to add to Section 3 of
268
the Act cannot be carried out, and, if it were carried out, it would be so easily evaded as to make the Bill practically inoperative. The Government cannot offer any hope that they will give the Bill in its present form any great facilities in the future, but if Amendments can be introduced in Committee to make it feasible they would very gladly see such a measure passed.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Desborough will allow me, I shall be very glad to consult with him and the Home Office as to any method by which we can amend this little Bill. I suggest, in answer to his arguments, that there is no law that I know of that cannot in some cases be evaded, but I do not think his arguments about the ease with which this Bill could be evaded are quite correct. Let me give him an instance. A man is brought before a county bench and convicted, and that bench says that that man is not to have a licence for one, two, or three years. That man is well known to the police, and, as long as he lives in that district, they will know that a conviction has been recorded against him. It is true that if he went some distance away, say, to Scotland or to Wales, the police there might not know the circumstances, but the police generally do know the movements of people, and it would be perfectly easy to notify them that this had occurred. I do not think that really the Bill is so difficult to carry out as my noble friend thinks. But, as I said, I shall be very glad to consult with him, and I will put down the Committee stage for any day that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House thinks proper. With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord opposite, I expressly drew the Bill so that we should not go into all these other questions as to what is cruelty, and what ought, or ought not, to be done in other circumstances. I limited the Bill to this particular enlargement of Section 3 of the original Act, and I trust that no attempt will be made to bring in other things. I do not know about your Lordships' House, but in another place it would be impossible.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I can assure my noble friend that if he will call at the Home Office they will be very pleased to see him and to discuss the matter.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I will do that.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I may add incidentally that last year three million dog licences were taken out; so that it is quite easy to get a dog licence.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: We may have a try, anyhow; it cannot do any harm.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PRESERVATION OF INFANT LIFE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, in asking you to accord a Second Reading to this Bill, I think I need say but few words to commend it to your Lordships. First of all, I desire not to postpone in any way the Motion which the noble Earl opposite wishes to bring on, and, secondly, I think it is necessary to say very little because your Lordships passed this Bill through all its stages last Session. I think it, did not become law because there was some little misapprehension in another place as to what it was intended to do. Members there possibly did not read it, and it had a most unfortunate title, of which I was not the author: it was called the Child Destruction Bill. It really is a Bill designed to prevent children being destroyed at birth. I gave it a different title, but the Parliamentary draftsman gave it that one, and naturally enough in the House of Commons, as the member in charge there told me, there was an idea that it had something to do with a method for getting rid of the redundant population, and therefore it did not obtain support.
The reason for the Bill is this. It was brought to my notice by one of His Majesty's Judges that there were a good many cases, far more than I should have thought likely, in which no punishment could be awarded to a person who had done a very cruel and wicked thing in the killing—I say killing because it is difficult to find another word—the killing of a child in these circumstances. If the child has been fully born, and has had an existence separate from its mother, not
270
depending in any way on its mother's existence, if you kill it, however young it may be, it is murder. But if it has not yet acquired an absolutely separate existence, with a circulation and a life of its own, then it may be killed by any one and it is no offence at law at all. It does not come under the Acts which prohibit the procuring of abortion because it has gone beyond the stage to which those Acts apply. It is an old, old question, and there is no doubt, I think, that our law requires to have this gap, as it has been called, filled. I need say no more than this, that earlier in the year, when this Bill was read a second time, it was referred to a Select Committee, and it comes before your Lordships now in the form in which it left that Select Committee. I could give the names of the members of the Committee, but I do not think it is necessary. The Committee gave very careful consideration to the Bill and as it now stands the wording is not mine but theirs. That the injustice which is now possible must be remedied I think your Lordships will agree, if I read only this passage from the speech made on the Second Reading of the Bill by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. He said, "Obviously, it is a gap which ought to be closed." Therefore, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Darling.)
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, I should like to put before your Lordships some considerations why I think this Bill in its present form is not a satisfactory piece of legislation. The gap in the Criminal Law which has been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord undoubtedly exists, and has been recognised to exist by many generations of Judges. As the noble and learned Lord has explained, the gap is that, whereas the mother of a child who kills it after it has a separate existence is guilty of what was the crime of murder and is now the lesser offence of infanticide, yet, if she kills the child in the actual course of delivery or within such a short time afterwards that it has not had and cannot be proved to have had a separate existence, it is not an offence. To the logical mind of the criminal reformer, I think, it cannot be said that that is not a wrongful act and that it might not properly be made

271
an offence. But the practical effect of making it an offence would, in my experience, be very small indeed. Your Lordships will appreciate the circumstances of a trial for infanticide in which the accused is a girl, who is nearly always an unmarried girl and, as happens in nearly every case, has given birth to a child for the first time. If you appreciate the circumstances under which, after a period of months of mental care, anxiety and shame, she is suddenly brought into labour with all the pangs of an unattended, uncared-for and, possibly, difficult labour in the case of a first delivery, you may very well understand that it is very difficult to persuade a jury that the acts of a woman in those circumstances are acts for which she ought to be held criminally responsible. It has been difficult enough in the past under the existing law to get convictions for infanticide. But when the girl is charged with an act done in the very course of delivery I venture to think it will be still more difficult.
That, of course, does not prevent the logical mind of a criminal reformer from saying that an act which clearly is wrong may be tried. My own view is that not a single child life will be spared by this new provision. But that is really not the reason why I got up to complain of this Bill. There is to my mind, with great respect, a very grievous social defect in it. It applies not merely to the mother but to third persons, and it applies to third persons who by a wilful act, intending to destroy the life of a child, do in fact cause its death. That applies to doctors and midwives, to doctors in particular, and it raises the momentous question as to what is the position of a doctor when he has to consider during delivery whether or not it is necessary to save the life of the mother or the life of the child. It will be seen that the scheme of the Bill is that such a doctor commits a criminal offence unless he proves, the onus being upon him, that he acted in good faith and that it was necessary to take the action he took in order to save the life of the mother. I submit to your Lordships that that would be an intolerable burden to throw upon the medical profession.
For my part I am very much opposed to the practice in legislation of creating crimes and throwing the onus upon any-
272
one of proving that he is innocent. I think that is a course of legislation which has been adopted far too freely, but never in such a serious case as this, where the maximum penalty is penal servitude for life. It appears to me that doctors have been harried quite enough by litigation and to add this burden to the cares of an ordinary practitioner is perfectly horrible. It is quite impossible. I submit to your Lordships that the onus already put upon him is bad enough; and it would be all the greater if the doctor who may have to consider this momentous question has to bear in his mind the question whether or not he may be charged by a disappointed parent or by a malicious or mischief-making attendant with this particular offence, when he would have to justify to a jury the question whether or not it was in fact necessary to lose the life of a child. It is for these reasons that I think this Bill has gone very much further than was necessary.
In so far as it purports to make the matter criminal I cannot object to it in principle, though I do not think it will serve any particularly useful purpose; but in so far as it extends the offence to the killing of that which is called a child either in the course of delivery or while still in the body of the mother, I venture to think very serious difficulties will arise. In so far as it deals with the offence of killing a child, the provision as to twenty-eight weeks after conception seems to be quite unnecessary, because such an act as that would, as I am advised and as I understand, always be covered by the law as to procuring abortion. It is impossible in practice to kill the unborn child while still in the body of a mother without in fact procuring, and intending to procure, a miscarriage. For those reasons while the Bill remains in its present form, in the interest of professional men, who, I think, specially require to be protected by your Lordships' House, I venture to say that it is objectionable and ought not to be passed.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, I would like to associate myself with the arguments of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. We are bound to admit on the authority of the noble Lord opposite that there is a gap in the law, and for purposes of symmetry I conceive

