Sitting of 16 December 1929

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Birmingham Corporation (General Powers) Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered:—
Ordered, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time,"—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 13) Bill [Lords],
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

ASTLEY AINSTIE INSTITUTION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Astley Ainslie Institution," presented by Mr. Adamson; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    RAILWAY STORES (ORDERS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any figures and can state the amount expended during the previous 12 months by the Government of India on stores required for the India State railways; the percentage of these orders that went to British manufacturers and/or foreign firms; and will he give particulars?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): Railway stores purchased through the High Com-
    938
    missioner for India from 1st January, 1929, to date amount to £2,237,996, about 57 per cent. of which were from British manufacturers. Particulars are not available for purchases made by the Indian railway companies or stores of European origin bought in India.
    Mr. DAY: Cannot something be done to try to influence greater purchases in this country?
    Mr. BENN: I am glad to see purchasers coming to this country, but we are governed by a Resolution of the Legislative Assembly of 1921.

    NEW DELHI (EXPENDITURE).
    Major GRAHAM POLEasked the Secretary of State for India if he will inform the House of the total expenditure made out of Indian revenues to met the cost of erecting New Delhi; how this expenditure compares with the original estimated cost of the scheme; and what is the estimated cost of the work in connection with this scheme still to be completed?
    Mr. BENN: The total expenditure up to the end of August last was 13 crores, 66 lakhs of rupees in round figures. The original sanctioned estimate was for nine crores and 17 lakhs of rupees in round figures. The estimated cost of the work remaining to be done is roughly one crore 19½ lakhs.

    AGENT, SOUTH AFRICA.
    Major POLEasked the Secretary of State for India Whether it is the intention of the Government of India to appoint a temporary representative to act for the Indian representative in South Africa until Sir K. V. Reddi, who has been compelled to return to India on sick leave, has sufficiently recovered to resume his duties?
    Mr. BENN: Mr. Baring, the Secretary to the Agent of the Government of India in South Africa, will discharge the Agent's duties for the present.

    CIVIL SERVICE.
    Major POLEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has now received replies from all the local governments with regard to the proposal to separate the judicial from the executive functions of the Indian civil servants; and whether His Majesty's

    939
    Government, in consultation with the Government of India, have arrived at any decision on this matter?
    Mr. BENN: My predecessor decided, in consultation with the Government of India, that any attempt to arrive at conclusions on this matter must remain in abeyance pending the results of the Statutory Commission's inquiry, for reasons which are detailed in a reply to a question put in the Council of State on 11th September, 1928, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy. I see no reason to differ from this decision.
    Major POLE: May we hope that, after the Statutory Commission has reported, this matter, which has been under consideration for about a century, will at last be dealt with?
    Mr. BENN: Certainly, I hope it will be dealt with.

    ARMY DEPARTMENTS (BRITISH OFFICERS' PENSIONS).
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Secretary of State for India what facts justify the difference in pensions granted to British executive officers of the Indian Army Departments who retired between 1st April, 1919, and 1st October, 1925, at a lower rate than that granted to those who retired before and after those dates, seeing that their conditions of service are claimed to have been identical; why these officers have been deprived of the Indian element to which those retiring before and after that date are recognised to be entitled; and whether, in view of the decision to allow this claim from 1925 onwards, he will take steps to fill the gap made in the pension scale of such officers between 1919 and 1925?
    Mr. BENN: I am writing to the hon. and gallant Member on this matter, and as it is somewhat too involved to be disposed of within the compass of a Parliamentary reply, perhaps he will await my letter.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    ARMS TRAFFIC CONVENTION.
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all the
    940
    arms producing Powers have now ratified the Arms Traffic Convention governing the private manufacture of arms which was passed by the Assembly of the League of Nations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I presume my hon. Friend is referring to the Convention signed at Geneva on 17th June, 1925, which concerns the control of the international traffic in arms and munitions of war. Up to now France and the Netherlands are the only arms producing countries of whose ratification we have received official notification. Austria's ratification is, however, imminent, and may even have been deposited by this time.
    Mr. DAY: Has the British Consul in China lately made representations about arms getting into that country?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of that question.

    BRITISH DIMEGATION.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any members of the British delegation to the last Assembly of the League of Nations are now employed at the Foreign Office; and, if so, in what capacity and at what salary?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The composition of the delegation to the 10th Assembly was announced to the House on 4th of July, 1929. Two members of the delegation, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, who represents His Majesty's Government on the Preparatory Disarmament Commission, and the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Noel Baker), my Parliamentary Private Secretary, are at present serving voluntarily in the Foreign Office.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Do we understand that Lord Cecil is attached in some way to the Government?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Lord Cecil of Chelwood is serving in the Foreign Office in a voluntary capacity, and was appointed by His Majesty's Government to represent the Government on the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is he serving as an honorary member of the Government or as an honorary member of the Foreign Office staff?
    Mr. HENDERSON: As an honorary member of the Foreign Office staff.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Has he access to all Government papers?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Much will depend on what the hon. Member means by all papers.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I mean what I said.
    Earl WINTERTON: What is Lord Cecil's status? Is he a civil servant, or is he there in a Ministerial capacity?
    Mr. HENDERSON: He is a voluntary worker in the Foreign Office and represents His Majesty's Government on the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Will he answer for the Government in another place?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Oh, no. He has not been appointed to answer for the Government in any place.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May I have an answer to my question? Has he access to all Foreign Office papers?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot do other than give the answer that I have already given. I do not know what the hon. Member means. If he means relevant papers, yes.

    MEXICO (BONDHOLDERS).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will request His Majesty's Minister in Mexico to inquire whether the president elect of Mexico has made a statement, and, if so, its terms, with regard to the default of obligations towards holders of Mexican Government securities?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have observed in the Press a statement that the president-elect of Mexico referred, in the course of an interview at the end of last month with the representative of a foreign newspaper, to his plans with regard to the foreign indebtedness of Mexico. The remarks made by the president-elect are being reported by despatch from His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Mexico City. As soon as
    942
    they are received, I shall be happy to inform the hon. Member of the terms of the statement.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I will put a question down later on.
    Commander WILLIAMS: When is the right hon. Gentleman expecting to have the information—before we adjourn for Christmas or after?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot say when the despatch will arrive.

    SPAIN AND AFRICA (TUNNEL).
    Mr. ALLENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information regarding the Spanish proposal to construct a tunnel between Tarifa and the territory of the Tangier international zone?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Spanish Government have appointed a commission to study the possibility of constructing a tunnel between Spain and Africa, but so far as I am aware it has never been proposed that the African end of the tunnel should be within the international zone.

  RUSSIA.

    BRITISH RELATIONS.
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to an article in the "Pravda," the official organ of the government in Russia, on the British coal industry, containing statements derogatory to His Majesty's Government, and to a booklet published by the Komintern in regard to Egypt, which is in parts offensive to King Fuad and hostile to Great Britain; and, in view of these publications, will he communicate with the Soviet Government and insist that Article 7 of the Protocol of 3rd October, 1929, and Article 16 of the Treaty of 8th August, 1924, are observed?
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement recently appearing in "Pravda," the official organ of the Russian Soviet Government, on the British coal industry, and stating that the next few months are to be spent in in-

    943
    creased agitation among the British miners and in preparation for the battle in April; and whether he proposes, in view of the undertaking recently given as to propaganda, to call the Soviet Government's attention to the matter?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have seen an article by L. Berg published in the "Pravda" of 4th December, dealing with the coal industry in this country. This article, to which I presume the hon. Member refers, is not such as to call for notice on the part of His Majesty's Government. As regards the reported publication of a pamphlet on Egypt, I have at present no information beyond what has appeared in the Press, and must, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion.
    Sir K. WOOD: When the right hon. Gentleman sees serious statements like this appearing in an official organ, threatening trouble in the mining industry in the future, is he not going to take some action?
    Mr. HAYCOCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay any attention to articles against Russia appearing in the "Daily Mail"?
    Mr. SMITHERS: In view of the resumption of diplomatic relations, does the right hon. Gentleman think the statement that the British Government is a capitalist tout friendly?
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Soviet Ambassador has presented his credentials?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I received the Soviet Ambassador informally this morning, but the formal presentation of his credentials has not yet taken place.
    Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the reason for the delay in the formal presentation of his credentials?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I should have thought that the hon. Member was aware that this is not a matter which rests with members of the Government.
    Sir A. POWNALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman, who has apparently seen this gentleman unofficially, tell us what is the reason for the delay? There must be a reason.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Perhaps I can satisfy the hon. Member by saying that the delay is not on his side, but on our side.
    Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that this delay is due to the fact that the Dominions have not yet sanctioned his appointment?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Oh, no.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the arrival in London of a diplomatic representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and whether such representative has signified agreement on behalf of his Government with the interpretation placed by, the British Government on the pledge with regard to propaganda contained in Article 16 of the Treaty of the 8th August, 1924, referred to in paragraph 7 of the Protocol of the 3rd October, 1929, especially as regards the activities of the Third International?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The diplomatic representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics arrived in London on the 12th December. With regard to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I made to the hon. Member on the 3rd of December, and to previous replies on the same subject.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that pending the signing of the Memorandum referred to in the Protocol, the Soviet representative, or any representative of the Soviet Government, would be entitled to instigate propaganda, and is he assured that he is not doing so, pending the signing?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the answer that have just given.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Is the Soviet Ambassador capable of transacting or allowed to transact any official business before he has presented his credentials?
    Mr. HENDERSON: No. He is only in the position to hold an informal conversation such as we had this morning, and I am arranging as speedy as possible for the presentation of the credentials.

    TRADING ORGANISATIONS.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, since the resumption of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government, any members of the staff of Arcos have been granted privileges not usually accorded to nationals of other countries?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: No such privileges will be granted.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he has received any request from the Soviet Government for permission to establish branches of Arcos and other Soviet trading organisations in British Colonies;
    (2) whether he has received any intimation from the Soviet Government as to its wishes in the way of establishing trading and purchasing organisations in their country; and, if so, can he state their nature?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The answer to both questions is in the negative.

    BRITISH CLAIMS.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the newly re-established diplomatic relations with Russia, he is prepared to urge the rights of English claimants upon the Soviet Government and press for a recognition and settlement of the debts due to them?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The subject of debts due to British claimants is included in the list of subjects for discussion with the Soviet Government.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Is it posible for the right hon. Gentleman to have official communication with the new Ambassador before he has presented his credentials?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I do not think that that matter arises on this question.
    Mr. SMITHERS: May I point out—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] May I ask—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The matter really does not arise out of the question.

    TIMBER (PRISON LABOUR).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the situation arising from the importation of Russian timber into this
    946
    country, whether he will obtain from the French and German Governments copies of the sworn affidavits of the French and German nationals who have passed through Helsingfors from the Soviet Russian detention camps as to their being forced to cut and load lumber and as to the prison labour employed on this work?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have no information on the statements contained in the hon. and gallant Member's question.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman act on the information that these nationals, both French and German, have made statements to the effect mentioned in the question to the Consuls at Helsingfors, and it is quite possible to obtain the sworn affidavits?
    Mr. HENDERSON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman cares to see me and put up any suggestion, I will see how far it can be put into operation.

    CHINA AND RUSSIA.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is the present position in Manchuria; and whether the negotiations between the Chinese and Soviet Governments have yet been concluded?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: According to Press reports, an agreement has been reached locally on the immediate issue. I have no official confirmation as yet.
    Sir K. WOOD: Has fighting ceased?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    FOREIGN OFFICE.
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any increase in the staff of his Department since 1st July; and, if so, what is it?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: The establishment of the Foreign Office has been increased since the date referred to in the hon. and gallant Member's question by the appointment of an additional Assistant Under-Secretary of State, a post for which Treasury sanction was obtained

    947
    by my predecessor in April last, and by the creation of one post of Principal Clerk.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Is not the right hon. Gentleman going to do something to deal with the deficiency that arises through sending members of his office to the Dominions? There must be several vacancies waiting to be filled up.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I did not know the hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted me to increase it. I will look into the matter.

    AIR MINISTRY (APPOINTMENT).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why an advertisement was inserted in the daily Press on 12th July, 1929, for a junior translator (woman) for the Air Ministry; why permanent women civil servants were not given the opportunity of applying for the vacancy, seeing that numbers of them have the qualifications that were required; and if he will give an undertaking that in future permanent women civil servants shall be given the opportunity of applying for transfer to his Department when vacancies occur before the post is advertised in the daily Press?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): The advertisement referred to was in respect of a vacancy in an unestablished post for which the pay and conditions of service differ from those for permanent women civil servants. In view of the relative rates of pay and of the loss of pension rights involved in transfer from permanent to unestablished status, the post in question would hold no attractions for the permanent staff.

    P-CLASS (REMOVAL EXPENSES).
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of P-class ex-service clerks transferred on redundancy prior to 1st March, 1928, who were not allowed removal expenses on the scale laid down for that class in Treasury Circular of 21st March, 1928?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I regret that the information desired by
    948
    the hon. and gallant Member is not available and could not be obtained without a very large expense of time and labour which I do not think would be justified.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many conscientious objectors in the Civil Service will benefit by the recent concessions regarding pensions and increment made by the Treasury; and what is the approximate cost of this concession?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The number of conscientious objectors in the Civil Service to whom the concessions apply is estimated at about 200. But I am obtaining actual figures from Departments concerned together with estimates of the cost involved for my reply to a similar question from the hon. Member for the Gillingham Division (Sir R. Gower) with a copy of which I will furnish the hon. Member in due course.

    WOMEN (RESIGNATIONS).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total numbers of women who resigned from the Civil Service on marriage during the years 1926, 1927 and 1928, showing the grades in which they were employed immediately prior to resignation, together with the total number of women employed in each grade?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as is available in reply to this question.
    Following is the information:
    The total number of established non-industrial women civil servants to whom marriage gratuity was paid in the calendar year 1928 was 1,550. Marriage gratuity is payable after six years' service. The average number of established non-industrial women civil servants in that year was 44,716. In the financial year 1926, 52 established shorthand typists and 80 established typists retired with marriage gratuities, and in the financial year 1927 87 and 77 respectively. The number of established shorthand typists on 1st April, 1928, was 1,917 and of established typists 1,723.

  CHINA.

    BRITISH NATIONALS.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position in Nanking and Shanghai; what British warships and forces are now available for the protection of British nationals; and what defensive forces have been provided by America and other Powers?
    Captain MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any further statement to make with regard to China?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: So far as my information goes, the forces opposed to the Nanking Government have been defeated near Canton, and have made no further progress on any of the other main lines of attack. The situation at Nanking and Shanghai appears to be quiet. The naval forces available for the protection of British nationals in case of need consist of five cruisers, one aircraft carrier, eight destroyers, five sloops, and 18 gunboats. The available military forces consist of three battalions at Hong Kong, two at Shanghai and two at Tientsin, with small detachments at Peking and Wei-hai-wei. Other foreign Powers have an aggregate naval strength in China waters which is approximately the same, and about 8,000 troops, mainly at Tientsin and Shanghai.
    Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the women and children who took refuge on British warships have now been allowed to land again?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I answered a question the other day in which I said that some of them had been brought to Shanghai.
    Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman now say whether it is not a fact that this rising was caused by Soviet propaganda?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I have no information as to that.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, when he mentioned other Powers, he included Japan or not?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I must have notice of that question.
    Commander WILLIAMS: When the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact of foreign naval forces being equal to British, does he mean that the whole of the British Naval Forces in China are at least as great as the whole of the foreign Naval Forces put together, including Japan?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I think I was dealing with a comparison of military forces.

    PIRACY.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has made representations to the Chinese Government with regard to the increase of piracy along the Chinese coast; and whether he is taking any steps to ensure the safety of British commerce?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Representations have repeatedly been made to the Chinese authorities with regard to the increase in piracy along the China coast in recent years, and His Majesty's Minister has instructions to keep the matter before the Chinese Government with a view to their taking effective suppressive measures. There has not, so far as my information goes, been any deterioration in the situation in recent months. The problem of securing the safety of British commerce in this respect is one which is constantly in view. The hon. and gallant Member will have noticed that in the recent case of the Steamship "Haiching" two of His Majesty's ships were instrumental in saving the vessel.

    ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS.
    Sir W. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any communication from the Egyptian Government with regard to the proposed draft treaty submitted by the British Government; and what is the present position with regard to the said proposed treaty?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir, and I de not expect to receive any further communication on this subject until after the Egyptian elections and the restoration of the parliamentary régime.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the statement made by a member

    951
    of the Government in another place, that these proposals are not to be considered as a draft treaty but merely outline proposals?
    Mr. HENDERSON: They never were intended as a draft treaty. They have not been initialed. They were merely proposals submitted to be negotiated subsequently by any Government elected by the Egyptian nation.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Were they not the extreme limit to which the Government would go?
    Mr. HENDERSON: And I have not said anything inconsistent with that.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES (CREWE).
    Mr. BOWENasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will cause regulations to be so amended that subsistence allowances shall be payable to men from Crewe and district who are absent from home for periods over five hours when attending such centres as Manchester or Liverpool for medical examination or treatment on the instruction of the Ministry?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): I fear that I could not advisedly recommend so large a departure from the existing Regulations, and one which would also affect the practice of other Departments, but I am looking further into the question.

    APPEALS.
    Mr. LONGDENasked the Minister of Pensions if he will instruct area officers to grant the right of re-appeal for a renewal of pension, under the procedure for the correction of errors, where the ex-Service man claims to be suffering from deterioration following a final award?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I would point out that it is open to any pensioner in receipt of a final award to apply for treatment for a condition due to war service. If, as a result of such treatment, the award is found to have been seriously erroneous as an assessment for permanent purposes, a further grant can be made.
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Pensions how many new claims and how many appeals against previous assessments for war pensions, made to his Department before 1st October, remain unsettled?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The records of the Ministry would not, I fear, enable me to give the information required without a more laborious investigation than would be justified by the results.

    SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT (ABOLITION).
    Major COHENasked the Minister of Pensions whether instructions have yet been issued to local war pensions committees regarding the manner and the object of the investigations to be applied by such committees in regard to cases submitted to them by dissatisfied applicants in connection with claims outside the seven years' time limit?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, Sir. Such instructions have been issued.
    Major COHEN: Will these committees meet more than once every two months?
    Mr. ROBERTS: They will have power to deal with this matter by way of Sub-Committee in accordance with regulations, which will give them that power.
    Major COHENasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will give the date from which pension will be payable in those cases of claims submitted outside the seven years' time limit and dealt with under the scheme recently announced by the Minister; and will the pension be payable from the date on which the claim is first submitted or from the date on which the Ministry obtains special sanction for payment from the Treasury?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Payment will normally, as hitherto, be made as from the date of the application which is successfully established.
    Major COHENasked the Minister of Pensions whether, having regard to the fact that a large number of ex-service men have emigrated since the War, he will say what steps it is proposed to take to give publicity in the Dominions to the scheme announced last month regarding applications outside the seven years' time limit; what steps it is proposed to

    953
    take to enable claimants resident overseas to have their claims and complaints considered by a voluntary committee, similar to the war pensions committees in this country; and whether, in view of the fact that there are no Ministry of Pensions committees in the Dominions, he will consider the possibility of inviting the recognised ex-service organisations overseas to assist the Ministry in this connection?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The necessary instructions are in preparation for circulation overseas. In regard to the last part of the question ex-service organisations already advise and assist ex-service men in regard to their applications. Apart from this, applicants will have the same opportunity as in this country of submitting evidence direct to the Ministry, through the local offices and agents of the Ministry.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, while he is prepared to issue these instructions that he is anxious to reconsider sympathetically any case, he will make it perfectly plain that the seven years' limit has not been abolished?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think that that is perfectly plain in so far as the repeal of the Statute goes, but in so far as the seven years' limit goes all cases can now be reconsidered.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is not that exactly the same procedure that was adopted by his predecessors?
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer—
    Mr. EVERARD: Is there any difference between the attitude the right hon. Gentleman has taken up and that of the late Minister of Pensions?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I should be very glad to give an explanation to any hon. Member who cares to come to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give it now —"] An explanation in regard to general procedure cannot properly be given by way of question and answer.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is really lamentable for him to try to make this a party question?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION, BARCELONA.
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what arrangements were made to ensure that British productions should have adequate representation at the international exhibition at Barcelona; how has the present collection of exhibits been made; and have any official representations been made to his Department regarding the inadequate character of the British exhibit compared to that of other countries?
    Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As regards the first and second parts of the question, the organisation of an exhibit of British productions at the international exhibition at Barcelona was undertaken by a company specially formed for the purpose, known as "The Barcelona Exhibition (British Section), Ltd." which collected exhibits from British manufacturers. As regards the last part no official representations have been made to my Department. I understand, however, that as in the case of most exhibitions there have been comments both of a satisfactory nature and otherwise regarding the exhibits.
    Major GLYN: Does there not exist an exhibition Department, and why is it that when there is an international exhibition that Department cannot see that British exhibits are properly displayed?
    Mr. GILLETT: There is an exhibits section of my Department, but I understand that it was decided that the Department should not be officially represented at this exhibition. It was left to this company to represent British trade so far as the exhibition was concerned.
    Major GLYN: Is the hon. Member aware that many orders which would have come to this country have gone elsewhere, owing to the entire futility of the way in which we were represented?
    Mr. GILLETT: I think it would be an advantage, and I have decided to appoint a Committee, consisting of some of the members of my Department and those representing business interests, to give advice to the Department as to the desirability of the Government taking part in any foreign exhibition, and of advising on the general question.
    Mr. MILLS: May I ask whether the decision not to be represented was come to prior to the General Election, or since?
    Mr. GILLETT: Prior.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise his personal responsibilities, rather than pass them on to a Committee?
    Mr. GILLETT: I think I made it quite clear that it was only in an advisory capacity. It is obvious that the final decision must remain with the Government of the day.

    IMPERIAL CUSTOMS UNION.
    Captain MACDONALDasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department in how many commercial treaties at present in force between Great Britain and foreign Powers there are clauses which would preclude the establishment of an imperial customs union?
    Mr. GILLETT: None of the commercial treaties in force between this country and foreign Powers contains any such clause.

    TARIFFS (TURKEY).
    Mr. ALLENasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is anticipated that the new Turkish tariff will adversely affect the importation of British goods into Turkey?
    Mr. GILLETT: The general level of duties is higher under the new Turkish tariff, which came into force on 1st October, than under the former tariff. Many of the increases were admittedly imposed for protective purposes, and I fear it must be anticipated that some adverse effect on our trade with Turkey is inevitable.
    Mr. ALLEN: Have the present Government any means of protecting British producers from the arbitrary raising of tariffs in other countries?
    Mr. GILLETT: The hon. Member is aware that this new Turkish tariff is due to the fact that a former Convention lapsed, but at the present time we have a modus vivendi for the most-favourednation treatment of this country, and a new commercial treaty with Turkey is now being negotiated.

    GEOLOGICAL MUSEUM, JERMYN STREET (SITE).
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Minister of Agriculture what are the proposals dealing with the site of the Geological Museum in Jermyn Street, Piccadilly, after the museum has been transferred to Exhibition Road; has any offer been received to hire or purchase the site; and will provision be made in any case to allow of the eventual widening of Jermyn Street?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): The site, being under the management of the Commissioners of Crown Lands, will be dealt with by them and will probably be let on building lease in accordance with their usual practice. They will not be in a position to entertain applications until it is known more definitely when the site will be available. The question of the widening of Jermyn Street is primarily one for the local authorities.

  AGRICULTURE.

    ROYAL VETERINARY COLLEGE (REPORT).
    Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now make any statement regarding the Report on the Royal Veterinary College?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: The Report is receiving my careful consideration. Discussions are proceeding with other Government Departments concerned, and with the governors of the college.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement before Christmas?
    Mr. BUXTON: I should hardly think that will be possible.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an announcement as soon as possible in regard to this very important matter, because it is a national disgrace, and something ought to be done?
    Mr. BUXTON: I realise that it is of very great importance, but there are several Departments to be consulted.

    LAND DRAINAGE AND RECLAMATION.
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the policy of the Government to undertake land

    957
    drainage 'and reclamation; if so, to what extent has this policy been carried out since the Government took office; and what is the extent and cost of the schemes, if any, already approved?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: The Ministry is prepared to make grants towards the cost of carrying out approved schemes promoted by drainage authorities or county councils. Financial assistance is also available through the Unemployment Grants Committee. Since the present Government took office, 33 schemes have been approved for grants from the Ministry's funds, the total grants being estimated at £31,000, while 12 schemes are under consideration, the grants involved being estimated at £10,000. In addition, 12 schemes, have been approved or accepted in principle by the Unemployment Grants Committee, the total estimated cost being £577,000, and four other schemes, estimated to cost in all £183,000, are under consideration.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these schemes were on the stocks before he came into office?
    Mr. BUXTON: These represent new schemes, but there were several schemes in operation before.
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many men it is estimated that these schemes will employ?
    Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put down that question upon the Order Paper.
    Mr. FRANK OWEN: Is it part of the right hon. Gentleman's policy to settle smallholders upon the land?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, during the present rainy season, he has taken or is taking any steps and, if so, of what nature to schedule flooded districts suitable to be dealt with under the promised Land Drainage Bill?
    Mr. BUXTON: The Ministry has been engaged during the last 18 months in carrying out a survey in connection with the legislation recommended by the Royal Commission on land drainage. This survey is still proceeding and the recent floods have afforded additional information to the staff engaged thereon.

    LIVE STOCK CLUBS BILL.
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government intend to assist the passage of the Live Stock Clubs Bill?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: I regret that the Government cannot undertake to provide facilities for this Bill.
    Mr. EVERARD: Are we to understand that the Government have no agricultural policy of their own and are not prepared to consider anything put forward from this side?

    LAND POLICY.
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is still the policy of the Government that land should come under public control?
    Mr. BUXTON: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. SMITHERS: What steps have the Government taken since they came into office to carry out this important Election pledge?
    Viscountess ASTOR: What kind of land must we get ready to hand over?
    Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask for an answer to my question?
    Mr. BUXTON: I have answered the question upon the Order Paper. There is no present intention of introducing legislation, because the political situation forbids it.
    Mr. F. OWEN: Should not the Minister of Agriculture be brought under some form of public control?

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    Mr. GRANVILLEasked the Minister of Agriculture when the Government intends to introduce its agricultural proposals?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: If the hon. Member refers to legislative proposals, the answer is that I propose to introduce a comprehensive Land Drainage Bill early in the new year. If he refers to administrative proposals, I would remind him that the Government has already announced, and in many cases set on foot, a considerable number of proposals of this character for the benefit of agriculture, including grants for field drainage and water supply schemes; assistance for the extension of county educational activities beyond the

    959
    limits set by the late Government; development of national institutions for agricultural education and research, for which and other purposes a sum of £500,000 has been paid into the Development Fund; the initiation of a farm management survey; more active administration of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924; the provision of an additional £20,000 for assistance by way of loan towards the erection of village halls; easier conditions for loans to cooperative enterprises; and the provision of £12,000 a year for the investigation of the organisation aspect of the agricultural marketing problem.
    Mr. GRANVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a growing opinion in the House and in the country that the present Government, like the late Government, have no effective agricultural policy?
    Captain MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing measures to regulate the water-logged state of the Ministry of Agriculture?

    BARLEY.
    Mr. WISEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will include barley within the scope of the proposed scheme for a grain imports board with monopoly powers of import, but will limit the operations of the board to feeding barleys so as to stop the further import of barley required for brewing and distilling purposes?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: The scheme referred to by my hon. Friend is being investigated by my Department. Pending the results of this investigation I am not in a position to give any undertaking?
    Earl WINTERTON: In view of the fundamental importance to the country of this scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication when he will be in a position to announce whether or not the Government have adopted the hon. Member's scheme?
    Mr. BUXTON: That question hardly arises on the question on the Paper. If the Noble Lord will put a question down, I will give him an answer.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that bread is more important than beer!
    Mr. WISEasked the Minister of Agriculture what was the total quantity of barley imported into this country during the last completed year; what amount of this, and what amount of home-produced barley, was used for malting purposes; and whether he has any figures showing to what extent the cost of production of beer would be increased if only home-produced barley were used?
    Mr. BUXTON: The imports of barley into the United Kingdom during the 12 months ended November, 1929, amounted to 611,412 tons. On the average, imports furnish about 45 per cent, of the total supplies of barley available for consumption in this country apart from seed requirements. Statistics are not obtained as to the proportion of imports or of the home crop used for malting in any particular year, but in a report which will shortly be published by the Ministry on the Agricultural Output and the Food Supplies of Great Britain, it is estimated that "on the average slightly less than one-half of the total home crop of barley and approximately one-half of the net imports are malted." I am quite unable to estimate to what extent, if at all, the cost of production of beer would be increased if only home-produced barley was available.
    Mr. WISE: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to obtain these figures as to the effect on the price of beer?
    Mr. BUXTON: It is very difficult, but I will inquire again.
    Viscountess ASTOR: And will he always bear in mind the brewers' profits?

    HOME PRODUCTION.
    Mr. W. B. TAYLORasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will examine the provisions for giving security to the producers of food contained in the American Farm Bill, with a view to rendering similar help to home production in Britain?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: I have carefully studied the provisions of the United States "Agricultural Marketing Act" and am following with interest the activities of the Federal Farm Board set up under the Act. Apart from other considerations, agricultural conditions in this country do not sufficiently re-

    961
    semble those obtaining in the United States to call for legislation on the lines recently passed in that country. I am, however, at present examining various proposals designed to render more secure the position of producers of food in this country.

    POTATO INDUSTRY.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the fact that an emergency committee has been appointed to deal with the crisis that has arisen in the potato industry; and whether his Department proposes to co-operate with this body especially with regard to the restriction or limitation of the importation of foreign potatoes?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am glad to provide such assistance and advice as may be in my power to any responsible organisation which is concerned to improve the marketing of any home agricultural produce. I am not, however, prepared to introduce legislation restricting or prohibiting the importation of articles of food.
    Mr. GRANVILLE: As this is largely an experiment in marketing, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a grant for an experiment in this industry?
    Mr. BUXTON: I do not think the Ministry have any legal powers to make a grant, but we have strongly recommended a scheme not only for grading, but for marketing which I hope will be adopted.
    Mr. GRANVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a recommendation to the Empire Marketing Board to that effect?
    Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.
    Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider including potatoes in the investigation he is making into the stabilisation scheme put forward by hon. Members below the Gangway?
    Mr. BUXTON: Yes, Sir.

    NATIONAL MARK EGG SCHEME.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give any estimate
    962
    of the increase in monetary return to egg producers from the working of the national mark scheme?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: It can be calculated that the difference between the monthly average prices for home-produced eggs at country markets in England and Wales from February to November, 1929, inclusive, and those ruling in the corresponding months of 1928 represents an increased value of, roughly, £1½ million spread over the total output. Various factors have no doubt contributed to this result, but I am satisfied that the national mark egg scheme has materially influenced the market in favour of the home producer.
    Major GEORGE DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an increasing movement to try and stop the success of this scheme for the national marking of eggs; and is his Department alive to the necessity of taking steps to protect a policy which has received his support?
    Mr. BUXTON: It is not an increasing movement and it certainly will be defeated.
    Mr. LEIF JONES: May I ask whether the success of the scheme is that it will raise prices to the home consumer to the extent of £1,500,000?

    IMPORTED TURKEYS.
    Mr. CHRISTIEasked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the large importation of foreign turkeys, many of which are described and sold as Norfolk turkeys; and whether he will, to insure their identification, make an order that all turkeys imported from abroad shall have one foot removed before their entry into this country?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: I have received no specific complaints that imported turkeys are being mis-described in such a manner as would enable action to be taken under the Merchandise Marks Acts. In any case, fresh legislation would be required to give effect to the hon. Member's suggestion. I should add that I am hopeful of being able to introduce next year a scheme for the grading and marking of home-produced poultry which may largely serve the purpose which the hon. Member has in view.
    Mr. LEES: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to carry out the wish of the Opposition by seeing that all potatoes that come from abroad have their eyes taken out?

    POTATO DISEASES (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to prohibit the importation of potatoes from countries in which potato disease exists?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: The importation of potatoes from certain countries is already prohibited, and it is only allowed from others under strict conditions. These measures have so far proved effective in preventing the introduction of potato diseases. If there should be any serious outbreak of potato disease in any country from which importation is now allowed, I should of course at once consider the question of prohibition.

    SMALLHOLDINGS.
    Viscount ELMLEYasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will circularise county councils with regard to the desirability of their exercising their statutory powers for acquiring land for letting to smallholders at a fair rent wherever there is a demand for such land?
    Mr. N. BUXTON: As I informed the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. W. B. Taylor) on the 12th December, in reply to a similar suggestion, the question of issuing a circular letter to county councils is a matter which is receiving my careful consideration.
    Viscount ELMLEY: In view of the fact that so much land is going out of cultivation every year, cannot the county councils be reminded of the powers that they possess?
    Mr. BUXTON: I am issuing a circular, and I have pointed to their duties by answers in this House.
    Captain BENNETT: Has the Ministry of Agriculture ever exercised the powers vested in it by the Act of 1908 of procuring smallholdings for applicants in default of the county councils exercising their powers?
    Mr. BUXTON: I regret to say that those powers were repealed by the late Government.

    ANCIENT STATUTE'S.
    Mr. DAYasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider setting up a committee for the purpose of advising the Government as to the removal from the Statute Book of those laws which, being repugnant to modern thought, are no longer effective but still remain unrepealed?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I fully appreciate the point which my hon. Friend has in mind, but I cannot imagine any committee likely to report on such a subject with a sufficient amount of unanimity to be of any service to the Government.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is a committee sitting at present for the purpose of consolidating legislation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think there is, but, if the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper, I will give him a definite answer.

    DISARMAMENT.
    Mr. AYLESasked the Prime Minister whether Britain has any commitments either to the League of Nations or to the British Empire that prevent the House of Commons coming to any conclusion it desires with regard to disarmament; and, if so, whether he can state precisely what those commitments are and the extent to which they limit the action of this House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations enjoins on all Member States and consequently on His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the reduction of their armaments "to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations," whist Article 16 imposes obligations upon us to join in action for the common enforcement of certain undertakings. Their commitments, as regards the British Empire, are dictated by the needs of self-defence.
    Mr. AYLES: May I ask whether His Majesty's Government believe, so far as our own armaments are concerned, that there is still a margin whereby we can reduce to what the Prime Minister has

    965
    said to be the level of national safety, and, if not, may I ask why should we go into this Disarmament Conference?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is because there may be that margin discovered only by international agreement that we are going into the five-Power Conference.

    COAL MINES BILL.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the Prime Minister if he has received a communication from the president of the Federation of British Industries requesting that sufficient time may be given to industry to consider the provisions of the Coal Mines Bill; and if, in view of the far reaching effect of the Measure upon industry in all its branches, he will postpone the Second Reading till after the Parliamentary Recess?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The general principles of the Bill have been known for some time and the Bill itself has been available since Thursday morning last. The Government believes that the best way to meet the desires of the Federation is to pursue the programme of business which has been announced.
    Dr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many competent in dustrialists in this country feel that this Bill will raise the price of coal to the home consumer and will have a detrimental effect on both industry and employment; and that there is a much better chance of getting alterations made between the First and Second Reading than after the Second Reading?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is because I totally disagree with the hon. Member that the programme of business has been announced.
    Dr. DAVIES: May we take it that the Prime Minister is of opinion that the present Bill will not raise the price of coal to the home consumer?

    THAMES FLOODS (TATE GALLERY).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Commissioner of Works what steps
    966
    are being taken to protect pictures and drawings in the Tate Gallery in order to prevent a repetition of the damage done by the floods in the January of 1928?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have been asked to take this question. All the pictures and drawings are, I am assured, safely housed, well above any possible flood level.

    CYPRUS.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state, in respect of the last financial year for Cyprus, what sums have been spent in administration; what in the upkeep of State property; and what has been used for the welfare and general development of the island?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): Apart from paper entries, the total Government expenditure in 1928 was £679,980. The whole of this sum, less £10,000 contributed to Imperial defence, was spent in the services and administration of the colony. This expenditure can properly be regarded as devoted to the welfare and general development of the island. I am not able to give an estimate of the proportion spent upon the upkeep of State property.
    Mr. SMITHasked the Under-.Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received a reply to the memorandum which has been sent to the Governor of Cyprus on the question of the future government of the island and the possibility of a commission of inquiry; and whether he can make any statement to the House?
    Dr. SHIELS: The despatch in question does not necessarily call for a reply, and none has so far been received. A Command Paper containing the correspondence and giving full information will be laid as soon as possible.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: In view of the strong representations that have recently been made to the Government, cannot a commission of inquiry into this question be set up?
    Dr. SHIELS: A commission of inquiry is not contemplated.
    Mr. SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the amount of public financial assistance given to Cyprus for education in each of the years since 1925; what is the number, approximately, of children

    Year.