273
that there is an argument for filling that gap, but, if one passes from the law to human considerations, I would suggest to your Lordships that it is a gap which you should not be too anxious to fill. The majority of these cases of infanticide to which this Bill refers are cases, as the noble and learned Lord has said, of unmarried mothers who have suffered for months under the stress of anxiety, culminating very often in difficult labour, when they cannot be held to be wholly responsible as ordinary mortals for their actions, and for my part I think it is a very good thing if, in many of these cases, the law turns a blind eye to an offence of that character. Indeed, I think, if one reads the proceedings of the Law Courts, one can detect that the learned Judge trying the case is almost seeking for an opportunity to evade the conviction of these poor girls for felony, which would mark them for the rest of their lives. In many instances what they want is not legal conviction but rather the hand of understanding and fellowship which would help them along the road again.
For my part the fact that there is a gap in the law leaves me cold, when I feel all the time that this class do not require conviction and it is a pity almost if they are convicted. As far as my experience goes, it cannot honestly be said that they are fully responsible for their actions at the time. If I put myself in the position of a professional man who had knowledge of an act of this kind taking place, I have no hesitation in saying, if I satisfied myself that the act had been performed under the stress of impulse and anxiety, I should consider it no part of my duty to divulge the fact to the powers that be; in fact, I should regard it as a matter, in many instances, if it were done impulsively, as to which it was my duty to extend the advantages of professional privilege.
Passing now to what intimately concerns the profession to which I belong, I would point out to your Lordships the hardship that is inflicted on men and midwives who are called upon to do their duty under considerable difficulties. This Bill throws upon them the onus of proving what may be their duty. They have to prove that they are not committing a crime. Apart from its injustice, it would go far to inhibit them and discourage
274
them from doing their work without let or hindrance, and, from the point of view of fairness and justice to the doctor and from the point of view of the interests of the community, I would emphatically urge your Lordships to reject a Bill which throws the onus of disproving a crime upon one of the servants of the State. For those reasons I hope your Lordships will not give this Bill a Second Reading.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, may I say a word first on the strictly legal aspect of this measure. The measures of the noble and learned Lord opposite have this in common. I have noticed sometimes that, although they all deal with matters which we deprecate and which we should like to see cured, they always present a great deal of difficulty in obtaining the necessary evidence and the necessary proof. I would remind your Lordships and the noble Lord of a Bill, which he will remember very well, dealing with misconduct at auctions. I think we all felt that there was a mischief to be cured. I happened to be on the Select Committee which considered it, but we then felt that the proof of the matter would be very difficult. It is rather the same in this case. I am ashamed to say that I have not read the proceedings of the Select Committee and I do not know exactly what evidence was given, but your Lordships have heard what has already been said, that the majority of these cases are cases where a woman in a state of collapse and very great physical discomfort, to put it at its lowest, hardly responsible for her actions, does something which results in the death of the child when no one else is present. What reasonable proof can you give that will convince a jury that she feloniously and wickedly killed that child?
Then, if I may turn for a moment to the human aspect which has been dealt with by two noble Lords, do not your Lordships think that a jury will be inclined to say that in the mental and physical state in which a woman is at that moment she probably hardly knows what she is doing? One often has evidence that she becomes unconscious for half an hour, or something of that sort, and really does not know what passes. If this were a crime which could be stopped by this Bill, and if it were

275
a conscious crime which penalties would deter, I think there would be a great deal more to be said for this Bill going forward, but if it does go forward I cannot help feeling that it would still be advantageous to refer it again to the Select Committee to consider carefully all the circumstances, and particularly safeguards. To throw upon doctors and midwives the onus of proving that they are innocent is a very serious thing, and a most undesirable thing. I do not know whether the actual words of the Bill go as far as that, but they do look rather like it and that is an undesirable form of legislation. We have always taken the view in this country that it is for the prosecution to show the guilty mind and act of the prisoner, not for the person charged to show that he is innocent. I hope that even if your Lordships read this Bill a second time to-day, the noble and learned Lord in charge of it, in deference to what has been said, will allow it to be further considered in its details by a Select Committee before it goes further.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, perhaps as this matter is eminently one of legal and criminal procedure, your Lordships would like to hear a few words from myself as to the attitude which the Government take up with regard to it. The first question, I think, which one asks oneself is whether or not there is, in fact, a gap in the Criminal Law which this Bill is calculated to close. In regard to that, perhaps it is convenient that I should remind your Lordships of the genesis of the Bill in its earlier and less desirable form. It came before your Lordships' House originally in the summer of this year, and it came before your Lordships' House largely because of a charge to a Grand Jury by a learned Judge of great experience, Mr. Justice Talbot. In his charge to the Grand Jury he said this:
"The law upon the matter is unsatisfactory and it is right that every appropriate opportunity should be taken to call attention to it. It is a felony to procure abortion and it is murder to take the life of a child when it is fully born, but to take the life of a child while it is being born and before it is fully born is no offence whatever."
The learned Judge went on to point out what was necessary for complete birth;
276
that it was not enough to prove that the child had breathed, but that you had also to prove that there had been an independent circulation in the child before it could be counted alive. He finished by saying:—
"The result of the law is that a fully born child in many cases can be destroyed with impunity, and I do not think it very creditable to our Legislature that the defect in the law should have been left unremedied."
I confess that I also share the view that it is not very desirable that that defect in the law should be left un-remedied.
When the Bill came before your Lordships' House in the summer I ventured to point out that I doubted whether the cases were quite as frequent as the learned Judge seemed to think, but that there is at present a position under which a child fully born can be killed with impunity either by its mother, or by any third person, unless it can be proved that it had an independent circulation, does not seem to be a very satisfactory state in which to leave our Criminal Law. Assuming that there is a gap, then comes the question of whether this Bill satisfactorily closes it. It has been pointed out that there are two classes of persons, broadly speaking, with regard to whom this Bill may be called into operation. First of all there is the mother of the child herself. Some of your Lordships have said that when an unmarried mother in the pangs of childbirth kills her child she is very often largely irresponsible and hardly conscious of what she is doing. I do not think any one of your Lordships would be disposed to dispute that proposition, but it applies not merely when she kills the child while it is in the act of being born, or before it has an independent circulation, it also applies when she kills the child almost immediately after its birth, which is the common case of infanticide and which has been recognised as a crime by our law.
No doubt it is true that when a crime of that kind is committed the circumstances under which it has been committed are matters properly to be taken into account and under our modern system of Criminal Law are, I think, invariably taken into account in considering what steps shall be taken to-

277
wards the unfortunate woman. In many cases the Courts have taken the view that in such a case it is not right that she should suffer any punishment, but that some probation system should be brought into play under which she can be taken care of and shepherded into wiser and better ways. That, of course, would equally be the case under this Bill should it become law. I do not suppose anybody contemplates that in a case of that kind any punishment would be inflicted on the mother if she killed the child before it was fully born, any more than in the case of a child fully born where the circumstances were such as have been described, and where, in the interests of the mother herself, it was probably desirable that there should be some power to put her under the care of a sympathetic probation officer, rather than leave her without such assistance.
Then comes the other class of persons, the doctor and the midwife. With regard to that, I agree that it is most important that the position of such professional persons should be safeguarded. Those of your Lordships who remember the Bill in its original form will remember that the attention of the House was called to the very point to which my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin and my noble friend Lord Dawson of Penn have called attention this afternoon—namely, that, the position of a doctor in such circumstances as they have described had to he protected. It was partly on that account that the Bill was sent to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, which, incidentally, I see contained among its members my noble friend Lord Dawson of Penn. Whether or not the exact phraseology of the Bill as it stands is sufficient to safeguard that position is no doubt a matter which may well be carefully considered, and, as the noble Earl who has just spoken suggested, may be considered either by a Select Committee or by your Lordships' House in Committee, whichever may be more convenient.
I am not sure that I quite agree with rev noble and learned friend Lord Atkin, when he said the burden is put upon the doctor of proving the necessity of taking life in order that he may escape from responsibility. What he has to prove is that he acted in good faith for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother,
278
and, although in fact he was mistaken in thinking that it was necessary for that purpose to kill the child, as I read the Bill he would not be under any liability so long as he acted in the honest belief that the necessity existed. But that is a matter of phraseology and eminently a Committee point. It is obviously a point which ought to be made clear if there is any doubt, about it, and, since my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin takes that point, there is obviously a doubt about it and it ought to be made clear. I do not think, however, that that is a reason for rejecting the Second Reading altogether, and leaving the gap unclosed, especially now that attention has been called to it not only by debate in this House but by the charge of the learned Judge to which I have called attention.
In those circumstances, if I might venture to give advice to your Lordships' House, I would suggest, that it would be a reasonable thing to allow the Bill to have a Second Reading and then to consider it, either in Committee in this House or, if your Lordships think it better, as the noble Earl suggested, by another Select Committee, so that the Bill may be carefully examined in order to make sure that it does not go further than is necessary to close the gap and does not impose upon any third parties any risk of being convicted for acts done in good faith. I quite agree that it is most important in passing Legislation of this kind that we should not go to the opposite extreme and, in attempting to remedy an injustice, create another wrong. I think it is important to make sure that the wording of the Bill is right and not wider than is necessary for the purposes which are indicated, and I still feel that, since the existence of this gap in our Criminal Law has been recognised by Judges now for many years past, and since it is one to which public attention has been drawn, it is right that an effort should be made by the Legislature to close it.
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, I shall be quite content, as I suppose my noble friend Lord Dawson of Penn will be content, not to divide the House on this matter, being satisfied that this Bill should be considered in Committee. One would then be in a position to form an