    Amount of Government Assistance.

    Amount of Education Tax.

    Total public assistance.

    No. of scholars on roll.

    No. of children of Elementary School age.

    No. of Elementary Scholars on roll.

    £

    £

    £

    1926*

    …

    55,617

    43,282

    98,899

    51,875

    63,000

    48,500

    1927*

    …

    61,629

    43,083

    104,712

    50,139

    63,000

    46,677

    1928*

    …

    61,747

    43,868

    105,615

    51,025

    64,000

    47,654

    1929 (est.)

    …

    63,550

    Not available.

    *"School years" from preceding 1st October to 30th September of year quoted.

    No figures are available for the number of children of Secondary School age, and consequently no figure can be given for the total number of children of School age. There are 995 schools in the Colony at present of which 992 are State-aided.

    PALESTINE DISTURBANCES (COMPENSATION).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the compensation that is to he paid to the families of the Christians, Jews and Mohammedans that lost their lives in the recent disturbances in Palestine is to be found by the Palestine Government or the British Government?
    Dr. SHIELS: Compensation will be paid by the Palestine Government.

    FILM ("IRELAND'S ROUGH-HEWN DESTINY").
    Major ROSSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the film "Ireland's Rough-hewn Destiny" referred exclusively to the Irish Free State and not to Ireland as a whole, he will arrange for it to be shown at the Empire Marketing Board's lectures under some less misleading title?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind in connection with any future arrangements that may he made for the display of this film under the Board's auspices.
    of school age; and how many schools there are available at the present time?
    Dr. SHIELS: As this reply contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Major ROSS: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give me the undertaking for which I ask? It is a very simple one.
    Mr. LUNN: I said the other day that this film was not the property of the Empire Marketing Board. I have said that I will bear the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion in mind, and that, if the facts stated in the question are correct the position will be made clear if the lecture should be given again.
    Major ROSS: If the facts given in the film are found to be misleading, will the hon. Gentleman undertake not to exhibit the film under a misleading title?

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE (RURAL AREAS).
    Major ROSSasked the Postmaster-General what is the percentage of post offices and railway stations in Great Britain, excluding Northern Ireland, and in Northern Ireland, respectively, that are without public telephones?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): I assume the hon. and gallant Member has in mind rural areas. At the 30th September, 1929, the proportion of rural post offices and railway stations without public telephone call offices was 44 per cent. in Great Britain

    969
    and 69 per cent. in Northern Ireland. Arrangements have already been made to provide call offices at a number of post offices and railway stations which in September last were without such facilities, and a considerable number of further extensions are under consideration.
    Major ROSS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that my question means what it says? I wanted to know the whole area, and, further, will he not take immediate steps to correct this inequality between one part of the Empire and the rest?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I assumed that the hon. Member meant rural areas, because his previous questions have referred to them. With regard to correcting the inequality in Northern Ireland, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that in the last six months 120 call offices have either been established or authorised.
    Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the expansions which he mentioned are being undertaken in consequence of the Budget this year?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The present Postmaster-General is not bound by the Budget of this year. I have considered the question, and, although these steps have been taken along the general lines of policy in the Budget, naturally I have had to make fresh decisions for myself.

    OVERHEAD WIRES.
    Mr. KINLEYasked the Postmaster-General whether he has received any protests against overhead telegraph and telephone poles; and whether he proposes to deal with the cause of those protests?
    Sir ROBERT GOWERasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that certain municipal corporations, including that of Chatham, Kent, have passed resolutions that representations be made to His Majesty's Government urging that consideration be given to the powers at present conferred on him under the Telegraph Acts for the erection of overhead telegraphic and telephonic lines being amended, in order to provide that, where a local authority objects to the erection of poles in any road under its control on the grounds that the erection of such poles would create a nuisance or destroy the amenities of the neighbour-
    970
    hood, the lines be placed underground; and whether he has any statement to make upon the matter?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: A number of local authorities have made representations on the lines referred to by the hon. Members. Underground cables are laid to the fullest possible extent consistent with economy, but a proportion of overhead wires is essential to the widespread development of the telephone service unless altogether prohibitive expenditure is to be incurred. I should add that every endeavour is made to meet the views of local authorities as to the precise position of the poles for such lines.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that representations are often made against these lines going over houses; is he also aware that, if anything happens to the lines, the householders are held responsible, and will he take such steps to see, in such cases, that the lines are placed elsewhere?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I do not think a householder in the case mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member would be held responsible unless he had some dangerous, inflammable substance in his house, and for this he would have to accept responsibility if he caused damage to his next-door neighbour.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of a garage one must have inflammable substances?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am not aware that it is necessary to have inflammable subtances in such a way as to bring one within the reach of the law.
    Mr. KINLEY: It is the definite policy of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to maintain permanently these overhead wires?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I would remind the hon. Member that seven-eighths of the wires are already underground, and that that policy is being rapidly extended.

    EDUCATION (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can

    971
    make any statements as to his proposals for providing maintenance allowance when the proposal to raise the school age comes into operation; and whether they will be on the basis of a fiat rate or whether the rates will vary according to family needs or according to area?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I would ask the hon. Member to be good enough to repeat his question next Thursday.

  TRANSPORT.

    TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are now being taken, or are about to be taken, in the Metropolitan police area to introduce automatic traffic signals; when legislation will be introduced in order that proceedings may be taken against persons who do not obey such signals, and thus make it possible to effect a reduction in the number of Metropolitan police on point duty; how many police constables are to-day so employed; and what is the total cost of these officers in pay and allowances?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, after consultation with the London Traffic Advisory Committee, has in hand arrangements for an experimental installation of traffic signals in a portion of Oxford Street, and a provision as to disobedience to the indications of traffic signals is included in Clause 45 of the Road Traffic Bill now under consideration in another place. The number of constables employed on traffic duty in the Metropolitan police district in a recent week was 1,423, including about 1,100 authorised for permanent point duty. The average annual cost per constable is about £320 without making any allowance for relief for sickness, etc.
    Mr. DAY: Have the present automatic traffic signals proved a success, especially those at Piccadilly?

    ACCIDENT, ENFIELD.
    Mr. W. W. HENDERSONasked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to inquire into the causes of the accident which occurred in Southbury Road, Enfield, on 11th December?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Ponsonby): I am sure that the House will join with my hon. Friend the Minister in expressing sincere regret at this terrible accident and at the loss of life, which it has caused. My hon. Friend has ordered an inquiry into the circumstances of this accident, and it is proposed to open the inquiry next Wednesday.

    EXECUTIONS (ALIENS).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Home Secretary the countries of origin of the several alien murderers executed in England and Wales during the last 20 years?
    Mr. SHORT: The information asked for is not available and could not be obtained without an unjustifiable expenditure of time and trouble. In any event I do not think that the publication of the information, if it could be obtained, would be desirable.
    Viscountess ASTOR: As I cannot get the information, will the hon. Gentleman tell me later why he thinks that it would not be useful to give it?

    INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT.
    Sir HERBERT NIELDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to have the law amended in regard to the application, by either husband or wife, who require separate assessments to Income Tax and Surtax, so that the yearly applications which have at present to be made before the 6th July in the year of assessment can be effective for subsequent years until the application is revoked by husband or wife?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and learned Member's suggestion will be borne in mind for consideration when next year's Finance Bill is in preparation.
    Sir H. NIELD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Finance Act of 1918, and also in the Income Tax Act, 1918, there are Sections enabling this to be done; and will he not bear that in mind when he comes to consider smaller matters relating to finance?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is exactly the purport of my answer.

    POLAND (BRITISH COMPANY'S CLAIM).
    Mr. REMER(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the seizure by the Polish authorities of certain works at Radom, near Warsaw, in which a prominent British company has great financial interests; if he is aware that in spite a the fact that the Polish Government have admitted that the seizure of the works was wholly unjustified and illegal, that Government has refused any compensation if he is aware that unless this decision is altered tonight, 16th December, the British company in question must apply for a sequestration of the works involving the closing of the works and also involving serious loss of employment to British workmen, and if he will state what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. A. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the circumstances of this case, and recently I despatched urgent telegraphic instructions to His Majesty's Ambassador at Warsaw, whose reply has since been received and communicated to the British company in question. I have also instructed the Ambassador by despatch to present to the Polish Government the company's claim in respect of the losses incurred by them. There is, however, no likelihood of my receiving any further report by to-night, and the future policy of the British company can only be decided by the company themselves.
    Mr. REMER: 13 the right hon. Gentleman aware that at an interview which I myself had at the Foreign Office with one of his officials, it was promised that prompt action would be taken, but, in spite of the fact that the solicitors to the company gave full details of this case on 18th November, yet on lath December the Foreign Office had done nothing whatever in the matter; and, in these circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman say if that is the way in which the Foreign Office protects British interests?
    Mr. HENDERSON: The information conveyed in the supplementary question is entirely new as far as I am concerned. Immediately the matter was brought to my notice I acted and acted with promptness. I am afraid that I cannot assist the hon. Member beyond the reply which I have already given to his question.
    Mr. REMER: Is it a fact that, in a letter which I have in my possession and which was written by the right hon. Gentleman to the solicitors of the company, he stated that the company in question could do nothing in the matter without the acquiescence of the British Government?
    Mr. HENDERSON.: I am afraid that I cannot add anything. I have sent all the information that has been communicated to me in the despatches to which I have referred in my answer, and I am afraid that I cannot carry the matter beyond that.
    Mr. REMER: In view of the unsatisfactory reply which we have received and the fact that these works may be closing down to-night, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the failure of the Foreign Office to take steps to protect British interests affected by the seizure of the works at Radom by the Polish authorities."
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that that would not come under the rule relating to a definite matter of urgent public importance, especially as the Foreign Office seem to have done all that they could.
    Mr. REMER: May I submit that the Foreign Office have refused this firm the right even to take legal action to establish their rights?
    Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot allow the statement to go forth, as far as I am concerned, that the Foreign Office have denied the company a right. That right still exists, and I referred to it in the closing part of my answer. It rests with the company—and I did not wish to say that here—whether or not they will proceed in the courts that are available to them.
    Mr. REMER: On a point of Order. In the right hon. Gentleman's own letter these words are used:
    "Should the Polish Government insist that the proper remedy, whether of the Radom Company or of the British company, is to take proceedings in the Polish Courts, His Majesty's Government will also have to acquiesce."
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Foreign Office appear to have communicated with the British Ambassador.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, and in Committee of Supply and Committee of Ways
and Means 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, 230; Noes, 151.

Division No. 99.]

AYES.

[3.51 p.m.

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

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

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

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Palin, John Henry

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Paling, Wilfrid

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Palmer, E. T.

Alpass, J. H.

Hardie, George D.

Perry, S. F.

Ammon, Charles George

Harris, Percy A.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Angell, Norman

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Phillips, Dr. Marlon

Arnott, John

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Aske, Sir Robert

Haycock, A. W.

Pole, Major D. G.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Ayles, Walter

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Potts, John S.

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bllston)

Harriotts, J.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Barnes, Alfred John

Hoffman, P. C.

Raynes, W. R.

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Hopkin, Daniel

Richards, R.

Bellamy, Albert

Hore-Bellsha, Leslie.

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Horrabin, J. F.

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Bennett, Captain E.N.(Cardiff, Central)

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

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

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Romerll, H. G.

Benson, G.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Rothschild, J. de

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Johnston, Thomas

Rowson, Guy

Bowen, J. W.

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

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Kelly, W. T.

Sanders, W. S.

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Kennedy, Thomas

Sandham, E.

Burgess, F. G.

K inley, J.

Sawyer, G. F.

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

Knight, Holford

Scrymgeour, E.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Scurr, John

Calne, Derwent Hall

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Sexton, James

Cameron, A. G.

Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Lawson, John James

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Charleton, H. C.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Sherwood, G. H.

Chater, Daniel

Leach, W.

Shield, George William

Church, Major A. G.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Lees, J.

Shillaker, J. F.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lewis T. (Southampton)

Shinwell, E.

Compton, Joseph

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Cove, William G.

Longden, F.

Simmons, C. J.

Daggar, George

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Dallas, George

Lowth, Thomas

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Dalton, Hugh

Lunn, William

Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghley)

Day, Harry

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Smith, Rennle (Penlstone)

Devlin, Joseph

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

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Dickson, T.

McEntee, V. L.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Mackinder, W.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Dukes, C.

MacLaren, Andrew

Sorensen, R.

Duncan, Charles

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Spero, Dr. G. E.

Ede, James Chuter

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Stephen, Campbell

Edmunds, J. E.

McShane, John James

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

Strauss, G. R.

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

March, S.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Egan, W. H.

Marley, J.

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

Elmley, Viscount

Matters, L. W.

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

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Unlver.)

Maxton, James

Thurtle, Ernest

Gardner, B. W.(West Ham, Upton)

Messer, Fred

Tinker, John Joseph

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Millar, J. D.

Townend, A. E.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

Mills, J. E.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Montague, Frederick

Turner, B.

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Vaughan, D. J.

Gill, T. H.

Morley, Ralph

Viant, S. P.

Gillett, George M.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Walker, J.

Glassey, A. E.

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Wallace, H. W.

Gosling, Harry

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Wallhead, Richard C.

Gossling, A. G.

Mort, D. L.

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

Gould, F.

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Watkins, F. C.

Granville, E.

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

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

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Muggerldge, H. T.

West, F. R.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Murnin, Hugh

Westwood, Joseph

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Oldfield, J. R.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Wise, E. F.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.

NOES.

Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Eden, Captain Anthony

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Peake, Capt. Osbert

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

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Penny, Sir George

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

Everard, W. Lindsay

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Astor, Viscountess

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Atholl, Duchess of

Ferguson, Sir John

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Flelden, E. B.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Balfour, Captain H. H. (J, of Thanet)

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Purbrlck, R.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Ramsbotham, H.

Beaumont, M. W.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Remer, John R.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Berry, Sir George

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Gower, Sir Robert

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Bird, Ernest Roy

Grace, John

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Salmon, Major I.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Boyce, H. L.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Bracken, B.

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

Savery, S. S.

Brass, Captain Sir William

Hamilton, Sir George (llford)

Skelton, A. N.

Briscoe, Richard George

Hartington, Marquess of

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

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

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

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

Buchan, John

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

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Buckingham, Sir H.

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

Smlthers, Waldron

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Somerset, Thomas

Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Butler, R. A.

Hurd, Percy A.

Somervllle, D. G. (Wlllesden, East)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Iveagh, Countess of

Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Knox, Sir Alfred

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

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

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

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Christie, J. A.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Llewellln, Major J. J.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Homsey)

Cohen, Major J. Brunei

Long, Major Eric

Ward, Lieut..Col. Sir A. Lambert

Colman, N. C. D.

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

Wardlaw-Mllne, J. S.

Colville, Major D. J.

Macquisten, F. A.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Cranbourne, Viscount

Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Wayland, Sir William A.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Wells, Sydney R.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Marjorlbanks, E. C.

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Strentham)

Wlndsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel George

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Cunllffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Dalkeith, Earl of

Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. sir Godfrey

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

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

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

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cllve

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

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

Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Margesson.

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.
  As amended, further considered.

  NEW CLAuss.—(Amendment of first statutory condition for receipt of benefit.)
  Sub-section (4) of Section five of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927 (which amends the first statutory condition in relation to persons incapacitated for work by reason of some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement) shall have effect as if after the word "disablement" there were inserted the words "or employed in any of the employments specified in Part II of the First Schedule to the principal Act," and as if after the word "incapacity" there were inserted the words "or if such employment as aforesaid.—[Miss Bondfield.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The purpose of this new Clause is to deal with the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Dr. Marion Phillips). As sick work-people are allowed an additional period before being regarded as failing to satisfy the contribution qualification, that provision is now extended to those persons who are employed in a non-insurable trade. The Section, as finally amended, will read as follows:
  "(4) If an insured contributor proves in the prescribed manner that he was during any periods, falling within the period of two years mentioned in the first statutory condition, incapacitated for work by reason of some specific disease or by bodily or mental disablement, or employed in any of the employments specified in Part II of the First Schedule to the principal Act, the said condition shall have effect as if for the said period of two years there were substituted a period of two years increased by the said periods of incapacity, or of such employment as aforesaid, but so as not to exceed in any case four years."
  Major ELLIOT: This new Clause raises a question of some importance, and it will be well to note here that we are making, to a certain extent, a further breach in the principle of genuine compulsory insurance. No doubt it is a good thing that every encouragement should be given to persons to find work,
  1008
  if it is at all possible, in any uninsured trades, but it is clear that the unsuccessful lives will tend to fall back again upon the insurance fund. There is no doubt that that process of filtration is about to take place.
  Miss BONDFIELD: It may be so, but I do not think we should discourage people from going into domestic service or agriculture.
  Major ELLIOT: I point it out only from the point of view of the contributors to the fund. They will find themselves, in so far as this scheme works successfully, saddled with an increasing number of bad lives. A filtration of successful lives will take place in agriculture, domestic service or other employment, and the bad lives will tend to fall back into the fund, and to that extent will tend to be a further drain upon its resources. We are not unacquainted with the subject in health insurance, and one of the difficulties of helping people to pass out and back again, or extending the principle of voluntary contributions to health insurance, is, of course, the selection of bad lives. In this case the good lives will gain success in the new line of employment into which they have entered, and the bad lives will fall back into the fund and still further drain its resources.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision as to notifica- tion by employers of vacant situa- tions.)
  With a view to securing that all vacant situations shall so far as possible be notified under Sub-section (1) of Section four of this Act to claimants for benefit and facilitating the giving of directions under the said Sub-section by officers of Employment Exchanges, the Minister shall so far as practicable make arrangements with employers for the notification by them to Employment Exchanges of situations in their employments which are vacant or about to become vacant, and for that purpose the Minister shall consult associations of employers and employés, as the circumstances of the case may require.—[Miss Bondfield.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This is a Clause which was agreed to on the Amendment of the hon. Member for

  1009
  Middlesbrough West (Mr. K. Griffith). I think it is what we call a declaratory Clause, and that it is not necessary for me to take up time by explaining it.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: My hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White) is not here, but I should like to acknowledge the fact that the Minister has in this Clause met his plea for new arrangements, especially the reorganisation of the labour arrangements at the docks.
  Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Might I ask what steps the Minister proposes to take with regard to the very desirable object which has been in the minds of her predecessors at the Ministry of Labour? Has she anything definite to tell us as to what is going to be done to carry out the excellent idea, or is it merely platitudinous?
  Miss BONDFIELD: It is not platitudinous as far as the Department is concerned. We propose to initiate conferences to get a much healthier public opinion on this subject.
  Commander WILLIAMS: I would like to raise one or two questions arising out of this most excellent, or presumably most excellent, Clause. I would emphasise what has been said by my hon. Friend. We are told that the Minister intends to carry out this proposal by a series of conferences. I want to know quite frankly on what lines she proposes to base these conferences. Quite clearly, she cannot tell us herself, but I see the Lord Advocate is here to-day. Might we have from him, for example, some explanation as to how he proposes to divide up Scotland into sections for these conferences? There you have a wide and scattered country with very differing conditions. Then, again, I would ask the Minister whether she proposes to divide the necessitous areas in any way from those areas which have a reasonable amount of prosperity? There is a third question. Would she be so kind as to tell the House, because it particularly interests some of us, what particular proposal she intends making as far as the West of England is concerned? Will these conferences affect one area? Will they affect trade or what? Will she have a conference, say, at Plymouth, for the whole of Devon and Cornwall, or one affecting the West country mining
  1010
  areas, or will she have a big national conference affecting the wider issue? As she has mentioned this very important idea, with which many have great sympathy, we ought to have some further knowledge of what it is.
  Earl WINTERTON: We would like to get the position quite clear. I understand from what the Minister said that this is purely a declaratory Clause. She spoke of initiating conferences, but has she anything specific in her mind?
  Mr. McSHANE: Before the Minister replies, may I make the suggestion in connection with these conferences that one way of preventing the unemployed from having to walk about from factory to factory, is to adopt the plan of putting up sign-boards outside the factories intimating that employers communicate all their vacancies to Employment Exchanges? That prevents men having to go to factories needlessly.
  Miss BONDFIELD: By leave of the House, I will say that the answer to the whole of the questions asked by the hon. Member opposite can be summed up in this way: Obviously, the conferences will follow the lines of the organisation of the Exchange machinery. It is divided into divisions and districts for machinery, statistics, and so on. Obviously, also, the conferences will be composed of those parties who are represented as contributors to the fund, the employers, workers and the public. We have to-day a certain amount of provision in regard to the expanding areas where we hope to get employment, and the areas that are restricted areas, such as the mining or distressed areas. The purpose of the conferences will be to see the degree to which we can get agreement as to the numbers that will be removed from distressed areas which cannot absorb them into the areas which can absorb them. The whole thing will be within the ambit of the present organisation of the Exchanges, and of the present personnel and the interests served by the Exchange machinery.
  Commander WILLIAMS: I am afraid I did not make one of my questions clear. I am not sure whether these conferences are or are not legal. I think, before passing the Clause, we ought to have a clear legal definition as to whether the Minister has a right to do this.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member cannot speak a second time.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Rates of contributions for young persons.)
  Every employed person who has attained the age of fifteen but who has not attained the age of sixteen, and every employed person who has attained the age of sixteen but who has not attained the age of eighteen, and every employer of any such person shall be liable to pay contributions at the rates specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act. —[Captain Crook shank.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This Clause should be read in conjunction with the proposed Fourth Schedule on the Amendment Paper, and should also be read in connection with the existing First Schedule to the Bill. Its object is anticipatory, because it depends upon whether Clause 1 is or is not kept in the Bill. One hopes very much that Clause 1 will not be left in the Bill—we shall enter our protest against it when the time comes—but we cannot be certain, because in the Committee stage the Socialist party supported the Clause, the Conservative party opposed it, and the Liberal party went away, and we do not know in what direction the Liberal party will vote. When the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," was put, the Liberals went away. [Interruption.] At any rate, they abstained from voting. The great objection most of us have to the early part of the Bill is the bringing of these children of 15 within the ambit of unemployment insurance at all. There has been no demand from any quarter for that to be done. The right hon. Lady is bringing them in in order to help finance the Fund which she herself, by her most recent Amendments, has bankrupted. We want to do what we can to mitigate the evil as far as the children are concerned. That is why we ask for this Clause, and eventually for the Schedule that goes with it. We on this side of the House are not prepared to go quite as far as some of the right hon. Lady's Friends, for example, the First Commissioner of Works, who, not so very long
  1012
  ago in this House, suggested that benefits should not be paid at all to young men between the ages of 18 and 25, because it was so demoralising for them. The First Commissioner of Works was most emphatic about that, and said he could not understand how any man or woman could face the wholesale demoralisation that was going on day by day among the young men of from 18 to 25 years of age. While I do not accept that as a statement of fact, that was the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. VAUGHAN: On a point of Order. What was the date of that speech?
  Captain CROOKSHANK: When the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough, he will know, first of all, that that is not a point of Order, and, secondly, he will know that I, at any rate, have never made any statement in this House without being able to give the reference. I have here the OFFICIAL REPORT of 9th March, 1925, containing the speech of the First Commissioner of Works, in which were these words I have already give to the House:
  "I cannot understand how any man or woman here can face the wholesale demoralisation that is going on day by day among the young men of from 18 to 25 years of age."
  I said that I do not agree with it as a reading of the situation. [Interruption.] I am not going to read the whole speech, hut that is the point that I was making. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "Probably I shall he very much abused for saying what I am about to say, but for my part I would stop giving any young man between the ages which I have mentioned a farthing for doing nothing, right away, and, unless he cared to come and earn under decent conditions some money, either in the countryside or somewhere else, he could starve."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1925; col. 990, Vol. 181.]
  That is not a doctrine to which I subscribe at all, but we should try and limit the possible damage to those who are more liable to be injured because of their tender years. That is why we on this side of the House ask that this Clause should be read a Second time. We are strengthened in putting forward this view by the fact that it is the view recommended by the only authoritative body which has gone into this question and which the right hon. Lady has not yet

  1013
  thrown over; that is, the Malcolm Committee. She has thrown over the views of her Socialist predecessor, the Secretary of State for War. She has thrown over the views of the Blanesburgh Committee, whose Report she signed, and the views of the majority of the Morris Committee, which she appointed. Incidentally, if committees are appointed, and, after being asked to report in great haste and to give their views for the benefit of this House, are thrown over by the Government after a very few hours' debate, it will not be very easy in future to get ladies and gentlemen to serve on such committees. The right hon. Lady has also thrown over the Attorney-General in regard to a speech which he made 10 days ago; that perhaps was his own fault, for he had forgotten that he had so recently crossed the Floor of the House. Finally, she has thrown over her expert advisers; that is explicit in the White Paper which was published last week. The one committee, however, which she has not so far thrown over is the Malcolm Committee, and on page 68 of their Report, which was published in 1926, the right hon. Lady will find that they made the recommendation that there should be some sort of relationship between the rates of benefit which juveniles of these ages should get and average wages, and that there should also be some connection therewith and the rates of contribution. They said:
  "The rates of benefit to be paid to juveniles of fourteen to fifteen should bear the same relation to the average wages earned by juveniles of these ages as the rates of benefit in force for the juveniles of sixteen to seventeen bear to the average wages which juveniles of those ages receive."
  With regard to contributions, they reported that in their opinion
  "the rates of contribution in respect of juveniles from fourteen to eighteen should be so adjusted as to secure that the total amount received in contributions did not exceed the total amount which would be received from the contributions in respect of juveniles of sixteen to seventeen if juveniles of fourteen to fifteen were not insured."
  That is rather a complicated sentence, but the effect of it is that the Committee felt that there was some definite connection between, on the one hand, the contributions that were to be paid by the youngest persons in insurance, and, on the other hand, firstly the wages that they would receive when in employment,
  1014
  secondly, the benefits that they would receive when out of employment, and, thirdly, the risks of unemployment. These are the three points which must be correlated with the amount of their contributions. We on this side of the House have not the advantage of being able to draw upon the estimates of the Government Actuary, and we cannot be certain—and I give the right hon. Lady a present of this argument—that the figures put into the proposed Fourth Schedule are actuarially correct, but they represent the best estimate that we have been able to get from the information at our disposal. That Schedule suggests that in the case of boys under 16, the contribution should be 1½d., and for girls 1d., rising to 2½d. and 2d. respectively between the ages of 16 and 18. On the other side of the picture, we have the question of the wages, but that is not a matter for arrangement in this House. Then we have the question of unemployment in the juvenile categories, and there we are dealing with a non-existent question, as is shown by the information which the right hon. Lady's own Department gave to the Morris Committee. If the school age is raised to 15 in 1931, there will be a shortage of juveniles going into employment of 428,000, rising in the next three years to 762,000. At the end of that time, for something like 2,000,000 jobs available, only one and a third million juveniles will be available. Therefore, the risk of unemployment hardly comes in at all.
  On the other hand, there is the question of benefits. In the Bill we have the benefits which are proposed by the Government for this particular class of juvenile, and they should be read in conjunction with this new Clause and the Fourth Schedule which we are proposing. They are found in the first Schedule of the Bill, and they provide for persons under 17, 6s. for boys and 5s. for girls, rising to 9s. and 7s. 6d. respectively between 17 and 18. There, again, one is met with inconsistency in some of those who sit on the Front Government Bench. The right hon. Lady will remember the great speech which the Secretary of State for War made when he spoke about the 30 pieces of silver, about Judas Iscariot, and about rather having a millstone hung round his neck than having any differentiation between those under 21 and those over 21. Yet in this

  1015
  Measure we are accentuating—quite properly I think—this difference; if you give benefits at all to these juveniles, they should receive smaller benefits at the age of 15–16 than at the age of 21 and over.
  I ask the right hon. Lady to argue this question with us, and not just to pass it off lightly and with a smile, as she has often done in the course of these Debates. I ask her to argue the question why she should not adopt this recommendation by the Malcolm Committee, and to say whether she does not admit that there is a close connection between the contributions on the one side, and the benefits, the risk of unemployment, and the normal wages upon the other. We find that she is trying to make a profit out of these children. One cannot get away from the figures which are provided by the Government Actuary. On page 4 of his Report, he puts it explicitly that the fund resulting from the lowering of the age of coming into insurance will start by making a net gain of £500,000 a year. Then there will be a gradual decline, and a rise again to the same figure in 1935. That is for the boys and girls under 16. With regard to the age group 16–18, with which we deal in our new Schedule, the right hon. Lady supplied some figures in reply to a question on 12th December. From these figures, it appears that in the case of boys in the 16–17 age group, the contribution will be £1,300,000; the girls contribution will be £900,000; making a total contribution from that age group of £2,200,000. The cost of benefit for the same groups will be £300,000 for males and £200,000 for females, making a total of £500,000, leaving a, net profit once again to the fund, out of the youngest entrants into insurance, of just on £1,750,000 to be added to the £500,000 profit from the youngest group of all.
  The right hon. Lady, by the new Clause which has been put into the Bill, has brought in a new class with regard to what used to be known as "genuinely seeking work" and something like half the amount of the extra burden is being recouped from these unfortunate children whom she is bringing in without anybody wishing them to be brought in. Who is going to profit out of the enormous funds collected from the children? If you go through the groups, you will find that
  1016
  the adult men are going to profit at the expense of the children. The foulest crime known to English jurisprudence is the crime, which occasionally emerges from the sub-strata of society, of making money out of boys and girls. I put it to the party opposite, to the Government, and to the right hon. Lady herself: Are they not acting on somewhat similar lines when they go out of their way to collect from the young children contributions out to all proportion to any benefit that those children may ever receive, merely to bolster up the bankrupt budget of their Unemployment Fund? One of these days the right hon. Lady will have to stand at the bar of public opinion for what she is doing in this Bill, and it will be out of the mouths of babes and sucklings that she will stand condemned, and with her the whole of the party behind her.
  Sir A. POWNALL: I beg to second the Motion.
  Miss BONDFIELD: The speech to which we have just listened is full of astonishing statements, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not expect me to spend very much time on them. He takes a very exaggerated view of the intention of the Bill, and that is obvious when one remembers that the age 16 group is precisely the same as it was in the old Act, and that the age groups on both sides have been merely adjusted in a manner which will make for smoother working. For the group 18, 19 and 20 to have the same rate of benefit, will be an administrative convenience. The 15 group has been brought into the same relation as the 16 group; they slide one into the other, and any differentiation between them would be ridiculous and unnecessary. The general principle of the fund since 1927 has been that you put into the fund according to your ability if you are an insured person, and you take out of it according to your need. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's own Government accepted that principle as the basis of the 1927 Act. There is no relation at present between the individual contributions and the benefit that may be drawn. The relation is based upon a collective responsibility. The hon. Member for one of the divisions of Nottingham said truly, and represented what I have said in previous Debates, that this Insurance Fund in the 1927 Act was based on the principle of fire insurance

  1017
  where the payment you get for the damage caused is irrespective of its relation to the amount actually paid in premium, subject, of course, to certain governing conditions. I think there is a general concensus of opinion in favour of the present basis of insurance, for which all parties in the House are jointly responsible. I must oppose the Clause.
  Captain CAZALET: The right hon. Lady has done scant justice to the excellent and well-informed speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). He made one particular request. With every courtesy, he expressed the hope that the right hon. Lady would not dismiss the Clause, as she has dismissed so many other suggestions from this side of the House, with a few cursory sentences, but I regret to say that that is exactly the attitude she has adopted towards his eminently reasonable proposal. We have previously expressed our opinions on the subject of bringing children between 15 and 16 years of age into the unemployment insurance scheme. We contend that if they are to be brought in, at any rate we ought to make a. fair relation between the amount they pay and the benefits which they are likely to get out of the fund. The figures quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend have not been denied by the right hon. Lady or by a single hon. Member apposite, and if those figures are a true indication of the extent to which the fund will benefit by the contributions of these young people. I content that it is a scandal there should not be a more reasonable relationship between the contributions and the benefits.
  I remember listening a few years ago to many attacks from hon. Members who then sat on these benches regarding details of the Miscellaneous Provisions (Economy) Act. They accused us of robbing the sick man, of robbing the soldier, of robbing the sailor, and so on, though we know perfectly well that not one of those individuals was deprived of a penny of his rightful benefit by that Act, which was passed by a Conservative Government. What would hon. Members opposite have said had we made a proposal of this nature? "Robbing the children" would have been the least violent expression they would have used regarding our action. If we take the contributions
  1018
  in respect of these children between 15 and 16 which are paid by themselves, their employers and the State, we find that they will furnish no less than £600,000 to the fund, and at the most only £100,000 is likely to be spent on training centres and in other directions in giving these insured children some reasonable benefit for their contributions. It is a very unfair thing indeed to take such contributions from these children, whose wages are extremely low, being in many cases purely nominal wages while they are learning their trade.
  The hon. Lady has dismissed the sum of 3d. or 4d. per week as though it were nothing, and yet if we propose to diminish anything by a penny we get speech after speech from the benches opposite saying that we do not understand how hard conditions are, and how a penny here and a penny there may make all the difference between comfort and misery to an individual family. Here we have 3d. or 4d. per week taken from young girls and boys, but it is regarded as of no account; they must contribute, it is said; it is all a part of the general scheme. We accept the principle that you must take some contributions from them if they are to be brought into the scheme, but we say their contributions should bear some reasonable relation to the amount of benefit they will possibly receive. In Schedule 4 we have worked out to the best of our ability the amounts of the contributions they ought to be called upon to pay. As my hon. Friend said, we have not the machinery available to determine exactly the right amounts to be put into Schedule 4. My hon. Friend asked the right hon. Lady to tell him whether those figures were more or less right, but I do not gather from her speech that she has ever taken the trouble to pay any attention to those figures. The Clause was moved with great sincerity, and, from a purely political point of view, it will do us much more good if the Clause is not accepted than if it is passed. But I think the right hon. Lady might have shown us the courtesy of at least reading the Clause in conjunction with the Schedule and replying at greater length and making some endeavour to answer our questions.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I think the right hon. Lady has taken this Clause in the wrong spirit. We are really

  1019
  coming to her assistance. She may regard us with suspicion, as Greeks bringing gifts in our hands, but she is quite wrong in that suspicion. The right hon. Lady has fought the battle of this Bill somewhat singlehanded. We have seen her in great difficulties. Once when she was in really considerable difficulty the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) was not present to come to her assistance, nor was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) who got her out of the difficulty, it was his generous attitude which prevented the Bill from being utterly wrecked. Therefore, she should not regard the assistance which she gets from these benches with such hostility and suspicion. The case for this new Clause is exceedingly strong. It has been agreed in every inquiry which has been made into this matter, including the inquiry by the Morris Committee, and in the report of the actuary, that there will be more work for juveniles than juveniles for the work. Further, it has been established beyond the possibility of question that the Unemployment Fund will benefit by at least £300,000 a year, and probably £600,000 a year, out of these juveniles. One would have thought that would have been a very strong argument to induce the right hon. Lady to pay some attention to this Clause, but her heart is hardened against us. Even if it could be shown beyond any doubt that there would be no juvenile unemployment in the next 10 years, her heart would still be hardened, and she would still insist on juveniles paying the contributions proposed in the Bill.
  I think the cat was let out of the bag by the right hon. Lady in a discussion on another part of the Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "It was only a kitten!"] Let the hon. Member wait to hear what the kitten really was. She was discussing the case of domestic service and said she would welcome the inclusion of domestic servants in the scheme because they were good lives and there was practically no unemployment among them and therefore the Unemployment Fund would benefit enormously. I hope that every domestic servant and every juvenile will note the implication of that statement. The right hon. Lady knows that juveniles
  1020
  are among the best lives and that she can largely count upon juveniles keeping in employment and drawing no unemployment benefit. It will be a pity if the principle is to be established in peace as well as in war, that youth has to pay for the failures of middle age; but that is what is happening under this scheme. Youth is being exploited. The right hon. Lady talked in the language of insurance about good lives and bad lives, but an actuary calculates very nicely not only what is going to be paid in the case of a risk maturing, but also the chances of that risk maturing at all. It does not need a Government actuary to work out the figures in this case. Any hon. Member opposite with a knowledge of the rule-of-three could do it for her. If the Government actuary were asked to work out a premium for the life of the present Government, I do not know what he would say. [An HON. MEMBER: "It will be three years."] I think a very high premium would have to be paid.
  The right hon. Lady has been deaf to our arguments. What we really need from her is a change of heart. We want her to recognise that it is unfair that young people should have to pay contributions which bear no proportion to what they will receive. We want her to recognise that there ought to be some element of mathematics in this matter, that she should take into consideration the simple principles of arithmetic and the ordinary principles of equity. If only she will do that, she will make her Measure infinitely more popular. If there is a principle behind her attitude, and she is not actuated merely by considerations of expediency, I suppose her principle is that this is a national scheme of insurance and that everybody must come into it, good lives or bad lives. If that be the principle, a great sense of pessimism appears to underlie it, because it assumes that the young people who are now paying their contributions will, when they grow up into adults, come to a period where unemployment will be their probable lot and that at that time another generation of young people will be paying to assist to insure them against the ills of unemployment. That assumes that the unemployment problem will remain as great in the future as it is to-day. That is a very pessimistic attitude. We on these benches think the time will come when the unemployment problem will pass

  1021
  away. We think that when some of these young people have grown up there will be a sound Conservative Government in power which will have permanently solved the unemployment problem by a wise Imperial. policy, and we merely ask that in the meantime those young people should be treated in a spirit of equity, and not despoiled in accordance with the principle of expediency which the right hon. Lady has so frankly and cynically avowed.
  Commander WILLIAMS: All who have heard the very able speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) will agree that it was one that had been well thought out, and he must have have given this new Clause very careful consideration. My hon. and gallant Friend and those acting with him have made a real effort to try and balance the amount of contributions with the amount that is likely to be raised from this class of person. The Minister of Labour made a very few observations in reply to this proposal, and she laid down the principle that, under this Bill, you should pay according to your ability, and benefit roughly according to your needs. That is the principle which she laid down. As far as I am personally concerned, I have no reason to quarrel with those words, but, after all, the Bill is not based on the principle that you should pay according to your ability, because the larger part of the contribution will be paid by the State, and the ability of the State to pay this money at the present time is very small indeed.
  The bulk of the complaints in regard to the position which has been taken up by the right hon. Lady is that under this Bill you will cause the whole of your juvenile people to pay their contributions, and it is very unlikely that they will obtain any benefit at all. It is possible that some of them may benefit, but a large number of those who are best acquainted with the conditions of industry think that the number of juniors who will actually draw the benefit will be very small indeed. It does not seem to be realised that we are dealing, not with a voluntary system in which, people can come in and out just when they like, but with a system in which people are compulsorily insured. It is absolutely essential and necessary that the House of Commons in laying down
  1022
  the regulations under the Bill should be perfectly certain that there is no sense of unfairness or injustice in those regulations.
  It is a very bad thing to start these young people under an insurance system if it can be shown in any way that you are taking too much out of them, and not giving them a fair return for their money. I do not say that the Minister of Labour is taking an unfair advantage of the children; that is not the basis of my argument. I have always believed in insurance as a general principle, but, when you make it compulsory, you should be clear that, although the better lives and the younger lives may have to carry the worse and the older lives you should pot place on any section an undue burden. If the people we are discussing had been brought into insurance under the last Government, or any other Government, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been the very, first to attack such a proposal; they would have raised the question up and down the country and in the House of Commons, and their speeches about unfairness and all that sort of thing would have been as violent as they would have been lacking in the fundamental elements of accuracy. It has been rather a curious thing throughout the Debates on this Measure that nearly the whole of the arguments and expressions of opinion on questions directly affecting the younger lives, and the attempts made to make this a better Bill, have invariably come from the Conservative party.
  It is a discreditable thing that the Minister of Labour should reply to a well-considered amending Clause in two or three minutes, in the course of which she insinuated that our proposal was not sound and our statements were inaccurate. The right hon. Lady could pot prove one piece of inaccuracy in our speeches; in fact, she did not try to do so, but rode off by saying, "Oh, there is nothing in this." That has been the state of mind of most Members of the Government during this Session. They have failed to meet our arguments all that they have done has been to make some disconnected statement which has very little to do with the question and then they sit down and let their proposals; go through. Legislation of this kind and attempts by the Government to put

  1023
  pressure on the House of Commons have been tried before, and the result has always been the same in the end.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be getting far away from the proposal before the House.
  Commander WILLIAMS: I appeal to the right hon. Lady to tell us why she will not accept our proposals, or else ask one of her supporters to say exactly why the Government will not accept this reasonable, adequate, and advantageous Clause.
  Major ELLIOT: I think the Minister of Labour treated the House with great curtness, not to say discourtesy, in the reply which she made to this proposal. We brought this proposal forward in the Second Reading Debate, and the right hon. Lady then admitted that by the proposal which she brought forward in the Bill she was placing an unfair burden on the unemployed, and she admitted that she was overcharging the young people in order to overpay the old people. Afterwards, she defended the same proposal on the ground that it was one which would teach the young people thrift. The Minister of Labour attempted to give a further defence in her speech upon the Money Resolution, and she said that the Government were not doing as much as we claimed, and that it was unfair to say that all the money paid by the young people was being used to bolster up the funds of the older people. She also reminded us that they had to consider the contributions paid by the employer and the State as well as the contributions paid by the young people themselves. This is what the Minister of Labour said on this subject:
  "The total sum that will come to the fund from the three-fold source is £600,000, and slightly less than £200,000 will be contributed by boys and girls directly; that is, by deductions from their wages. Against that is set the possible expenditure of benefit, which whenever possible is only paid on condition that it is accompanied by attendance at classes, and that amount is £100,000. There will also be deducted the cost of training, which we regard as a fundamental part of the scheme, and which we hope to continue to develop on even broader lines than at present. There is really therefore no case to be made in regard to this being any tax upon the child." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1929; col. 1101, Vol. 232.]
  1024
  This means that the child puts its money into a money box and two other parties also put money into the same box, but the right hon. Lady has cut a trap door in the back of the box and extracts the contributions paid by the employer and the State, and then she says "That will teach the young people thrift." Could you imagine anything more likely to discourage a young man than burgling his money box, and then telling him that this had been done to teach him thrift. My view is that this provision will teach a young person not to leave twopence anywhere that the right hon. Lady can put her fingers upon it. The proposal which we are discussing was denounced by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who said that it was the one part of the Bill for which he could not find any justification, and on this question he said that he found himself in opposition to his own party. When a proposal is introduced to bring young people into insurance I think it is only just to make sure that every step is taken to see that the proposal has the smallest possible amount of disadvantage.
  The Minister of Labour should be better acquainted with the principles of insurance than to defend a proposal of this kind on the ground of insurance. The right hon. Lady knows that you have to pay a very small premium when you insure a good life. Time after time on this question we have been told by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) and other Members sitting on the back benches opposite that this Bill is simply a relief scheme buttressed up by a poll tax. At one time, the right hon. Lady defends her position by arguing that she must protect the principle of insurance, and at another time she says that she has to surrender to the claims of humanity. She must say on which leg she is going to stand. Under the Bill, the premium charged is three times as much as that which ought to be demanded for the benefits offered, and to say that this is being done in order to teach young people thrift is one of the most fantastic defences that has ever been placed before the House.
  I am sure the defence which has been put forward by the Minister of Labour is one which would not have appealed to herself when a child if her money had been taken away from her and given to somebody else on the ground that that

  1025
  was the best way to teach her thrift. On this question, we propose to proceed to a Division, because the proposal of the Government is one to which we take the strongest exception. The Government are embarking upon a dangerous and an unjust step, and, later on, we shall propose to leave out the Clause in the Bill which makes the proposal which we have been discussing. Whatever be the fate of that Amendment, this Clause, which proposes to bring the contributions into some relation with the risk, and thereby to follow out the real principles of insurance, which the right hon. Lady defends, is one which will meet with the approval of all of us in this quarter of the House, and I believe also of hon. Members below the Gangway. At any rate, we propose to go to a Division and test the opinion of the House on the matter.
  Major COLFOX: Are we not going to have a reply from the Government on this extremely important matter? I know, of course, that the right hon. Lady uttered a few sentences a short while ago, but, in my submission, that was no reply whatever to the arguments which have been raised. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved this proposed new Clause in a very clear speech said quite definitely what were his objects and the objects of those on, this side who support him, and he said, quite rightly, that, since we on this side cannot command the services of the Government Actuary, we are not certain whether the figures in the Amendment to the Schedule will, in fact, exactly carry out the intentions and objects with which that, Amendment was put down. Therefore, I would ask the right hon. Lady, even if she cannot herself give the answer, to give it through the mouth of one of her colleagues sitting near her—do the figures in the proposed Amendment to the Schedule carry out the intention of the Mover of this proposed new Clause, and, if they do not, what is it that is inaccurate in my hon. and gallant Friend's
  statement? I on the other hand, they do carry it out, what is the objection of the Government to incorporating those figures in the Bill?
  Absolutely no reason has been given for the rejection of this Clause. It is another instance of the tyranny of Socialism and the Socialist party. They consider that it is their privilege and province to ride roughshod over any defenceless people in the country. We have seen an instance of the same principle in the way that they have ridden roughshod over the members of various trade unions. That, of course, is by the way; it is merely another instance of the sort of thing which they are doing in this Bill. Before they decide finally to rob the children of the countryside in the way that they are doing in this Bill, we have a right, surely, to ask them to give us a definite answer to a definite question, and to give us a definite reason why they see fit not to incorporate this Amendment in the Bill. I do not know, of course, how many supporters of the Government are parents of young children, but I do know that the vast majority of the parents of children in these age-groups throughout the country will feel that they have been unjustly treated in having to submit to the robbery of their children, possibly for years, though I do not think that the operation of this Measure is likely to last for very many years, even if it becomes law. The Socialist party, in refusing to accept this very sensible and moderate Amendment, will be piling up for themselves the wrath and opposition of every parent throughout the length and breadth of this land. I appeal most earnestly to the right hon. Lady to give us, either personally or through the mouth of one of her friends, a definite reply to these very definite questions.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 241.

  Division No. 100.]

  AYES.

  [5.7 p.m.

  Albery, Irving James

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Briscoe, Richard George

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

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Berry, Sir George

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Atkinson, C.

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Butler, R. A.

  Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Balfour, George (Hampstcad)

  Boyce, H. L.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

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

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Christie, J. A.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbort

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Colvillie, Major D. J.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Savery, S. S.

  Cranbourne, Viscount

  King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

  Skelton, A N.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

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

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Little, Dr. E. Graham

  Somerset, Thomas

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Long, Major Eric

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

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

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W,

  Tinne, J. A.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur dive

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Gault, Lieut.-Cot. Andrew Hamilton

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Winterton, Rt. Hen. Earl

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Pilditch, Sir Philip

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Purbrick, R.

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

  Ramsbotham, H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Remer, John R.

  Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir George Penny.

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

  Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  NOES.

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

  Dalton, Hugh

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

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

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Day, Harry

  Herriotts, J.

  Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Dickson, T.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Angell, Norman

  Dukes, C.

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Arnott, John

  Duncan, Charles

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Ede, James Chuter

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Isaacs, George

  Ayles, Walter

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Egan, W. H.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Eimley, Viscount

  Johnston, Thomas

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Jones, Rt. Hon, Lelf (Camborne)

  Bellamy, Albert

  Foot, Isaac

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

  Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N 1

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Benson, G.

  Gill, T. H.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Gillett, George M.

  Kinley, J.

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Glassey, A. E.

  Knight, Holford

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Gosling, Harry

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

  Bowen, J. W.

  Gossling, A. G.

  Lathan, G.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Gould, F.

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Granville, E.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lawson, John James

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Burgess, F. G.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Leach, W.

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

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Lees, J.

  Caine, Derwent Hall

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

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Cameron, A. G.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Longden, F.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Chater, Daniel

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Lowth, Thomas

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hardie, George D.

  Lunn, William

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Harris, Percy A.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Compton, Joseph

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

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

  Cove, William G.

  Haycock, A. W.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Daggar, George

  Hayday, Arthur

  Mackinder, W.

  Dallas, George

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  1028

  1029

  Macpherson, Rt. Hon James I.

  Potts, John S.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  McShane, John James

  Price, M. P.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

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

  Pybus, Percy John

  Sorensen, R.

  Mansfield, W.

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  March, S.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Stephen, Campbell

  Markham, S. F.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Marley, J.

  Richards, R.

  Strauss, G. R.

  Matters, L. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Maxton, James

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Melville, Sir James

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Messer, Fred

  Ritson, J.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Middleton, G.

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Millar, J. D.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Townend, A. E.

  Mills, J. E.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Montague, Frederick

  Rowson, Guy

  Turner, B.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Morley, Ralph

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Viant, S. P.

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Walker, J.

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Sandham, E.

  wallhead, Richard C.

  Mort, D. L.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Walters, Rt. Hon. sir J. Tudor

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Scurr, John

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

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Sexton, James

  West, F. R.

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Westwood, Joseph

  Murnin, Hugh

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

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

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Shield, George William

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Palin, John Henry

  Shinwell, E.

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Winterton, G. E.(Lelcester, Loughb'gh)

  Perry, S. F.

  Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

  Wise, E. F.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Wright, W. (Rutharglen)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling

  CLAUSE 1.—(Minimum age for insurance.)
  Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  This is one of the most important Clauses in the whole Bill. It was very fully debated in Committee, but there are one or two salient points which must be dealt with on Report. Undoubtedly the Clause is causing considerable alarm in the country. I do not think there has been a single person who has spoken to me about politics since the Bill was first printed who has not said, "Surely you are not going to allow that Clause giving the dole to children to go through." I have to reply that, owing to the alliance between the Socialist and Liberal parties, I am afraid it probably will go through. The last time it was before the House the Liberal party abstained altogether from voting, and it will be interesting to see what they do on this occasion.
  The Government themselves do not seem to know what reason there was for having a Clause of this kind at all. They have used two arguments which are incompatible. The first is that the Clause is necessary in order to round off the insurance scheme and to bridge the gap,
  1030
  and the other is that there is so little unemployment among juveniles that very few will be affected. You cannot have it both ways. Perhaps on this occasion we shall get some idea as to which of those arguments is correct. We have dealt fairly fully to-day with the contribution side of the Clause. I was disappointed that the Government did not see their way to accept the last new Clause with the Schedule attached to it, because it seems ridiculous filet you should bring these children in, paying contributions which will bring something like £600,000 into the scheme, while, at the most, £150,000 worth of benefit could be paid. To that argument we have had very little, if any reply. The Clause is a little better than when it first appeared on the Paper in that it now goes a certain amount of the way towards supplying training centres. I do not know why the Minister could not accept our suggestion that training should be compulsory for people in receipt of benefit. However, the Minister has gone a certain way in that direction.
  There might be some reason for bringing in a Clause of this kind if this was a genuine uninsurance scheme. On Clause after Clause we come up against this,

  1031
  and practically every Amendment that has been made has taken us further away from the insurance principle. Were we now at the insurance principle for which the Bill at one time stood, what is called the one-in-six principle, there might be no objection to juveniles coming in. The amount of contribution they pay would be reflected in the amount of benefit that they could draw. But, as it is at present, it is very little else than a gigantic relief scheme. A little while ago we were discussing whether or not mothers should draw the benefit for their children, showing to what a pass unemployment insurance has come. A most important thing is that, since we first discussed Clause 1, we have completely scrapped Clause 4 and put a new Clause in its place, and the new Clause makes it even more necessary that juveniles should not be mixed up in the Employment Exchanges with the relief that is given under the new Clause, because it has now gone so far away from the old insurance principle.
  The Minister has agreed that there is practically no juvenile unemployment, and full publicity should be given to the very interesting tables of figures in the minority report of the Shaftesbury Committee. They show that not only should there be no unemployment among the juveniles with whom we deal in this Clause, but that there will be a very serious shortage of juveniles to be made up, and that therefore, there can be no possible object in inserting the Clause. Even if the school age remains as it is—and we know it is to be raised to 15—there will be a shortage in 1933 of no less than 336,000, but with the raising of the school age the shortage in industry will be no less than 428,000 in 1931, rising to the great total of 762,000 in 1934. Thence it falls again to 466,000 in 1936, which shows that there will be employment for these juveniles and that there can be no object whatever in bringing them under this scheme. I was very interested in a letter from a constituent, who agreed with a Resolution passed by the local Chamber of Commerce protesting against the Bill, particularly against Clause 1 and the raising of the new rates under Clause 2. He says:
  "I would further quote my own experience. We employ about 25 lads in our
  1032
  dairy, some just shifting empty bottle. During the whole of 1929 we have found it almost impossible to get boys of 14 or 15 years of age, although they start with slightly over Trade Board wage, i.e., £1 per week. In fact we have found we can hardly get boys of 16 years of age. This is our experience in North London and in our opinion there is very little unemployment amongst lads."
  That experience of a man in industry shows exactly what is happening all over the country, that there is no unemployment, and that, when the school age is raised, there will be more difficulty still in getting juveniles than there is now. I do not think the argument brought forth in Committee, that this is a way for employers to get cheap labour, counts, because these unskilled jobs can be done only by young people for a certain time. Ultimately, they go on to other jobs. For instance, in my business boys come in from school knowing nothing of office routine. After a time, they learn a bit and go up to junior clerks and so on, and we have quite a number of people in very responsible positions drawing salaries of four figures who started as office boys. So that the idea that these people are all starting as cheap labour and that the Clause will do anything to prevent employers using young people when they can use older ones is really not sound at all.
  Another argument brought forward by the right hon. Lady is that, by this Clause, after-care committees will be better able to look after the children. I cannot help thinking that that is a very poor argument for passing it, because the after-care committees can now, using the school organisation, if they are efficient follow the children for a certain time after they leave school. In well-run places like London and Birmingham something like 100 per cent. of the children are actually followed and looked after to see what happens to them when they first enter work. It is utterly absurd with the state of industry as it is, and with the unemployment figures going up, to keep on spending money on things of this kind, which are only indirectly increasing unemployment and not doing the slightest good in putting people into permanent work, which is what we want to do. The whole Bill is extremely unpopular in the country. The supporters of the party opposite think that the Government are mean because they will not give way to

  1033
  the extremists, and those who are opposed to the Government think it is iniquitous that at this time, with unemployment rising as it is, and with a necessity for economy such as there never was before, doles should be made easier for people to get and should be given to children.
  Major GEORGE DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Clause was very fully debated, but that does not alter the fact that, of all the startling proposals in the Bill, it raises the greatest apprehension through out the country, because it is not only confined to the question of unemployment insurance, but it brings in a much more important issue, the question of the attitude of the State towards juveniles, the children who are dependent to a great extent on our legislation. Hon. Members opposite are in the forefront in education Debates on this question of the provision of proper training for children and seeing that their interests are properly looked after. But who can support that view in this Bill? They are making the same mistake as they did when they were so loud in their condemnation of the Trade Disputes Bill, against which they said they were going to rouse the whole country. If they think they have the country behind them in this piece of legislation there is a great disillusion waiting for them outside these four walls, because nothing more unpopular has been brought forward by any Government for a long time. It is not only political unpopularity. People who vote for all three parties are greatly disturbed at this kind of legislation being brought in. Hon. Members opposite know the slang expression that a thing is as easy as stealing candy from a kid. That is exactly what the right hon. Lady is engaged in doing. As a rule, you give them in exchange a cigarette card, but they are getting nothing out of this.
  I call it a monstrous imposition on the young people to bring in legislation of this kind. It is not sufficient to say, when we have brought forward Amendments, that if you are going to bring juveniles into the unemployment insurance scheme, you cannot make a separate scheme for them because you must only have one scheme and must make the good risks carry the bad. The party opposite are now contemplating extending unem-
  1034
  ployment insurance to agriculture, and they are proposing, or we are much mistaken, to make a different scheme, therefore the argument falls to the ground that you cannot make different terms for this risk. However much the argument is put forward that it is merely part of the whole scheme, the party opposite cannot get away from the impression which they are giving in the country that it is a mean piece of business. It is not even as though the Bill is being supported from the point of view of being any insurance scheme, and that therefore it must be an actuarially sound insurance scheme. We have got far away from that point of view. These arguments are denounced when they are brought forward on this side of the House, but they are brought forward by right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they want to resist an Amendment of a different type.
  One of the most extraordinary things during the Debate on this Clause has been, that while the most important consideration is an educational one, the one person who ought to have spoken from the Front Bench has been qualifying for the role of hero in a serial of romance as the strong, silent man—the President of the Board of Education. There are many considerations in this Clause. In the first, place, there is the financial question, and we have not heard a word from the Treasury. In the second place, there are the legal aspects of the Measure, and in regard to his only intervention in Debate in that connection, I am sure the learned Attorney-General will, with heartfelt feelings, say, "I am sorry I spoke." Because if anyone has cut a sorry figure in having to take up a position and then withdrawing from it, it has been the learned Attorney-General. We have not had a word from the Minister primarily concerned with the question on which this Clause has a bearing. In fact, the only Ministerial occupant of the Front Bench who has obtained any satisfaction out of the Measure so far has been the Minister of Agriculture. He has seen gradually, with his born outlook for live stock, the sheep separating themselves from the goats on his own benches; and when they are in difficulties they are helped out by patient oxen on the opposite benches below the Gangway.
  I do not want to allow this Clause to go—we shall divide on it, I trust—with-

  1035
  out emphasising these two points. We are in the House of Commons with a trusteeship on behalf of the young people of this country. [Interruption.] Yes, and we are betraying that trusteeship in this Measure. In the second place, it affects vitally the whole question of the education of the children of this country, and yet we have not heard a word from those primarily responsible for guiding that education. For those reasons, I want to offer my severest protest against this Clause.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): Whether it is true or not that this Clause is unpopular in the country, there is one thing about it which is certain. It does something which those who are most concerned about adolescent life in this country have felt to be necessary for many years, and which has been expressed by the various committees that have sat upon these matters—the Malcolm Committee, the Salvesen Committee and various other committees. Apart from what these committees have said, there can be no one concerned with the welfare of the youth of this country who has not at some time felt great misgivings as to the serious results likely to follow the gap between the age at which boys and girls leave school and the age when they obtain work. The hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain A. Hudson), who moved the Amendment, took the line that there was not going to be very much unemployment as far as these boys and girls are concerned. As a matter of fact, that is not a true state of affairs as regards certain areas in the country. Those of us who know what are called the black areas realise that not the least lamentable of the conditions which have prevailed in those areas has been the sight of boys and girls leaving school and becoming subject to no control beyond the parental control. While the youths of from 16 to 18 years of age could be taken into a training centre, nothing could be done for those under 16.
  I was charged with saying at an earlier stage in these Debates that one of the things that employers had done in the past was to take advantage of the position to get cheap labour. I make no charge against employers in that respect.
  1036
  I certainly did say what was true, that in the black areas, which some of us know quite well, this new industrial revolution, which is gradually working its way to other parts of the country, has had the same effect as the old industrial revolution, and that children have actually been supplanting their fathers at some of the works. What is contemplated in this Bill in connection with the raising of the school age, the establishment of training centres, and the insurance of these boys and girls, will have the effect, to some extent, at any rate, of saving these young people from that condition of things. There has been a very wide and detailed discussion of these matters and the Minister has given full effect, as she indicated in her Second Reading speech, to her desire to give the warmest consideration to Amendments which might be moved. That point of view has been expressed in the new Clause which has been moved in order to make sure, as far as possible, that boys and girls shall be brought into the training centres.
  I do not wish to continue this Debate at any length because it is necessary that we should obtain the Third Reading of this Bill to-night, but in referring to the question of contributions and the amount that is to be paid in benefit as a result of these boys' and girls' contributions, and for which we make no apology, we are prepared to accept any unpopularity that there may be in respect of this matter. The hon. Gentleman opposite has said that this Bill is unpopular. I have not heard that it is unpopular in the country generally. Personally, it has not been my experience to encounter any protest. What are the facts? My right hon. Friend stated a fact which was not noted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, namely, that, at any rate, from 16 to 18 the contributions were the same as they had been in the previous Act. Even with regard to boys and girls coming in at 15, is it a crime that we should insure good lives? The same principle is being carried out as is carried out in regard to any other insurance scheme. Is it a crime to ask that boys and girls, the strong men and women of the future, should pay contributions in readiness for the time when they will be subject to unemployment and the ills connected with that particular aspect of industrial life? The main point put by the hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney—and this was

  1037
  not even mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major Davies)—that unemployment is not prevalent to any extent among adolescents, cannot generally be substantiated. In certain given areas you get large numbers, and sometimes the bulk, of the boys and girls, unemployed. The House must remember that what is happening in three or four of the areas in given industries, may easily be possible all over the country in years to come, in view of the great changes which are coming to pass. I say that there is no more necessary thing in the life of this country than to make quite sure, as this Government are doing—if I expressed myself personally, I would say that it ought to have been done much sooner—that steps will be taken for the training and supervision of boys leaving school.
  Mr. E. BROWN: I cannot forbear saying two things. The hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain A. Hudson) and the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank) referred to the fact that Members of this party did not vote on the Committee stage in respect of Clause 1. I hope that when they speak again they will go a little further than that. This Clause has to be read in conjunction with another Clause, a Clause which, in my judgment, will be very valuable in the interests of all who have the educational welfare of the children at heart. This Clause was put down by the Minister as a result, not as the hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney said of "Us," but as a result of the Amendment of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) moved from these benches. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the reason why our party did not vote for the Clause on the Committee stage was because we were not satisfied with the statement made by the Minister, as there was no arrangement made for an extension of the training of young people. I cannot help commenting also on the two speeches which we have just heard. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough was much more careful than the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Hackney, who said that the thing is unpopular in the country. I do not agree. What is unpopular is what certain views papers have made of the phrase contained in the last sentence of the speech
  1038
  of the hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney—"doles to children." They cannot have it both ways. The hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil cannot say that it is like taking candy away from the children and his hon. and gallant Friend protest vehemently against doles for children. They may choose which headline they like, but they cannot run both headlines on the same day in the same Debate and on the same Clause. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman adopts the use of metaphor and refers to the right hon. and hon. Members opposite as sheep and goats, and to us as patient oxen, I cannot help reminding him that in the last Division half his party was absent. May we, therefore, come to the conclusion that the wild asses are quenching their thirst in the South of France?
  Major DAVIES: The hon. Member asks me, and I will give him a reply. The answer is: "Absence makes the heart grow fonder."
  Mr. BROWN: I am glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not object to the metaphor. We know that he recognises his friends even when they are absent. This Clause has been asked for owing to an alteration in the school age. There would have been a gap of a year and a very awkward gap between 15 and 16 years of age. When people talk about the thing being unpopular, they mean what people are taught by headlines to believe is unpopular. I met a man the other day who was protesting against doles for children. I said, "Where are they?" He said: "The Government are going to pay doles to boys of 15." I pointed out that if a boy left school on his 15th birthday and went to work the very next day, the earliest time he could draw the dole would be at the end of 30 contribution weeks, plus six days' waiting period. He said; "I did not know that; that makes a great deal of difference." The fact that the right hon. Lady met the desires of those who want an extension of training, such as the training that is now going on in Edinburgh, by arrangement between the Department of Education and the Ministry of Labour, means that our objections to the inclusion of children of 15 in the insurance scheme falls to the ground. While it is true that because the Minister did not meet our views on the Committee stage we did not vote for Clause 1, I

  1039
  have no doubt whatever of the course that I shall adopt to-day. I shall vote for the Clause with great pleasure.
  Earl WINTERTON: It is a well-known fact that no one is so prone to fanaticism as the convert, and those of us who have seen the gradual change of view of the deputy Leader of the Liberal party, after his own support of his Leader in opposition to this Clause, and have seen the change come about in which he has seen salvation, both material and moral, in the party opposite, are not surprised that he should have given the most vigorous defence of this Clause which hat, fallen from any hon. Member.
  Mr. BROWN: Will the noble Lord be surprised to hear that this is the first time I have expressed any opinion on this Clause?
  Earl WINTERTON: I should have said, "on this Bill." I used the word "Clause" in error. I may say a word about the deputy Leader and the real Leader of the Liberal party at a later stage. I should like to confine myself for the moment to what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with this very important part of the Bill. No one on this side of the House imputes anything but the most sincere motives to hon. and right hon. Members opposite in bringing forward this Clause. It is inconceivable that they can be anything but sincere, because they must realise that, from the electoral point of view, it would be hard to have brought forward a Clause likely to have been of less benefit to them. The small number of parents who, through their children, will benefit from this Clause are situated in the most depressed areas of the country, which already return Socialist Members to Parliament. In the great majority of districts where no benefits will accrue to boys and girls of 15 from the contributions which they will have to pay, for the simple reason that there is no unemployment amongst them, the Government will have at the next General Election one of the most damaging cries that has faced any party for a long time. It will be said: "You are taking contributions from our boys and girls of 15, and you know there is no unemployment." Therefore, no one on this side of the House will deny that hon. and right hon. Mem-
  1040
  bers opposite are sincere in bringing forward this Clause. Every defence of the Clause which has been made to-day, whether by the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary or others, has shown its great unwisdom from the point of view not only of insurance and of industry but, most of all, from the point of view of the boys and girls who will be affected by it.
  What are our main objections to the Clause? In the comparatively few areas where there is juvenile unemployment the boy and girl will, on leaving school, be discouraged to some extent from going away from what, in most cases, are hopelessly depressed areas, where the labour market is hopelessly overcrowded, and where the chance of a boy and girl getting a decent livelihood are at least 50 per cent. less than in other parts of the country or in the Dominions. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary denies that there are such areas. He has said that there are areas where bays and girls have no chance of permanent employment. Is it a good thing that at the very earliest age when they enter industry and when they become unemployed they should be paid benefit and he thereby to some extent discouraged from going elsewhere? The Parliamentary Secretary made a very strange reference to this matter. He said that there were cases where boys in these areas had undesirable—I think he said undesirable—occupations. He said that they are doing jobs which had formerly been done by their fathers. If these jobs are beyond their physical and mental capacity or if they are being sweated in these jobs, then most certainly they ought not to be doing them, but I cannot see in what way this Clause will prevent that.
  If, on the other hand, it means that by the use of machinery a job which was formerly done by a man can now be managed by a boy, so much the better for the industrial efficiency of the country. What we want is better machinery in this country, like they have in America, where the proportion of the average amount of man-power to machinery is one to three compared with this country. One cannot, however, discuss that matter on this Clause, and I only referred to it because the Parliamentary Secretary brought in the subject. I do not know what the undesirable jobs are, but if they exist, the Clause will do nothing to prevent any-

  1041
  thing that is undesirable. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that the education proposals of the Government would affect this point. That may or may not be so. We are a very long way from those proposals. They have not yet appeared in the from of a Bill, and we do not know whether they will get through the House. In any case, they will not come into operation for more than a year.
  The second reason why we object to this Clause is that it will involve an injustice, in that boys and girls who are employed in insurable trades in many districts where unemployment amongst juveniles is so negligible as to be almost non-existent, will pay contributions towards a scheme that cannot benefit them as boys and girls. The Parliamentary Secretary admits that, and he will know even more strongly in the future how unpopular that proposal will be. He tried to get out of the difficulty by making a appeal to people to look at insurance as one scheme; to look at insurance as a whole. He said that just as in life insurance and accident insurance you must expect at the younger and healthier ages to pay in order to obtain advantages lox those of an older age, so they must look upon this scheme. His analogy is not correct. Before I took office in the Coalition Government I was a director of a very large insurance company doing business of all kinds all over the world, and I have been astonished at some of the comparisons which have been sought to be made in this Debate between this type of insurance and ordinary insurance. When a man or a woman insures his or her life or insures against accident they insure on a basis which can be shown by actuarial examination to be, on the whole, a reasonable one from the point of view of risk both to the insurance company and to the individual. I submit that in the case of juvenile insurance, taking the insurance at the age of 15 to 16, which is all we are concerned with in this Clause, the premium which you are asking the boys and girls to pay is absurdly out of proportion to the risk which they are going to undergo in all but very few districts of this country. That can be proved by actuarial experience.
  Mr. TOWNEND: Is it not a fact that in all insurance the good life pays for the bad life?
  Earl WINTERTON: No one will admit that that is so, least of all anyone who has been a director of an insurance company. [Interruption.] Nothing that I say need be a cause of derision. Assuming that the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) has made a correct statement, then all life insurance and accident insurance is wrong. I should he very sorry to hear it stated on the other side of the House, among responsible Members, that they admit the principle that in life insurance or in any other form of recognised insurance the risks of the bad lives are taken by the good lives. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Of course not. The only answer is that they do not accept them—the bad lives. The premium which is being asked from the boys and girls is out of all proportion to the risks which are going to be undertaken in all but very few districts, and it is contrary to every recognised insurance principle. A good many figures, have been mentioned in this Debate. Let me mention some. We have instances in the south of England which will confirm what I have just said. In my own constituency, where I have an electorate of 70,000 people, there is a town with an insured population of 12,000 or 13,000 persons. All through the bad years, from the year 1921 onwards, the total unemployment amongst that population has never been higher than 3 per cent. and has often been as low as 2 per cent. while unemployment amongst boys and girls is absolutely non-existent. In fact, boys and girls are brought in from other districts to undertake employment. Is it right that in an area like that, which is only one of a huge district, where there is very little unemployment and where there is no unemployment amongst juveniles, the boys and girls should have to pay contributions in order to support children of those ages in the depressed areas?
  Mr. MUGGERIDGE: It is a common risk.
  Earl WINTERTON: Why should there be this compulsion on my constituents, without their receiving one penny in return?
  Mr. MUGGERIDGE: It is a common risk.
  6.0 p.m.
  Earl WINTERTON: Because the hon. Member has said that two or three

  1043
  times, it does not make it more truthful. As a result of industrial conditions which have long past away, there is in some parts of England and Scotland a hopeless surplus of labour which every impartial authority, including the Transference Board, has again and again stated is never likely to get permanent employment in those districts, and the sons and daughters of these people can have no permanent employment in those districts, because there is a surplus of labour, a condition which is likely to continue. If I thought for one moment that this Clause was going to solve the problem of the depressed areas, then by all means I would say to my constituents or to anyone else in the South of England: "You must bear your share as members of a great country by submitting to this charge, in order to cure this state of affairs"; but does anyone suggest for a moment that this Clause will cure that state of affairs? It will have exactly the opposite effect. It will remove to some extent one of the incentives for these people to go and seek employment in districts where there is some chance of getting it. It is not the amount of money that is involved, but the principle. I must say that I am astonished at the attitude of the Liberal party. If ever there was a Clause where the question of the old-fashioned ideal of self-reliance and self-help comes into review, it is on this Clause. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who has been conspicuously absent from the Committee and Report stages, in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill led us to believe that he was deeply opposed to this and the next Clause. He thoroughly earned the plaudits which the Press delights to shower upon him, that in a rather dull House of Commons he alone stands out as one who by his eloquence and his experience can put a case in the most forcible, vigorous and illuminating manner. We were all deeply impressed by the speech. Hon. Members opposite did not agree with him. We on this side agreed with his criticisms of the Bill, and were surprised that he did not follow them up. How feeble has been the aftermath of that speech as far as the right hon. Gentleman and his party are concerned! How different from what the
  1044
  right hon. Gentleman can do if he really follows up a policy! Some of us remember the days when he made vigorous attacks upon the dukes. He got a certain amount of fun out the dukes, but he would get far more fun out of the present Government if he really started upon them. It is true that a proportion of the dukes were at home in the saddle rather than in the senate, but I have never seen a Government or supporters of any Government who rise so easily to the simplest fly thrown over to them as do the present Government and its supporters. It is a real misfortune that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs should again and again make speeches on Second Reading threatening opposition, bring forward arguments which he alone is able to do so admirably, and then when it comes to real discussion in Committee and on Report leave the Opposition to the deputy-leader of the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). The comparison between the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and the hon. Member for Leith is really almost too pathetic to mention, and we have a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman that in future, when he comes down on a Second Reading and makes such a speech he should at any rate follow it up by voting in the Committee and Report stages against a Clause to which he objects.
  The gravamen of our charge against this Clause is that as far as the majority of the districts are concerned it is an impost, a most unfair tax, upon the employers and employed, which by no system of insurance can be justified. To those districts to which the Bill applies it is thoroughly bad in principle, and will instil into the minds of recruits to the industrial army, at their most plastic and impressionable age, the notion that unlike the young Canadians, unlike the young Frenchmen, unlike the young Americans, they will find in this country an institution, a benevolent old gentleman called the State, who will always come to their aid whenever they are in trouble from the start of their careers to the end. That is not the attitude of mind in young men in other countries starting out to earn their livelihood. They have not got the State behind them. It is bad for the morale of the boys and girls of this country. The less ambitious will argue that there is not the least need for any effort on their part. In other countries they are