279
opinion whether the Bill in its ultimate form does meet the position which is felt to exist at the present moment.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WHEAT AND MEAT PRICES.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR rose to move to resolve, That this House is of opinion that the establishment of wheat and meat import boards for the purpose of bulk purchase of these commodities would have the effect of stabilising their place and be of great benefit both to producer and consumer, and hopes that His Majesty's Government will initiate an inquiry as requested by the National Council of Agriculture.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, during the last few weeks there has been a correspondence in the Press from the Duke of Marlborough, Lord Bledisloe and others suggesting a Three-Party Conference on agriculture. Many of us, however, must feel that there have been quite enough roving inquiries and Commissions into the state of agriculture and that our present need is rather to have a Minister who is prepared to examine all the actual proposals that have been put forward, to select from them those that he considers most practicable and either to put them into action or else, at the very least, to have an inquiry into their practicability. The trouble appears to be that the Conservative Party themselves put forward nothing hut Protection, which they admit it is impossible to apply, and subsidies, about which nobody said harder things in the past than Conservatives themselves. Derating is nothing but a subsidy, and it is no solution of any problem. If dealers, food-stuff merchants, milk combines and all that great multiplicity of interests that live on the back of agriculture to-day do not very soon take away from the farmer any subsidy that he happens to be able to get from the State, then in the course of time the landlord must get it in the process of re-letting his land. It is not a question of the rapacity of the landlord, but one of simple economic development. At any rate, Lord Bledisloe and those who have been asking for a Three-Party Conference will have to admit that they are satisfied that the Government have
280
put forward no satisfactory solution at all, for they wrote their letters after the passing of the Agricultural Credits Act and after they knew all about the scheme of derating.
Discussion is useful only when there is some common basis from which we can all start. Our task, therefore, is to explore an avenue in which we think that it may be possible to find this common basis. It is only on this question of stabilisation that support seems to have come from individual members of all political Parties and if the Conservative Party again turns down this scheme, and if Lord Bledisloe turns it down, I would ask him what is left to put upon an agreed agenda for discussion. The Labour Party will welcome any discussion if it can be convinced that any useful conclusion would be arrived at as a result of it, but while the Conservatives themselves put forward nothing and refuse to look at our proposals, there is nothing to discuss. Let them make some gesture of meeting us and they will find us only too ready and willing to respond. Here is a test case. Here, in the proposal for the establishment of wheat and meat import boards, is a suggestion that has awakened Imperial, Conservative, Labour and general agricultural interest. It has never really been examined with the necessary thoroughness by a national body.
This proposal was first put forward by Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia, at the Imperial Conference in 1923. In 1924 Mr. Baldwin, the present Prime Minister, was evidently very favourably disposed to its consideration. He said in the House of Commons:—
"Is it not possible to enter into some arrangement with the Dominions by which the enormous amount of foodstuffs that we require to-day may be obtained solely from them by bringing them into this country at cost price, and distributing them with the least possible margin?"
In 1925 the Economic Section of the Ministry of Agriculture published the Report of the Committee on the Stabilisation of Agricultural Prices, which again was very favourable and asked for further inquiry. In 1927 the Labour Party adopted the scheme in their official programme, and within the last year the National Council of Agriculture, which none of your Lordships will accuse of being a Socialist body, have asked the Government to have an inquiry into the

281
matter. I retail this short history of the question; not because it is likely that you are going to consider any of these authorities or requests as infallible, but in order to show that this question is practical politics and therefore eminently worthy of discussion in your Lordships' House, and, what is more, of the sort of discussion that is always easier in this House than in another place—namely, a discussion on comparatively non-Party lines.
In considering this question we must first ask ourselves what is the problem that we are seeking to solve, and then we can go on to consider the nature and practicability of the suggested solution. It is probably generally admitted—so generally admitted that I do not think I need weary your Lordships by arguing this part of the case—that the most serious obstacle against which a farmer has to contend is the fluctuation in the prices of his produce, this fluctuation being caused by factors entirely outside his own control. In the milk market alone we see that he has some controlling voice, but he has reached that position only after years of struggle and nobody could really pretend to he satisfied with the situation as it stands at the present moment. Every year the farmers have to organise themselves for a strike or for a war with the combines, and the public has to stand by hoping that it may not be shortly cut off from a supply of milk.
Unsatisfactory as this position is, if your Lordships will reflect upon the position regarding those commodities that are mainly imported, such as wheat and meat, you will realise that the situation is even worse, because Prices here can never really be influenced to any serious degree by organisation on the part of the farmers of this country. About 80 per cent. of the wheat that we consume is imported and about 50 per cent. of the meat, and your Lordships will see that such large quantities as these must really be the controlling factor in the settlement of prices. These prices fluctuate from year to year, according to the value of money and the forces that operate in connection with the laws of supply and demand. The latter forces, with which we must associate the activities of market speculators, also operate in connection with the monthly, weekly, and almost daily fluctuations that the farmer has to face.
282
It is with this aspect of the problem that I will attempt to deal to-day. The problem of fluctuating monetary values, and the effect on trade, is one which will have to be examined from the national point of view rather than from the point of view of one industry, such as agriculture, and so it really cannot be usefully pursued in this debate, but no discussion of the difficulties of this industry, with its particular circumstances of slow turnover, could be complete without the bare statement that readjustments within the industry itself can never affect the losses and difficulties brought about by this particular cause. What we can do is this: we can eliminate the element of profit, including speculation, we can do away with the redundant overhead charges of a number of competing firms, all doing what one organisation can do much more efficiently, and, by bulk purchase, we can leave out the variations of price, and present a united purchasing front to importers who are more and more organising themselves into combines.
The last two points are probably the most important. It is possible to-day to bring about these objects, because both the grain trade and the meat trade, both here and abroad, have reached a state of organisation which renders bulk purchase of these commodities not only possible but really the easiest and most obvious way of dealing with the situation. It is true that there is more to do in this country than elsewhere. Every producing country, including Canada, has the majority of its wheat marketed already through a central pool. The meat trade, on rather different lines, is also very well organised. Your Lordships will see from this that it really means that there is nothing to prevent us going forward ourselves.
Let us for a moment examine the position with regard to these two particular trades. Meat is really in a, position intermediate between milk, which is almost wholly home-produced, and wheat, which is mainly imported. We produce in this country approximately 50 per cent. of our meat. Of that which is imported over three-quarters is controlled by the American Meat Trust and by the Vestey interests, which are British, and which operate through the Union Cold Storage Companies and subsidiary companies.

283
The majority of this is chilled meat from South America, and only a very small portion of it is frozen meat from Australia and New Zealand, which are our Dominions. These two groups, and other much smaller companies, meet together periodically for the purpose of allocating shipping space on an agreed basis. How far price discussions take place at these meetings is really a matter for speculation, but it is hard to believe that such discussions do not take place. At any rate it is clear that competition as an effective force for the protection of this country is really a dead letter. The control is becoming increasingly centralised, and, what is more, increasingly centralised at a point where foreign interests are in the ascendant. The American Group controls over 50 per cent. of the imported meat market to-day. The British Group, the Vestey interests, control about 35 per cent., I believe. There is, as yet, apparently, no financial connection, but with regard to quotas, shipping space, and possibly prices, there does appear to be agreement. At any time the other may follow.
It seems to be a logical development that sooner or later these two groups should cement their alliance still further, and come together, and then what will be the position? The position will be that we will then have allowed the control of the imported meat supplies of this country, from its very source in South America, to fall into the hands of a foreign group of financiers with no interest whatever in this country except that of exploitation. In a moment I hope to discuss what we might do to encourage the production of home-grown meat, but whatever we try to do to develop the home-grown meat trade in this country can be entirely neutralised by this foreign group. During the last two or three years we have witnessed a great meat war between these two groups, which has finally been settled. In that war we saw that they were prepared to throw away hundreds of thousands of pounds in order to try to get the trade.
LORD BLEDISLOE: It is said to have been £13,000,000.
EARL DE LA WARR: What is to prevent them adopting the same policy towards the produce of this country, and entirely neutralising anything that we can
284
do to help the British farmer? They can temporarily afford to let prices drop, and kill our trade, and then, having done so, when they feel quite safe they can at their leisure again raise prices and recoup themselves for their losses, at the expense, mark you, of the British consumer. There is another point. America, we know, is a friendly nation. Most of us feel that war between England and America is something that is quite inconceivable, but last year we had the spectacle of this country saying, rightly or wrongly—that question is not in dispute to-day—that we did not feel that we could trust America with 8-inch guns on her cruisers instead of 6-inch guns. If we cannot do that, are we quite sure that we are prepared to let her financiers have control from the very source of one of the staple foodstuffs of this country? The main purpose of our Navy is to protect our trade routes and ultimately to ensure that during the period of war we are able to keep up our supplies, the most important of which are food supplies. How is the Navy going to help us when the main supply of our meat is never going to be put on the sea at all, because it will stay over in South America? I think you see, my Lords, into what position we are beginning to drift.
Now, what can we do to remedy this situation? The first step we can take is to organise the distribution of home-produced meat so as to make it as easy to handle for the butcher as the imported article. Great central slaughter-houses must be established, where slaughtering, cutting up, and grading can be carried on under first-class conditions. The butcher to-day does not want to handle English meat, because he cannot be bothered with it. He does not want to bother to go out and purchase it, select it, bring it back, and slaughter it. He does not want to have to dispose of the offals and of cuts that are probably quite unsuitable to his trade; he would prefer to ring up a wholesaler and order exactly what his class of customers take. The British producer, therefore, to-day is labouring under the disadvantage of having the interest of the distributor, that is, the butcher, against him. His goods are awkward to handle, and the distributor persuades his clients that chilled meat is just as good. Thus, there