  1045
  taught to rely upon themselves throughout life. Hon. Members opposite, I know, hold that the spirit of competitive emulation and ambition is bad, that the worst thing you can have is competition. But it was by those methods that the greatness of this country was built up, and we must, from the start of their careers when they are of an impressionable age, teach our young people to believe that they must get on by their own vigorous and unaided efforts.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: This is the first contribution I have made to the Debates on this Bill, and I would not have prolonged the argument had it not been for the continued absence of the President of the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman has just come into the House, and I will withdraw the words "continuous absence" and substitute the words "continuous silence." I also intervene in the Debate because of the speech of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). To my mind he very nearly put his finger on the crux of the whole thing. He talked about hon. Members wanting to have it both ways. It is not hon. Members on this side who want to have it both ways. It is the Government. Either there is going to be juvenile unemployment after the raising of the school age or there is not. If there is, we contend that this Clause is not the way to deal with it. In the Debate on education the President of the Board of Education made use of a phrase which found agreement on all sides of the House. He said that a poor school is better than the most sanitary coal pit. Apparently, it is not better than the best Employment Exchange. We on this side contend that if you are going to spend money on remedying juvenile unemployment, it will be much better to spend it in giving increased educational facilities. If, on the other hand, there is not going to be juvenile unemployment there can be only one justification for the Clause, and that is that it will swell the Fund. In that case you are taking from children money from which they are to get no benefit. One of these things must be true. We say that this Clause is grossly unfair to the children of this country, and we propose to oppose it in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for
  1046
  the question which arose out of the interruption made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Townend) when the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) was speaking. In his view, in all systems of insurance the good life pays for the bad. Although I do not pretend to speak with the authority of a director of an insurance company, I would point out that that interruption shows that the hon. Member who made it has completely missed the whole point we are making about the contributions of young persons. There is all the difference between a voluntary and a compulsory system of insurance. In a voluntary system a person who enters as a good life does so of his own free will and stands exactly the same risk as a bad life. He does so because he considers he runs the same risk as a bad life. But in a compulsory system of insurance, such as you have under this Bill, you are dragging in people who do not run the same risks in order to reinforce the Fund by their contributions. As long as a compulsory scheme is mixed up with a voluntary scheme, there is no possible opportunity of realising the objections we make against the inclusion of young persons for the sole purpose of strengthening the Fund by contributions from their wages.
  The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), in the course of his speech, described his conversion to this Bill. He said that in his view his objections to this Clause were largely removed by the extent to which the Minister has accepted Amendments moved by his party and the Amendment which I had the honour to move, making it a condition for the payment of benefit to young persons that they should receive some sort of training, The only remark I have to make upon that is that the hon. Member for Leith is more easily pleased than I am, because the words now in the Bill providing that training are by no means as satisfactory, as definite, or as positive as he and I would like to see. It only says that the training shall be provided where practicable. The whole point of hon. Members below the Gangway in their Amendment was to put in the Bill a provision that it shall be made practicable in all cases where benefit is paid. I doubt whether the hon. Member's conversion is justified by the words in the Bill. The hon. Member also described a conversation he had with an erstwhile opponent of the

  1047
  Measure, and he said that when he pointed out that a man had to work 30 weeks before he got unemployment benefit, his opponent was completely vanquished, withdrew his opposition, and no doubt said that he would vote for the hon. Member for Leith at the next election. I am sure the fact that his opponent lives in London is the only reason which prevents him from voting for the hon. Member. I doubt whether his interlocutor was as well seized of the Bill as he should have been, because if he had looked at Clause 11 he would find that it is possible for a lad if he remains at school for an extra year to be credited with 20 contributions. All he has to do is to come out of school, take up a blind alley occupation for 10 weeks, and, with the aid of his credited contributions, draw unemployment benefit for 18 months. That is the class of case which should largely influence this House and the hon. Member for Leith. I am doubtful whether his conversion is as well justified as it should be.
  The whole object of our opposition as far as I can understand it—[Interruption]—and speaking for myself is this: I know that hon. Members of all parties sometimes speak without authority. I was much moved by the very eloquent appeal made by the Minister of Labour on the Second Reading of the Bill, in which she uttered a well-timed warning and an appeal to the mothers of these young people asking them to encourage their children to go abroad in search of work, to go to other districts in search of work, and not to give full effect to that natural homesickness which is so often found in children and which is often very much encouraged by mothers from quite natural reasons. That appeal loses a great deal of its power when in those districts and areas in which you find juvenile unemployment you are actually making it worth while, in money, to the mothers to keep their children at home when they should be going into more prosperous districts and working out a career for themselves. It is no use appealing to the emotions when at the same time you place a monetary consideration in exactly the opposite direction. It discountenances the eloquent appeal of the Minister. I take the view that this Clause will encourage blind-alley occupations, which is the very last
  1048
  thing into which we want to see the young people of this country going. You are making it worth while for a boy to take up, for instance, the job of selling chocolates at a railway station, or some such job, so that he can qualify himself for unemployment benefit. If we were sure that he would get training when drawing benefit it would be different, but what about the large parts of the country where the Minister will say that that is not practicable? You will have a rush for blind-alley occupations, and considerable damage will be done to the prospects of these young people working out a decent career for themselves.
  Mr. COVE: I want to take up the point of the last speaker, that this Clause would encourage children to take up blind-alley occupations. As a matter of fact the whole scheme, to my mind, will prevent that, and in the distressed areas the very fact that the scheme provides for the crediting of contributions to the Insurance Fund will be the greatest incentive to the young people to remain at school. Therefore they will get the necessary educational training which will remove the need for going into blind-alley occupations. I am supporting this scheme as an educational Measure. We have the great weight of educational opinion behind the insurance of these children.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: The hon. Member forgets the very weighty signatures of the Minority Report of the English Advisory Council representing the opinion of the great majority of the education authorities.
  Mr. COVE: With all due respect I do not accept the words of the Noble Lady as correct. If she will look she will find that the representatives undoubtedly of the National Union of Teachers agreed with it, and that the representatives of by far the majority of the local administrators accepted and recommended this.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: The Minority Report of the Advisory Council for England was signed on behalf of the Executive of the Association of Education Committees and the Association of Municipal Corporations.
  Mr. COVE: While I believe that Mr. Graham and Mr. Spurley Hey signed, as a matter of fact if the Noble Lady will make further investigation she will find that the Director of Education for

  1049
  London, Mr. Gater, who is also a member of this body, and Mr. Kenrick, who comes from Birmingham, also signed.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: Those signatories expressly said that they signed only as individuals.
  Mr. COVE: If the Noble Lady will still pursue her investigations she will find that there is no opposition from the organised bodies of education authorities up and down the country, except in so far as it was expressed without the recent authority of the executive of that body. I say frankly that I support this scheme as an educational Measure. I join with the rest of those representing the teachers and the education authorities in asking for the insurance age to be lowered on conditions. One of the main conditions was that attendance at school should give credit for insurance benefit. Take my own constituency, which is a distressed area. If hon. Members opposite had their policy carried into effect what would happen? They want to have the whip of starvation to drive these children into blind-alley occupations. They want to see a young lad without any income, without anything from anywhere. They call it initiative. And that in places where unemployment is rampant! If you have an illimitable fund of initiative the boy would not be able to get a job.
  The scheme will take these lads and will encourage them to remain in their schools, because they will be given credit under this scheme, and they will get training, though not the training that they would receive in Juvenile Training Centres, because those Centres cannot give what educationists call training. That is admitted by the Malcolm Committee and by every Committee that has examined the problem. They say of the juvenile centres that, the most they can do is to save the juveniles from the worst. What does this scheme do? It says, "We will encourage these children to remain in the ordinary educational system." [HON. MEMBERS: "Secondary."] Yes, secondary. It will encourage the boys to remain in the secondary school, because they will get credit for remaining in the school. In this scheme you have an encouragement of training within the ordinary educational system. Hence I can go boldly before educationists and say, "This is a good scheme." Hon. Members opposite
  1050
  are using two arguments. First of all they say, "You are demoralising the children." Then they say, "You are making money out of it." Neither of those statements is true.
  The Malcolm Committee examined this problem and they took up the argument which I have heard from hon. Members opposite—that you are making money out of the children. If hon. Members will look at page 68 of the Report they will find that the Malcolm Committee made an extensive examination of that question and they say that the statement is not correct. As a matter of fact they state, in effect, "You must regard the insurance as a whole and remember that these children are laying up for themselves future benefits when inevitably they become unemployed." The demoralisation is not in receiving benefits, but in the unemployment created by the capitalist system. If we are going to save these children from demoralisation one of the best things to do is to give them a few shillings in their pocket for their mothers to feed them and clothe them and care for them.
  On this question of demoralisation hon. Members opposite are merely talking to the headline Press that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). If they will look at the Report again they will see that that question was examined. The Committee state that they find no evidence at all of demoralisation. There was an investigation carried out by the Ministry of Labour and recorded here. They say that the investigation shows that there is no demoralisation as far as the children of 16 and 17 are concerned. I do not want to detain the House, but I did want to get up and say quite definitely and specifically that the overwhelming bulk of educational opinion is in favour of this Clause. Teachers, administrators, those people who have been interested in the social welfare of youth, all say that this is a necessary step, that it is the best step in the interests of the children. It certainly is not only an insurance Measure, but is also a valuable step as far as education is concerned. I said during the Committee stage that if the Liberal party wanted to help forward this movement I would be with them in the next step, which is to get a Fisher Education Act, with its continuation

  1051
  schools. Then we should have a sound, established and permanent system for these children, not in the juvenile unemployment centres, but a permanent system of—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going beyond the Clause that is before the House.
  Mr. COVE: I am sorry to have been led astray. I am supporting this Clause because I see its present and its future educational value to the Children.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: I had no intention of intervening, and I do not propose to detain the House more than a few minutes, but the statement made by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is so amazing that I am bound to endeavour to reply. I do not propose to follow him in what he said on what is now Clause 10, because we are discussing Clause 1; but I think that the House cannot be too clear as to the complete inaccuracy of what the hon. Gentleman has said as to this Clause being supported by an overwhelming majority of educational opinion, including teachers and administrators. I can only say that if the hon. Member sticks to that statement he simply has not read the Report, because it is made absolutely clear there that those who signed the Majority Report approving of the lowering of the insurance age were signing only in their individual capacities—an extremely significant reservation. If we examine the composition of the Council we see that everyone there is put on in some representative capacity or other, either as representing local education authorities or the employers or the trade unions or the teaching profession. While it is true that we find the signatures of well known teachers appended to the Majority Report, we have to remember that those are individual signatures with the others, and when we come to representatives of the local education authorities, though there are some well known signatures there, again they are merely individual signatures. That is a very significant matter in the case, for instance, of the gentleman who has been mentioned, the Education Secretary of the London Education Committee. He signed only in his individual capacity, in spite of the fact that he was representing that great education authority.
  Mr. HARRIS: He did not go on that Council in a representative capacity, but purely as a private individual. That should be made clear.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: But that does not get us away from the fact that his signature is an individual signature. Against that we have to set the signatures of one of the Minority Reports. There is a report signed by the employers, and another Minority Report, giving very strong reasons against the lowering of the age of insurance, is signed by well known Directors of Education in their representative capacity. It is well known, and it has already been stated in the Debates on this Bill, that this Minority Report has been endorsed by the Executive of the Association of Education Committees in England and Wales, and since the Bill was introduced also by the Association of Municipal Corporations. Therefore no statement could be more utterly untrue and misleading than that made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove).
  Mr. COVE indicated dissent.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: I am merely quoting the facts set forth in the Report, and the findings that have been made public, of the bodies to which I have referred. Even the teachers' representatives are not unanimously in favour of the Majority Report. The Association of Principals in Technical Institutes and other associations also signed the Minority Report. I appeal to the President of the Board of Education whether he can accept the statement made by the hon. Member that the overwhelming majority of educational opinion is in favour of this Clause. How can he as Minister possibly ignore the Report that has been endorsed by those two very important bodies representing administrators in education? They are the two principal educational bodies with which he has to deal; and therefore he has against him, in supporting this Clause, the weight of the representative opinion of the administrators of education. In regard to the signatures of the teachers attached to the Majority Report, I think the hon. Member for Aberavon probably knows that one well-known member of the profession, or retired member of the profession, who signed the Report was prevented by ill-health from taking any share in the deliberations of

  1053
  the council. Therefore, that signature has not the value which we should have attached to it in happier circumstances. I appeal to the President of the Board of Eudcation to make it clear that he cannot allow the statement of his own supporter to pass, that the weight of educational opinion is in favour of the Clause, when he must know too well that the whole strength of the associations of education administrators is against it and that they have expressed their strong opinion in favour of the Minority Report.
  Mr. HARRIS: I confess I am surprised to hear the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) trying to depreciate the value of a Majority Report. I know that in these days the value of a majority is often discounted, and, as the representative of a minority in this House, I rather like to feel that the minority is more important than the majority. But in this case we find that 19 members were in favour of this recommendation, which is a majority of something like three to one, and I do not know what larger majority could be desired in a matter of this kind. When I saw this Clause in its original form, I was nervous, because one very important condition was laid down in connection with the lowering of the age of insurance, making the provision dependent upon attendance at a juvenile instruction centre, and the right hon. Lady the Minister saw difficulties in the way of finding words to satisfy that condition. Those difficulties have been overcome, and the very skilful Clause which was moved by the Minister as the first of the new Clauses entirely satisfies that condition. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) that this Clause is not the end of all things. We move slowly, but this is a, step in the right direction, and the insertion of this condition will bring nearer a system of compulsory continuation schools. That is our ideal and our aim, but in the meantime this Clause, with the provision requiring attendance at training centres as a condition of the right to receive benefit, inevitably brings closer to us that better system which they have in Germany and other countries. At the present time in London there is an actual shortage of juvenile labour. There are 4,000 positions which have been notified by the Employment Exchanges, and which cannot be filled,
  1054
  and, at any rate in the South of England, we are not going to have a great number of young people—
  Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask the hon. Member if he thinks that this Bill from an educational point of view is going to make it easier to raise the school age to 16 or—
  Mr. COVE: Get your party to raise it.
  Viscountess ASTOR: It is your pledge.
  Mr. HARRIS: I would not like to say that, but the more you educate and bring forward public opinion, the nearer you will be to that ideal. It is not for me to say so, perhaps, but if the Noble Lady would show the same energy outside the House as she shows inside the House, she could do much to help on that happy day, and her first business is to convert her own friends.
  Viscountess ASTOR: I am sure the hon. Member will not mind me saying that I have always fought for raising the school age in my constituency, and the Labour party went round the back streets telling the people that I was going to keep their children at school. That is the humbug of that whole party.
  Mr. HARRIS: Charity commences at home, and so does education. The Noble Lady ought to put her own house in order, and convert her own friends, and then a united House of Commons could agree to raise the age still further. In the meantime, our business is to pass this Clause. I believe that by bringing these young persons under control and supervision, we shall be better able to guide them and we shall, as I say, make a step forward.
  Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: So much has been said about the weight to be attached to the majority report that I cannot help reminding hon. Members opposite of one of the conditions attached to those signatures, a condition which has not been fulfilled:
  "Attendance at a Junior Instruction Centre or an alternative approved course of instruction should be normally a condition for the receipt of unempoyment benefit by all juveniles under 18."
  So that the argument of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) falls. There is another remarkable passage in the report of the Advisory Council. The

  1055
  hon. Member claimed that the whole weight of educational authority was in favour of the Clause. Mr. Spurley Hey, Director of Education in Manchester, and one of our leading authorities on educational matters, signed the Minority Report, and here is what he says:
  "During the last six months I have circularised the 267 education committees which are members of the Association (the Association of Education Committees) requesting their views on the proposal in order that I might the more correctly represent their present views on the proposal. Of those who gave a definite decision a large majority was in favour of the Working Certificate, and against lowering the age of unemployment insurance."
  Mr. COVE: Can the hon. Member tell us the number of replies? If two out of three gave replies in favour there would be a large majority. As a matter of fact my information, direct from the source, is that they did not know what the Director of Education for Manchester was really asking.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: I think we may trust Mr. Spurley Hey to put his ques-
  tion quite clearly. In face of these facts it is difficult for hon. Members opposite to maintain that the weight of education authority is in favour of the Clause. From an educational point of view I consider it unsound, and I feel surprised that one who has done so much in the cause of education as the hon. Member for Aberavon should defend it. He has rightly said that continuation at school is an advantage. It is an advantage and a privilege, but then he goes on to say that the children and their parents should be bribed to accept the privilege. That I hold to be fundamentally unsound from an educational point of view. By this Clause you introduce into the minds of the children a pauperising effect, and for that reason, and also because it is a mean Clause, which takes out of the pockets of the children a large amount of money in order to benefit the fund, I utterly oppose it.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'later,' in line 15, stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 263; Noes, 156.

  Division No. 101.]

  AYES.

  [6.41 p.m.

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

  Chafer, Daniel

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Church, Major A. G.

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.

  Clarke, J. S.

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

  Alpass, J. H.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Cove, William G.

  Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Angell, Norman

  Daggar, George

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Arnott, John

  Dallas, George

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Dalton, Hugh

  Hardie, George D.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Ayles, Walter

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Day, Harry

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Haycock, A. W.

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Dickson, T.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Bellamy, Albert

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Dukes, C.

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Duncan, Charles

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Ede, James Chuter

  Herriotts, J.

  Benson, G.

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Hoffman. P. C.

  Sevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Hollins, A.

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Egan, W. H.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Elmley, Viscount

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Bowen, J. W.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Foot, Isaac

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Isaacs, George

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Bromfield, William

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Bromley, J.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Johnston, Thomas

  Brothers, M.

  Gill, T. H.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

  Glassey, A. E.

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Gosling, Harry

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Gossling, A. G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Burgess, F. G.

  Gould, F.

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

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

  Kinley, J.

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

  Granville, E.

  Knight, Holtord

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Gray, Milner

  Lathan, G.

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Cameron, A. G.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' w.)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Lawson, John James

  Palin, John Henry

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Kelghiey)

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Leach, W.

  Palmer, E. T.

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Lees, J.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Sorensen, R.

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Longden, F.

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Stephen, Campbell

  Lowth, Thomas

  Potts, John S.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Lunn, William

  Price, M. P.

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Strauss, G. R.

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

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Sutton, J. E.

  McEntee, V. L.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Mackinder, W.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Richards, R.

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

  McShane, John James

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

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

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Mansfield, W.

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Tillett, Ben

  March, S.

  Ritson, J.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Marcus, M.

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

  Tout, W. J.

  Markham, S. F.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Townend, A. E

  Marley, J.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Matters, L. W.

  Rowson, Guy

  Turner, B.

  Maxton, James

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Melville, Sir James

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Vlant, S. P.

  Messer, Fred

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Walker, J.

  Middleton, G.

  Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Wallace, H. w.

  Millar, J. D.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Mills, J. E.

  Sandham, E.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Montague, Frederick

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  West, F. R.

  Morley, Ralph

  Scurr, John

  Westwood, Joseph

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Sexton, James

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Mort, D. L.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Shield, George William

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Murnin, Hugh

  Shinwell, E.

  Wise, E. F.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

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

  Simmons, C. J.

  Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Sinkinson, George

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Smith, Ben (Sermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  NOES.

  Albery, Irving James

  Christie, J. A.

  Graham. Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Astor, Viscountess

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Greene, W. p. Crawford

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Colville, Major D. J,

  Grenfell, Edward C, (City of London)

  Atkinson, C.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

  Cranbourne, Viscount

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon, Stanley (Bewdley)

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Cunlifle-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Berry, Sir George

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

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

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

  Boothby, R. J. G.

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

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Boyce, H. L.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

  Bracken, B.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

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

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Butler, R. A.

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Long, Major Eric

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Lymington, Viscount

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

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Favereham)

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

  Grace, John

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  1058

  1059

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Mond, Hon. Henry

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

  Tinne, J. A.

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dtworth, Putney)

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

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

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

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

  Sassoon. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

  Savery, s. S.

  Werrender, Sir Victor

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

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

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Somerset, Thomas

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Purbrick, R.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Remer, John R.

  Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Captain Margesson and Sir George Penny.

  Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out from the word "date," to the word "an," in line 16, and to insert instead thereof the words "earlier than the date on which."
  On the Committee stage a question was put as to the drafting of the Clause from the point of view of the age of entry into insurance, and the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) raised the point that under the Clause, as drafted, the Minister had power to reduce the age of entry at any time. That was not the Government's intention, and the Amendment is designed to remove any doubt on the point.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 20, after the word "Act," insert the words:
  "or later than the beginning of the insurance year next following the insurance year in which such an enactment comes into force as aforesaid."—[Mr. Lawson.]

  CLAUSE 2.—(Rates of benefit.)
  Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out the word "a," and to insert instead thereof the words:
  "at a rate of remuneration not less than nine shillings per week, some."
  The House will remember that, on the Committee stage, the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) raised the point that for this purpose a female person must always be the same person, and that was not the intention of the Sub-section. I need scarcely say that cases arise where a non-resident housekeeper would not be the same person throughout.
  Major ELLIOT: While it may be that these words are an improvement, still the Third Reading of the Bill is to be taken this evening, when this House will have no opportunity of seeing this tremendous Measure printed in a single piece. The ordinary rights given to any local authority, of seeing before it as a connected whole the proposals in print which it is asked to pass, are to be denied to the House of Commons. The fact remains that this and other drafting Amendments are being moved in on Report, and we shall be totally prohibited from seeing the Bill in print that we are asked to pass on Third Reading. The Government must take the responsibility for that, but we must take the responsibility also to some extent. They will force it by the use of their majority. It is one of the things that makes us say, "Thank heavens, there is a House of Lords!"
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how this will work with the subsequent Amendments, because as it stands it does not appear to make sense?
  Mr. LAWSON: There are further drafting Amendments.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out from the word "children" to the word "the," in line 20.
  This is a consequential Amendment.
  Major ELLIOT: At least we are entitled to have the Clause read out as it is going to appear when amended. Let us have it verbally, if we are denied having it in print or even in manuscript.
  Mr. LAWSON: The Sub-section, as it will appear with the consequential Amendments, will read:
  "(b) Where a person entitled to benefit (not being a person entitled to an increase of the weekly rate otherwise than in respect of dependent children) has previously to becoming unemployed had in his employment and thereafter continues to employ, at a rate of remuneration not less than nine shillings per week, some female person who is not residing with him to assist in the care of his dependent children, the weekly rate shall be increased by nine shillings."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 2, line 43, leave out the word "a," and insert instead thereof the words "an insured."
  In page 2, line 46, leave out from the word "the" to the word "when," in page 3, line 3, and insert instead thereof the words "insured person."—[Mr. Lawson.]
  Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, after the word "person," to insert the words:
  "and when in employment (except in a case where the dependency did not arise until after the date on which the insured person became unemployed) contributed more than one-half of the actual cost of the maintenance of that other person."
  Major ELLIOT: This is Sub-section (f), and we might have it read out to us, at least, as it is proposed that the House of Commons should here and now finally part with it.
  Mr. LAWSON: The Sub-section, as amended, will read:
  "(f) For the purpose of the enactments aforesaid, an insured person shall not be deemed to be wholly or mainly maintaining any other person unless the insured person, when unemployed, contributes towards the maintenance of that other person an amount not less than the amount of the increase of benefit received in respect of that other person and when in employment (except in a case where the dependency did not arise until after the date on which the insured person became unemployed) contributed more than one-half of the actual cost of the maintenance of that other person."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 6, at the end, to insert the words
  "Provided that the requirement in paragraph (b) of this Sub-section as to the employment of the female person previously to the insured person becoming unemployed shall not apply in any case where the necessity for employing such a female person did
  1062
  not arise until after the date on which the insured person became unemployed."
  Earl WINTERTON: Before we leave these controversial matters, I should like to reinforce my hon. Friend's protest, on behalf of the Opposition, against having to consider the Third Reading of a Bill in which, in one Clause alone, something like 12 fresh lines have been added when the House has never had the opportunity of seeing the Bill in print.
  Mr. LAWSON: It has been done before.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that there have been many changes on Report unless there has been an interval between the Report stage and Third Reading during which the Bill had been in print. Whether it has been done before or not, it is no less undesirable to have to consider a Bill of this magnitude on Third Reading in which there have been so many alterations made on the Report stage without it having been in print. If it is to be the custom on every Bill which the Government brings forward, the Opposition will have to take very vigorous steps to prevent Third Readings coming on on the same night as the Report stage. [Interruption]. It is all very well for the hon. Member to treat this in a derisory manner. He does not at any time treat the debate in a serious manner. We protest very vigorously against the action of the Government.
  Mr. LAWSON: The points raised in these Amendments were extremely small and were only meant to give clearer expression to what was intended in the Bill. These Amendments were accepted without any idea of extending the Bill. This particular point, for instance, was raised by an hon. Member in connection with the case of the non-resident housekeeper. The case of a man who is unemployed and whose wife died during the period of unemployment was cited. The man had to employ someone to look after his children, namely, a non-resident housekeeper, and it was never the intention, either of the House or of the Bill, to penalise the man in those circumstances. All that was necessary to meet the particular point was to amend the Bill to give clearer expression to what was obviously the intention, and, when this promise was given, not a single voice was raised at the time against it in Committee.
  Major ELLIOT: I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary has not quite grasped the contention which we were making. It is not that we are in any way distrustful of his bona fides, and it would not be possible at the moment to say whether we agree or disagree with the proposal. We were protesting against the handling of business by the Government. Mr. Speaker is regarded as the guardian of the liberties of the House. I wish it were possible for me to enter, in some more emphatic form which would draw it more immediately before your notice, Sir, the fact that the handling of business by the Government has resulted in a large and important Measure being presented to this House lacking in many of the Clauses which the Government itself considers most vital to its success, and that this Measure is never to be reprinted for the benefit of the House over which you, Sir, preside. The other House will see it and have the benefit of a copy
  of the Bill. It will be the first Chamber of Parliament which will have an opportunity of considering the Bill as a whole. I wonder how the Government likes that position. A Measure to which they attach so much importance will be presented for the first time in whole to the House of Lords. All I can say is that we do not wish to delay business, but we must make the most emphatic protest, and we intend to divide against this Amendment by way of making the only possible protest left to us against the position in which the Government has placed the House in asking it to part, not merely now but in two hours' time on Third Reading, with a Measure which it has never had the opportunity of considering.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 149.

  Division No. 102.]

  AYES.

  [7.6 p.m.

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

  Dallas, George

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Dalton, Hugh

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Herriotts, J.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Day, Harry

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Devlin, Joseph

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Angell, Norman

  Dickson, T.

  Hollins, A.

  Arnott, John

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Dukes, C.

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Duncan, Charles

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)

  Ede, James Chuter

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Isaacs, George

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Bellamy, Albert

  Egan, W. H.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Elmley, Viscount

  Johnston, Thomas

  Bennett, Captain E.N.(Cardiff, Central)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Foot, Isaac,

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Benson, G.

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Birkett, W. Norman

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  Kinley, J.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Knight, Holford

  Bowen, J. W.

  Gill, T. H.

  Lathan, G.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Glassey, A. E.

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Gosling, Harry

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Gossling, A. G.

  Lawrence, Susan

  Bromfield, William

  Gould, F.

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Bromley, J.

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

  Lawson, John James

  Brothers, M.

  Granville, E.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

  Gray, Milner

  Leach, W.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Lees, J.

  Burgess, F. G.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, pontypool)

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

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

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Longden, F.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

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

  Lowth, Thomas

  Cameron, A. G.

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lunn, William

  Cape, Thomas

  Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Chater, Daniel

  Hardie, George D.

  Mackinder, W.

  Church, Major A. G.

  Harris, Percy A.

  McKinlay, A.

  Clarke, J. S.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Haycock, A. W.

  McShane, John James

  Compton, Joseph

  Hayes, John Henry

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

  Cove, William G.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Mansfield, W.

  Daggar, George

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  March, S.

  Marcus, M.

  Raynes, W. R.

  Stephen, Campbell

  Markham, S. F.

  Richards, R.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Marley, J.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Matters, L. W.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Strauss, G. R.

  Maxton, James

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Sullivan, J.

  Melville, Sir James

  Ritson, J.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Messer, Fred

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

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Middleton, G.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Millar, J. D.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

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

  Mills, J. E.

  Rothschild, J. de

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Montague, Frederick

  Rowson, Guy

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Tillett, Ben

  Morley, Ralph

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Toole, Joseph

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Tout, W. J.

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Townend, A. E.

  Mort, D. L.

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Turner, B.

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Scurr, John

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Sexton, James

  Viant, S. P.

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Walker, J.

  Murnin, Hugh

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Wallace, H. W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Wellhead, Richard C.

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

  Shield, George William

  Watkins, F. C.

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Shinwell, E.

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  West, F. R.

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Westwood, Joseph

  Palin, John Henry

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Sinkinson, George

  Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Perry, S. F.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Wise, E. F.

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

  Potts, John S.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Price, M. P.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Sorensen, R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  NOES.

  Albery, Irving James

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

  Cranbourne, Viscount

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

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Crichton-stuart, Lord C.

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

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

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

  Hurd, Percy A.

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

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Astor, viscountess

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Atkinson, C.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

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

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Llewellin, Maior J. J.

  Berry, Sir George

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Long, Major Eric

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Makins, Brigadler-General E.

  Boyce, H. L.

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Bracken, B.

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

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

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Butler, R. A.

  Grace, John

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

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

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

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Penny, Sir George

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Christie, J. A.

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Purbrick, R.

  Colville, Major D. J.

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

  Ramsbotham, H.

  1066

  1067

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Remer, John R.

  Smithers, Waldron

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Somerset, Thomas

  Warrender, Sir Victor

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

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Skelton, A. N.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  CLAUSE 4.—(Examination, and determina- tion, of claims.)
  Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment which I call is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall)—in page 4, line 5, to leave out the word "may" and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
  Mr. KELLY: Do I understand that the manuscript Amendment which I handed in is not called?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No, I do not propose to select it.
  Sir A. POWNALL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
  This Sub-section refers to the Subsection of the principal Act of 1920, by which any claimant for benefit is disqualified from receiving benefit if there has been a stoppage of work owing to a trade union dispute. By this Bill it is left optional with the insurance officer, who may disallow a claim for benefit if he thinks that the person claiming it is disqualified for the reason that I have mentioned. It seems very unfair to throw an onus of this sort on to the insurance officers, who will have sufficient anxieties and responsibilities conferred upon them by this Bill as it stands, without throwing on to them the invidious task of deciding whether there is a trade dispute or not. Therefore, I suggest that the word "shall" be inserted for the word "may." It cannot be argued that there is any serious danger of injustice to the claimant, because in the next Subsection there is a provision that if a claim is disallowed he may appeal.
  Captain BOURNE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I dealt rather fully with the trade disputes Clause in the discussions on the Second Reading and
  1068
  in Committee. The trade dispute claims are in a class by themselves. That is generally recognised, and we do, as a matter of practice, find that the insurance officer decides in 99 cases out of 100. But it is important that there should be this slight relaxation of the general rule which may occur in connection with some dispute in which he may choose to refer the matter directly to the court of referees; or he may disallow it himself. There is a great advantage in leaving this Clause as it is.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 18 to 29.
  This Sub-section deals with the review period. The matter was fully discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill, but at that time we did not have the new Clause 4 before us. That Clause puts the onus of proof from the claimant on to the Exchange; therefore, the periodical review by the Exchange and the court of referees is no longer necessary. That was generally agreed when this matter was discussed, and I understand that the Minister is prepared to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. MILLS: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Miss BONDFIELD: This gives me an opportunity of correcting a statement which I made in the Committee Debate, when I unwittingly misled the House. The point I made was that the "not genuinely seeking work" cases would not come in this review. I was mistaken, for my mind was taken up with two classes of review. I now wish to present some figures which I have had looked out as a result of the discussion on the Committee stage. I find that the cases that come before the court on review under the statutory conditions other than that of not genuinely seeking work are

  1069
  negligible. For example, in the period from 10th September to 14th October, I find that there were considered on review by the courts of referees 107,892 cases. Of these, 102,658 were recommended for allowance. They were the ordinary cases for the most part. Of the 5,234 cases recommended for disallowance, 5,227 were for not genuinely seeking work, and only nine were on other grounds. I have examined these other grounds, and I find that the machinery allows them to be dealt with without review. That is to say, even in those nine cases, the 13-weeks review was not necessary. In view of the fact that the new Clause 4 has completely altered the position, I am bound to admit the force of the arguments used by hon. Members as to the uselessness of this particular review machinery. It is cumbersome, expensive, and takes up the time of courts of referees turning over papers which were previously settled by the statutory conditions being complied with. Therefore, as the courts of referees will have plenty of work to do under the new Clause 4 the acceptance of this Amendment will be a real advantage to the administrative machinery.
  Major ELLIOT: The right hon. Lady had no doubt indicated her acceptance to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and I do not complain that she has not indicated it to this side of the House except in her speech, but it is a common practice, if the Government intend to accept an Amendment, to star it or to indicate in some way that they are desirous of taking the point of view of the Amendment.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I apologise if there has been any omission, but I understood that it was indicated.
  Mr. MILLS: The Amendment is starred.
  Mr. SPEAKER: A star means that it has been put on the Paper for the first time.
  Major ELLIOT: It is often the case that the Government adds the name of the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary to an Amendment by way of indicating that they are going to support it. The figures which have been quoted can well stand a little investigation. They refer us back to the great Debate which took
  1070
  place upon Clause 4. We are told that some 5,234 persons were disallowed, and that of these the new Clause 4 will allow through 5,227. I suppose that the original Clause 4 would not have allowed through anything like that number. It would have allowed through 2,200, judging by the proportion which the Government's memorandum gives between the persons whose claims were allowed under the old Clause which were 65,000, and the claims to be allowed under the new Clause, which were an additional 95,000. The number is rather more than double. Under the machinery which the Government first introduced, something like 2,200 persons would have been retained in benefit; under the machinery which they are going to introduce, the number is 5,227. The Attorney-General could no doubt make an equally fluent and mellifluous speech showing that both were the original intention of the Government.
  We wish to get on to the Third Reading, and to discuss the principles, if there be any principles upon which this Measure is based. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is desirous of speaking, and we are more than desirous of hearing the defence which he wilt put up to a surrender practically unparalleled in the annals of the long story of the Treasury resistance to the claims of Departments and of this House. We shall first have to divide against this Amendment, for we have not had time to consider the proposals brought forward, as it has not been on the Paper before. The Minister may have given notice of it in manuscript this morning, but we must again say that these figures, these conclusions, and these Amendments ought to be in the Bill, and that a Bill embodying the considered judgment of the Government, which was not liable to be altered every moment, ought to be before the House before the Third Reading is taken. How do we know that some manuscript Amendment will not be moved later, transforming not merely the effect of the Clause, but of every Clause of the Bill to which it may apply? It is impossible for us to let this matter go without entering our protest in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. MALONE: May I remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman, before he wastes the time of the House by dividing, that

  1071
  he used these words when the matter was discussed before: "I cannot see what there is to review."
  Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member does not forward business by accusing me of wasting the time of the House. I merely say that the whole of the Clause and the
  hon. Member's Amendment ought to be in print when the House is asked to give the Bill a Third Reading.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 271.

  Division No. 103.]

  AYES.

  [7.30 p.m.

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

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

  Fielden, E. B.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Penny, Sir George

  Atkinson, C.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Grace, John

  Purbrick, R.

  Beaumont, M. W.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Berry, Sir George

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Remer, John R.

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Salmon, Major I.

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Boyce, H. L.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Bracken, B.

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

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

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

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

  Skelton, A. N.

  Buckingham, Sir H.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

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

  Butler, R. A.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Butt, Sir Alfred

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

  Smithers, Waldron

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

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

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

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

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Christie, J. A.

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Cranbourne, Viscount

  Long, Major Eric

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Wells, Sydney R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

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

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Marquess of Titchfield and Captain Wallace.

  NOES.

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

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

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

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Caine, Derwent Hall

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Cameron, A. G.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Cape, Thomas

  Ammon, Charles George

  Bowen, J. W.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Angell, Norman

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Arnott, John

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Chater, Daniel

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Clarke, J. S.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Bromfield, William

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Bromley, J.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Brothers, M.

  Compton, Joseph

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Cove, William G.

  Bellamy, Albert

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Daggar, George

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Dallas, George

  Bennett, Captain E.N.(Cardiff, Central)

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Dalton, Hugh

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Burgess, F. G.

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Benson, G.

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

  Day, Harry

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Leach, W.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Dickson, T.

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lees, J.

  Sanders, W. S.

  Dukes, C.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Sandham, E.

  Duncan, Charles

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Sawyer, G, F,

  Ede, James Chuter

  Longden, F.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Scurr, John

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lowth, Thomas

  Sexton, James

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Lunn, William

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Egan, W. H.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Elmley, Viscount

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

  Shield, George William

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  Mackinder, W.

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  McKinlay, A.

  Shinwell, E.

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  McShane, John James

  Simmons, C. J.

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

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

  Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Mansfield, W.

  Sinkinson, George

  Gill, T. H.

  March, S.

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Glassey, A. E.

  Marcus, M.

  Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

  Gosling, Harry

  Markham, S. F.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Gossling, A. G.

  Marley, J.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Gould, F.

  Matters, L. W.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

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

  Maxton, James

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Granville, E.

  Melville, Sir James

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Gray, Milner

  Messer, Fred

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Middleton, G.

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Millar, J. D.

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Mills, J. E.

  Sorensen, R.

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Montague, Frederick

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Morley, Ralph

  Stephen, Campbell

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

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Strauss, G. R.

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Mort, D. L.

  Sullivan, J.

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Hardle, George D.

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Harris, Percy A.

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Muggeridge, H. T.

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

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Murnin, Hugh

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Haycock, A. W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Thurtie, Ernest

  Hayday, Arthur

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Tillett, Ben

  Hayes, John Henry

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Toole, Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Tout, W. J.

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

  Townend, A. E.

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Herrlotts, J.

  Palin, John Henry

  Turner, B.

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Viant, S. P.

  Hollins, A.

  Perry, S. F.

  Walker, J.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Wallace, H. W.

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Phillips, Dr. Marton

  Watkins, F. C.

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

  Isaacs, George

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Potts, John S.

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Johnston, Thomas

  Price, M. p.

  West, F. R.

  Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Westwood, Joseph

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Raynes, W. R.

  Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Richards, R.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Kinley, J.

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Knight, Holford

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Lathan, G.

  Ritson, J.

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

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

  Wise, E. F.

  Law, A. (Rosendale)

  Romeril, H. G.

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Rothschild, J. de

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Lawson, John James

  Rowson, Guy

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

  Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, in page 5, line 5, after the word "that," to insert the words
  "in any case in which a decision of a court of referees disallowing a claim is not unanimous, notice in writing of the fact
  1074
  shall be given by the court to the claimant within three days of the decision and."
  This Amendment is moved in fulfilment of a promise which I gave on the Committee stage when dealing with an Amendment standing in the name of the

  1075
  hon. Member for Newcastle East (Sir R. Aske). It is a question of a court of referees putting into writing for the benefit of a claimant the fact that a decision to disallow his claim was not unanimous.
  Mr. E. BROWN: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle East (Sir R. Aske), I beg to thank the right hon. Lady.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Provision as to payment of benefit.)
  Amendment made:
  In page 6, line 15, after the word "benefit," insert the words:
  "either because by reason of the provisions of Section four of this Act he is disqualified for the receipt of benefit or."—[Miss Bondfield.]

  CLAUSE 9.—(Application of Unemploy- ment Insurance Acts to employment abroad.)
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in page 7, line 24, after the word "subject," to insert the words:
  "to the consent of the insured person and."
  This Clause gives the Minister power to make regulations for the payment of contributions by workpeople who go abroad on contracts which are being carried out by firms in this country. In doing this, the Minister is going directly contrary to the recommendation of the Blanesburgh Committee, which she herself signed. On page 58 the Blanesburgh Committee say:
  "It would have been agreeable to us to propose some change that would be of assistance in such cases. But to extend the scope of unemployment insurance to work abroad would, we are assured, give rise to serious practical difficulties. The collection of contributions, While in the cases referred to by the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation it might be possible, would, in most other cases, he exceedingly difficult; and any concession on this point must be general."
  In spite of that the right hon. Lady is taking power to levy contributions on these workpeople who are employed abroad. I have put down three Amendments which are in the nature of alternatives, in the hope that one of them at least may appeal to the right hon. Lady. The Amendment I am moving has the effect of making this insurance optional.
  1076
  The right hon. Lady told us on Monday last, I think, that under her regulations arrangements would be made whereby these contributions would be paid, but she has not told us how they are going to be paid, whether they will be paid week by week, or whether a lump sum is to be deducted when the man returns to this country. She also indicated that this Clause would be restricted to firms who are under contract to bring their men back. That is a very good plan, but there is nothing whatever about it in the Clause, and it will depend entirely on the right hon. Lady's regulation. Under the Clause as it stands a man after he has been employed abroad may be stranded there through sickness or lack of funds, and may not be able to get back to this country, and he will get no benefit. The right hon. Lady also told us on Monday last that this insurance would be optional, but there is nothing in the Clause about that, and that again, will depend entirely on the regulations.
  Much the most important thing which she told us on Monday was that no benefit will be paid abroad. However much a man may need benefit abroad, he cannot possibly get it according to what the Minister of Labour has told us. Administratively, it may be impossible to pay the benefit abroad, but at any rate that creates a differentiation between the man under insurance in this country and the man who is working abroad, and this is a very great disadvantage to the man who works abroad. I think it ought to be made clear that there is no compulsion upon anybody under these regulations to pay the contributions while a man is abroad. The right hon. Lady says that is her intention, and, if that is so, why not put it into the Bill? The whole thing is left to the regulations. This is all the more important, because the Amendment which was proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Hackney (Captain A. Hudson) providing that the regulations should be subject to a Resolution of the House of Commons was defeated. Now those regulations are merely going to be laid on the Table of the House, and that is no safeguard at all, because they always come up for consideration very late at night in a thin House, after the other business has been concluded. The right hon. Lady has definitely stated that it is her intention

  1077
  that the payment of contributions should be optional, and I cannot see why it should not be p at into the Bill.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I fully recognise the difficulty in connection with this matter, because it is an experiment. I am asking for power to enter into discussions as to the practical forms which regulations may take. The power for which I am asking is very limited. It is perfectly true that this matter was considered by the Blanesburgh Committee, and they put it aside because of the practical difficulties involved. We have had applications from the employers as well as from the trade unions in the engineering trade. This Clause wants to provide that where a firm is undertaking a contract, and that firm and its workers desire to continue in insurance, I shall have power to make regulations by which that particular firm, and any other firm that makes application, shall be permitted to pay its insurance in the ordinary way.
  The question arises whether we are going to allow every workman to choose whether he will be insured or not. I do not think that is possible. If a firm and its workmen, by a majority, want to remain in insurance and pay their contributions, one man ought not to be allowed to prevent the firm from doing that. I want to make it clear that the only thing we are trying to obtain is power to frame regulations, as in the case of a firm having a contract undertaking to take so many people out of the country and both they and the workmen desiring to come into an arrangement to allow them to come in. I think the Amendment which is suggested would be too limiting even for that purpose, because it would suggest that every insured person is required to give a separate consent and one person would be able to contract out. It is on that account alone that I must resist the Amendment.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that the Minister of Labour has dealt with the main point which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green G. Locker-Lampson). We cannot permit the fact that we are short of time to allow a matter of this kind to go through without protest. Let me recapitulate the arguments used on this side of the House against the Clause in its present form, and the arguments
  1078
  in favour of this Amendment. In the first place, under the Clause you are making it conditional upon a man obtaining employment in certain industries that he should continue his contributions without receiving one penny of benefit in the country to which he may be going. The right hon. Lady has not answered that question, and she has refused to accept opinions expressed on this side of the House on that point. If there is an arrangement between her Department and any small class of workmen affected who are engaged in such work as bridge building and they are stranded abroad, why does she refuse to accept this limiting Amendment which will bring those men back? If those unfortunate men were stranded abroad through no fault of their own, the right hon. Lady has told me that she has no power by which it would be possible to pay out benefit to them. The Minister of Labour does not seem to have considered the case of paying these men through the British Consul. The arrangement is very unfair to a man offering himself for a job overseas, because he pays his contributions and cannot receive any benefit.
  Miss BONDFIELD: May I point out to the Noble Lord that we are dealing now with people who are insured at this moment?
  Earl WINTERTON: Those who are insured here are not insured when they go abroad. Suppose that there is a bridge-building contract held by a firm in this country and by some misfortune the directors fail to fulfil the conditions of that contract and another firm has to take it on--the men in the employ of the first contractor are thrown out of work, and they cannot draw any benefit. If this Clause is adopted and a firm takes on a contract overseas under the same conditions, and it turns out that the firm cannot fulfil their contract, all those workmen are thrown out of work, and not one penny of benefit will go to them. Those men will become D.B.S.'s, that is to say, distressed British subjects, and that is not right. Although we are not discussing the whole Clause now, we say that in these circumstances it is only reasonable that a man should have an option of contracting out if he wishes to do so. The Minister of Labour has already told us that this Clause only applies to a small number of people. I

  1079
  asked the right hon. Lady a question about those employed in certain work like bridge building.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I said that the Clause, provided they were insured persons whoever had the contract, would make no difference and the same thing would apply.
  Earl WINTERTON: If that be so, why does the right hon. Lady not put those words in the Bill? I think she has been very unreasonable in this matter, and, in view of the way in which she has just accepted an important manuscript Amendment from a Member of her own party, at any rate an Amendment which has been on the Order Paper for a very short time, I think she might accept this proposal which is only a limiting Amendment and gives the right of option to the individual. If we were not working under intolerable conditions we should have discussed this important matter at much greater length, because we do not think it is fair to ask men to accept work overseas under the conditions which are proposed. The right hon. Lady talks about getting the consent of the worker. I would like
  to know how she is going to get that consent, because it can only be got through a mass meeting of the men.
  Mr. LAWSON: It can be got through the workmen's organisations.
  Earl WINTERTON: How can those organisations know what will happen overseas, because, when he is abroad, the man is not controlled by those organisations. If a man is working overseas, do the trade unions pay his benefit? Is that man to have all the privileges from the trade unions if he is working overseas? Hon Gentlemen opposite know that that is not so.
  Mr. LAWSON: The trade unions are world-wide in their operations.
  Earl WINTERTON: I know that a man in the engineers union would not get his benefit while working in South America nor the trade union advantages which he enjoys in this country. I think it would be more reasonable if the right hon. Lady would accept this Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 134: Noes, 266.

  Division No. 104.]

  AYES.

  [7.59 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Albery, Irving James

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

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

  Dixey, A. C.

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

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

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Atkinson, C.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Long, Major Eric

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Fielden, E. B.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Berry, Sir George

  Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

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

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Grace, John

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Boyce, H. L.

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Muirhead, A. J.

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

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Buckingham, Sir H

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Butler, R. A.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

  Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

  Purbrick, R.

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

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Christie, J. A.

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

  Remer, John R.

  Colfox, Major William Philip

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Colville, Major D. J.

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

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

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cranbourne, Viscount

  Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

  Salmon, Major I.

  Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

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

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Knox, Sir Alfred

  Skelton, A. N.

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

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

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyan

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Smithers, Waldron

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Sir George Penny and Marquess of Titchfield.

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Wells, Sydney R.

  NOES.

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

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

  Marley, J.

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

  Granville, E.

  Matters, L. W.

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Gray, Milner

  Maxton, James

  Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

  Melville, Sir James

  Alpass, J. H.

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan}

  Messer, Fred

  Ammon, Charles George

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)

  Middleton, G.

  Angell, Norman

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Millar, J. D.

  Arnott, John

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Mills, J. E.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Montague, Frederick

  Attlee, Clement Richard

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

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Ayles, Walter

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Morley, Ralph

  Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

  Mort, D. L.

  Bellamy, Albert

  Hardle, George D.

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Harris, Percy A.

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Benson, G.

  Haycock, A. W.

  Murnin, Hugh

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Hayday, Arthur

  Naylor, T. E.

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hayes, John Henry

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Bowen, J. W.

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Oliver, p. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Harriotts, J.

  Palin, John Henry

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Palmer, E. T.

  Bromfield, William

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Bromley, J.

  Hollins, A.

  Perry, S. F.

  Brothers, M.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

  Phillips, Dr. Marion

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Horrabin, J. F.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Pole, Major D. G.

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Burgess, F. G.

  Isaacs, George

  Potts, John S.

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

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Price, M. P.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Johnston, Thomas

  Raynes, W. R.

  Cameron, A. G.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

  Richards, R.

  Cape, Thomas

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Charleton, H. C.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Chater, Daniel

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Ritson, J.

  Clarke, J. S.

  Kinley, J.

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

  Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

  Knight, Holford

  Romeril, H. G.

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Lathan, G.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Compton, Joseph

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Rothschild, J. de

  Cove, William G.

  Law, A. (Rossendale)

  Rowson, Guy

  Daggar, George

  Lawrence, Susan

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Dallas, George

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Dalton, Hugh

  Lawson, John James

  Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Sanders, W. S.

  Day, Harry

  Leach, W.

  Sandham, E.

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Dickson, T.

  Lees, J.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Scurr, John

  Dukes, C.

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

  Sexton, James

  Duncan, Charles

  Longden, F.

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Lowth, Thomas

  Shield, George William

  Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

  Lunn, William

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Elmley, Viscount

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

  Shinwell, E.

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  McElwee, A.

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  McEntee, V. L.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N)

  Mackinder, W.

  Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

  George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

  McKinlay, A.

  Sinkinson, George

  Gibbins, Joseph

  McShane, John James

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Gill, T. H.

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

  Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

  Glassey, A. E.

  Mansfield, W.

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Gosling, Harry

  March, S.

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Gossling, A. G.

  Marcus, M.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Gould, F.

  Markham, S. F.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  1082

  1083

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Tillett, Ben

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  West, F. R.

  Sorensen, R.

  Toole, Joseph

  Westwood, Joseph

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Tout, W. J.

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Turner, B.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Strauss, G. R.

  Viant, S. P.

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Sullivan, J.

  Walker, J.

  Wise, E. F.

  Sutton, J. E.

  Wallace, H. W.

  Wright, W. (Rutherglen)

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Wallhead, Richard C.

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

  Watkins, F. C.

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

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Transitory provisions.)
  Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, in page 11, line 13, to leave out the words "section four," and to insert instead thereof the words "sections four, five, and six."
  This is a purely drafting Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 16.—(Interpretation, repeal, application, short title and com- mencement.)
  Miss BONDFIELD: I beg to move, in page 11, line 28, to insert the words:
  "'Employment Exchange' has the same meaning as the expression 'Labour Exchange' in the Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, and includes branch offices and juvenile employment bureaux."
  I think the House is fully seized of the fact that we now use, instead of the term "labour exchange," a much more preferable term which was instituted, I believe, by the Government of the party opposite. This Amendment is merely to put the matter technically right in the present Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

  THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Re- pealed.)
  Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in page 16, line 19, column 3, at the end, to insert the words:
  "and Sub-section (5) of Section thirty-five."
  This is a very small Amendment. Subsection (5) of Section 35 of the Act of 1920 merely states that one of the provisions of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, does not apply to any regulations made under that Act, and I think that, in view of the attacks which have been made on the subject of legislation by regulation, we should re-insert into any Measure that we can the old provision that, in the case of any Statutory Rule,
  1084
  notice should be given when it is proposed to make any change. As a matter of fact, that is a recommendation which the Lord Chief Justice himself has made in his authoritative work on this subject, and I commend it to the right hon. Lady and ask her if she will be good enough to accept the Amendment.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that cannot accept the Amendment.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Are we to have no reason given?
  Earl WINTERTON: I really think we might have some reason for the refusal to accept this Amendment. If the right hon. Lady cannot give a reason, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can. It is really treating my hon. and gallant Friend with rather scant courtesy merely to say that the Amendment cannot be accepted, without giving any reason. Perhaps, when they have searched for the reason, one of the hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite will give an answer to my hon. and gallant Friend. [Interruption.] It is not a question of courtesy. The lack of courtesy is on the part of the Government. My hon. and gallant Friend made a perfectly reasonable request, but all that the right hon. Lady said was that she regretted that she could not accept the Amendment—[Interruption.] I would remind hon. Gentlemen that it is usual for even the most incompetent Minister to give some reason for not accepting an Amendment.
  Commander WILLIAMS: If we are not going to have a reply on this Amendment, I can only say that it is most unusual. I do not think I have ever before heard a Minister refuse to give a reply on an Amendment that has been called on the Report stage. We all have very great sympathy with the right hon. Lady in her difficulties with this Bill, but,

  1085
  after all, if people accept office, it is expected that they should understand what it involves. When the Minister simply says, blankly, "No. I cannot do this," do not wish to be unjust, but it looks as if she did not know anything about the matter. I should not like that to go out to the country; I think it would be a terrible thing; it looks as if the right hon. Lady had as little knowledge as the Liberal party at the moment. It looks as if she were like the Leader, or the owner, I should say, of the Liberal party—as though she were of a, proud disposition and would not let us know what it is about. There is nothing really to hide. I am only endeavouring to help the right hon. Lady in her very difficult position. I see the Parliamentary Secretary getting some information, and, directly he comes back and says that that information is available, I will give way. This is not a minor point. It is a point which the Lord Chief Justice emphasised very clearly, and I hope that at any rate the right hon. Lady will let us have some reply.
  Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: As soon as the Parliamentary Secretary comes back, I would really ask whether we cannot have a reply about this. The point is quite simple. The Sub-section says:
  "Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act, 1893 (which requires notices to be given of a proposal to make Statutory Rules) shall not apply to any Regulations made under this Act."
  It is scant courtesy to the Opposition. We have not obstructed any business. The Amendment has this very substantial reason for it, that by this Bill the Department are taking important powers for Regulations which ought not to be allowed to pass sub silentio. There is a real, valid reason now for saying that there ought to be notice of proposals to make Statutory Rules after all that has happened.
  Miss BONDFIELD: There was no intention of discourtesy to the House. I knew that hon. Members were very anxious to get on with their Amendment. It is clear, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, that a Department like mine has to make Regulations and cannot wait 40 days to lay them on the Table of the House before anything can be done. It would be a perfectly unreasonable and hampering request to the administration
  1086
  to accept the Amendment. It was not with any lack of courtesy, but I thought it would have been perfectly obvious, certainly to the Front Bench, that such an Amendment could not be accepted.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: In page 17, line 10, leave out the words
  "paragraph beginning 'In the case of,'"
  and to insert instead thereof the words:
  "words from In the case of any person formerly,' to the end of Sub-section (2)."—[Miss Bondfield.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Lawson.]
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
  "this House declines to assent to a Measure which places increased and multi plied burdens on the Exchequer and is calculated, according to the official statement of the Government Actuary, to bring about a deficit in the Unemployment Insurance Fund during the year of upwards of £2,000,000."
  I have listened in the course of all these Debates to the speeches of Ministers, and their tone always gave me the sensation of listening to someone repeating the old verse:
  "The good that I would, that do I not, And the evil that I would not, that I do."
  If I can picture to myself the Minister, with her knowledge of the subject and the. sources of information that she possesses, I cannot imagine anyone who would be more likely to think of that verse as applying to her own case. Look at the Bill for a moment in its effect on unemployment. We have a Government that came into power on the pretence that it can solve the problem of unemployment. The Prime Minister says they alone have a programme and they alone are the people who possess the ideas that will enable the problem to be solved. Again the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself told us that in twelve months time, when returned to power, he was confident that they would make a great impression on the magnitude of the problem. They have been in for nearly seven, and the only impression they have created is that they are perfectly incapable of dealing with the problem. What has happened up to now is that, instead of any reduction or improvement in unem-

  1087
  ployment, up the figures have been going week by week one after another until they are now more than 200,000 more than when they came into power. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the figures under you a year ago?"]—a rise more rapid, in the same period of the autumn, than when we were in power a year ago. While the figures for unemployment have been rising wages have been falling, until there is a decrease of over £60,000 a week, a reduction of £3,500,000 a year. That is the moment the Government have chosen to force through the House a Bill which imposes an immense increase in taxation and a burden on the taxpayer. The Clause that was hastily redrafted and re-inserted on Report adds £2,000,000 of burden to the Unemployment Fund, so that it would no longer balance at the assumed figure of 1,200,000, and it adds a burden on the Exchequer equivalent to an increase of £50,000,000 on the National Debt—that one last hastily drawn Clause which the House has never been given an opportunity of criticising or analysing satisfactorily.
  That course of action, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows quite well, of imposing one burden after another on finance has a disastrous effect on industry and employment. That is recognised by the Leaders of the Socialist party themselves. Not only does it hit industry and employment generally but it hurts industry in its most vital and most vulnerable part, in the matter of foreign trade. We all by now recognise—the Lord Privy Seal with the rest these days —that the greater part of our unemployment is due to the falling off of foreign trade. The one thing we wish to do above all others to improve the state of employment is to regain some of our lost foreign trade, and it is precisely these burdens placed on the taxpayer that make it the more difficult to regain it and the easier for the loss to become still greater. The Government have done this with complete deliberation. I was not in the House on the Second Reading but I took a great interest in what went on, and I read the very striking warning given by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. It is seldom that I have the privilege of seeing
  1088
  eye to eye with him, but in this case most of us could agree with every word he says:
  "We are undoubtedly piling up a tremendous bill which this country ultimately cannot bear. I want to put that quite seriously. I can understand the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. They know that the country cannot stand it, and their purpose is to break down the system. From their point of view, as a tactical move, it is perfectly right to propose these additions year by year, because, if they succeed, the system will inevitably break down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1916; col. 771, Vol. 232.]
  At the end of his speech he said he proposed to give the Measure a Second Reading because it would be subjected to a close scrutiny in Committee, and he believed that Amendments would be moved to remove some of the objections to it. He was an optimist. The Amendments that have been made in Committee have meant a further imposition of over £4,000,000 of expenditure a year, the least justifiable and the least useful of all the expenditure that the Bill imposes, and it has all been the result of the amazing procedure of the last 10 days.
  I would ask the House What is the justification for all this expenditure now that we come to review the Bill and look back upon it? The only claim that the Government can produce in justifying it is that it is the one way they know of meeting the objection to the condition about genuinely seeking work. That is absolute nonsense. We were, on all sides of the House, quite ready to join in meeting objections to genuinely seeking work. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not do it?"] There is objection on the part of hon. Members opposite that we did not make speeches on the subject on Clause 4. [Interruption.] What sweet simplicity on that side of the House! As if they did not know that, if we were to support the Government in resisting a bad Amendment or bad proposal by making speeches, it would be one way of making their own extremists determined to force it upon them. It is perfectly obvious from the point of view of getting the Bill as little unreasonable as it might be that is was far better not to make speeches upon it in support of the Government.
  It is not a Bill to meet objections about genuinely seeking work. It is a Bill, as the hon. Member for Westmorland

  1089
  (Mr. O. Stanley) said in his very striking speech, which for the first time takes away any defence that any of us had in the past for saying that it was not a system of doles. It is a Bill which transforms the whole insurance scheme into a system of doles. It is a Bill for the endowment of people whom the Attorney-General calls "work-shys." It is a Bill for the enrichment of people who are not deserving at the expense of the good workmen. [Interruption.] I say that quite deliberately. It is proved, and proved beyond all question by the Official White Paper issued by the Government themselves. Let me compare for a moment speeches by Ministers opposite with the official papers. Barely a month ago the Lord Privy Seal stated his opinion in public:
  "If you ask me what it is that disturbs me most, I have no hesitation in saying that it is anything which makes men and women rely upon other efforts than their own."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Member cheer that. This Bill does the opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, it does not!"] Let hon. Members read their own Official White Paper:
  "The obligation placed on the claimant … is confined to taking steps to search for work in accordance with directions given … by the Employment Exchange."
  They go on to point out that if he does not do so, the proof that he does not lies upon the Exchange, and the Exchange in all probability will not be able to produce the proof. It is a pure farce. Take the next statement of the Lord Privy Seal:
  "What disturbs me also is anything that tends to make people look to the State for the assistance which they themselves ought to provide."
  Let any hon. Members read the other sections of their own White Paper. The new provision introduced by the Attorney-General will have the effect of bringing other persons into benefit.
  "Married women who have done little or no work since marriage; seasonal workers during the off-season"
  these two classes will serve as
  "illustrations of the considerable group of new claimants consisting of persons who, so to speak, are not really in the market as competitors for employment, but who hold themselves out as such if they are thereby enabled to qualify for benefit."
  The White Paper proves up to the
  1090
  hilt every single statement that I have made, that it is not the removal of difficulties in the way of a person who ought to get benefit, but that it is making it easier for people who ought not to get benefit. That is the effect of the redrafted Clause which we have before the House. That is the answer of this House to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in giving the Bill a Second Reading. Four to four and a half million pounds more of expenditure upon doles to the unemployed at a time when we have £3,500,000 a year less earnings in wages of the employed. I say that to vote for this Bill on the Third Reading is the final destruction of any true insurance scheme and the creation of a system of gigantic relief to take its place—relief very largely to the undeserving at the expense of the good and honest workman. [Interruption.]
  There is one more item which is even more significant than the changing of the Bill. It is the way in which the change in the Bill was made. When the Attorney-General brought in this new Clause, there was one striking phenomenon which occurred, and that is, what happened to the party below the Gangway, at the present moment represented by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). It was really very remarkable. Not a single leader of the Liberal party voted for the new Clause —not one. If any one examines the Division list, he will find that there is no presence there of the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, or of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman), the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), or the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) or any other of the leaders of the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Leith and his hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin and the other Members of the rank and file deserted them. They followed the Attorney-General. I suppose it was that the old influence of the Attorney-General was too strong. They
  "that had loved him so, followed him, honoured him,
  Lived in his mild and magnificent eye,"

  1091
  I forget the name of the poem—[An HON. MEMBER: "The Lost Leader"]—but it begins with the lines:
  "Just for a handful of silver be left us,
  Just for a rihand to stick in his coat."
  Our objection to the action of the Government is much more vital. We always said, that, when it came to a crisis, the Government would always surrender to their own extremists. We have been met sometimes by critics who said, "Oh, surely you can trust the backbone of a Government when it possesses the Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor of the Exchequer among its members." We have pure proof of the absolute justice of what we thought. There never was a more spineless capitulation to the extremists. I ask the House to condemn this Bill for its intrinsic demerits. It is a bad Bill, because it reduces the insurance scheme to a dole system, because it brings children into the dole system who ought never to be there, because it endows the work-shy and enriches the undeserving at the expense of the honest and good workman, because it increases taxation enormously, and because it is one of a series of Measures which is increasing unemployment as well. Therefore, we condemn it, but we regard it also as a proof of a danger which is graver and more far-reaching. It is proof that, when a crisis comes, this Government cares nothing for the employer, or employe, or the taxpayer, or for industry, or for employment. It proves that, when the hour of trial comes, there is no national interest so great that the Government will not betray it at the dictation of its extremists.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I do not think that the speech to which we have just listened has been worth the trouble which has evidently been expended upon its preparation, but I certainly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and those who are associated with him in this Amendment upon their colossal audacity. This Amendment asks the House to reject this Bill on the ground that it imposes unanticipated financial burdens upon the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman says that, when the Minister of Labour was faced by the question of doing the right thing or doing the
  1092
  evil thing, she chose to do the evil thing. May I give the right hon. Gentleman another quotation, but not from the same source:
  "The evil that men do lives after them."
  This Bill is the inevitable consequence of the policy which was pursued by the right hon. Gentleman, in association with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the last five years, and which brought the fund into a state of bankruptcy. The purpose of this Bill is to try to restore something of solvency to the Insurance Fund. What was the position with which we were faced when we took office In the last 12 months, for which matters were under the control of the right hon. Gentleman, £12,000,000 was added to the debt of the Insurance Fund. When we left office five years ago, the debt on the fund was just over £5,000,000. When we took office, it was not far short of £37,000,000, or within £3,000,000 of complete exhaustion of the borrowing powers. The reckoning was only sufficient to cover an average unemployment of 1,000,000, whereas the figure had been from 200,000 to 400,000 above that figure during a considerable part of the tenure of office of the late Government.
  The late Government, by the Act of 1927, reduced the contributions from 25¾d. to 21d. If that had not been done, the debt on the fund to-day, instead of being nearly £40,000,000, would have been only £20,000,000. We were faced by this problem, and there were three courses open, any one of which the Government might have adopted. We might have raised the contributions. If the contributions had been kept at the figure at which they were in 1927 we should not have had to deal with the financial problem which is embodied in this Bill. That was one thing that we might have done. Another was that we might have increased the borrowing powers. After consideration, the Government rejected both these alternatives. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the burdens upon industry due to the proposals which are made in this Bill. We rejected the idea of raising the contributions, because we believed that if that were done it would have been a more direct burden upon industry than if the necessary funds to achieve solvency were drawn from general taxation. I rejected borrowing for the reason that the floating debt, thanks to the financial

  1093
  policy of the late Government, has been immensely inflated. My great object is to reduce it and not to increase it.
  Having rejected these two possibilities or courses, we were left with one other course, and that was for the Exchequer to assume the responsibility of keeping the fund solvent. That is the financial scheme which is embodied in this Bill. How are we going to do that? The financial proposals of the Bill are very complicated and very difficult to explain. I am going to make an attempt to explain them, but I am not very confident of my success in doing so. Our proposals will add to the Exchequer contributions to the fund a sum of £14,000,000. How is that made up? By the first Unemployment Bill of this year the Exchequer assumed the responsibility for equal thirds in the contributions. That involves an Exchequer contribution of £3,500,000. The other items making up the £14,000,000 are these—and an examination of these items will show how practically each one, with very insignificant exceptions, has been made necessary and inevitable in order to restore solvency to the fund and enable benefits to continue to be paid. Increased benefits to young persons is a very small additional annual charge on the fund of £370,000. Increased rates for dependants will cost—I am speaking now not of the cost to the Exchequer but of the increase to the fund—£1,750,000 a year. Then the altered conditions on which the right hon. Gentleman poured so much of his vitrol are responsible for the main financial burden on the fund. This will amount to about £7,250,000. Now as to the Exchequer share in these increased burdens on the fund. There is, first of all, the Exchequer recoupment for transitional benefit, which, without the two conditions I have mentioned, would have amounted to £7,100,000. Then the increased cost of this recoupment, owing to the improved benefits, including what is called the genuinely seeking work provision, amounts to £3,400,000. The net result of all this is that in effect the Exchequer is paying into the fund £14,000,000, while increased benefits will amount to £9,400,000, so that the Exchequer is paying in addition into the fund an excess sum of £4,600,000. I said that I had doubts whether I should be able to make these complicated figures
  1094
  clear, I have done so to the best of my ability, and it explains the increased Exchequer contribution of £14,000,000. There is an item of £500,000 which is due to the normal growth of expenditure under the Bill.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Administration expenses.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Provision was made in last year's Estimates for an Exchequer contribution of £12,000,000. Next year the additions made in this Bill will bring the total Exchequer contributions up to £26,500,000, and, as I have pointed out, only a small part of that is really due to increased benefits; a larger bulk of it, of course, is due to that much debated Clause dealing with genuinely seeking work. It is not within my province, except so far as finance is important, to be an expert on the administration of the Unemployment Fund. As a matter of fact, I know very little about it. I have never had any practical experience of its administration, but, on the matter of genuinely seeking work, may I be permitted to say this: There are three classes of workmen, and the vast majority of each, perhaps I may say 99 per cent. of the workers, probably more than that, are honest, straightforward men, who prefer work to benefit, who feel a personal humiliation at being out of work, who when they are out of work will strain every nerve to get work. Then, there is the class which we may call the inefficient, who like work, who want to work, but who experience the greatest difficulty in getting work because of their lower vitality and their industrial inefficiency. Then there is that negligible class of men who perhaps would prefer to live, if I may use the expression of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in State-endowed idleness rather than earn their living by work.
  The point it seems to me is this, and I am not speaking as one who is at all an authority on these matters, that it is much better that one man in a thousand should get this benefit, even though he does not deserve it, than that 999 men out of the 1,000 who deserve it should not get the benefit. That seems to me to be the justification for the Clause of the Bill which is going to be such an expensive item to meet. I am prepared to defend it, and to justify it. I do not want to spend money unnecessarily, not

  1095
  a single penny. Over and over again throughout his speech, the right hon. Gentleman sneered at the Government and at their surrender to what he calls the extremists. I know of no such surrender. I know of Amendments which have appeared on the Paper which would have been very expensive indeed; but they have not been accepted by the Government. There was one Amendment which appeared on the Paper to restore a condition of benefit which was abolished by the right hon. Gentleman; an Amendment upon which, on its merits, a great deal might be said. Indeed, the difficulty of a Chancellor of the Exchequer is always this, that it is always very easy for an hon. Member to make out a good case for a particular Amendment and it is often very difficult to resist it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to decide not merely on a particular Amendment; he has to look at the financial problem as a whole and consider how much he can possibly afford.
  There were three Amendments on the Paper, one to which I have just referred to reduce the waiting period to three days. That would have cost, I think, £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. The Government in 1924 could well afford it. The financial position in those days was very different from what it is to-day. I had a surplus of £30,000,000 on my Budget. My successor next year inherited, if I may be permitted to quote his own words, as the result of my careful husbanding of the national resources a surplus of nearly £40,000,000—the only surplus he ever had. We were able to do things in those days which we cannot possibly afford to do now. That Amendment would have cost £4,000,000 or £5,000,000. It was resisted. Is that an evidence of a surrender of the Government to the extremists 7 There was a further Amendment dealing with what I believe is technically called the continuity condition. I do not understand it, but it has something to do with raising the continuity interval from 10 weeks to 12 months. That would have cost another £5,000,000. We would not accept that. Is that further evidence of the spineless nature of those who are responsible? There was a further Amendment proposing to raise substantially the scales of benefit. That would have cost £12,000,000. Twelve and nine make 21. If those three Amendments had been
  1096
  accepted, there would have been an addition of £21,000,000 to the £14,000,000 of increased Exchequer contributions under this Bill.
  There is, as I have said, a great deal to be said on each of those Amendments. But I have had to take the financial position as a whole into consideration. We are having to provide next year £14,000,000 of revenue to finance the schemes of this Bill, due entirely to the gross mismanagement of the national finances by our predecessors. We are seeing in the Tory newspapers some criticism of the extravagance of this Government. The Leader of the Opposition made the same point in the speech which he delivered in Edinburgh a few days ago. He talked about perilous extravagance and about our piling up expenditure. Yes, we are piling up expenditure in order to try to bring the finances of this country into an honest and sound condition, and —I very much regret to have to say it—we are not at the end of our task yet by a long, long way.
  Let me give the Leader of the Opposition some figures. I regret that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, though I shall have other opportunities of reminding him of these facts. During the last three years—I hope that my hon. Friends on this side, at any rate, will make a note of the incontrovertible facts that I am about to submit to the House—the raids and forestallments of revenue have amounted to over £50,000,000; the sinking fund provision has fallen short by some £30,000,000. Legislation passed by the late Government has not been financed out of revenue. The year after next I shall have to find—[Interruption.] Hon. Members might have noticed that I hesitated before I made that statement; therefore I deliberately made it as I did. The year after next I shall have to find additional revenue amounting to £15,000,000 to finance the rating legislation. In the last three years the late Government undertook expenditure amounting to £95,000,000 for which they made not one penny of new provision. That is the explanation of the increased Exchequer contribution in this Bill. We are compelled unless benefits should no longer be paid, to make this provision. Officially, I need hardly say, I do not like it. If I had £14,000,000 to spend, preferably I would spend it upon something which would be more directly re-

  1097
  munerative. But unfortunately we cannot spend the same money upon two purposes at the same time.
  9.0 p.m.
  Reference has been made to what the Government actuary has said. He is stated to have said that there will be an increase of upwards of £2,000,000 in the Exchequer contribution next year and that in addition £2,000,000 will be added to the debt. The Government actuary does not say so. What he says is that upon the basis of a certain number of unemployed, 1,200,000 on the average, there will be an additional £2,000,000 of debt; but the Government actuary does not commit himself to the statement that there will be an average of 1,200,000 unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman opposite quoted something which I am recorded to have said, that in 12 months time we would make an impression upon unemployment. I stand by that statement, and I add this further—that we are not going to be judged by our unemployment policy at the end of 12 months. I certainly am not going to be judged on my financial policy on my first Budget. It will take, at the shortest two to three years to restore the finances of the country to the position in which they were in 1924. But I shall be gravely disappointed if the average of unemployment during the next 12 months is not below 1,200,000. Therefore that increase of debt is not likely to mature.
  I state this further: If unfortunately something happens and our hopes are disappointed, I am afraid that we shall be compelled in a Bill next year to make further provisions for keeping the Fund solvent. I do not anticipate, however, that that very regrettable necessity will arise. I ask the House to give a Third Reading to this Bill. As I have said, the Bill is necessary. It gives moderately increased benefit; it will restore the Fund to solvency; and it will also redress a grievance which has been most keenly felt by hundreds and thousands, and indeed millions of men, among the most honest and hard working, of our industrial population.
  Mr. FOOT: It is extremely difficult to follow the Chancellor of the Exchequer and one in my position can only recall those lines:
  1098
  "As in a theatre, the eyes of men,
  After a well grac'd actor leaves the stage,
  Are idly bent on him that enters next,
  Thinking his prattle to be tedious."
  In the same way, in following the Chancellor of the Exchequer I have to ask Members of the House to allow me to explain a vote which I gave the other evening when I voted against the new Clause which I think is the essential part of this Bill. Some hon. Members will recall the discussion which took place on the 5th December. I said that I had heard practically every word of that Debate and that I did not know when I had been called upon to give a vote which cost me more anxiety and apprehension. I am bound to say that what I have heard since on that point in this House, including the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night, has not lifted that apprehension from my mind. I voted the other evening against the new Clause—the Clause which took the place of the original Clause 4 of the Bill —and I want to bring before the House, some of the considerations which weighed with me, as one who voted for the Second Reading of the Bill. If I have not heard every word of these discussions I have read every word of them, and have read as diligently as I could the evidence given before the Morris committee. I have read what the majority of that committee had to say and I am still not satisfied that I ought to give my vote in favour of the Clause which was passed the other night.
  It is the central part of the Bill. I think there can be no doubt about that fact because, when the Minister introduced the Measure, she did not deal with this Clause in its order. She took Clause 4 first of all and dealt with the other Clauses as subsidiary or ancillary to it. The Gibraltar of the situation is Clause 4. A great deal of what has been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had o bearing upon Clause 4, but I want the right hon. Gentleman to see the matter as it appears to me. I agree with him absolutely as to the fourth statutory condition. I do not think that anyone can sincerely and vigilantly read the evidence given before the Morris committee without coming to the conclusion that that condition ought to be swept away. I do not think that the charge of administrative persecution was proved. I think it was not proved as far as I