285
is a field for the increased home production of meat, not only through price reduction (though with better organisation that should come) but through ordinary wholesale marketing.
The second step is to carry out the recommendations of a Committee presided over by Mr. Bridgeman, who is now First Lord of the Admiralty and a member of the Cabinet, and of another Committee presided over by Mr. Macrosty, to protect our interests at the source by acquiring freezing works in South America. The whole question is gone into very fully in the Report, and I will not bother your Lordships with its details. Lastly we must ensure that we shall have control of the import market by taking over the control of the Vestey interests, either as a half-way measure by turning them into a public utility company, with proper representation on the board, or by going the whole way by the appointment of a public corporation, constituted rather on the lines on which the B.B.C. is constituted to-day. The supplies of meat would then be contracted for over a period of time by a responsible body, supplies would be kept in British hands and speculative rises and falls would be avoided, to the advantage both of our producers here at home and of our consumers.
Now I turn to wheat for a moment. With home-grown wheat there is very little to do for the present, though of course full liberty should be given to the farmers to sell to the wheat board, and facilities offered for grading and proper marketing. Nor is there any need to contemplate purchasing interests abroad equivalent to the meat freezing works in the Argentine. The import board in the case of wheat could to-day get into direct touch with the wheat pools in the various producing countries, notably Canada, and what we have to ask ourselves in connection with this question is not really so much whether this step is advisable, but what is going to be our position if we do not take this step. I have already said that every producing country in the world that counts to-day has its wheat pool. Last year all these pools met together in a central conference, and while they have naturally not come together yet, and it is quite possible that for some time they will not come together, this is
286
a possibility that we shall have to contemplate. Where will this country be then? We shall be the one element in the wheat market that is still without any central organisation. We, with our multiplicity of interests, will be bargaining with these great centralised wheat pools, and instead of being able to put all our energies into dealing with the seller, we shall have all our small firms trying to cut each other's throats. The only attempt that is made in this country at central purchasing is made by the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which, I believe, buys about 20 per cent. of the wheat supply of this country. The board would not, of course, be tied to dealing only with the Dominions, but they are already our main existing source of supply, and I should imagine that we should all prefer to go on dealing With them, so long as they remain reasonable, both for sentimental and practical reasons.
Our experience of wheat control during the War and after the War shows how cheaply this commodity can be handled in bulk. It is true, I believe, that there were miscalculations right at the end, but it was not only State Commissions that failed to realise the approaching slump. Moreover, in speaking of these War organisations, we have always to remember this: they were emergency in character, and they were in the position of having to acquire experience that will be of immense use to us in evolving our much more carefully considered schemes at the present time. But, even taking this into account, they were able to handle wheat at a cost of about ⅛th per cent., or 2s. 4d. per £100. The wheat trade abroad to-day is in a very much better state of organisation than it was ten years ago, and is therefore a good deal easier to deal with. There is one other consideration. Not only were these War organisations emergency organisations, but they were trading from quite a different point of view from that of to-day. They were in the position of not always being able to bargain. The problem was to get food for this country at all, and therefore it is not really fair—although we can claim, that they did a great deal—to argue from any mistakes that were made during those War years.
Before closing I should like to deal with two or three objections that are

287
very often brought up. Of course, all the old arguments against management of trading organisations by Government Departments are likely to occur to noble Lords, in fact they are already mentioned in the Amendment on the Paper. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do not deal with that Amendment for the moment, because it seems to me to be tackling the subject from the point of view of a general debate on Socialism or anti-Socialism, rather than from the point of view that we are faced with a particular industry in a particular state and that we want to evolve particular solutions on the merits of the case. Moreover, these objections do not really apply. There is no question of attempting to control wheat and meat imports from a Government Department. The wheat and meat import board would be composed of experts in all branches of the trade, including the co-operative movement, and there would be no interference from Parliament. Their only contact with politics, in fact, would be that instead of submitting their accounts annually to shareholders they would submit them to Parliament, and the national interest rather than that of the shareholders would have to be their guiding inspiration.
There is another point that is brought forward. The Liberals fear, I think, that this scheme will infringe their Free Trade principles. Indeed, there have been members of our own Party who have been nervous on this point. On the other side there are farmers who wonder what they will get out of the scheme unless those Free Trade principles are infringed. The answer to that is perfectly clear. The object of this scheme is not to raise or to lower prices artificially, but it may have some such incidental effect. If we increase the demand for home-grown wheat by a better organisation of the trade, and it is possible to do so, the farmers will benefit from the increased demand. Similarly, if we find that homegrown wheat could be used more for baking were it not for certain trade interests—I know that this is a controversial matter—we should hope to increase the demand for that commodity. The negotiations for imports, if such happen, will be carried on as now on a purely commercial basis by one solitary authority. It is assumed that both sides before they go into this scheme will have
288
realised the importance of stability as opposed to occasional good deals. Then, if the wheat pools try to be extortionate, prices will rise, production must be increased and the whole object of the existence of the pool, the object which these men have laboured for years to build up—namely, stability—will be defeated. In the same way, if we in this country try to take advantage of temporary difficulties, temporary circumstances to force down prices, we shall destroy our sources of supply. Nobody but the speculative middleman has ever benefited from rigging the market either way. The price can, therefore, be left to be settled on a commercial basis, but on a sounder commercial basis than hitherto.
This reply really answers, I think, another point that is frequently put forward—namely, the fear of endangering foreign and Dominion relationships. The Canadians may be dissatisfied by the prices they receive. We may be dissatisfied by the prices we have to pay. Surely it would be much truer to say that the activities of these completely irresponsible bodies present in themselves a much greater danger, an increasing international danger, every day. Their interests are what producers and consumers in all countries most abhor—namely, fluctuations in price. The interest of the public corporation will be for what we are all most wanting—increased security and increased certainty, and it will, therefore, be much less likely to promote discontent than the present system. From this increased security or stability, or security of price, as we may call it, the farmer will gain the knowledge that no matter when he puts his wheat on the market he will get a fair price for it. This will be a particular help to the small farmer who has no capital, and frequently has to rush his corn on to the market as soon as he has finished the harvest and take whatever price he can get. He will also be able to estimate very much better than he can to-day the chances of making a profit or a loss on certain transactions in the coming year, because he will have a very much clearer idea of what the price is likely to be. In other words, he will be able to devote his energies where they ought to be devoted, to the farm and to the management of his land

289
instead of to speculation, and speculation with the odds weighing heavily against him both from the point of view of knowledge and power.
From the point of view of the consumer it will become very much easier for such bodies as the Food Council to control the actions of the retailer and the middleman. They will be in the position then of having this increased knowledge and power through the national control of the sources of supply. This, in itself, must bring about a decrease of the middleman's charges, which will benefit both the producer and the consumer in this country and may well have important industrial effects. Dear food is a charge on industry. Fluctuating food values mean industrial difficulties because wages questions are always being raised. Those are a few of the advantages, and those are the main advantages, that we feel can be obtained from pursuing this course of appointing wheat and meat import boards for the importation of our essential foodstuffs. The scheme is not cut-and-dried. It does not profess to be a panacea. But those who are interested in agriculture, those who are disturbed at the present state of the land and those who are trying to-day to get a living out of it, have a right to demand that this Government, in default of some other constructive proposal of their own which they have not as yet shown, shall at least be prepared to consider one like this, which is so pre-eminently based on the actual needs of industry to-day. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House is of opinion that the establishment of wheat and meat import boards for the purpose of bulk purchase of these commodities would have the effect of stabilising their prices and be of great benefit both to producer and consumer, and hopes that His Majesty's Government will initiate an inquiry as requested by the National Council of Agriculture.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD FORRES LORD FORRES, who had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, to leave cut all the words after "would" in order to insert "institute Government entrance into commercial trading and the adoption of a policy which would be against the country's interests," said: My Lords, I almost hesitate to rise after the exhaustive speech we have had on
290
the subject of meat and wheat, but as one who has had something to do with trading in one of these articles I feel it would be unbecoming in me that this occasion should pass without saying a word or two on the proposal before the House. I confess I had some difficulty at first in understanding what the proposals meant and what inferences were to be drawn from them. I think it is unwise to dismiss a Motion such as this on the ground that we consider it wild and impracticable without attempting to investigate a little what is behind the proposal, and the point of view of those who make it.
So far as I can understand the intention, it is that the Government, through an established Department—it is idle to say it would not be the Government; it would, in fact, be the Government—and given presumably a monopoly, should buy all the meat and wheat that it is necessary to import. It is quite clear that if this body were to buy all that is imported it would have also to buy all that is home-grown. It would have equally to ration the wheat grown at home to the millers with the wheat which was imported. That would involve the institution of national granaries and national home storing. No farmer, having a fixed price for his wheat, is going to hold wheat from the month of August to the following July if he can turn it over to a Department and get cash for it. Consequently, you have to have large national granaries to take over the whole product.
For what object is this proposed? Long ago—I suppose it is thirty years ago—there was a great deal of talk about having national granaries. The idea behind that scheme was that we were in grave danger in time of war because we produced so small a proportion of the wheat we required for our daily bread. There was a great deal of discussion at the time—I am old enough to remember it—and the project was turned down upon the ground that it involved enormous warehouses, that it would involve great loss of interest, and that there would be deterioration of the grain owing to the action of weevils; or, alternatively, that it would involve constant in-and-out speculation. Opponents of the scheme took the view, I think rightly, that for the protection of our national