  1099
  can see from the evidence, but there was, undoubtedly, a cumulative grievance and bitterness and discontent, with a hardship inflicted on the most helpless part of the population. My sympathy, first of all, is with the unemployed people. I refuse to think of the unemployed in terms of figures and statistics and curves and descriptions in bulk. I always remember a famous passage by Carlyle in which, referring to the time when the aristocracy of France referred to the "masses of France," he says:
  "Masses indeed! But follow them, if you will, over the broad land of France into their hovels and into their hutches, and you will find, strangely enough, that the masses consist of units, and every man stands there with his own heart and sorrows and covered with his own skin, and, if you prick him, he will bleed."
  I refuse to approach this question of unemployment except from the recognition, as I said the other evening, that those who are in most need have the first claim upon the community. The fourth statutory condition was, I think, a hardship inflicted upon these men. It had to be swept away and the majority of the committee so reported. Then changes were suggested in this House and were embodied, after deliberation, in the Bill and I think it is simply playing with words to say that the Bill as introduced by the Government, after, as I suppose, responsible deliberation, did not bring about a very substantial change. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Of course it brought about a change. It changed the condition—changed it from a condition into a disqualification—and It lifted the onus off the shoulders of the man and placed it for the most part on the insurance officer and the machine. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate, that is my submission and it. was the opinion of the majority of those on the committee and it was the opinion of the Government. It was the opinion of the responsible officers of the Government who explained it in this House. I hope I shall say nothing provocative. There is no attraction to me in making this speech which I must make to-night. I shall be happy to hear all that is said, and I shall refer directly to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) who has been kind enough to speak to me on this matter.
  1100
  I say that it is playing with words to suggest that there was not a substantial change made by the Bill as it was put before the House. I heard the proposals put before the House by the Minister. I heard them explained by the Attorney-General and in those proposals there was a statutory declaration of the principle that the unemployed man must himself seek for work. That undoubtedly was the centre of the proposals in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Clause 4 of the Bill as it was introduced. The Minister herself said it was "essential." She said that the House ought to be warned against a grave mistake, and the Attorney-General said afterwards:
  "There is a danger of being led away by our sympathy to do something which is really unwarranted.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1929; col. 2693, Vol. 232.]
  That was a warning not by anyone on these benches but by a responsible officer of the Crown in relation to a Bill upon which there had been months of deliberation. I was convinced by the Attorney-General. I listened to every word he said. It has been suggested that every speech made from these benches was against that Clause but such is not the case. I stood here in my place and said that I thought there should be in the Measure, as it left the House, an expression of the statutory obligation upon the unemployed man himself to look for work. Then the Government gave way and promised to bring in another Clause. That was on 5th December, and by 12th December great things had happened. There was a Financial Memorandum which did not reach me until just before midnight on the Wednesday night. I do not know very much about the Financial Memorandum but I think the criticisms of it have been undeserved. I am inclined to think that if ft had supported hon. Members opposite in their contention they would have quoted it with great eagerness. Whoever was responsible for the Memorandum was a courageous man. He discharged his duty and expressed his opinion frankly.
  We cannot set the Financial Memorandum on one side, otherwise it is no use having financial memoranda at all. I assume that the officer who hurriedly had to prepare it, discharged his duty in such a way that he can justify his views in the light of the experience of

  1101
  the next year or two. There is the difference between a civil servant and a Minister. The Minister is here one year and not here the next, but the officer is here next year. He has to stand the criticism and the test of experience. In this case he made a criticism in the Memorandum as to the immense expenditure involved and then came the Debates upon 12th December. I think they were amazing Debates. I came to hear what the Minister had to say on the point which she had described the week before as "Essential." She dismissed it, I thought, in a few perfunctory phraees. What was essential on the 5th of the month had become unimportant on the 12th. What was cardinal on the 5th had become almost irrelevant and unimportant on the 12th; and the attitude of the Attorney-General on the 12th was such that I have no words left in which to express my surprise. On the 5th he had put that question that he is never likely to be allowed to forget:
  "Are we to legislate on the lines that these people should think that they need do nothing themselves; that they should wait at home, sit down, smoke their pipes, and wait until an offer comes to them? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1929; col. 2687; Vol. 232.]
  I can imagine the derision that would have arisen in this House if that bad been said from the Front Opposition Bench, but it came from the Attorney-General. That was the question that was put on the ah. On the 12th we had the answer, and the answer was in the affirmative. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] My submission is that as the Bill at present stands there is no obligation whatever upon a man to lift a finger. [Interruption.] That was the interpretation given by the Attorney-General. If that is wrong, then all my argument is wrong, but the assumption is that a man who is away from his Employment Exchange need not himself, until he has received written instructions, lift a finger to find work. [Interruption.] I would not have minded so much if the Attorney-General had said that he had to bow to the will of the House, but what I could not stand was that he should have made this change, and then spoken proudly of it and, in full view of the House, adjusted the plume upon his helmet and pinned the medale upon his own breast. That is what he did in the course of the
  1102
  Debate, and he congratulated himself upon his courage, when he had been obliged to give way and to change the position which he himself had taken on the 5th of the month.
  My suggestion is that there is one statement made by the Attorney-General on the 5th, and there is another on the 12th, and I had to make my choice between the two. I was convinced by what he said on the 5th; I was not convinced by what he said on the 12th. I went with him in his advance; I was not prepared to go with him in his retreat. [An HON. MEMBERS: "He advanced further!"] I do not know about that. I hope that, for his own reputation, the Attorney-General will not be obliged to make speeches like that with the short interval between them or seven days. Otherwise, there may come upon him the words once written in describing a statesman in this House a very long time ago:
  "His ready tongue, with sophistries at will,
  Can say, unsay, and be consistent still."
  The submission that I make is what I tried to say on the 5th. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend who represents Middlesbrough lives in a distressed area, and I. can quite understand his desperate concern on these matters, but we who live away from those distressed areas can also be concerned, although we are not brought into such close contact with the problem. There is a difference between one place and the other. There is a great difference where the workpeople scarcely ever see the Employment Exchange at all. I live in a part of the country where my people do not usually go to the Employment Exchange. Because of the distance, they do not go to register, and they do not go to receive their money, under what, I think, are the very reasonable arrangements made by which a man is not required to go eight or nine miles just to sign a paper, and his money is sent to him instead. There are some exceptional parts of the country where the Exchange is 100 miles away from the men concerned; and there should be some recognition of the difference between the distressed areas and the ordinary areas of the country. I was astonished to hear what was said by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), who speaks also for a distressed area, and who made

  1103
  a speech from an experience of winch I know nothing. He was criticising the Attorney-General, and he said:
  "The Attorney-General let the thing out in all its naked horror at the beginning of his speech. He let the Committee understand that what he desired to do was to devise a Sub-section which would leave the applicant for benefit to understand that he was expected to seek out the employer. I never expected to listen in the House of Commons to a spokesman of a Labour Government making such a statement as that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1929, col. 2696, Vol. 232.]
  That may be quite right as far as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is concerned, but I thought it was common ground with most people that the unemployed man owes a duty to those of his fellows who are contributing to the fund. [Interruption.] I hope there is nothing provocative in that. I am a man of peace, and I do not want to stir up wrath. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said he never expected to listen in the House of Commons to a spokesman of a Labour Government make such a statement as that an applicant should be expected to seek out the employer. I should have thought it was a very proper obligation upon him. The trouble is not in explaining this to the employers, but in explaining it to the workpeople. While these Debates have been going on, I have received a letter from my part of the country from a foreman in a certain works in the northern part of Cornwall, not a constituent, but a man knowing something of what is going on here. He writes:
  "We have about 30 men employed on the works. The progress of the works is absolutely dependent on weather and tides. The men are required every minute it is possible to work, but at other times they have to stand off, without pay. It is impossible to pay them standing-off pay, or retention money, and keep the cost of the work within the estimates "—
  This is a public concern—
  "and the limited amount of money available for the works. Unfortunately, the past few weeks these men have not received as much money as they would have done had they been wholly unemployed, and on the dole.' This naturally causes dissatisfaction, and to-day some of the men asked the foreman to discharge them, so that they could go on the 'dole.'"
  HON. MEMBERS: Shame!
  Mr. FOOT: I am not blaming the men, but there is the position, which is made difficult by reason of the temptation—!
  Mr. LAWTHER: "Lead us not into temptation." [Interruption.]
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): Hon. Members will have an opportunity of replying.
  Mr. FOOT: I am using the term used by the Minister of Labour in speaking of temptation, and I will tell the House of a paragraph to which she put her name in the Blanesburgh Report, where it speaks of the benefits that should be given:
  "It should provide benefits definitely less in amount than the general labourer's rate of wage, so that there may be no temptation to prefer benefit to work."
  [Laughter.]—The laughter of hon. Members opposite should be aimed in another direction than over here. That the temptation exists, who can deny? I agree with all that is said from the benches opposite to the effect that the great majority, the overwhelming majority, of the workmen and women are as deserving as any class in the community and probably more deserving than many classes, but while I will admit that, I say that it is pure political pedantry to deny that there will be, for a certain number, a temptation such as is here described. The trouble is not between the ordinary classes in this country, between the employer and the workmen, but between one workman and the other. That is where the disaffection exists. I went down the other evening to a part of my constituency where the men go out day after day to work in perilous conditions and when they come back after a perilous journey over the rocks with great danger to themselves, there is not a man in that community who in the last two years has on the average earned as much as is provided here. [HON. MEMBERS "Shame!"] It is not a question of trouble with employers. There are no employers there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Middlemen!"] Yes, middlemen, and I hope my hon. Friends who talk about middlemen will insist on having something done. That is the fact to-day and the difficulty is not between employers and workmen but between one man and the other. Just as in the old story of the men who went into

  1105
  the vineyard, the trouble at the end of the day was not between the owner of the vineyard and the workers, but between those who thought they had done a full day's work and the others who had not. I do not say they were justified, but the trouble did not arise between the owners of the vineyard and the men.
  Mr. STEPHEN: What was the answer, and does the hon. Gentleman approve of the answer?
  Mr. FOOT: Of course I know and I approve of the answer. For myself I would say that the unemployed man should not suffer because he is unemployed, but I want to guard against this if I can. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) took a very proper stand on this matter when it came before the Committee. He brushed aside all considerations about this being an insurance fund and when he was questioned he said that he and his friends stood for the principle of work or maintenance, a definite job or benefit—nothing more and nothing less. I think that is a perfectly understandable attitude and I appreciate the position that he and his colleagues took up, but this is not the principle of work or maintenance. If it is to be done, let it come forward as a proper scheme and not as part of an insurance scheme where you collect contributions from many people, who can have those contributions protected only by ourselves. There is an obligation in regard to those people who have been paying in and who have no choice in the matter. I do not want to quote trade union regulations, although they were quoted by the Minister. Every trade union regulation has this provision and insists on the obligation upon the man himself to seek work. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are voluntary organizations!"] Whether voluntary or not, surely my hon. Friends will realise that there is just as much obligation to look after the money contributed and with which we have to deal as there is for a trade union to look after the money contributed by their members.
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: The point I make is that you cannot get out of the State schemes but you can out of these others.
  Mr. FOOT: That is certainly no argument. I was submitting that we had the interest of these contributors in our
  1106
  hands and, whether we like it or not, we are the trustees for them and must discharge that trust in the same way that we discharge our trust in the case of national money. Therefore, I think in this Clause the Bill goes further than it has any right to do, and although I welcome the concessions that have been made by the Minister and what else has been done in the Bill to help to meet the needs of the unemployed, I cannot see that there is any case for this new Clause, and unless there is some additional and more convincing argument than I have yet heard, I shall very reluctantly be obliged to withdraw my continued support from this Bill, which I have been very glad to give so far. I simply ask it we ought not to have in relation to national funds a similar obligation to that which exists in every well-managed trade union in the country. That contention, not easily made, I submit in all sincerity for the consideration of the House.
  Mr. MAXTON: I have listened twice to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) upon this same Clause, and, as in previous cases, I have been tremendously impressed with the fact that he is a man genuinely and honestly struggling with what is an intellectual and moral difficulty for himself. There are two moral difficulties in relation to this: first, he is afraid that when the onus to look for a job is taken off the man, that man will not look for it.
  Mr. FOOT: In some instances.
  Mr. MAXTON: I represent a constituency that is very badly hit by unemployment. I know the men and women who have been unemployed for extended periods, and on their behalf I say that the devices, schemes, private enterprise and initiative that they show in the attempt to earn a living—selling newspapers in the streets, calling at the doors exchanging old clothes for earthenware and pottery, selling rosettes of the rival colours at football matches and going round various places where crowds congregate, in the attempt to make a living for themselves—the amount of private enterprise and initiative shown by those people, who are supposed to be the down and outs, is very much greater than any I have seen on the part of private Members in this House during the years I have been here. Here for

  1107
  the most part we follow like sheep, but there those people, driven back on their own resources, make all sorts of attempts to find work for themselves in any method of earning a livelihood. I do not see the danger of the principle of self-help, private enterprise and initiative being destroyed, even supposing that the failure of statesmen, industrialists and financiers in these last eight or nine years has made it impossible for all the population to be employed at any one time. That is the important point which the hon. Member should get into his Fnind—that the system cannot employ the whole population which is prepared to work, and the man who is unemployed cannot decide. He has no power to decide what the bulk of unemployment is going to be. It is we here who have the major responsibility, and the captains of industry and so on outside. More and more it is recognised that if this failure to employ the men of our working population is to be rectified in the future, it is here that it is going to be done. An unemployed man cannot reduce the total number of unemployed by one; he can only decide that he is going to be in and somebody else is going to be out.
  We, as representing the whole community have no right to take advantage of the position. We have a duty to see that the man who is outside the range of employment which the community can provide has got to be maintained decently and in decent physical conditions. Nobody in this House attempts to deny him that right. Nobody would get up and dare to say plainly, bluntly and honestly, that that man has got to starve if he is unemployed. But hon. Members and right hon. Members above the Gangway seem to think that if he is maintained in a definite irregular way by a cross between private charity and the Poor Law, his character, self-respect and independence of spirit are maintained. If by a series of devices and subterfuges he gets a penny here and sixpence there, scrounging on his friends and relatives and the Poor Law, his self-respect and manhood remain, but if he walks down honestly to the Employment Exchange, and signs his name and gets his money, in some way he is debilitated morally. It is far more decent, it far more makes for man-
  1108
  liness if there be a straight bargain between the man and the community, and that is what this Bill does with reference to the unemployed man.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to make some apologies for surrendering to his so-called extremists. [Interruption.] Let me say that he made some sort of defence against the charge that he had surrendered; I do not want to spoil a good point by putting it in language that is not absolutely accurate. I may say, incidentally, that it is one of the greatest jokes against present-day society that the man who comes here and asks for an extra 3s. for an unemployed man can be dubbed an extremist. That is a joke on the whole body politic, but I hope that there will be many similar surrenders, if they are to be called surrenders. I hope that this House as a whole will not regard it as undignified for the Government to alter their proposals in the face of the genuine criticism of this House.
  The other point which my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin is worrying about is that men who are employed should receive less than what they can receive when unemployed. I am disturbed about that, but not very much disturbed about it, for surely the remedy is the obvious one of not to get the unemployed man down below the level of the lowest scale of wages that is paid anywhere in the country, but to get. the least paid man anywhere well above the allowances that are paid for unemployment. At the proper moment, the group with which I am more closely associated will present in this Chamber a scheme to secure a living income going into every home and to every employed man.
  Mr. FOOT: A married man with three children receiving unemployment benefit will get more than any agricultural worker.
  Mr. MAXTONI will make special arrangements to have sent to the hon. Member the living wage proposals of the Independent Labour party.
  Mr. FOOT: Before the hon. Member sends it to me, will he convert and convince his own Front Bench?
  Mr. MAXTON: Can two things go on simultaneously? I am not casting my bread on one particular set of waters only, and I think that I can say on

  1109
  behalf of my Friends that we shall be delighted to send a copy of our scheme for raising the wages of the workers to every Member of the Liberal party. I think that our funds will stand that. It seems to me that that is the intelligent, the sane and the moral way of cutting into the vicious circle which a vicious social order has created. You have got to begin somewhere, and here is a point where we should begin. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not accept the higher level of scales that we proposed, because I believe that those scales would just provide a basic physical efficiency. After all, when you have argued all round the question of demoralisation and self respect, it is, fundamentally, a question of physical efficiency —the ability to keep yourself fed and clothed decently. A man driven on by fear of starvation cannot be considered in the category of moral or non-moral at all; he is driven on by pure physical necessity. The question whether a man is moral or non-moral arises only after he has got the material things of life. I hope that the hon. Member for Bodmin and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) will both depart from their niggling attitude towards this Measure, wipe out the sins of the past, and come into the Lobby in support of the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Mr. CULVERWELL: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has made a speech which is generally familiar to us, and I cannot help thinking that it is a waste of time at this late stage of the Bill to address to the House a speech of that sort, which he must have made on many occasions upstairs to Members of his own party. It is a speech with which the right hon. Lady must be very familiar by this time, and it is one which has been successful in securing the abandonment of her resistance to the extremists. At this stage of the Bill, I do not wish to pursue the arguments of the hon. Gentleman; but I would like to express my strong opposition to this Bill, an opposition which has been in no way broken down by listening to most of the debates which have taken place on the Bill. Nearly every speech has convinced me more than when I first saw the Bill that this Measure is vicious in principle and will be burdensome in practice.
  1110
  My first great objection to it is one shared by every Member on this side of the House, the Bill abandons the whole spirit of insurance, and, instead of being an Insurance Bill, is really a poor relief Measure. It draws into insurance a class of persons among whom there need be little unemployment. I do not wish again to go into the figures which indicate a decrease in the number of juveniles and a consequent shortage of unemployment among them in the next few years. I am sure hon. Members opposite will find that these young boys and girls are being asked by the Minister to contribute to the fund either in order to bolster it up, or else that they will be led into the temptation of living in idleness. That is my first objection to the Bill, that it brings into insurance a new class of workers amongst whom there is little chance of unemployment, and can only have the effect of either demoralising them or of using their contributions to bolster up the fund.
  My second great objection, which is shared by all the Members of the Conservative party and, judging by the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), by a great many Members of the Liberal party, is that in the middle of the proceedings on this Bill, which was the result of many months of consultation and careful consideration, the Minister has changed the whole principle on which benefit has been paid out in the past. She has altered the whole basis of the Bill, and shifted the onus of proof from the claimant on to a Government Department. If anything is a surrender to the extremists, that is. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was not singing quite so high a note to-night as I thought he might have sung, because if there is one Member of the House who has emerged in triumph from these debates, it is surely he, supported by his friends. He has secured from the right hon. Lady against her better judgment, a complete surrender on what we regard as a vital principle regarding the paying out of unemployment benefit. If I may use a simile without being disrespectful, I would suggest that for a long time the right hon. Lady has been engaged to the hon. Member for Bridgeton, but that since June, when the banns were put up, she has been carrying on with the right hon. Member

  1111
  for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland). For months she has accumlated evidence in support of her behaviour, and came down to the House, accompanied by her legal adviser, fully prepared to defend herself against the action which the hon. Member for Bridgeton was bringing aginst her, an action for breach of promise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] In the middle of the trial she abandons her defence, gives up her new love, the right hon. Member for Tamworth, and returns to her old love. I think that is a correct summing-up of the situation, and the right hon. Lady must not be surprised if we on this side of the House accuse her of fickleness, instability and weakness. I only wish I could think that the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bridgeton would live happily ever afterwards, but I am confident that she will never derive happiness from association with such a spendthrift as the hon. Member for Bridgeton, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it pretty clear this evening that the hon. Member will never receive such a liberal allowance as will satisfy him.
  That brings me to the third great objection which we on this side have to this Bill. It was the objection which was brought against it by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at the beginning of the discussions on the Bill, when he spoke in very forcible terms. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the heavy cost of this Measure, and pointed out that, whilst individual items of expenditure could be justified in this House, and were exceedingly difficult to resist as individual items, yet in their cumulative effect they imposed such a burden 'as made it impossible for industry to carry on; but in spite of that the Members of the party of which he is leader have spent most of the time since in proposing Amendments which would have added to instead of lessening the cost of the Bill. I would like to refer to a speech made the other day by the Lord Privy Seal. He realises the great burden which our social services impose on the competitive power of our industries in world markets. He realises, as members of his party are beginning to realise, and as, apparently, they did not understand during the Election, that you cannot add to the burden of the social services in the way this
  1112
  Government are doing without crippling the competitive power of our industries in world markets. The Lord Privy Seal said:
  "Our social services, too, were infinitely higher than those of any other nation. They must be paid for, and could only be paid for, by exports, and that was why he refused to subscribe to the belief that we could cure unemployment by merely spending money. Any fool can spend money."
  I recommend that remark to hon. Members opposite—
  "If you add to the dead weight of the capital of the country, you render it more difficult for your own people to compete in world markets. You do not help unemployment, you aggravate it."
  That is a speech which might have been made, and, in fact, was made, by nearly every Conservative candidate at the last General Election, and for speeches like that many of us were howled down, abused and criticised at public meetings. Yet the Lord Privy Seal is a Member of a Government who have made an abject surrender of the principles which he has laid down, and of the principle., which the right hon. Lady herself had laid down previously. We can only regret that the course of the discussion on this Measure has been so much handicapped by the shilly-shallying methods of the right hon. Lady. She makes up her mind to a course, after months of deliberation, and then alters the whole principle of the Bill and asks us to sanction that alteration of principle upon the Report stage. I feel that the right hon. Member for Tam-worth had the support of most Members of the House when he complained bitterly of the gagging of the Opposition by the Government. That is the last thing one would expect from a Socialist Government, which is supposed to believe in democracy and freedom of speech, and I should like to add my protest against the regrettable manner in which this Debate has been conducted by the right hon. Lady.
  Hon. Members opposite are paying far more attention to the unemployed than they are to the employed, and I believe that the working men and women of this country who, in the long run will have to pay for this costly Measure, will see how unwise it is that their savings and their contributions should be spent upon those who are not properly certified claimants on the Fund. We on this side protest against this lavish and reckless distribu-

  1113
  tion of public money. It is by these methods, by this half-hearted attempt, this first instalment, the effort to fulfil the fantastic and impracticable promises which hon. Members made at the last election that they will be judged. They will not be judged by a lavish and reckless distribution of money but by the amount of unemployment which the Government finds for the people by a sound and economic policy.
  Mr. MUGGERIDGE: It has at last been recognised that the responsibility for unemployment must be placed upon the Government. There is really no way out of it. Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House wriggle and try to put the cost of the maintenance of the unemployed first on this fund and then on the other, but ultimately their action makes it clear that they are quite aware of the fact that in the end you have somehow or other to support your unemployed. Full responsibility for the unemployed is now frankly accepted by this House through the various Bills which we have passed. I want to point out that what the Government have done has been done in order to meet this responsibility. The Government, have decided to cover the risks of unemployment by a form of insurance. It is said in the last resort that you must take care of the people who are thrown out of employment, and the way the Government propose to do it is by supporting an insurance scheme and accepting the ultimate risk for which they practically admit responsibility.
  In the first place, this insuranuce scheme is a very imperfect attempt to take on the full responsibility for the social conditions for which they admit responsibility. This Unemployment Insurance Bill has come along, and it has taken as a step further to the full condition of State insurance for unemployment. It is an admission taking us a long step further along the line of acceptance by the State of full insurance responsibility for the unemployed man. The Government have not attempted to get rid of that responsibility; they are attempting to organise their acceptance of that responsibility, and I have no doubt that every civilised country in the world, sooner or later, will follow our example and accept the principle of national insurance. On the other side, there have been various attempts to show
  1114
  that this is not an Insurance Bill, and I wish to reply to that argument by saying that this Bill is far more an Insurance Bill than the one which preceded it. It is an insurance against unemployment. It is an insurance against unemployment in the same way that one can get in the City of London an insurance against fire, except that in this case, on account of the conditions prevailing and the responsibility of the Government, it is made compulsory, but the principle is the same.
  10.0 p.m.
  Those who are opposed to this Measure say: "No, the unemployed ought to be made to seek work, and have the responsibility thrown upon them." That suggestion is quite inconsistent with the practice that applies with regard to fire insurance. If I have a loss in my house through fire, the only thing I have to prove is that the article destroyed was destroyed by fire, but, if the insurance society wishes to dispute (my claim and say, "Yes, there has been a fire, but you made it yourself," the onus of proof is upon the insurance society and not upon me. With regard to unemployment insurance, the principle, which has now been fully accepted by the Government, will be more and more accepted by future Governments until the whole responsibility for the care of the unemployed falls upon a properly constituted Insurance Fund. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to adopt quite a different principle from that which has been adapted by the fire insurance people. The only thing you ought to have to prove with regard to unemployment is that you are unemployed, and, if you are unemployed, then you are entitled under any proper insurance scheme to insurance benefit so long as you are unemployed. Hon. Members opposite say that a man may be unemployed by his own action because he will not accept work. In that case, the onus of proof rests upon those who dispute the fact. This Bill contains the much disputed Clause 4, which adopts the true principles of insurance. Until we adopted that Clause and worked out this principle along the lines now proposed, we had not brought unemployment insurance up to the same business footing as insurance against fire, and other risks which you can insure against in the City of London. All you have to prove in the case of fire insurance and other risks is your lass. If it is alleged that your

  1115
  loss is self-imposed by your own action, the onus of proof rests upon the insurance society. At last, the Government have put the unemployed insured man upon a proper footing, and, if he falls into unemployment, whether it is due to his own action or somebody else's, the onus of proof is upon the State.
  In the country, there are three parties to our system of national insurance. There is the employé who is a compulsory contributor, and there is also the employer who is likewise a compulsory contributor. In addition to these two parties, the State comes along as a third party but with an unlimited liability. By the mere fact of making unemployment insurance compulsory, the State accepts the liability to pay the scale of benefits whenever unemployment occurs. In other words, it accepts unlimited liability. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has just told us that insurance has been adjusted to this particular case. The State, as a third party to the insurance, is bound to take up its unlimited liability and meet the necessities of the situation, and to see that every unemployed man is insured.
  If I am correct in my reading of this Bill as the nearest approach that we have yet made to a competent and complete insurance against unemployment I want to say that to some extent it is an epoch-making Bill because it deals with unemployment along the only lines upon which you can deal with it until you can find, as the Government are trying to find, other means for dealing with unemployment—the only lines upon which in a civilised community you can really meet unemployment. I am persuaded that, although successive Governments will take every step they can to increase the volume of employment, if you like by stimulating trade, they will never go back upon the principle of insurance that is now adopted, and that what we are laying now is the foundation stone of a system of insurance that shall adequately deal with the problem of unemployment in our community. That, to me, is one of the great virtues of the Bill.
  I have listened to speeches from the other side, but not one of them would convince a man who is capable of thinking out the problem from the social point of view. They all deal with small
  1116
  quibbles—the quibble, for instance, that this is an addition to the cost of our social services. Is not the Poor Law a social service I The Poor Law unfortunately is a social service, although I am one of those who believe that it is in process of disappearing, of being dissolved into its component parts, to be dealt with in a way entirely different from that which has been handed down to us from Elizabethan days. That costs money, and unless hon. Members opposite will take the courage of their convictions and say that, rather than add to the social burdens of this community—whether they are burdens contributed to through the taxes or whether they are burdens contributed to through the rates —they would rather that the unemployed man dropped down in his tracks and died, it is not for them to complain that this Government by their action have added to the cost of our social services. It is quite clear however that they are not prepared to take that line, and their argument is a mere quibble, a mere attempt to put on to the local ratepayer the cost which rightly belongs to the State.
  If there is one thing that is more clear than another to anybody who is a student of unemployment and its causes, it is that unemployment is not a matter that arises from local conditions, but that it arises from national causes. Anything that affects our trade, for instance, will immediately react on such localities as West Ham and the great Division that I represent, the Division of Romford, where a large number of dock labourers live. The unemployed there have to be supported by the Board of Guardians when they have run out of benefit by leaps and bounds through any prolonged trouble in the docks of London, although the docks are outside my own particular constituency.
  The problem is a national one. I am not saying that on this side or on that that we have arrived at the solution of it, but, so long as we admit that it arises from national causes over which the individual victims have no control at all, we as a House must not only face up to our responsibility, we must not only inquire into the causes, but we must not shrink under the burden that has been voluntarily undertaken in this and preceding Parliaments, of facing up to the ultimate financial costs of keeping these

  1117
  victims of an industrial system which we have not created, but which we are carrying on, and for which we are not responsible except as regards studying and finding the proper one to put in its place. We must face up to the necessity of meeting the needs of these people and keeping them at least in a. physical condition to become fit citizens of this country. That is an unavoidable necessity.
  I rejoice in this Bill although it is only a small beginning. Hon. Members on the back benches behind me have complained about the 2s. for children. To offer 2s. for children is to belittle our own species; I say so frankly in this House. To offer a woman 2s. to keep her child—an English child, a precious gift to the community—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but there is no more precious gift than a well-born child to this community, and I say that to offer the mother of a child 2s. a week is to belittle our own race and to put into contempt and disdain our own species. If I were going away for a holiday, I should hesitate to ask an hon. Member opposite, who might possibly be a friend of mine, to take care of a dog while I was away and to offer him 2s. for its keep. I should be ashamed to do it. But here we have had to accept the situation. I say, however, that, although these benefits are necessarily limited, they contain the principle which in this House we have more and more to face up to, namely, that we are responsible for keeping the men and women who through no fault of their own are thrown out from any opportunity or avenue of earning their own living—for keeping them in such a condition of physical and moral welfare that they will not cease to be citizens of this country.
  Mr. E. BROWN: I do not share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Rumford (Mr. Muggeridge), and I doubt if he will in 12 or 18 months' time—
  Mr. MUGGERIDGE: We will have another Bill.
  Mr. BROWN: All I can say is that, if the hon. Member says that, he does not believe in his own argument about this being an Insurance Bill and an insurance system. Under this Bill money is to be spent in certain ways which, if I had my way, I would spend in other ways.
  1118
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Which way?"] For instance, I would rather have had a reduction of the waiting period than an increase of 2s. for dependants. [Interruption.] I was asked the question, and I answered it. I take the Bill as it is. To me the heart of the Bill is in what was known as Clause 4, and I am bound to say that I welcome the change that has been made. I do not agree with the statement that has been made that it was a climb-down on the part of the right hon. Lady to the extremists. The men who are known as extremists in this House had very little to do with that change; speeches came from every quarter of the Chamber in favour of the change. Moreover, whether or no the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) approves of the change, he certainly did not approve of the Clause as it was originally drafted. He made that quite clear on the Second Reading. Let me recall to his mind what he said. Whatever he may say about the present Clause, in discussing the original Clause he made the same criticism that I made myself when I first read it. He said:
  "The tests proposed are of a vague and unsatisfactory character, and that opinion is shared by a great many people on the right hon. Lady's side of the House. She says with the utmost assurance that this proposal shifts the onus from the applicant to the Employment Exchange but some of her own colleagues say with equal emphasis that it leaves the onus where it is now."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1929; col. 763, Vol. 232.]
  There is another point in the same speech to which I will come in a moment, but I want to say about this change that it is a victory of the House of Commons over the Departmental mind. A great deal has been said inside the House and outside in recent months about the new despotism. This is the third major Bill dealing with this problem on which I. have spoken in the last five years. There has been the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), and this Bill. It is lime that this House, as a House, paid attention to the deep-seated feeling in the necessitous areas, where the bulk of these men are to be found. The House in 1924 accepted too easily the adaptation from extended benefit to standard

  1119
  benefit of the words "genuinely seeking work." The right hon. Gentleman's mechanical majority in 1927 in my judgment—II said so- when I sat two seats behind here — accepted Departmental opinion far too easily as to the effect of his rendering of the necessary legal formula to put into operation the phrase "genuinely seeking work."
  The Bill gives me one thing that I want. Whether it gives it in the way that I want it is another matter. It gives me, for the first time, an objective test which is to be applied by the insurance officer to the case of men seeking benefit. Whatever the higher officials of the Department may think, the officials who have to do the practical administration in the Employment Exchanges will welcome having to deal with objectives rather than subjective tests. It is no wonder that Members for industrial seats feel warmly about the matter. The old system was called "not making every reasonable effort." In 10 months in 1926 in the port of Leith, where there are 25,000 insured persons and nearly 5,000 unemployed, through no fault of their own. There were 445 claims ruled out. Under "not genuinely seeking work" in the 10 months of this year there were 1,357 claims disallowed.
  There is no man who knows the port of Leith, or any other of these districts, who does not know that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said is literally true. The fares of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) need not trouble him. The great mass of these men, if they can smell a job, will make every effort to find it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak up!"] I intend to speak up on this matter. If these 1,357 claims, representing hundreds of men, could come here to-night, they would speak up, because they would feel as warmly as I feel on their behalf. The great bulk of these men will make efforts to find available work no matter what form of words this Bill may have in it, or any other Bill. We have for the first time a chance of catching the man who is a shirker instead of getting, as we have always had before, an Act which has let slip the shirker and entrapped the honest man. The re-drafted Clause 4 in a faint degree, at any rate, shows that the House of Commons at last is more aware than the Department has been, or than
  1120
  Ministers have been, as to the deep-seated feeling there is in these areas as to these subjective tests and their results. The form of words in my judgment gives the insurance officers a great deal more power than some of my friends recognise. I shall not be surprised in a month or two to hear complaints that the objective tests are not too mild but too stringent.
  Mr. HOFFMAN: You are supporting it.
  Mr. BROWN: I am. Nevertheless I say that. It is far better to give the insurance officers a situation in which there is a definite question to be put and a definite procedure to be followed, and a definite judgment to be given, than to put into the Bill this vague and unsatisfactory test to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) referred in his Second Reading speech, or the vague and unsatisfactory laws we have passed in previous days. The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not only point out the vague and unsatisfactory nature of the original Clause but he pointed out that it might be said that the diligence test proposed in that Clause might be worse than the genuinely seeking work Clause of the 1927 Bill.
  Major ELLIOT indicated assent.
  Mr. BROWN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees and stands by his words. It is not necessary for me to say another word. If he says his words about the reasonableness and the diligence of the claimants' efforts are on Third Reading what they were on Second Reading, there is only one way you can evade the issue you there raise, and that is by putting into your Act the objective test. That test is in this Bill, not because of concessions to the extremists, but because at last, the House of Commons not possessing on the Government side a mechanical majority, but arguing out, I am afraid with some passion, what is really the case as to the effect in these black spots, which have been black spots so long we shall be able to go to our constituents and tell them they will be able to satisfy, not a vague form of words which the House of Commons cannot make fit two millions of differing cases, but objective tests. For that reason, I shall go and vote for the Third

  1121
  Reading of this Bill with more satisfaction than I did on the other two major Bills on which I have bad to vote on previous occasions.
  Major SALMON: Those of us who had the privilege of listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night must have been surprised when he totally evaded one important point in the Memorandum of the Ministry of Labour. In paragraph (8) it says that it must not be overlooked that the new provision may have the effect of bringing a certain number of persons into benefit, for example, married women who have done little or no work since marriage and seasonal workers during the "off season." The point I want to make is that in arriving at the figures, the Ministry state in paragraph 11,
  "Excluding any charges that may arise in the case referred to in paragraph 9, the effect on the Exchequer may be summarised as follows: The increased charge on the Exchequer in 1930–1931 will be about £2,000,000."
  The attention of the House and the attention of the Minister has been called to the fact that there is in existence a. real contingent liability and yet it is not being reckoned. We are told that the £2,000,000 really provides the necessary money for dealing with the new Clause 4. What strikes me most forcibly is that everyone in the House who has spoken from the Socialist benches has rather assumed that it is quite easy for the House to vote money irrespective of the fact that it is a contributory insurance scheme and not a relief of the guardians. As a matter of fact, the criticism one hears from the Socialist party about unemployment insurance to-day is that the benefits are not sufficient. If the benefits are not sufficient, they are as much as can he afforded actuarially to make the Fund sound or solvent. You can so easily increase the benefits, but, if you increase the benefits you must in return be prepared to provide for the payment of extra contributions on the part of the three parties involved, namely, the State, the employer, and the employe. That is what would be a sound proposition. That is not the recommendation of the Government. The Government's recommendations are, first of all, that they are dealing with an insolvent Fund. They say that they are the trustees of the public purse. How
  1122
  do they fulfil that trusteeship? They add to the liability, not because they found the Fund insolvent. If they found it insolvent, it is no reason why they should make it worse than it is. Admitting that it is insolvent, it is insolvent from many causes. I do not want to cause a long discussion on those causes, but the fact remains, through circumstances over which the late Government had no control, that the Fund did become insolvent. What has arisen? The Fund is insolvent. The Government say: "We will increase the rates to the unemployed. Not only that, hut we arc going to brush away all the protection that the Fund has had in the past a $ regards the provision for genuinely, seeking work. I believe that the introduction of the new Clause 4 will have a psychological effect upon vast numbers of persons. In the past they knew that they must attempt to get work, because they realised that they had to go through a very severe examination. I believe Plat the psychological effect of doing away with the existing protection will mean an increase in unemployment. When one hears it suggested by hon. Members opposite that it is a good thing to increase benefit because that will force, up wages, I reply that that is a very unsound argument, and one that is bound, not to increase wages but to decrease wages.
  Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Is the hon. and gallant Member addressing me?
  Major SALMON: I am addressing the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Max-ton). My point is, that the more money you distribute through the Unemployment Insurance Fund, which money if not provided by the three contributors must be provided by the Exchequer, the greater is the charge upon industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the responsibility, and says: "I am finding the deficiency." Of course he is finding it, but at our expense. He is finding it at the expense of industry, and the mere fact of the right hon. Gentleman having to find the money at the expense of industry means that he has to increase taxation. Some hon. Members opposite may think that it is a very good thing to increase taxation, but it has been proved time after time that the higher the taxation the greater the burden upon industry. In these days, as we have been

  1123
  often reminded, even by Members of the Socialist party, what we require is an increased export trade. If you are going to kill the manufacturer by forcing upon him such taxes, local and national, that he is not able to manufacture and compete with the world, you are not going to decrease unemployment but increase it.
  Hon. Members opposite say that there is not sufficient being paid under the present insurance scheme to those who are out of work, but I would remind them that the cost of living has gone down since the time when the present rates were agreed upon.
  Mr. McKINLAY: Is it not a fact that the cost of living has gone up?
  Major SALMON: The cost of living has gone up during the time that the present Government have been in office. The Minister, who will reply, will be able to say that since she has been at the Ministry of Labour the cost of living has gone up, but during the period when the Conservatives were the dominant party the cost of living went down. We must not look upon this from a sentimental point of view. If we are going to deal with this as an insurance scheme, let us treat it as an insurance company would treat it. I wonder whether an insurance company, having a report from their actuary as to the contingent liabilities which exists by reason of the new Clause 4, would be prepared to offer the rates which are proposed in this Bill? I think they would not. They would recognise their responsibilities. The great trouble of the Socialist party, as was said by the Minister of Health, is that they have only to wish for a certain thing and they can have it; the country can afford it. What does it mean. It means that whilst they are pandering and promising, and giving large sums of money away, they are creating very great burdens for industry upon which we all depend. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not out of industry; it is out of profits!"] We cannot live in this country except by our industries, and however you may argue, this will prove to be true. I hope the House will accept the Amendment and reject the Bill. Instead of being a good thing for unemployment it will only increase unemployment and do irreparable damage to this country in the near future.
  Mr. SEXTON: I do not propose to detain the House for any length of time. I have only a few words to say, and they will not be controversial. I should not intervene at all, because the case for the Bill has been fully made out, but for the fact that I desire to say that the right hon. Lady has performed a most difficult task with that characteristic courage and ability that I always believed she possessed. Even her opponents on the other side of the House will admit that she has piloted this Bill through Committee stage and up to the present moment with great ability. She has found friends in unexpected quarters, and enemies where they ought not to have appeared. That is all I wanted to say. I heartily congratulate the right hon. Lady at the end of her task on the manner in which she has performed it. She has done excellent service which I think is recognised in all parts of the House.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I should like to associate myself as a very junior Member of the Opposition with the observations which have just been made by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton). We all realise on this side of the House, whatever we may think about other ladies, that the right hon. Lady has a heart—
  Mr. HOFFMAN: And a head—
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Yes, and a head too. I do not think we can allow this Debate to conclude without congratulating the right hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).
  Mr. HOFFMAN: Right honourable?
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I beg his pardon, honourable, but not right. I think we ought to congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgeton upon his great triumph.
  Mr. HOFFMAN: It is not his triumph. You are wrong.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: When I saw him sitting in his place he looked sad. There are moments when success makes one sad, especially when one thinks how much more successful one might have been. I am sure that he wished to be far more successful even than he has been, I would not have intervened had it not been for a challenge offered by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who indulged in a far wider

  1125
  field of controversy than the present Bill. He went back not only to unemployment, but to the causes of this Bill; he went back and blamed the last Government for their financial policy; he said that he held them entirely responsible for the present situation. What do you think, Mr. Speaker, are the two functions in home government which are most necessary, which were most necessary during the last four years? The first, I suppose, was economy—above all things it was necessary to retrench. The second, I suppose, was to spend more money upon the social services, upon those who find the struggle in life difficult. What would you say of the Government which achieved both those things, which, whereas it spent in 1928 something like £20,000,000 less than the Socialists in 1924, spent something like £12,000,000 more on social services That may be regarded as a triumph of financial policy which right hon. Gentlemen opposite can not possibly evade—[Interruption]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members to give the hon. Member a patient hearing.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: There is another aspect of the Debate which cannot escape attention, and that in spite of the black ingratitude of the Front Bench opposite. That is the magnificent part which has been played in these Debates by my right hon. and junior Member for Preston (Sir W. Jowitt). I do not know whether he was present in the House on Friday. If he had been he would have heard one of the Secretaries of State say that after the mess which the lawyers had made of this Bill it was time that a layman—and such a layman! —intervened to save the situation. The right hon. and junior Member for Preston, the Attorney-General, deserves the very highest prize from hon. Members opposite for the magnificent pieces of sophistry in which he has indulged during these Debates. I am referring to a speech which he made on the first Thursday on which the Bill was discussed. He then said:
  "I do not want any hon. Member to be under the impression that because we have taken this course in regard to Sub-section (1) we have therefore in any way weakened the position which we take in regard to Subsections (2) and (3). If I allowed the Committee to believe that, I should be in danger
  1126
  of misleading it. "—[OFFIEIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1929; col. 2641, vol. 232.]
  It is my business to stand up for him, because we lawyers, irrespective of party, must all hang together. At that time the right hon. Gentleman was pressed by his Front Bench, by his Government, and of course he had to say what he did. Therefore we were not surprised when certain eventualities happened and we found him saying something quite different on the following Thursday. He said on that occasion:
  "I do not make the smallest apology for having had the wisdom and good sense and courage to give effect to my second thoughts. If we are not to be influenced by what is said in the course of the Debate, then debate becomes a mere formality."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1929; col. 726, Vol. 233.]
  But had he been influenced by what was said in the Debate? He showed no signs of it on the previous Thursday. He fell back upon the collective wisdom of the House. We on this side are growing accustomed to know that the collective wisdom of the House means the pressure brought on right hon. Gentlemen opposite by the hon. Member for Bridgeton. I do not blame the Attorney-General. He was speaking not merely for his Government, but for his party—for the whole united party. He was holding a magnificent brief and he argued it splendidly, and I think he ill deserves attacks by the Secretary of State for Scotland upon his competence or his clarity of mind. I think that sometimes when he sits on those ungrateful benches opposite, he must cast a longing eye back to that small country from which he came—that country which may be regarded as a buffer State, but which, in reality, at this time controls the whole political situation. He may regret leaving it and he may want to return to it, but I think he will find some little difficulty in passing the immigration authorities. I believe that he is regarded in his old party as one who is politically dead and I understand, although I have not been there, that an epitaph to him has been erected in the National Liberal Club inscribed, "Not lost, but gone before." There is no doubt that after this Debate, in spite of the dissensions between the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) the Liberals will, in a body, follow their hon. and right hon. Friends of the

  1127
  party opposite into the Lobby, because we know, as the prophet said:
  "The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib."
  Major, ELLIOT: After the intervention of my hon. Friend who has just sat down the House will not be disposed to think lightly of lawyers or to regret their contributions to our discussion. [Interruption.] We have not all had the honour of being High Commissioner for the King to the Church of Scotland and it is well known that the corps to which my hon. Friend belongs is colloquially known as "The Devil's Own." But if the House will allow me I will depart from the controversy between those skilled and analytical intellects, the lawyers of the House of Commons. We have had speeches from the Attorney-General of which one could only say that they were too convincing; they succeeded in making a perfect case on the one side, and, a week later, an even more convincing case on the other side. It is to the wider issues which have emerged from the long Debates on this subject that we should address ourselves in the closing stages of the discussion. The points which have emerged from the consideration of this Bill are all of secondary importance compared with the main one, that there is a fundamental difference of opinion as to the objects of this Bill between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). It is a perilous situation because the House is not getting clear guidance and does not know where it is going. First one rein of the horse is pulled, arid then the other, and there is not that clear direction for which the House would look to the Government Benches at this moment of all others.
  The House of Commons was assured only to-night by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the purpose of this Bill is to vote the fund into a state of solvency. I took down his words, and I have no doubt that those words express the intention with which he has scrutinised his actions and with which he has acquiesced in the expenditure of the sums of money which he has sanctioned in the final stages of this Bill. But that is not the purpose of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, nor the
  1128
  purpose of the hon. Members who sit and vote with him, nor the purpose of that powerful organisation in the Liberal party which offers to circularise them with yet more circulars and books and information. Surely, if the soul of a party could be saved by paper, the Liberal party's soul has been put beyond the range of damnation. The hon. Member's function was to bring it home to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the purpose of this Bill was not to vote the fund into a Slate of solvency, but to vote the unemployed man into a state of solvency.
  Mr. HOFFMAN: Hear, hear!
  Major ELLIOT: Of course, the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Hoffman), undismayed even by the rebuke of Mr. Speaker, comes chiming in; at any rate, he is opposed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whoever else is agreed with him. The purpose of these two sections is fundamentally different, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer's object is to stop the leaks in the fund, but the hon. Member for Bridgeton's purpose is to increase the leaks in the fund. The hon. Member for Bridgeton has put before himself and his organisation the simple object of raising the consuming power of the masses of this country by the process of voting to them larger and larger sums of public money, and he is honestly convinced that by doing that all our difficulties will be swept away. He says there is no need for finding overseas markets, that the markets are at home, that there is no need to develop our trade within or without the Empire, and that in the markets in Manchester, in Sheffield, in Glasgow, and in London we have the source of all the trade that is needed. All that is needed is to increase the unemployment benefit, to relax the restrictions on the spending of public money, to pile up the expenditure, and no harm can come or will come to the country from that process. The more money you give to the unemployed, the more they will themselves create the market that this country desires; and in one of those epigrams of which he alone has the secret he says he would enable the unemployed man to eat his way back into a job.
  I do not think I have unfairly stated the contention of the hon. Member and those who sit with him, but that is funda

  1129
  mentally opposed to the argument which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed to the House this night, and the danger of the situation is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is bending and weakening and surrendering to the demands of the hon. Member for Bridgeton and his friends, without in any way acceding to the fundamental thesis upon which those demands are based. That seems to me to be a situation of peril, a situation which this House will have more and more brought home to it in the days which are immediately ahead. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was moving, he hoped, towards a state of greater and greater solvency. He said he would refuse to be judged by one year's result of his finance.
  Mr. HOFFMAN: Hear, hear!
  Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member for Central Sheffield, like a cuckoo clock, comes chiming in. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is making the case that he is gathering together the resources of the nation, that be is husbanding them. He wishes to reduce the floating Debt, to do everything possible to oonserve the national resources, and to promote economy, and by that means to bring the country back—for it is back that he looks, not forward—to the halcyon days when he was in power in 1924 and left the magnificent surplus of which he was so proud to his successor in office, to whom he feels so very little kindliness in any other way. He is willing to inherit money from him, but he cannot credit him with any other merits. Both of these Chancellors of the Exchequer regarded themselves as the watchdogs of the Treasury. They regarded it as their purpose to restrain expenditure. They regarded it as their purpose, if they spent money, to spend it with a grudge and to keep down expenses. The majority of his own party—not merely extremists but mass upon mass of the staid everyday members of the party—regard that as a heresy which they will do their best to root out of the Government and the Front Bench.
  If we are to accept the position which the Chancellor lays down, then we can look forward with a certain degree of equanimity to the future of the county. Although heavy burdens are laid upon us, we are chastened for our good. Al-
  1130
  though the Chancellor puts on taxes and levies of this kind, he is doing it to restore the state of the national finances. Our objection is that as fast as he gathers these resources they are scattered to the winds again by members of his own party. Like the web of Penelope, everything that the Chancellor weaves during the day the hon. Member for Bridgeton undoes during the night. Under those conditions, economy was far from the achievements of the household of Penelope, and, when the master of the house finally came back, he found that a sad amount of waste and revelry had taken place during his absence.
  I do not wish to follow the Chancellor into the analysis he gave of the National finances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because I am anxious not to press unduly on the time of the House on the Third Reading of what is, after all, an Unemployment Insurance Bill. If I were to follow the Chancellor into the very wide field into which he ambled, I should want a much longer time, and we know that the right hon. Lady is nearing the conclusion of her long task, and is anxious to come to the end of it, and so am I. The Chancellor failed altogether either to grasp or to answer the contentions which hon. Members have brought against him from this side. Our contention was not in respect of national money which he is pouring into the fund to restore its solvency. Our contention has been that, while he is pouring this money into the fund to restore its solvency, other hon. Members are opening fresh crevices in the fund through which the money is pouring out. The surrender which was made to the back benches of his party opens a new avenue of expenditure which bears both upon the Exchequer and upon the fund.
  For the first time, as far as I know, the Minister responsible for the fund comes down and presents an account by the Government Actuary. It says that, if the figures of unemployment remain those upon which the whole of the calculations of this Bill are based—not merely the new Clause 4 but the whole Bill, and not merely hasty calculations which took place on Friday after the Thursday's Debate, but the calculation of five or six months, based on the whole period of (he right hon. Lady's administration—we must realise that the additional ex-

  1131
  penditure is such as will involve an increase in the debt of the fund during the year by upwards of 2,000,000. There is no provision of any kind made to meet that. There is no provision made to increase the borrowing powers nor are fresh contributions asked for, not merely from workmen and employers but from the State. The expenditure to be provided for by the right hon. Gentleman goes to some £14,000,000 over and above what was found in the year before, and, in addition to this expenditure, we are now being asked to put the fund into a new deficit. This is the first time that a Minister responsible has come down and said, "Vote me a deficit which I see no way to meet."
  We shall pass from the Third Reading of this Bill to-night to the first of the new Supplementary Estimates, that for £3,500,000 for the Ministry of Labour. We were assured by the Prime Minister that that might or might not carry us on until we meet again in January, that it might or might not suffice the Fund, that it would be necessary for yet further sums of public money to be voted into this Fund; and, however we took it, if the figure of 1,200,000 people unemployed holds—and these are the figures given, not by us, but by the Government Actuary—the debt on the Fund will have risen by £2,000,000 during the year, and it will be necessary either to increase the floating debt, or to borrow more money, or raise the contributions, or to declare that the Fund is bankrupt and cannot. pay the benefits which it is proposed that it should pay.
  These trust funds are matters which it is very necessary for the House to regard closely. There are, for example, two trust funds, with one of which I was closely connected, which were raised last year on behalf of the miners in England and Scotland. The trustees of the Scottish fund paid a more lavish scale of benefits. I was one of the trustees on behalf of the Government contribution. The miners, who were after all the main beneficiaries, asked for an increase in the scale; they said the money was there, and asked for a greater distribution of benefits. We did our best to point out that money was slowly gathered and quickly scattered. In May, the last Government went out of Office and the new Govern-
  1132
  ment came in. All through the summer the distribution from the Fund proceeded at the increased rate. The English fund was more sparingly used and more jealously guarded. I put a question to the responsible Minister for the English fund a week or two ago, and his answer was that there is money in that fund to carry through the winter; the distribution can still proceed, and the same benefits can be maintained for the people who are in dire necessity in the black spots in the distressed coal-mining areas. I put the same question to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the answer was that the Scottish fund is nearly exhausted; a small sum of £10,000 has been found in the balance, and, when that has gone, there will be no more for the miners in the distressed areas of Scotland, who this winter will have to face a black winter without any assistance. The money was distributed during the summer in higher benefits, while in England it was guarded and still remained to help the English miners through the winter. [An HON. MEMBER: "What has that to do with this Bill?"] That is an example of two trust funds within our own experience, one of which was rapidly spent, and one of which was p reserved.
  Mr. MAXTON: A little further back when the contributors to the National Health Insurance Fund piled up a surplus, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Government, with his approval and support, raided it.
  11.0 p.m.
  Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member is in complete error. I remember the occasion of that Debate. He has been led away by the propaganda leaflets of his own party. He ought to know how unwise it is to bring such leaflets on to the Floor of the House. No raid was made upon the funds. The Treasury under issued a certain amount of the money which in future would be attracted to these funds by the increased amounts of money which were being piled up; but there was no raid whatever on the funds. If anybody wishes for confirmation of that, let him ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my successor, or the Minister of Health, who, I regret to see, is not in his place. The lesson of the rash use of these funds has been strikingly brought home to us by that single example. The

  1133
  trust fund which was raised for the benefit of the distressed people in the black spots of the country will not be available this winter in the case of one set of people, the Scottish miners, while it will be available for the English miners. Therefore, distress will bear more harshly on the northern kingdom than on the southern kingdom. It is a lesson which we ought to remember when, as here, we are asked—
  Mr. HARDIE: Does the hon. and gallant Member say that in the distribution of those funds there was any waste?
  Major ELLIOT: Surely the point which the hon. Member raises is exactly the point which the House is asked to determine. We were asked to spend money without knowing where more money was coming from, just as here, on the report of the Government actuary, we are asked to- spend money out of the Insurance Fund which will run it into a deficit of £2,000,000 in the coming year—that is, on the figures which the Government actuary was given by the Ministry of Labour—without knowing where that £2,000,000 is coming from, The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "I am not to be judged on a twelve months analysis of my financial administration," but the actuary is concerned with the twelve months immediately in front of him. It is not one year ahead or two years ahead or three years ahead when these deficits to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks forward are going to accumulate on his head. That is not what the actuary is looking to. He is looking to the administration of the Fund, on which he has been asked to report, and he has to look at it over the next twelve calendar months, during which this drain falls upon it. He says:
  "During that time a drain greater than the income will arrive upon this fund, and I see no means whatever of meeting that drain."
  The right hon. Lady said in defence of her case that it was unreasonable to suppose that all these things would fully materialise. She said we had not counted what might take place on the credit side. She said there may be a revival in trade. All one can say is that this must have been present to the minds of the responsible officials when they drew up the estimate of 1,200,000 people out of work, and it was upon these figures that the Govern-
  1134
  ment actuary drew up the Report which the House has had represented to it only within the current week.
  With regard to Clause 4, a great hole was knocked in the bottom of the Fund by the right hon. Lady when she accepted the decision of Thursday's Debate. Convincing as the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General and the speech of the right hon. Lady in introducing the Bill may have been, they cannot get outside the report which was presented upon, their own proposals, and they stand convicted of one of the most arrant incompetence and of a surrender which it is difficult to characterise as anything but abject when those proposals were presented to the House. Their own report says that while 65,000 persons were brought in by the original proposal another 80,000 or 90,000 were brought in by the new Clause 4. Under these circumstances what becomes of the fine -speeches which were made by the Attorney-General and others on the Treasury Bench defending the original Clause 4, knowing that it was going to strike 90,000 persons off benefit whom they afterwards decided should be added. Here was a mistake of 90,000 out of 150,000. Was that an error or did they know that their proposal would strike off 90,000 and they afterwards gave way to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his friends on this point. That is a fundamental difficulty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has failed to explain.
  Did the Government know, in the first place, that 90,000 persons would be struck off by the original Clause 4, and why did hey determine to strike them off? If the Government thought their original proposal was just, why did they add another 90,000 to the register? That is a question which the House has a right to ask and demand an answer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that these contributions of public money are necessary to put the fund into a state of solvency. I will refer the right hon. Gentleman to his own White Paper, which says that the annual cost will be between £4,000,000 and £4,500,000 a year. Did the right hon. Gentleman suppose when he made that statement that he was saving that sum at the expense of those whom he afterwards said should be placed on benefit? Does the Chancellor of the

  1135
  Exchequer now admit that he is spending £4,500,000 which is being improperly given to those who should not be on benefit? One or other of those two things must be true. Does the right hon. Gentleman now admit that he was in error to the extent of 90,000 or £4,500,000, and that he was an unfaithful prophet to that extent? The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he was approached for another £5,000,000 and another £12,000,000 for other purposes which he could not meet. I think some of those purposes might reasonably have been held to be quite as pressing as the Bill we are considering. Was that summing up of our national needs taken coolly and calmly in a way in which our national finances should be considered? The granting of 2s. for a child was described as an insult to our species, but even that was condoned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and put on the Statute Book. Clause 4 contained the greatest evil in the Bill, and all the other evils had to go by the board. The Chancellor of the Exchequer went upstairs and said, "You must not press me any more; the box is empty, the Treasury is bare, and I cannot find you any more money."
  Then we had the extraordinary position of the right hon. Gentleman coming down to the House and defending himself because of his firmness, of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, that gallant highwayman, galloping up to the Treasury windows, thrusting his pistol through, and saying, "Your money or your life!" The Chancellor of the Exchequer comes out and says, "I will take a firm stand; here is my money, but I refuse to give you my life." He has done more; he has, by turning out his pockets, convinced the highwayman that he has no more money at present, and that he must be left to go and gather some further loot.
  The discussion is not between me and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or between us on this side of the House and and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman represents the old order of things, and he will not very much longer be there in power. The discussion of the future is between myself and those who sit on this side of the House, and the back-benchers on the other side. The discussion is with the younger rising force that we see there.
  1136
  It will before very long overthrow the old men, whom it is already embarrassing. Some day or other the great Debate has to be broached on the Floor of this House and threshed out to its end; and it will be all the less easy to resolve as long as we have this smoke-screen put up by the so-called Iron Chancellor that he is restoring the national finances to a state of solvency.
  That is not the argument that is really the driving force of his party; that is not the argument that it put in the back streets; that is not the argument that is responsible for their great majorities in the industrial cities of this country. The arguments which have been put there are the arguments from the back benches, and those are the arguments which this House as a whole will have to meet and grapple with some day. That great cause will require discussion and determination in this House, and sooner or later this House will need to make up its mind upon it. The experiment, for it is nothing more, that is being tried in this Bill will fail, and everybody knows that it will fail; and a new demand will come to this House, a new demand which will need to be resisted, at some time or other, in this House. This House is no fit trustee for public funds unless it clearly understands that there is a strong, determined and growing section which says that the business of the trustee is not to keep these funds, but to squander them. Until the House is fully seized of that position, until the House realises that behind this pasteboard facade of a respectable Government there is the real driving force of a determined effort to change fundamentally the whole basis of society in this country—[Interruption]—and to do it through the engine of taxation and through that great and powerful Department of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is nominally in control—until the House faces up to that great issue, there will be no reality in politics in this country.
  Our only objection to the Debates upon these subjects is that those Debates have not approached the fundamental division of opinion which does truly exist. When that Debate comes, then this House will be crowded, then the papers will take an interest in the Debate, then the country will take an interest in the Debate. Until the time when that Debate is broached,

  1137
  and the interest of the country and of the House is focussed here on the Floor of this House, this Bill might as well pass as another, for all these Bills are fundamentally unreal, and will need to be swept into a wastepaper-basket within the next 12 months—aye, and this one will be swept away sooner even than that.
  Miss BONDFIELD: I am sure the House has enjoyed the spectacle of the hon. and gallant Gentleman enjoying his flight of imagination. Let me conic back to a few plain facts. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred particularly, and at very great length, to the question of the actuary's report. On not one, but on several occasions this report—I am referring to the Memorandum on the financial effect of certain Amendments—has been misquoted in a way that it is very difficult to understand. The basis of the figures supplied to the actuary is perfectly well known to hon. Members opposite. The actuary is presented with what the Ministry of Labour regards as a possible figure at which the unemployment register may keep. Every successive Government has had to make a guess at what that figure is likely to be. No one could possibly tell beforehand with exactitude the average for the next 12 months, but I happen to have the figures of what the averages have been and how they have been dealt with in the financial estimates of the late Government. I want to give two groups of figures, because really they are an effective reply to the criticism we have just heard, the total figures I have here for a very long period showing the live register in relation to the debt. I only propose to take comparable figures. On 31st December, 1927, the live register stood at 1,336,303 persons. The figure for 30th June, 1928, ran down to 1,192,564. On 31st December, 1928, it rose again to 1,520,730. In June, 1929, it went down again to 1,117,800. On 30th November, 1929, it rose again to 1,285,500. Undoubtedly there will be a further increase but it has not yet reached within measurable distance of the 1,520,000 which were the figures at the end of last year.
  Let us compare that with the financial provision that the last Government made to meet a situation like that. After the 1925 Act the balancing point of the fund was 1,200,000. By that I
  1138
  mean the measure of provision made to meet the possible average register. The Economy Act of 1926 left a balancing point of 1,050,000. After the Act of 1927 the balancing point had dropped to 1,000,000, and that was the figure at which it remained when I came into office, a balancing point of 1,000,000 in a year when the December figure went up to 1,500,000. The inevitable result of arranging the finances at that balancing point was to increase the deficit of the fund, and they did so increase that deficit year by year. I have gone into the matter of the 1926 deficit referred to by an hon. Member on the back benches. We analysed that in 1926, and allowing that the dispute of that year was entirely responsible for the deficit it still leaves—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I was assuming, I do not admit it; we will assume that for the moment. Making the whole allowance for the total cost of that, had the finances of the fund remained as they were in 1924, and had they not. been interfered with, by the subsequent can-Se to which I have just referred, the deficit on the fund to-day would have been £20,000,000 and not £38,000,000. The balancing point of the July, 1929, Act, which went through the House with general consent, was raised from 1,000,000 to 1,090,000, but I informed the House at the time that this was merely a measure of protection to make quite certain that we should not overstep the £40,000,000 debt which was the limit up to the end of December.
  It was a precautionary measure, and we informed the House at that time that it was obviously not enough to carry us over the financial year; that we should have to conic before the House with fresh proposals. When the present Bill passes, the balancing point of the fund will have been raised to 1,160,000, 160,000 mare than the balancing point when I came into office. The fund has been relieved of all liability for the transitional payments. The transitional payments will be made from the direct Treasury grant to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred. I wish to point out to the House, and I think it is most essential that the House should realise the importance of this provision in the Bill. For the first time since the transitional idea was introduced in the 1927 Bill, for the first time since the

  1139
  decision was made clear with regard to the 30 stamp boundary line, an attempt is being made to restrict payments from that fund to that boundary line. We are saying that there will be debited against the fund only those charges for persons who have got the 30 weeks working period, and for the first time we have been able to present to the House a statement showing exactly what is that proportion of lives unable owing to the present economic conditions to get 15 weeks' work in a year. We shall be able to see the extent of the employability in that group. I would beg the House to remember this side of the question, that it is an infinitely sounder balance sheet than any other balance sheet on this subject for the last five years. I beg of the House to realise that what is in the Bill is only part of the operation which is now going on. Hon. Members have referred to Clause 4. When I introduced my original Clause 4, I said quite frankly to the House that I was not satisfied with the wording, and that I had done my best to construe into the Clause what I believed was possible, and what I thought would have the result of doing away with the not genuinely seeking work hardship, against which the whole House protested with such indignation. I am not ashamed of the sentence which I used on that occasion and I am glad that I used it. It was, that I desired to commit this Clause to the collective wisdom of the House.
  I meant that sincerely and without any reserve whatever. I was not satisfied with the Clause and I told the House so. I told the House of the difficulties and the House has given me the benefit of its advice. I want to promise the House that as far as the Department is concerned it will take this Clause in the spirit in which the House passes it and will endeavour to apply it to restore what has been allowed to fall into disuse. Perhaps the word "disuse" is a wrong one to use, and I will say that it will be our endeavour to restore what has been overlaid by the operation of paying out benefit, namely, the work-finding side of the machine. That side has been buried. This Clause will give an impetus to that machinery. We will endeavour at least to restore the original function of the Exchanges, to ensure that
  1140
  the function of the Exchanges shall be the provision of work, canvassing for work, which was originally intended to be their purpose when the Act of 1909 was passed.
  The only other point is the question of the spirit of insurance, which has been referred to on more than one occasion. I want to echo what some hon. Members have said. I do believe that in normal circumstances it will be possible to take care of that group which we call the unemployed by means of the insurance principle and by means of contributions to the Fund; but we are still in the backwash of a terrible catastrophe. We are still in the throes of the transitional period in our industrial life. We have to-day an industrial revolution going on; a revolution of new forms; new conditions, which are taking away from millions of men the sort of hereditary channel through which they normally got their work. These have been swept away by changes over which no party, no political ideas have had the slightest control. Great economic forces, the development of science, the development of new ideas applied to industry in other parts of the world have to some extent interfered with our unchallenged position in the international world of trade and commerce. To-day this country is facing a crisis in which its future will depend upon the degree to which we have co-operation on the right lines, and in getting employer and employed working together. Are the employers blameless for the mess in which we find ourselves? Have the employers done all that they could to try and bring us round the corner as quickly as possible, instead of wasting time in squabbles between themselves all over old-fashioned shibboleths which are out of date. I ask the House to realise that in this business of trying to develop our economic system there is going to be tragedy on the part of whole generations of men who have spent their lives in industry, who have helped to build up the fortunes of the last generation. These men are amongst the most terrible tragedies which confront us; the most pathetic spectacles. Employers do not want to employ them. They do not want to go to the work-house; they hate the workhouse, and it is the business of this House to try to help them to maintain their self-respect

  1141
  by coming to their assistance in the way that we are doing in this Bill.
  I ask the House to give me the Third Reading of this Bill. I ask the House to realise that in what I have said I am quite sincere. I ask those representatives for Divisions in areas where the distress black spots are, where the festering sores are most manifest, to help us in reorganising the Exchange system in those areas, to try to get co-operation
  between the employers, the workers, the three-fold contributors. I have faith to believe that we can make this scheme work to the advantage of the whole community.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 273; Noes, 199.

  Division No. 105.]

  AYES.

  [11.31 p.m.

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

  Freeman, Peter

  Lloyd, C. Ellis

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

  Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

  Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

  Longden, F.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Gibbins, Joseph

  Lunn, William

  Ammon, Charles George

  Gill, T. H.

  Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

  Angell, Norman

  Gillett, George M.

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

  Arnott, John

  Glassey, A. E.

  McElwee, A.

  Aske, Sir Robert

  Gosling, Harry

  McEntee, V. L.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Gossling, A. G.

  McKinlay, A.

  Ayles, Walter

  Gould, F.

  MacLaren, Andrew

  Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

  Granville, E.

  McShane, John James

  Barnes, Alfred John

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

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

  Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

  Grenfell, D, R. (Glamorgan)

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Bellamy, Albert

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

  Mansfield, W.

  Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Marcus, M.

  Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Markham, S. F.

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Marley, J.

  Benson, G.

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

  Matters, L. W.

  Bentham, Dr. Ethel

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Maxton, James

  Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

  Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

  Melville, Sir James

  Birkett, W. Norman

  Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

  Messer, Fred

  Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

  Hardie, George D.

  Middleton, G.

  Bowen, J. W.

  Harris, Percy A.

  Millar, J. D.

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

  Mills, J. E.

  Broad, Francis Alfred

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Milner, J.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Haycock, A. W.

  Montague, Frederick

  Bromfield, William

  Hayday, Arthur

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Bromley, J.

  Hayes, John Henry

  Morley, Ralph

  Brothers, M.

  Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

  Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

  Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

  Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

  Mort, D. L.

  Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

  Henderson, W. W. (Mlddx., Enfield)

  Moses, J. J. H.

  Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

  Herriotts, J.

  Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

  Burgess, F. G.

  Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

  Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

  Burgin, Dr. E. L.

  Hoffman, P. C.

  Muggeridge, H. T.

  Caine, Derwent Hall-

  Hollins, A.

  Murnin, Hugh

  Cameron, A. G.

  Hopkin, Daniel

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Cape, Thomas

  Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

  Horrabin, J, F.

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

  Charleton, H. C.

  Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

  Noel Baker, P. J.

  Chater, Daniel

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph

  Oldfield, J. R.

  Church, Major A. G.

  Isaacs, George

  Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

  Clarke, J. S.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

  Compton, Joseph

  Johnston, Thomas

  Palin, John Henry

  Daggar, George

  Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

  Paling, Wilfrid

  Dallas, George

  Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

  Palmer, E. T.

  Dalton, Hugh

  Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

  Perry, S. F.

  Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

  Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Kelly, W. T.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  Day, Harry

  Kennedy, Thomas

  Phillips, Dr. Marlon

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Kinley, J.

  Picton-Turbervill, Edith

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lang, Gordon

  Ponsonby, Arthur

  Dickson, T.

  Lathan, G.

  Potts, John S.

  Dudgeon, Major C. R.

  Law, Albert (Bolton)

  Price, M. P.

  Dukes, C.

  Law, A. (Rosendale)

  Pybus, Percy John

  Duncan, Charles

  Lawrence, Susan

  Quibell, D. J. K.

  Ede, James Chuter

  Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

  Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

  Edge, Sir William

  Lawson, John James

  Rathbone, Eleanor

  Edmunds, J. E.

  Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

  Raynes, W. R.

  Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

  Leach, W.

  Richards, R.

  Egan, W. H.

  Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Elmley, Viscount

  Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

  Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Lees, J.

  Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Forgan, Dr. Robert

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Ritson, J.

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

  Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

  Vaughan, D. J.

  Romeril, H. G.

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

  Viant, S. P.

  Rosbotham, D. S. T.

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Walker, J.

  Rowson, Guy

  Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

  Watkins, F. C.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

  Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

  Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

  Sorensen, R.

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Sanders, W. S.

  Spero, Dr. G. E.

  Welsh, James (Paisley)

  Sandham, E.

  Stamford, Thomas W.

  Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

  Sawyer, G. F.

  Stephen, Campbell

  West, F. R.

  Scrymgeour, E.

  Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

  Westwood, Joseph

  Scurr, John

  Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

  Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

  Sexton, James

  Strauss, G. R.

  Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

  Sullivan, J.

  Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Sutton, J. E.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Sherwood, G. H.

  Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Shield, George William

  Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

  Wilson, J. (Oldham)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Shillaker, J. F.

  Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

  Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)

  Shinwell, E.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Wise, E. F.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Tillett, Ben

  Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

  Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Wright, W. (Ruthergien)

  Sinkinson, George

  Tout, W. J.

  Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Townend, A. E.

  Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

  Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

  Turner, B.

  Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

  NOES.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

  King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

  Albery, Irving James

  Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H

  Knox, Sir Alfred

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

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

  Lamb, Sir J. Q.

  Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

  Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

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

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

  Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

  Astor, Viscountess

  Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

  Llewellin, Major J. J.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Atkinson, C.

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

  Long, Major Eric

  Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

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

  Lymington, Viscount

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

  Dawson, Sir Philip

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

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Dixey, A. C.

  Macquisten, F. A.

  Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

  Duckworth, G. A. V.

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

  Balniel, Lord

  Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Eden, Captain Anthony

  Margesson, Captain H. D.

  Beaumont M. W.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Marjoribanks, E. C.

  Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Berry, Sir George

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

  Meller, R. J.

  Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

  Bird, Ernest Roy

  Ferguson, Sir John

  Mond, Hon. Henry

  Boothby, R. J. G.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Fielden, E. B.

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

  Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

  Fison, F. G. Clavering

  Morrison, W, S. (Glos., Cirencester)

  Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Boyce, H. L.

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Muirhead, A. J.

  Bracken, B.

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

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

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Brass, Captain Sir William

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Briscoe, Richard Georqe

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  O'Neill, Sir H.

  Brown. Briq.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Ncwb'y)

  Grace, John

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

  Bullock, Captain Malcolm

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Peake, Capt. Osbert

  Burton, Colonel H. W.

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Penny, Sir George

  Butler, R. A.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

  Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

  Butt, Sir Alfred

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Cadogan. Major Hon. Edward

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Purbrick, R.

  Castle Stewart, Earl of

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

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Cayzer, sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

  Hammersley, S. S.

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Remer, John R.

  Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

  Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

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

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

  Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

  Christie, J. A.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

  Ross, Major Ronald D.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

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

  Colfox, Major William Philip

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

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Hurd, Percy A

  Salmon, Major I.