291
food supplies we ought to have a strong Navy which could keep the freedom of the seas and admit of food supplies coming freely to our shores. But this new proposal of instituting Government purchase of meat and wheat is not founded upon—or at least not mainly founded upon—national safety in time of war, but it is founded upon a proposal that we should stabilise prices in order to benefit both the producer and the consumer. Is it desired to stabilise the present prices? Are they entirely satisfactory? If it is not, and if it is desired to stabilise lower prices, how does that benefit the producer? If, on the contrary, it is proposed to stabilise higher prices, how can that possibly benefit the consumer? But the idea is entertained that the Government can buy cheaper than other people. Well, it is contrary to all our experience.
Reference has been made to the profits of the middleman as being somewhat enormous. There has been a Committee, or a body, investigating the prices of food, and if I remember rightly I read in the newspapers that evidence was given, and I think accepted by the Committee, when bakers and millers were called before the Committee to defend their prices, that on the whole wheat is brought into this country by importers at a loss. It may seem almost illogical that such a thing could be, but as a matter of fact it is like what happens at Monte Carlo. People go on playing at Monte Carlo because they hope to make a coup and win a large sum of money some day; similarly they go on playing in the wheat market and importing wheat more or less in the same spirit. The result is that Monte Carlo always wins; so does the buyer of the wheat always win.
Something was said about how the Government would buy. What would be the influence of a Government Department buying wheat? The influence could only be adverse to their own buying interests because, with a big body like this buying, it would be known exactly what they required, and when they came to the market everybody would know at once that this great organisation was in the market, and in consequence prices would stiffen against them. It is an entire misconception to think that a large national body such as
292
this could buy more cheaply than the individual purchaser. I say that because it seems to be forgotten by some people that this country is not the only buyer of wheat. This country, taking Great Britain and Ireland together, in the year 1926–27 imported thirty million quarters; the rest of Europe imported fifty-seven million quarters; and other countries outside Europe imported eighteen million quarters, so that of the world's export of 102,000,000 quarters we bought less than 30 per cent.
It should be obvious at once that we are not in a position to dictate prices, nor would the home-grown supply very greatly help this body to hold off in order to stabilise prices, because the homegrown supplies would be only six million quarters out of the thirty-six million quarters that we consume. Prices do not depend entirely upon speculation. They depend mainly on weather and on freight. No Government can control the weather, nor can they control the world's freights. I have said nothing of the army of officials that would be required and the great difficulty of equal distribution of qualities to millers, nor the loss of interest and the burden on the Government's finance, and, above all, the speculation which would be inherent in any such scheme. If fixity of prices ever could be achieved the stimulus of competition would largely disappear, and its bright edge would be replaced by the rusty dullness of laissez faire and antiquated methods.
I think the scheme is hopelessly impracticable, or, if you like, alternatively, ruinous and costly. If it is an example of the kind of legislation we are to expect from a Socialist Government, I think it is well that we have had the proposal before us now in time. Something was said by the noble Earl about fair prices. I would like to know what is a fair price. I do not think people would entirely sympathise with the view that the present price is fair to the farmer in England; on the other hand, there are consumers who would think it too high. A fair price is a very difficult thing to define, and we had very much better allow trade to run in the ordinary course of supply and demand. With keen people buying keenly and with ships running, as everyone knows, at a loss, the wheat is obtained more cheaply than we

293
could buy by any interference of any kind by a Government Department. For those reasons I ventured to put down an Amendment on the Paper to the Motion of the noble Earl, and I ask your Lordships to agree with me by adopting it.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all the words after ("would") and insert ("institute Government entrance into commercial trading and the adoption of a policy which would be against the country's interests").—(Lord Forres.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I feel bound to intervene in this debate, partly because the noble Earl who has so ably introduced this Motion has made a personal reference to myself, but mainly because I cannot help regretting that it appears to be thought the advisable course on the part of some at least of those who sit on these Benches to support the Amendment which has just been moved from the Liberal Benches. I cannot help thinking that the arguments against the contention put forward by the noble Earl are quite sufficient and quite sufficiently forcible to condemn his Motion by a direct negative.
With regard to the arguments which have been adduced in support of the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite I have but little to say, except that I am one of those who are wholly opposed to the laissez faire policy of the old Manchester school which becomes evident in every single sentence of the noble Lord's arguments. In this Amendment he suggests that the Government are for the first time instituting an entrance into commercial trading and that such a course is in national interests to be deprecated. The process has already begun and begun in many directions. It is true that in certain directions it has been abandoned, or partially abandoned, but altogether apart from the provision of credit facilities, which in effect constitute the Government for the time being as debenture holders of the particular companies which they support financially in this way, the present Government—inheriting, I believe, a legacy from the immediate post-War Government—has a large interest in oil, having a financial interest in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and has had, if it does not retain, a similar interest in rubber and other commodities. The noble Lord must be fully aware of these interests which the Government already
294
have in commercial undertakings. He himself is, I understand, very largely interested in oil. He also is perfectly entitled to give an expert opinion upon meat, because, as I understand, he is chairman of one of the largest, most powerful and prosperous railway companies operating in the Argentine, and carrying large quantities of cattle and to some extent chilled meat with a view to this country as their ultimate destination.
But I am bound to submit to your Lordships that in my humble opinion there are emergencies other than war which may compel at least temporary intrusion on the part of British Governments into industrial enterprise. Let us take by way of illustration a case to which the noble Earl referred—what is popularly known as the milk combine. Does any one really suppose that the sort of controversy which has gone on in the public eye this year and last year and the year before, as between this great monopolistic distributing milk agency and the milk selling farmers of this country, is going to be tolerated for all time to come? Is it really supposed that either the farmers or the consumers are going to allow that class of monopoly to remain undisturbed by successive Governments in this country without any sort of direction or control? I can only say that if that is thought, it is a state of affairs which would not be contemplated in any other civilised country in the world, and least of all in those countries which raise large quantities of land products for sale in our own markets. Let me take that as an illustration. I do not want to press it. Milk is not cheap to the British consumer. Milk is, compared with other countries, relatively dear to the poorer classes of the community in this country. Milk at the present time, even with the amended contract between the National Farmers' Union and the milk combine, leaves a very doubtful profit on a large number of well-conducted dairy farms in this country. It is in fact a somewhat precarious branch, although up till recently regarded as the most promising branch, of the agricultural industry.
The noble Earl has made reference to the large extent to which we depend upon meat shipped from Argentina, and has made reference, if I may venture to say so, with great skill and accuracy, to the danger which may await us in

295
the future of there being constituted a great monopoly, not a world monopoly, and least of all an American monopoly such as he adumbrated, but a meat monopoly in this country to the disadvantage of the consumers. We already are aware that something like 48 per cent. of the whole of our beef comes from Argentina at the present time. The cattle, the raw material of that meat, are purchased by the various frigorificos or packing houses in Argentina at a price which certainly seems to leave a considerable margin to the packing houses, but, as I am credibly informed, not always a large margin to those who raise the cattle. At least the price is very largely dictated by the frigorificos or packing houses. The cattle, having passed into these packing houses, are converted into meat, and the meat is to a large extent carried in ships belonging to the owners of these frigorificos and is sold in this country in retail shops by the same persons who own both the frigorificos and the ships.
I want to say with perfect candour that I think that growing monopoly is being operated mercifully so far as the consumers in this country are concerned, but will it necessarily be always so? Suppose that that concern, that great powerful monopolistic concern, is converted into a company and, as has happened in the case of the dairy companies of which the combine is an aggregate, having made large profits for its shareholders, issues bonus shares, waters down the capital, and continues to pay a substantial dividend on that enlarged capital: What is going to be the result? Surely the result is going to be exactly the same as we are threatened with in the case of milk. A large section of our population, owing to the cost of that essential commodity, are consuming too little—far less than in any of the Scandinavian countries of Europe, considerably less than in any part of North America—to the detriment, as some of us believe, of the children of the nation. And all the time there is no certainty of any advantage being gained for the producers of that commodity in this country. If those conditions can be contemplated, I will not say with certainty but if they can be contemplated as at all possible in the course of the development of big business as it is understood in every part of the world to-day, is it not only pos
296
sible but right for even the Conservative Government to contemplate the possibility and the public advantage, as well as the advantage to the agricultural producers of the country, of stepping in at least to regularise such a trade as that? I can only say that, being myself a very sincere disciple of the man whom I regard as having inspired Conservative policy in my generation—I mean Disraeli—I cannot believe that Disraeli, if he were alive to-day, would fail to say that those are conditions under which even a Conservative Government—perhaps preponderantly a Conservative Government—would feel justified, as the noble Lord who moved the Amendment said, in intruding into industrial enterprise.
Having said this, I want to make it perfectly clear that I for one, with some small knowledge of agriculture in this country and in countries overseas, am not going to vote either for the Amendment or for the noble Earl's Motion. So far as the noble Earl is concerned, I agree absolutely with him when he suggests that the conditions of agriculture in this country are highly unsatisfactory. We have had this year a perfectly magnificent harvest. I think that if we were to take all the different crops that are normally raised by our farmers it is probably the best harvest that we have had for something like thirty years. Yet there is not a single crop that we have raised this year in England that will show an appreciable profit, if any profit at all, except sugar beet, which is artificially supported by Government money. If that be so, all that I venture to say is that the most vital and fundamental industry in this country is in an admittedly precarious state, and therefore it is not only up to the present Government but it is up to all statesmen who are responsible for the well-being of the country and its rural population to see whether there cannot be devised some measures, possibly as the result of a concordat between the leaders of all Parties, to save the industry from ultimate destruction.
No one can deny that the ultimate wellbeing of every nation must depend very largely upon the well-being of its rural population, and what I want to ask is—and I have never yet been able to get an answer, although I have asked it many a time since I entered public life—is there any settled plan, is there any cer-

297
tain and united objective as regards our great agricultural industry on the part of all Parties in the State, as is to be found in every other civilised country in the world with which I am acquainted? If there is no settled plan, if there is no settled objective, surely the time has come when we ought to see whether we cannot put our heads together and try, for the salvation of the agricultural industry, to find one. That, at least, is my view, for what it is worth. What do we find instead? We are approaching a General Election. We know what happened at the last General Election, and I suppose we may contemplate the same thing happening at the next. A so-called land policy is thrown into the cockpit of the politicians. Nothing does more to intensify the insecurity from which the industry is suffering at the present time; and if there is one industry more than another that requires a full measure of security on the part of those who carry it on if it is ever going to be enterprising and progressive and successful, it is the agricultural industry. For my part I welcome the efforts which the Conservative Government are making to alleviate the unfortunate lot of the agricultural industry. No one welcomes more warmly than I do their credits scheme, their derating proposals and especially all those measures which they have been taking for the last two or three years to improve marketing conditions, which were admittedly in a deplorable state and which are every day being improved as the result of their efforts. I cannot deprecate or denounce such steps as the Government are taking because, quite candidly, I have had a very considerable part in the task.
What is the remedy which the noble Earl opposite advocates? He advocates, so far as I can see, that the Government of this country for the time being should enter the markets of the world and attempt to stabilise the prices of essential commodities by buying those commodities in bulk. I ventured to speak on a former occasion, and I venture to remind your Lordships now, of what took place during the War. The noble Earl opposite says that the conditions are not the same. No, the conditions are not the same, but the difficulties are the same and the obstacles that the Government is going to be up against are exactly the
298
same. I had the experience of being Sugar Controller during the most fateful part of the Great War, and in conjunction with Mr. Hoover the President-Elect of the United States I had the none too easy task of purchasing sugar in the various markets of the world for supplying the Allied countries and the Allied troops. I can tell you, as my noble friend Lord Crawford, who was Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Wheat Supply at that time, could tell you if he were here, that not only was it a most delicate business but our methods had to be most secretive, and even with the most secretive methods we found that whenever the British Government was entering the market of the world for either wheat or sugar, or even when it was contemplated that it would enter the markets, the prices for those commodities went sky-high against us. We know perfectly well that the same thing is bound to happen again.
I am sure that the motives of the noble Earl are genuine and sincere so far as the agricultural community is concerned, but what happened then would be bound to happen again. Prices would be raised against the consumer, but would not be allowed to rise so far as the producer of those commodities was concerned. I suppose there is no greater grievance with farmers, and no one knows it better than one of my noble friends beside me [Lord Ernle], than that when prices seemed to be fairly remunerative in the matter of cereals the Government interposed, and rightly interposed in the face of public opinion, and in times of emergency prevented the producer gaining the full benefit of those prices. I cannot satisfy myself, having had some difficult and at times painful experiences of trafficking in important food commodities for the benefit of the British public in the world's markets, that any such policy would not defeat its own ends and produce no satisfaction either to the consumer or to the agricultural community. I do not want to take up more of your Lordships' time except to say that I believe the solution of this particular difficulty as regards wheat, and possibly as regards meat, is to be found in co-operation on the one hand and credit facilities on the other, with such help as the Empire Marketing Board can

299
give us, in securing that our own overseas producers shall not be unfair Competitors with their fellow agriculturists in this country.
I am bound to tell your Lordships that when, the year before last, I found myself sitting on the Empire Marketing Board, I felt conscious that I was sitting with representatives of countries likely in the long run to be the most severe and dangerous competitors of the British farmer in his own business, but I discovered that they were prepared to admit that Great Britain was a part of the British Empire, and that the Empire Marketing Board could so construe its functions as to see that not only would British agriculturists receive fair treatment, but preponderatingly fair treatment, in competition with themselves; in other words, that when it came to encouraging, as the Empire Marketing Board are out to encourage, the sale of Empire products in our own markets, preference would always be given to British produce, even in competition with that coming from our own overseas Dominions. I believe that the solution of that particular problem is to be found in Empire consolidation, operating perhaps in this connection through the Empire Marketing Board, and, so far as our domestic policy is concerned, in greater co-operation, coupled with such credit facilities as the Government are able to afford to farmers in this country, and such as are afforded to competitive farmers in other countries of the world.
Finally, I only want to say that I think the noble Earl over-stated the case when he said that milk is almost wholly raised in this country. It is true that liquid milk is almost wholly home-produced, but if you look at statistics, and particularly the statistics of consumption, you will find that milk to an increasing extent is being consumed in this country which is either synthetically produced by a machine known as the emulsifier, or else is coming in in the form of condensed milk, some of which is very nasty stuff, and dried milk, or milk powder, which is converted into liquid milk before it is consumed. I apologise for intruding so much in your Lordships' debate, but I feel strongly on the subject, and if the matter goes to a Division I shall vote both against the Motion and against the Amendment.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I am not going to do the same thing as my noble friend. I am not going to vote for or against either the Motion or the Amendment, and for this reason, that I should have been only too glad if I could have been persuaded by the noble Earl. I thought his speech was most earnest, and showed great care, and great knowledge of the arguments that are used in support of the scheme that he had in his mind; but I think it perfectly evident from the speeches which have been made that this is not an agricultural question at all, or hardly at all. It is an economic question, a trading question, and possibly a political question. The advantage to agriculture has been exploded by the speech of Lord Forres and by the speech of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, who has had experience of a Government attempting to stabilise prices. We know what the attempt to stabilise prices during the War effected, as the noble Lord has said. As long as prices were low the British farmer was allowed to sell, but as soon as they went high he was not allowed to sell. If that is going to be the case with this specific stabilisation, I do not see what advantage the British farmer is going to get.
The difficulty of stabilisation was exposed long before the War. If I remember aright the whole question was gone into in very great detail by the Commission which was assembled to discuss fair trade by Mr. Chamberlain, and the idea that it would be a great advantage to agriculture was entirely exploded by that assembly, which I should imagine was certainly imbued with great anxiety to help the British farmer. I cannot see that stabilisation is going to help him unless we know before hand what is the fair price which the noble Earl assumes is going to be laid down by this body. At the present moment we know that prices are not fair. The one thing which is stabilised is the agricultural labourer's wage, and that is far too high for the farmer to pay. The agricultural labourer is getting an advantage of from 20 to 30 per cent. above the cost of living scale, and he is not going to get an advantage if prices are stabilised higher than they are now. The farmer naturally wants prices to be stabilised higher, because he is not getting any profit on present prices, and therefore I do not see that any satis-

301
faction is to be secured from the theoretical stabilisation which the noble Earl believes would be of advantage.
If the noble Earl had confined himself to expressing a hope that the Government would appoint an inquiry I should have been glad to vote for that, but when he commits himself to the dictum that stabilisation will help both the producer and the consumer I am very sceptical, and I do not care to commit myself to voting for a Motion containing that conclusion. The noble Earl opened his speech with some reference to a suggestion which I have seen adumbrated in the Press that there should be a conference of the three Parties on the subject of agriculture. That, I think, would be as advantageous as would have been—only it failed—the suggestion of Mr. Baldwin, that there should be a conference of the three parties interested in agriculture—namely, the landlord, the tenant, and the labourer. If, now, a conference could be composed of the three political Parties, with a view of assisting agriculture, no one would vote for it more heartily than I would, but I have not observed that there has been any enthusiasm to support the suggestion that there should be this conference. If that had been the Motion of the noble Earl I should have voted for it gladly, but when he commits himself to the dictum that stabilisation will help both the producer and the consumer I cannot commit myself to that.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF STRADBROKE): My Lords, I am sure we all feel that the noble Earl who introduced this Motion spoke with very real sincerity in all that he said, and with a very firm belief that the suggestions which he brought forward would be for the benefit of agriculture. As is inevitable in a debate like this the discussion has turned on lines more affecting the general welfare of the community than on the way in which they would be affected by the establishment of import boards for wheat and meat. The Amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Forres, naturally led to the debate more on those lines.
The proposals in the Motion are not new, as they form part of the policy of the Labour Party. Reference has also
302
been made to the fact that they have been very exhaustively considered, in the first place in 1923 by the Food and Materials Committee of the Imperial Conference, and later by the Royal Commission on Food Prices in 1925. But I do not know whether it has been made quite clear to your Lordships that both these bodies reported unfavourably, in fact, they rejected the suggestion. In addition to this, when Mr. Buxton was Minister for Agriculture he appointed a Committee on stabilisation to go into these matters and see if it was possible to stabilise prices. The noble Lord also mentioned that the Council of Agriculture passed a resolution adopting a report of their Standing Committee that his suggestion should be carried out; there was a division of opinion as to whether it was right or wrong, but it was carried. I was present on that occasion, and pointed out, as was my duty, that the Government were opposed to the establishment of import boards. The inquiries that have been made on this subject have been very exhaustive indeed, and the Government feel that at the present time no good purpose could be served by having a further inquiry, because they do not think that anything new can be brought to light. Therefore we cannot accept the Motion of the noble Earl.
I should like once more to emphasise the very great size of the trade that is affected by the noble Earl's Motion. I think it was the noble Lord opposite who referred to the fact that we are the purchasers of 30 per cent. of all the wheat exported by exporting countries, and no less than 80 per cent. of the wheat consumed in this country is imported from overseas. The five chief sources from which we buy these supplies are Canada, the United States, Argentina, India, and Australia. These imports are, indeed, huge. In 1927 the amount of wheat imported was 109,962,075 cwts. and the imports of flour during the same period were 6,666,374 cwts. The meat imports have already been referred to, but the figures are:—Beef and veal, 56 per cent. of our consumption; mutton and lamb, 59 per cent.; pig meat, 66 per cent. The imports of meat into the United Kingdom in 1927 were 29½ million cwts., valued at over £96,000,000, and in addition there were the imports of live animals, valued at £15,500,000.

303
Your Lordships will realise that what the noble Earl proposes would mean a very serious interference indeed with the private trade of this country, in fact, it would involve the nationalisation of most of the trade in this country of foodstuffs.
One point which the noble Earl made was that the advantage of these import boards would be that they would stabilise the price of wheat, and so the farmer who, after harvesting his corn in the autumn, is compelled sometimes, for the sake of ready cash, to sell off his corn, and so glut the market and bring down the price of corn, would be helped by stabilisation. But I would point out that the Government think that he could be helped in other ways, and your Lordships will remember that last summer the Government introduced, and Parliament passed, the Agricultural Credits Bill, by which the farmer will be able to borrow money, and will thereby be absolved from having to sell his corn or his agricultural produce when he does not wish to do so, but will be able to provide himself with the credit that he requires through the Agricultural Credits Act, and so avoid having to sell his crops at unfavourable moments.
The objections to the establishment of import boards were stated by the Royal Commission, and I have tried to summarise them shortly, so as not to take up too much of your Lordships' time. A State monopoly would necessarily involve the prohibition of export and import on private account. To a country like Great Britain, which is one of the principal world markets for wheat and meat, this would mean an appreciable diminution in her profits from foreign trade. Even if the State monopoly undertook the intricate business of reselling to foreign countries, the abolition of a free market in London and Liverpool could not fail to diminish the national income from the profits of finance, shipping and insurance, and to increase unemployment. The divergence of internal prices from world's prices might cause reactions on the country's foreign trade. If the purchase of all imported wheat were concentrated in the hands of the import board, the board could not expect to make fewer miscalculations than private importing firms, but the effect of miscalculations would
304
be far more serious under a State monopoly since they would be on a vastly greater scale. Moreover, the losses would fall upon the taxpayer instead of upon private individuals.
Under the heading of "Political and administrative difficulties," the Commission say:—
"Parliamentary and Treasury control are necessary safeguards where public money is at stake, but they are bound to hamper initiative and weaken the sense of individual responsibility, which enables a man to back his own judgment and take personal risks. Neither publicity nor Parliamentary criticism would prevent mistakes occurring; on the contrary they would prove embarrassing even to the foremost experts."
The Commission goes on to say that the system would be exposed to political influence by interested parties wishing to obtain things that could not be justified on grounds of public policy. In regard to diplomatic considerations they say:—
"A Government trading, monopoly in this country, engaged in buying as cheaply as possible from producers in the Dominions and foreign countries, would find itself exposed to pressure even more difficult to cope with than political intervention at home. Diplomatic relations might easily be strained by disputes of a purely commercial kind arising out of the interpretation of a contract for the fixing of a price."
In addition to these difficulties I may mention others. If the price of wheat were maintained at a steady average level in the home market, this would necessarily mean that at certain times prices abroad would be lower. Prohibition of import would prevent millers and bakers from buying at these cheaper prices. This would provide a strong handle to critics who were anxious to attack the monopoly, and might even be made the basis of a political campaign against the Government of the day on the ground of higher prices to the consumer. State control of the imports of wheat would almost inevitably lead to the control of milling and baking; in fact, the control of milling is admitted to be a necessary consequence. Such control might severely restrict the bakers' choice in the flour they use and might even involve the baking of a standard bread. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, in his evidence before the Royal Commission, held the view that it would also lead to the control of the import of cereals. Even though it stabilised domestic wheat prices, the operation of

305
the wheat monopoly might conceivably emphasise world fluctuations. If the British wheat monopoly suddenly held off the market it might lead to a very severe drop in prices. Similarly, the mere rumour that the wheat monopoly was once more buying, or was about to buy, might send prices up rapidly. In short, these operations might lead to excessive speculation. The Report of the Food and Materials Committee to the Imperial Conference of 1923 put forward similar objections (which also apply to the stabilisation of meat prices) and rejected all the alternative suggestions which were made at that time. This Report was endorsed by the Conference.
To conclude, the objections which have been raised to this proposal are briefly these. The duty thrown on the import authority would be too invidious to be borne. It would be assailed by consumers for restricting imports and by home and Dominion producers for importing from foreign countries. The maximum of friction would result and the whole scheme of Imperial development would be liable to be prejudiced. Trading involves the taking of risks, but the State import board would have to play for safety and play very high. Officials could not have the same initiative as business men because every risk which they took would be liable to criticism in Parliament and the Press, and successful business involves the taking of risks. This objection has particular force in such speculative trades as the wheat trade. Even so the board would make mistakes and the losses would fall on the taxpayer and not on the individual responsible.
A single State importing body is at a great business disadvantage as compared with a multitude of private importers. It would be as impossible for it to conceal the fact that the British Government was in the market as it was when the Wheat Commission bought wheat during the War. It would play into the hands of the cornerer, the producer's pool, and the speculator, and it would be quite impossible to operate anonymously. Control of imports would necessitate price control in this country and the setting up of a cumbrous and expensive machinery.
War-time experiences demonstrated that under control it is impracticable to let quality govern price, since the variety in quality is too great for any controlling
306
authority to be able to take accurate account of it. In the case of meat control in Great Britain it was not found possible to differentiate in price according to varying quality for the same cuts of meat. Control is certainly very costly, as experience shows that profit margins must be governed by the least efficient elements in the controlled trade. It is not possible to confine price control to any one stage. Once applied it has to extend to all stages, and the State would find itself involved not only in control but in every phase of the business of marketing. Having done so, it would probably find that margins had increased rather than diminished. The most serious objection of ali is, perhaps, that State trading is extremely sensitive to political pressure, both domestic and foreign. Every movement of price due to world conditions, over which the import board could have no control, would immediately have political reactions in this country, and political relations with the Dominions and foreign countries would also be involved.
Your Lordships will agree, I think, that the objections I have indicated from the two Commissions are decisive, that it would be of no use to agriculture and no good to trade in general to have these import boards established. The Government hold that view. As I have said already, they do not see the need now for a further inquiry in view of the fact that such exhaustive inquiries have recently been made. The Government, therefore, cannot accept the Motion so ably moved by the noble Earl opposite.
I fear that I cannot agree with all that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Forres, who moved an Amendment to the Motion. We certainly do not wish to let it be thought that matters are to go on and that we are not going to give any help. The Government will try, as they have done since they have been in power, to do all they can for agriculture. The noble Earl said that we have done nothing, but noble Lords behind me referred to certain Acts that we have passed and action which we have taken to try to help agriculture. What we feel with regard to the Amendment of the noble Lord is that we agree with him that it would be disadvantageous to this country to have import boards established; but, as I say, we cannot accept the Motion of the noble Earl.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, I should like to raise a point about the wheat import boards which operated during the War. It will be remembered that they bought largely and that they bought exclusively. It was found at once that if the Government bought at all it must buy everything, and that if it did not become the exclusive trader, the private trader did not buy. The result was that it was forced upon the Government by the fact that we could not possibly take any liberties with the people's supply of bread. But it did not operate as the noble Earl seems to think. It did not operate, that is to say, for the benefit both of the producer and the consumer, and this must be the great difficulty which any purchase board has to deal with.
The producer did not get the price which the wheat board was paying in foreign countries. His wheat was fixed at 72 s., and the wheat board was buying at 95 s. and even 120 s. Therefore, the producer in that case was, as it were, helping the taxpayer to pay for the wheat out of what ought to have been his own profit. On every quarter of wheat he was contributing a pound which would otherwise have fallen upon the taxes of the country. The justification for it was that it operated as an excess profit tax at the time, but I know for my own part, when I had to defend it before farmers, that I found it exceedingly difficult to do so, and all I can say is that if ever we have a wheat importing board again you must not allow the Food Controller to be also the fixer of prices. It must be a board on which the Minister of Agriculture has a place. Then you stabilised bread during that period at 9d., but if the price of bread had been calculated on the price of wheat it would have been 1s. May I ask if the noble Earl contemplates in his importing boards any discrepancy of that sort happening? Obviously, 3d. of the price of every quartern loaf was paid by the taxpayer, and that is, I fear, one of the great difficulties about import boards.
I must say that I have great sympathy with the noble Earl and I should have been quite ready, but for one sentence in his Resolution, to support him. If he had only asked for a conference on the subject I should have been prepared to support him, but he pledged himself to what I cannot accept—namely, a belief
308
that he can benefit both producer and consumer by an import board. I do not think he can, though I believe something in a modified form on the lines of the proposals of Sir Charles Fielding, which ran very much on the lines of Lord De La Warr's to-day, might be usefully explored, with the addition of what I think is almost essential, an international board. I think by that means something might be done to relieve the situation. As a matter of fact, the reason prices fall below the cost of production is that every exporting country has a surplus which it is bound to sell. It must sell, and the price does not matter. They must get something for it, and they sell, and what we are buying are the surpluses of other nations. That necessarily means that the prices will fall below the cost of production, not only in our own country but in the country of origin, and that is what is going on at the present clay. That being the case, no Duties, however high you like to put them, will keep wheat out of this country. Nothing short of absolute prohibition will do so. Therefore, on that ground I have always been against any form of Protective Duty. It is the international surpluses you are buying in this country.
If I may I will make one suggestion in connection with the investigation. Something useful might be done if you had an international board to deal with the commercial situation throughout the world. I regret I could not support the Motion, but equally I could not support Lord Forres's Amendment, because, though I agree with it in general terms, it does not seem to me that it necessarily meets the point of having a board by international agreement, which would be a useful thing.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two on what has been said by the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture and by the noble Lord who spoke last. I do not think I am in any way exaggerating when I say we always attach importance to Lord Ernle's speeches, and on this occasion we are quite ready to consider all he says whether by way of criticism or support. There are two questions involved here. The larger question is raised in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forres. I do not want to add anything to

309
the criticisms we have already heard. It appears to me that there is a large body of opinion in all parts of the House which is opposed to the terms of the Amendment of Lord Forres. But a far more important question is that raised by the noble Lords, Lord Bledisloe and Lord Ernle—the agricultural question.
Let me remind Lord Ernie of two of his own statements. He asked: Why should we not have a big national buying board and contract ahead with foreign countries, and so establish better prices? That, of course, is the real basis of the Motion of my noble friend Lord De La Warr, in the admirable speech he made. A little later the noble Lord said on the general question of our agricultural future that there was nothing for it but the stabilisation of world prices by international agreement. I put my bottom dollar on that. There may be, and no doubt always will be on questions of this kind differences of opinion as to method. Unless you have a full inquiry there will always be differences as to method. Lord Ernie has not always been in favour of stabilisation, but he has always realised the enormous advantage which agriculture would derive if stabilisation could be properly employed.
We cannot put out of sight in these matters what has been called the wheat pool or the meat pool. We have a pool at the present time which controls 80 per cent. of our meat imports; in reality almost the whole of the prices to the consumers of this country depend upon a combination of two great meat-importing combines which between them control all prices and all importations. That is a matter which, from a general social standpoint, seems to me to be fraught with every kind of danger. As to what has been called the stimulus of competition. I think that private interest has really long ago been absorbed. We have got into a new stage of inquiry. We are going to be subject to these large combines or pools. What steps ought to be taken for our social and national protection? I do not know of any other protection except that which Lord Ernie himself, as I understand, suggests. I think the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, was wise to introduce into his Motion a hope that His Majesty's Government will initiate an inquiry as requested by
310
the National Council of Agriculture. The noble Earl, Lord Stradbroke, was present on that occasion, and I think he expressed doubts as to the policy which was then being proposed by a committee of the National Council of Agriculture; but that proposal was adopted. Not that everyone there, as I read the Report, believed in the particular remedy but they believed that a remedy in this direction was necessary, and at least they begged the Government to undertake an inquiry.
There is only one other point with which I wish to deal, because time is passing, and it is this: I am sure every one who has looked at the farming question from the farmer's standpoint, as Lord Bledisloe has done, will be convinced of two facts, as he has been convinced of two facts. First, we can never get a better natural season than the one which has just passed. I say that without any hesitation from my own experience. I have grown crops quite out of the ordinary. To take wheat as an illustration. I have grown wheat on 30 acres. It was a splendid crop, the best crop I have ever grown, but the price was such that when it was sold it not only did not bring any profit from the farmer's point of view but left a deficit. That being so, and if under the best conditions you cannot get a reasonable return from the farming industry, what are you going to do?
But I am not going into these questions. I have discussed them before. The noble Marquess tells me I am always returning to them. I am not going to discuss the question of agricultural credit, or even the Derating Act which I think was the other suggestion, but I do say, and I believe Lord Bledisloe agrees—he has had great experience—that so far no effective remedy has been found in order that agriculture in this country may be placed in a fair condition of prosperity. I think all your Lordships will agree, with my second proposition, that no country is in a satisfactory condition unless agriculture can be carried on with a reasonable business profit. I am not going to say anything more at this time of night. Everyone on this Bench is, of course, opposed to the Amendment of Lord Forres, and if the Amendment is put we shall vote against it.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, do not rise to make a speech, but I should like to say how much I admired the speech of the noble Earl who opened the debate, and how well I thought he approached a very difficult subject from a very impartial standpoint. Listening to the noble Lord who has just sat down I almost wished he had been in the same frame of mind last night, because many of his arguments to-day would have been very germane to the Safeguarding policy of His Majesty's Government. But, of course, different environment produces a different frame of mind. I only really rose in order to indicate the line the Government intend to take in regard to the Question which is going to be put from the Woolsack. We cannot support the Motion of the noble Earl, for reasons which I will not repeat, because they have been sufficiently stated by my noble friend who represents the Ministry of Agriculture in this House, and also in the two notable speeches of Lord Bledisloe and Lord Ernle, to which your Lordships listened with so much satisfaction. We cannot support the Motion of the noble Earl, but I should be sorry if it were thought that we are so indifferent to the undoubted difficulties of the agricultural interest that we desire to be committed to a pure policy of laissez faire. That is certainly not the attitude of His Majesty's Government. I cannot help feeling that if we voted for the Amendment of the noble Lord that might be the interpretation put upon our vote. In that case we must resist the Amendment, and we shall
312
also resist the noble Earl's Motion after, as we hope, the Amendment has been rejected.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to withdraw my Motion, and in doing so may I thank the House and the noble Marquess for the kindly way in which they have received the subject? Perhaps I might also say that I hope that the Government will notice that all three speakers from their side of the House are profoundly dissatisfied with the situation, and that two of them, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, would both like apparently to associate themselves with the demand of the National Council of Agriculture for an inquiry into this problem. I hope that will induce the Government to think about the matter. I beg leave to withdraw.
LORD FORRES: My Lords, after the words which have fallen from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, I am left with little option but to withdraw my Amendment to the Motion. At the same time I should like to say I regret the attitude of His Majesty's Government in this matter, because I think they have a very good opportunity now of showing a firm front against Socialistic proposals which in my judgment are of a most reactionary and dangerous character. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.

BRISTOL GAS ORDER, 1928.
  SHEFFIELD GAS ORDER, 1928.

    ASHFORD ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    BURNLEY ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    COLCHESTER ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1928.
    CRANLEIGH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    DAWLISH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    FELIXSTOWE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1928.
    LOUTH ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
    MAGHULL AND LYDIATE ELECTRICITY (AUGHTON EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    MID-WARWICKSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
    MIDDLESBROUGH ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, ETC.) ORDER, 1928.
    PRESTON CORPORATION ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    TAIN ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
    WEST HANTS ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been pre-
    314
    sented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

EAST NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House, that Petitions against the Order have been presented by the Butterley Company, Limited, the Bolsover Colliery Company, Limited, and the Mining Association of Great Britain, and that having considered the points referred to in subsection (6) of Standing Order 191, they are of opinion that there ought to be a further inquiry by a Select Committee: Read and agreed to: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Special Order; namely:—

E. Abingdon,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss) (Chairman),

L. Stanley of Alderley (L. Sheffield),

L. Ruthven of Gowrie,

L. Olivier,

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Special Order to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Special Order.