  Colville, Major D. J.

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

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

  Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

  Cranbourne, Viscount

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

  1144

  1145

  Savery, S. S.

  Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Waterhouse, Captain Charles

  Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

  Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Smith, Louis w. (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

  Tinne, J. A.

  Winter-ton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Smith-Carington, Neville W.

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

  Smithers, Waldron

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Womersley, W. J.

  Somerset, Thomas

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Ward, Lieut. Col. Sir A. Lambert

  Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

  Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Stanley, Maj. Hon. O, (W'morland)

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Commander Sir B. Eyres Monsell and Major Sir George Hennessy.

  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1929.
  CLASS V.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,500,000, 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, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including the Exchequer Contribution to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Education Authorities, and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Exchanges, and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Transference of Work-people and their Families within Great Britain and Oversea; and sundry services, including services arising out of the War."
    Miss BONDFIELD: The Estimate which I am now asking the Committee to pass arises out of the Unemployment Insurance Act of July. The principle of that Measure is what we know as the principle of "the equal thirds" and it was accepted on Second Reading and Third Reading without a Division. I may also remind the Committee that the principle of the Measure was that laid down in the Blanesburgh Report—the part of the Report which the last Government did not accept, although they accepted certain other parts of it. This Estimate is made out as from the beginning of the financial year 1929. The original sum voted under this particular sub-head was £11,990,000 and this revised Estimate brings the total up to £15,490,000, by the addition of £3,500,000. We shall require another Supplementary
    1146
    Estimate in connection with the Bill the Third Reading of which we have just passed, but the second part of the Estimate will have to be taken in the new year when the House reassembles. This is a very clear, small, precise point.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I timed the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour, and she has been exactly one minute and a half in proposing to the Committee, at a quarter to 12, a Vote of £3,500,000. I put it to the Committee that that is not the spirit in which we expect even a Socialist Government to deal with the national finances. We have seen during the last week very rapid increases in the Estimates for unemployment under the Bill to which we have just given the Third Reading, but in spite of it being a comparatively agreed point that the Insurance Fund should be made as solvent as possible, I think it is treating the Committee with scant courtesy and the finances of the country with absolute negligence on the part of the right hon. Lady to have the audacity to come at this hour of the night and ask us to vote a sum of £3,500,000 without any explanation at all. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give us something far more adequate in the way of an explanation. The only thing that the right hon. Lady said was that this embodies the Estimate for the Bill which was before the House in July, but the circumstances have changed since then, and there are a great many questions with regard to the fund about which explanations are very much called for. Since then we have had the appearance of new Ministers on the Front Bench who have been instrumental in raising the cost of the Unemployment Fund for the future, and if we look back to the Debate which took place on 11th July we find that the right hon. Lady admitted in her Third Reading speech that at that time or thereabouts—I could

    1147
    not quite catch the date, but it was some time in June of 1929; I think it was the date upon which the original Money Resolution for the Unemployment Insurance (No. 1) Bill was passed—the actual number of unemployed at that time on the live register was 1,117,800. That shows how circumstances have changed since then, because the figures to-day, while those were an increase on the number when the right hon. Lady took over her present portfolio, are far worse, and it is for her or someone else on the Treasury Bench to explain exactly the state of the fund.
    At the moment, as the right hon. Lady has pointed out, the additional provision which is due to the change in number, by which the Exchequer contribution was one-half of that of the employers and the employed, is £3,500,000. Is that adequate, in view of the great increase in unemployment that has been progressively going on since the Money Resolution upon which that Bill was based passed through a Committee of this House? [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite seem to think there is something funny about that. Their party, which professes to be able to cure all our ills, has done nothing. It has to be borne in mind that the unemployment figures are going up and that must rapidly alter the basis of the fifty-fifty contribution which the Treasury makes to the Insurance Fund. The efforts of the Lord Privy Seal by no means equalise the amount by which the number on the live register has gone up. It would nut be in order now to anticipate Friday's Debate, but, if you examine the Lord Privy Seal's statement as to the schemes which he has in mind, you will find that the first item of work represents 84,000 man-years, the second, 4,000 man-years, and the third 1,300 man-years. That totals less than 90,000 man-years. I should like an explanation of how this figure of 90,000 is to be correlated to the increase of something like 200,000 in the numbers on the live register, because, automatically, as the live register increases, so does the drain upon the Exchequer on account of the money which is poured into the Insurance Fund to make it solvent.
    A few minutes ago the right hon. Lady went into the question of the position of the live register at various recent dates
    1148
    and the balancing point of the fund. On 31st December, 1927, the live register was 1,336,333 persons. At the end of June, 1928, that figure had dropped to 1,192,564. In December the figure rose again. The rise was excessive owing to the very bad climatic conditions, and by last Christmas the figure was 1,520,730. Then we had a drop, and at the beginning of June, when the late Government left office, it was somewhere about 1,100,000. The figure has ever since been on the upward curve. By the end of June it had risen to 1,117,600, and on 30th November it had reached 1,285,500. At this moment, it has, we are very sorry to see from the records of her Department, touched the 1,300,000 line. The point is: what should the figure be which requires a State contribution of £3,500,000? When the Bill, embodying the new arrangement, was passing through the House and the right hon. Lady made her speech in July, on the estimate that something like £3,500,000 was going to be required, did she anticipate that by this date the figure of the live register would be anything like 1,300,000? In the speeches made by hon. Members on the other side during that Debate, it was stressed that the figure then was somewhere about 1,115,000. The right hon. Lady went on to say that after the 1925 Act the balancing point was 1,200,000, but that after the 1926 Act it was reduced to 1,050,000. I take it that the balancing point means the point at which, other things being equal, the fund does not increase its debt. By the end of 1927, the right hon. Lady told us, the figure was 1,000,000, and that automatically reduced the deficit. At the end of July this year, she thought the balancing point was 1,090,000. These figures are extremely confusing, even to those best informed on the subject. If the right hon. Lady admits that the balancing figure of the fund should be 1,090,000, I should like some information of what the position of the fund will be when the actual figure on the live register is over 1,300,000, Which is a considerable increase on what she has admitted is the balancing point of the fund.
    I take it that the estimate must he wrong. She has said that she will in due course have to introduce a second estimate. I agree that, in the disastrous conduct of affairs by the present Government, some more money will be required

    1149
    for the fund before this Bill becomes an Act, because nothing is changed so far as the fund is concerned until the Bill becomes an Act, and it will not become an Act before March, 1930. At the moment, what is the position of the fund? Does this £3,500,000, which the right hon. Lady thought was required in June and July to balance the 1,090,000 on the live register, anything like make up the debt which she has increased by a progressive gradual rate? The right hon. Lady has not expatiated on that point, and I hope that she will ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to explain some of these riddles.
    12 M.
    When the number on the live register was 7,200,000, as I understand from her speeches, the income of the fund was £43,000,000. What will be the income of the fund when the live register is some-thing like 1,300,000? The right hon. Lady and her friends are constantly saying that they found the fund bankrupt, and that it has only been by their tremendous endeavours that they have been able to bring some sort of sanity into this business. Those on this side who have followed the Debates on this Bill, and have studded the state of the fund from time to time, cannot accept the accusation that it is entirely the fault of the Conservative party that the fund has been so near bankruptcy. I should like to remind the right hon. Lady that the great trouble as regards the Unemployment Insurance Fund arose from the fact that, if you take the debt of that fund on, 31st March, 1926, it was £7,175,000, That was not a very excessive figure and everybody who has had anything to do with the Unemployed Insurance Fund has always understood that when you are considering the state of that fund you have to take it for a period of years. It is not the slightest use taking it for a short period, because it does not balance. It has always been held by those who have studied insurance that you must take a period of years. [Interruption]. I do not see why hon. Members opposite who are not prepared to give an exposition of this subject, which I admit is extremely difficult and which I am trying to explain in the absence of any explanation from the Minister, should interrupt me. After all, the Minister of Labour is paid a salary and it is her duty to explain this Measure to the House.
    1150
    I was using an argument relating to the bankruptcy of the fund. I was giving, as an example, the fact that on the 31st of March, 1926, the deficit on the fund stood at £7,170,000, and at the end of that year it had risen to £22,640,000. This shows that there was an increase in the debt during 1926 of 215 per cent., and that was entirely due to the trouble which was started by the general strike. [Interruption]. We want to know something about the state of the fund at the time that I have mentioned and at the time of the introduction of the No. 1 Bill. We have had a series of Unemployment Bills, and there have been changes in the proportion of the Exchequer contribution to the fund, but there has also been an increase in the administrative expenditure which is likely to be increased in the near future with regard to training centres. That would affect automatically the amount of money required to save the fund from bankruptcy. The Minister of Labour is anxious to save the fund from being closed until there is a further change in its financial structure. The further Exchequer contributions which are going into the Unemployment Insurance Fund deal with the Acts which are already on the Statute Book, and they have nothing whatever to do with the Bill which we have just read the Third time.
    The right hon. Lady is still faced with great administrative difficulties in regard to the "not genuinely seeking work" Clause. We used to hear a good deal about the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act under the last Government, and we want to know, if there was administrative persecution under the last Administration, whether there has been any great relaxation of inquiries to find out whether certain individuals are genuinely seeking work. The more you relax the administrative provisions as administered by the Minister of Labour the more your payments automatically increase, and the more the number of unemployed will increase and automatically there will be a greater call on the Exchequer on the fifty-fifty basis. I should like the Minister of Labour to give us some further information regarding that aspect of the question. Will she tell us whether this is merely a bookkeeping entry. [Interruption.]
    Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. I should like to ask if hon. Mem-

    1151
    bers are in order in attempting to shout down my hon. and gallant Friend by callous laughter?
    Mr. MALONE: Has not the speech of the hon. and gallant Member so far been an argument in favour of capital punishment?
    Major COLFOX: Is it not possible for you, Mr. Chairman, to ask hon. Members opposite to abate their animal noises and to give a little more consideration to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) who is dealing with a very complicated subject.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox) rose to put a point of Order, and he must stick to that point. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House not to make so much noise.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: May we have a ruling on the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone)?
    The CHAIRMAN: I should like to call the attention of those hon. Members who are sitting on the cross-benches, that they are outside the House, and therefore, must keep silence.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: I regret sincerely that any anxiety should be caused by the remarks which I am endeavouring to place before the Committee, but the difficulty of carrying on a debate on this important subject is, after all, one against which we protested at a quarter to Four in the Division Lobby when the Prime Minister moved that this Estimate should be taken after the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: That point was settled by the Division which took place at a quarter to Four.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: It has added to the difficulties, because we are now discussing the payment of £3,500,000 out of the Exchequer at a time of night when, judging from the interruptions, it is outside, I will not say the competence, but the wish of hon. Members to discuss it at all. It shows, on the part of certain hon. Members, a cynical disregard of questions of national finance and a
    1152
    total lack of interest in the position of the live register as we find it to-day. I would put my question to the right hon. Lady, though I know that she will not be able to answer it, because I have observed that, although it is a somewhat technical and difficult question—that is not my fault—she has omitted to take a single note. This large sum of money is going to make this year's contribution of the State to the Unemployment Insurance Fund a sum roughly equal to that which the State spent on education in the last year before the War, and before the Committee finally pass it they want to know from the right hon. Lady or from the representative of the Treasury how this amount squares with the Minister's forecast in June, when the number of unemployed was about 200,000 less than it is now. We want to know what the state of the fund is now, how much of this £3,500,000 is being taken for administrative services, and how much for the educational services which have been forecast during the last few weeks; and also whether it is really a cash transaction, or merely a bookkeeping entry on the part of the Treasury. If the right hon. Lady or any of her Friends will be so good as to answer these questions fairly rapidly, I am sure it will help the business.
    Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL - THOMSON: I desire to put two or three quite simple questions to the Minister, because I think that hon. Members, in whatever part of the Committee they may sit, are really agreed that certain circumstances have changed since July, and the right hon. Lady cannot dismiss the matter in the very few words that she thought it necessary to say. As I understand it, in July the balancing figure was 1,090,000, and the right hon. Lady's view then was that the money which she then obtained would he enough to last till the end of the year. Now we find ourselves faced with a state of things in which the number on the live register is slightly over 1,300,000, and we are told that this sum of £3,500,000 is going to be sufficient to carry on at least till February. It is manifest that the second Supplementary Estimate which the right hon. Lady has in mind cannot be brought before the Committee until the last week in January. How are these two facts reconciled? No doubt there is an explanation, and I think we ought to have it. My

    1153
    second question is the one that was put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank), namely, what is the state of the fund at the present moment? In July there were unexpired borrowing powers, if I remember rightly, of something like £3,750,000. What is the state of the fund at the present moment, and how long will it be possible, with this £3,500,000 to carry on before the fund reaches the point of exhaustion? My third question, which cam be answered equally shortly, is what, at that date of expiry, is the estimate of the number of unemployed on the live register? The Government must have a figure to which they are working, and I think we are entitled to know what it is.
    Sir HILTON YOUNG: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £10.
    Several questions of great interest to the Committee have been asked on this Vote, and I move this reduction in order to provide an occasion for the Minister to make a reply. There are three points which I think ought always to be asked about on every Supplementary Estimate for a substantial amount, and they ought to be asked about all the more when the Estimate is introduced at so late an hour as this, because no hour is too late for the Committee to do its characteristic duty in dealing with an Estimate for such a substantial amount as this. The first point is that a comment ought always to be made when a considerable Supplementary Estimate is introduced not at the earliest possible opportunity after it has become inevitable that there should be such an Estimate. There are very good reasons for that in the financial procedure of the House—reasons of common sense. As soon as the House knows that it is going to have to vote more money, it ought to be enabled by the Government to proceed without any delay to ascertain precisely what the amount is, and to deal with it. If it does not do so, it may be asked to incur other financial obligations without knowing what its full financial obligations for the year may be; in other words, it may be asked to incur financial obligations without really knowing whether the national finances are in a position to meet them or not. That is precisely what has occurred this year. On many repeated occasions we have
    1154
    been asked by the Government in the course of discussion to provide fresh money without being told precisely what were our obligations under the Acts of last Session. The Act now in question was passed in July, and a Supplementary Estimate is not introduced until now, towards the end of the year; and it seems to me that there is a clear case, subject to what explanation may be given by the right hon. Lady or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as to the reason for what seems to be the long delay in the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate.
    The second paint is one to which I think attention ought always to be called when a Supplementary Estimate is for a substantial amount. Of course it would not apply to mere token Estimates, but when the Supplementary Estimate is for so substantial an amount as £3,500,000. I think the point ought to be taken of its relation to the general financial scheme for the year. Where are the funds for the additional expenditure to be found? If this were a year in which there was any certainty of a surplus at the end of the financial year, we might confront this additional Vote with more equanimity; but in such a year as this, all the hall-marks of which indicate the probability of a deficit, it is our duty on this occasion to call attention to the fact that we are probably enlarging a probable deficit at the end of the year. So that we are to-night drawing a draft upon the national Sinking Fund. In other words, we are, drawing a draft upon the national credit. That is a very serious thing to do. If the Committee resolve to do it, then it must be done, but let us at least beware of what we are doing. The third point which, I think, ought always to be taken into account arises when a Supplementary Estimate is not only substantial, but is continual; that is, when it commits us to expenditure not only for this year but for years to come. The other point is a straight and simple one. We ought to require, and are entitled to require, from the Front Bench a precise statement as to what are the future obligations which will be incurred owing to our embarking upon this fresh scheme of expenditure. Let me add that question to the very proper and interesting questions already asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough

    1155
    (Captain Crookshank), and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson). The last question I would ask is: What is the precise extent of the obligations which will follow upon this obligation in the coming financial year?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who first rose to speak on this Vote, dealt with a number of points affecting this question. He did not put them in the same precise form as did the two speakers who followed him, and, therefore, without any discourtesy to him, I think that, if I answer succinctly the six questions which have been put to me, I shall answer his questions at the same time. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), put to me three questions. The first of these was: Why was this Supplementary Estimate not introduced earlier? The Bill was carried in July, and he suggested that the Supplementary Estimate ought, in order to conform to the customary practice, to have been introduced as soon after that as practicable.
    Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFT: And at a reasonable time of the day.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Bill was carried into taw in July, enabling the Government to base their expenditure for the year, not upon the £12,000,000 figure, but upon the £15,500,000 figure—I using round sums—in accordance with the provisions of the Act. But it did not find the additional money and the additional money was not required until the nine months had elapsed. No additional money has yet been wanted. The money which was originally provided —the £12,000,000—was employed to carry the Exchequer contribution up to the end of the calendar year, but not till the end of the financial year. The new money —the £3,500,000—is required to enable the Exchequer contribution to be paid for the remainder of the financial year. Therefore there was no need to ask for the Supplemenary Estimate until now The second point raised by the right hon. Member was that, owing to the
    1156
    passage of the Act and this Supplementary Estimate,, there will have to be borrowed money, and therefore the finances of the country will be in a worse position than they would have been if what was in existence before had been allowed to continue.
    Sir H. YOUNG: I referred only to the probability.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am endeavouring to put the case as I understood the right hon. Member to put it, that there is no probability of a margin, a balance in the Exchequer position at the end of the year; and therefore the passage of the Act and the carrying of it out by means of this Supplementary Estimate will involve the borrowing in all probability in order to make ends meet. The fact is that this proposal does not increase the amount to be borrowed. It only alters the form. Under the proposals of the late Government, there was a debt on the Unemployment Fund. The present Government decided that that was an unsatisfactory proceeding and that the money ought to be paid directly from the Exchequer. Therefore, there is no larger debt incurred under the scheme of the present Government than would have occurred if the method adopted by the late Government had continued all all through the financial year. The debt is simply in one account instead of in another account, and, if the proposal of the present Government had not been carried out, there would have had to be precisely the same borrowing as there will be under the present scheme, because the late Government had allowed the Fund to get very seriously into debt. I am not sure that I understood the third point. The right hon. Gentleman said, so far as I could make out, that there was something we had not told to the Committee as to what were the commitments under the present Government. The only point that is relevant to the present discussion is the question of the commitments involved by this Supplementary Estimate, following upon the Act which was passed in July. I should have thought that the position was clear. Whereas before the Act the Government contribution was less than one-third, under the Act passed in July the Government contribution is brought up to one equal third. Those commitments

    1157
    continue for the current year and next year, and, unless they are repealed, in succeeding years, I think that answers the points put by the right hon. Gentleman.
    I will now deal with the three questions put by the preceding speaker. He asked: What was the effect of the Act of July in changing the point at which the fund balanced? The answer was given by the Minister of Labour in her speech on the Third Reading of the Bill. It raised it from 1,000,000 to 1,090,000. Then he asked: What was the live register on 30th November, 1929? The answer to that is 1,285,000, and the debt at that time was £37,570,000. Then he asked: How long is it anticipated that the fund will hold out even on the assumption of the £3,500,000 that we are voting? The answer to that is, towards the end of February. On the assumption that the figure on the live register remains at about what it is at the present time, well on into February.
    Sir H. CROFT: Did not the right hon. Lady say that it was likely to increase?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That really is not the point. We cannot judge what the amount on the live register will be in a little while. The position is this, that if the live register remains at about what it is, this Vote will enable the fund to carry on until about the end of February. A corollary is that, if the live register is more, the fund will not last quite so long. But it will last quite long enough to endure into that part of the Session which begins in January. Unless, however, there is a very considerable fall in the live register, it will not last until the end of the financial year. That is why the Minister of Labour made it clear that there would be need for a further Supplementary Estimate. That Supplementary Estimate will be required and will put into force figures which are authorised, so far as the State is concerned, by the Bill to which a Third Reading was given by the House to-night.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The hon. Gentleman is now saying that there will have to be another Supplementary Estimate, quite apart from the Bill which we have passed to-night.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No; the Bill that we have passed empowers the expenditure of further money, and a
    1158
    Supplementary Estimate embodying the financial aspect of that will be introduced into this House when it meets in January, and will have to be put through before the end of the financial year.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am not really apprehending what the hon. Gentleman says. If I understand him rightly, if the liabilities remain as they were, the money which we are now providing would run out about the end of February. If the live register grows, it will run out sooner. He went on to point out that the Minister of Labour said that we should have a further Supplementary Estimate before the end of the financial year. If I understand him rightly, that Supplementary Estimate will be quite apart from the Bill which we have just passed, and that I believe to be the case.
    Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The right hon. Gentleman is partly right and partly incorrect. The position is that the Act passed in July was not in any sense an estimate of what would be required for the whole of the financial year.
    The Act was simply to provide for the principle of one-third, a principle which the Government considered was sound and should be adopted, and I think the confusion arises in the right hon. Gentleman's mind through the provision of the calendar year and the financial year. The Minister of Labour in July said that the additional figure that was being passed in that Act would enable the fund to remain solvent up to the end of the calendar year. It was not an estimate of what would be required to enable the fund to run up to the end of the financial year. It was simply a desire to embody the principle of an equal one-third, and it was computed that that would carry us at least to the end of the calendar year. As the figures have developed, it is clear now that, apart from this Bill, this Supplementary Estimate will probably not enable the fund to run to the end of the financial year, but it is only probable. It entirely depends on what the figures turn out to be. If unemployment were seriously diminished, it might run us up to the end of the financial year. If the figures, however, are to remain as they are, the Vote will take us somewhere towards the end of February, but, if they seriously increase, it will not be as far as that. That we

    1159
    will see as the time comes. In any case, a Supplementary Estimate will be required to embody what is necessary under the Bill which has got a Third Reading to-night. It is a, rather difficult point, but I think I have answered the questions put to me.
    Commander WILLIAMS: It is only right that we should have a rather clearer statement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) raised three very definite points. The hon. Gentleman opposite has said that this new Estimate is only brought in now, because the money is only just needed. I have heard remarkable statements from the Front Bench opposite, but I never expected to hear a representative of the Treasury coming down and saying openly that we as a country do not finance our expenditure in the main every year, but have to come down from time to time with Supplementary Estimates of this kind. You might just as well lay it down as clearly a principle of national finance that you should have
    half or quarter yearly Budgets. It is clearly wrong to have Estimates of this kind coming on suddenly at this time. With regard to the second point, the Financial Secretary said that as far as this Estimate was concerned, it was not an increase, but rather a balance from one side to the other; there was a debt on the fund, and now it was balanced by a direct payment. If it is not an increase, what does the statement mean at the end, that you are raising to one-half the total contributions I That statement clearly disproves that there is no increase. There was a great deal in the statement made earlier in the evening that this is an entirely novel Estimate. There is an increase which is far higher than the taxpayer ought to be called upon to pay, and I hope that we as a party will divide against the Vote.
    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,499,990, be granted for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 199.

    Division No. 106.]

    AYES.

    [12.41 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

    Albery, Irving James

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Ross, Major Ronald D.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Beaumont, M. W.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hamilton, Sir George (llford)

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Savery, S. S.

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Boyce, H. L.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R J.

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

    Smithers, Waldron

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

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Bullock, Captain Malcolm

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Somervllle, D. G. (Willesden, East)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Lamb, Sir J. Q.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Leighton, Major B. E. P.

    Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

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

    Lleweilln, Major J. J.

    Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Colfox, Major William Philip

    Lymington, Viscount

    Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Colville, Major D. J.

    Marjoribanks, E. C.

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornscy)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Cranbourne, Viscount

    Mond, Hon. Henry

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

    Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

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

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Edmondson. Major A. J.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Purbrick, R.

    Mr. Charles Williams and Captain Crookshank.

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Ramsbotham, H.

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Remer, John R.

    NOES

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

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

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

    Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

    Brockway, A. Fenner

    Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craile M.

    Bellamy, Albert

    Bromfield, William

    Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hilsbro')

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Brown, Ernest (Leih)

    Angell, Norman

    Benson, G.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Arnott, John

    Bentham, Dr. Ethel

    Burgess, F. G.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Bevan, Aneuri (Ebbw Vale)

    Burgln, Dr. E. L.

    Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

    Blrkett, W. Norman

    Caine, Derwent Hall-

    Cameron, A. G.

    Kinley, J.

    Fichardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)

    Lang, Gordon

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lathan, G.

    Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Chater, Daniel

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Ritson, J.

    Church, Major A. G.

    Lawrence, Susan

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

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

    Romeril, H. G.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lawson, John James

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Daggar, George

    Leach, W.

    Rowson, Guy

    Dallas, George

    Lees, J.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Sanders, W. S.

    Dickson, T.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Sandham, E.

    Dukes, C.

    Longden, F.

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Duncan, Charles

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Ede, James Chuter

    McElwee, A.

    Scurr, John

    Edmunds, i. E.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Uedwellty)

    McKinlay, A.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Shield, George William

    Egan, W. H.

    McShane, John James

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Elmley, Viscount

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

    Simmons, C. J.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Mander, Geoffrey le M.

    Sinkinson, George

    Foot, Isaac

    Mansfield, W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Marcus, M.

    Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Marley, J.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Matters, L. W.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Gill, T. H.

    Maxton, James

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Glassey, A. E.

    Melville, Sir James

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Gossling, A. G.

    Messer, Fred

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Gould, F.

    Mills, J. E.

    Sorensen, R.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Milner, J.

    Spero, Dr. G. E.

    Granted, D. R. (Glamorgan).

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)

    Morley, Ralph

    Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

    Strauss, G. R.

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

    Mort, D. L.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Moses, J. J. H.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

    Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hardie, George D.

    Murnin, Hugh

    Tout, W. J.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Nathan, Ma|or H. L.

    Townend, A. E.

    Haycock, A. W.

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Turner, B.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Vaughan, D. J.

    Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Wallace, H. W.

    Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

    Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

    Watkins, F. C.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).

    Herriotts, J.

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

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

    Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Hollins, A.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigam)

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Hopkin, Danfel

    Perry, S. F.

    Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie.

    Peters, Dr. Sidney John

    Westwood, Joseph

    Hudson, James H. (Huddersfieid)

    Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Blrm., Ladywood)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Whitetey, William (Blaydon)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Johnston, Thomas

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

    Price, M. P.

    Wlnterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)

    Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Wise, E. F.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Kennedy, Thomas

    Raynes, W. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Wilfrid Paling.

    Question put, and agreed to.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR SCOTLAND.
Motion made, and Question proposed:
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,650, 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, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Health for Scotland, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in connection with Public Health Services, Grants in Aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service. Grants-in-Aid of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain Special Services."
The SECRETARY of STATE. for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): This is a special grant for improving medical services in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and for purposes connected therewith. This was provided for in the Bill which passed through this House within the last two weeks without opposition. The additional sum is required to supplement the annual grant payable under the Highlands and Islands Medical Services Grant Act, 1913. The grant-in-aid will be paid into a separate fund called the Highlands and Islands Medical Services Fund. This fund will be subject to regulations made by the Treasury with respect to accounts, audit, and accumulations. The fund will be

1163
administered by the Department in accordance with schemes made by the Department and with the consent of the Treasury. Expenditure out of the fund will be accounted for in full detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Any balance of the sum issued which may remain unexpended at the 31st March, 1930, will not be liable to surrender to the Exchequer. We had practically every stage of this grant discussed when we had the Highlands and Islands Bill in Committee two or three weeks ago, and I do not expect we shall have opposition from any part of the Committee—at least, no opposition was made to the Bill as it made its passage through all its stages, and this is the complement to the Bill. I hope that hon. Members on all sides of the Committee are going to give us this Estimate, which I now move.
Major ELLIOT: I am sure, that, as the Secretary of State for Scotland has just said, this is a complement to the Bill; and the House of Commons is asked, of course, to pay this complement. Still, we approved of the Bill, and we approve of the Supplementary Estimate. But some of my hon. Friends have some doubts about the constitutional procedure of taking a Supplementary Estimate before the Bill to which it refers has passed through both Houses of Parliament. We might, therefore, ask for more information on the Report stage, but at the present stage of the proceedings we all desire to get the Bill through, and we wish the Bill well. We also wish the Secretary of State far Scotland the best of good fortune.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. YOUNG 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, 1930, the sum of £5,416,670 be granted to His Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. PethickLawrence.]
Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1929.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, entitled the Local Government (County Districts, Valuation of Railways, etc.) Order (Scotland), 1929, which was presented on the 31st day of October, 1929, be approved."
1.0. a.m.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): By Section 76 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, it is provided that the Secretary of State for Scotland may bring the provisions of other Acts into conformity with the Act of 1929 where that, is required, provided that within three months from the date of his making such an Order he brings before this House for approval a Resolution in justification. On the 16th day of October last such an Order was laid upon the Table of this House. It has been agreed to and passed through another place, and we now asked for the formal Resolution approving of it here. The purpose of the Resolution is to permit the apportionment to the various county districts, to be formed under the Act of 1929, of the proper share of the valuation of the railway property. The late Postmaster-General the right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) has been good enough privately to suggest that in the Order laid on 16th October, the date 15th May, which has been substituted for 31st July in Section 5, is somehow or other not in order. The Resolution now, and the Statutory Rule and Order 976, in no way, as I understand it, demand the Amendment of any previous Act. It does not demand an Amendment of a single line or word in a previous Act, but simply declares that in the Resolution of this House, under the Statutory Order to be laid, any change to bring the Act of 1929 into conformity with the previous Statutes and Acts of this House, shall be made clear. That, I claim, is made clear in the Order laid on the Table of this House on 16th October, which has been formally passed in another place.
Mr. R. W. SMITH: I do not want to keep the House any time, but there is a point I would like to raise with regard to paragraph (3) of this Order. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State

1165
laid stress on the fact that this Order was passed in another place. That seems an extraordinary argument from those benches. They sometimes say that the other place does not matter. I am afraid that the other place has not been so careful as it ought to have been in safeguarding the interests of all sections of the community in Scotland so far as this Order is concerned. I fail to see how this is not an Amendment of the Valuation and Lands Act of 1894. We have laid down certain dates. Section 2 says that the assessor is to make up the valuation roll of railways and canals annually on the 15th day of March. This says that the date 15th March is to be altered to the 31st day of May. So we have the date 15th March being altered about 10 weeks. All the dates in the Act are brought on by about 10 weeks. The Act of 1894 amended the earlier Acts of 1854, 1867 and 1887 and altered the dates then. In the previous Acts the date was 15th August, and that date was brought back until May, and now it is altered back to March. I would like to draw the attention of the House to Section 2 of the Act of 1894. The Section says that
"for the purpose of the Valuation Roll to be made up by the assessor … for the year ending Whitsunday, one thousand, eight hundred and ninety-six, and subsequent years, in place of the fifteenth day of August … there shall be substituted the fifteenth day of March as the day on or before which the assessor shall inquire into and fix incumulo the yearly rent or value of all lands and heritages in Scotland belonging to or leased by each railway and canal company … and in place of the fifteenth day of May as provided in the twenty-third Section of the said first recited Act, there shall be substituted the fifteenth day of November previously as the day on or before which intimations of the desire of any water company, or gas company having any continuous lands and heritages liable to be assessed in more than one parish, county or burgh, to have such lands and heritages assessed, shall be made to the sheriff."
When the roll was made up on 15th August, they could appeal until 15th May. When the date for assessment was brought back to the middle of March, the appeal was brought hack to the previous 15th November, and now I want to draw attention to the Order. In all cases we have everything brought on by 10 weeks. If the Order was proper and looking after the interests of all, the date, 15th November, ought to have been
1166
about 31st January. That would have given these companies a chance to apply to have their lands assessed. Why do you leave out this part and not give these people an opportunity of having their lands assessed?
Major ELLIOT: I am very glad to see that the Act of 1929 is being found useful, and, in particular, the power which was classed in England as the Henry VIII Clause and in Scotland the James VI Clause. No doubt the Lord Advocate will pick up the historical reference. On page 2 of this statutory Resolution it states that Section 5 amends the Schedule and mentions the Act of 1894. The 15th May is mentioned and also Whit Sunday. The ex-Postmaster-General has brought to my notice that, while you substitute 31st July for the first 15th May, you cannot substitute it for Section 1, for you cannot have Whit Sunday for any other day. There is a proved error and the order should be corrected. If we could have an assurance from the Under-Secretary we should be satisfied. I hear cries for the Lord Advocate. We should be greatly honoured by his intervention. But I understand he desires to reserve himself for some great occasion in which he could make his entrance in accordance with the dignity of his great office. One's maiden speech is a task difficult and delicate. I should not ask him to make his maiden speech on a subject such as this. He shows an exaggerated deference to this House in refraining from speaking on things which must be to him common-place handling. We know that Under-Secretaries for Scotland are a virile race. I have no doubt the task which has appalled the Lord Advocate will be tackled in the Under-Secretary's stride. If he says that this has been fully dealt with, I shall be content to let it drop. We all want to get to bed, but let us have a simple statement from the Under-Secretary of State when these points have been considered.
Commander WILLIAMS: I think I am entitled to have one or two points made perfectly clear. I want to know what it exactly means:
"And whereas the boundaries of the County District will not be determined in time to allow the said Assessor if he includes the particulars aforesaid to prepare and complete his Valuation Roll for the year beginning on the 16th day of May, 1930."

1167
I want, to know why this delay has been caused and who caused it. I want to know from the Under-Secretary why it is that the original date is or has been prolonged. My desire is to know whether the real reason for this delay is that the administration in Scotland is not quite as good as it might be, and may I suggest that, instead of carrying on the delay, the proper way would be to have a few thoroughly efficient and up-to-date Englishmen to carry on this work; because we do know that the Scottish, particularly at this time of night, are not a very mobile race. I wish to raise another point on the fifth line down of the second page in the "Statutory Rules and Orders," where it talks about
"the Roll and the subsequent transmission of certified extracts therefrom."
I want to know who certifies these extracts. This is really a most important question, because it may have a legal significance which may quite easily affect the well-being of very many people in Scotland. For that reason, I do not think that a mere Under-Secretary should be the only person to tell us. This matter, I think, should be clearly expounded to us by the legal representative of Scotland. He is here in full, strong and robust health. There is another purely technical, legal question upon which I have not been able to find any information, and that is what is actually meant by the word "landward" in the second paragraph. It is, I presume, a purely Scottish expression, but we have never had it explained to us during the whole course of this Debate. It would be easier for us to form a proper estimate of what was the value of these Orders if these few legal definitions could be explained to us. I am sure the legal representative for Scotland is going to get up and tell us what it is all about.
Mr. JOHNSTON: The only comment make upon the hon. Member's charge of lack of mental ability is that it should be levelled at the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) so far as this Order goes. I am sure I should be nut of order if I elaborated or set out
1168
to elaborate upon the precise meaning of the word "landward." It hardly rises upon the Motion which is before us to-night. We are asking that an Order laid on the 16th October should be formally confirmed by a Resolution of this House. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove that there is no attempt to interfere or to amend his Act of 1929 or to do anything else than to exercise the duty imposed upon us by that Act of 1929, that is, the laying of a formal Resolution on the Table of this House, and to ask this House to support it to enable the Act of 1929 to function properly. I am sure with that explanation that we shall have the unanimous vote of the House.
Mr. R. W. SMITH: Can I have a reply to the point that I put?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot speak again.
Mr. SMITH: On that point, may I ask, with the permission of the House, for a reply to perfectly specific questions? I think I am entitled to a reply by the leave of the House.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the Under-Secretary chooses to answer, that is another matter, but he cannot repeat his speech.
Resolved,
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, entitled the Local Government (County Districts, Valuation of Railways, etc.) Order (Scotland), 1929, which was presented on the 31st day of October, 1929, be approved."
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven, of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty - two minutes after One o'clock.

POST OFFICE.
  PUBLIC TELEPHONES, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  PUBLIC TELEPHONES, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  POSTAL FACILITIES, MANCHESTER SUBURBS.
  POSTAL FACILITIES, MANCHESTER SUBURBS.
  WIRELESS MESSAGES (DOMINIONS).
  WIRELESS MESSAGES (DOMINIONS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  MEDICAL APPEAL TRIBUNAL.
  MEDICAL APPEAL TRIBUNAL.
  SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT (ABOLITION).
  SEVEN YEARS' LIMIT (ABOLITION).
INDIA.
  ORDNANCE FACTORIES (FOREMEN).
  ORDNANCE FACTORIES (FOREMEN).
  NETHERLANDS AIR MAILS.
  NETHERLANDS AIR MAILS.
  INDIAN CADETS, SANDHURST.
  INDIAN CADETS, SANDHURST.
  AVIATION (SITES, DEVELOPMENT).
  AVIATION (SITES, DEVELOPMENT).
  CANTONMENTS DEPARTMENT.
  CANTONMENTS DEPARTMENT.
  SLAVERY.
  SLAVERY.
  PARK LANE (BOULEVARD).
  PARK LANE (BOULEVARD).
  COUNTY COURT, HARLESDEN.
  COUNTY COURT, HARLESDEN.
  INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS.
  INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
  STATE CONTRIBUTIONS (ARREARS).
  STATE CONTRIBUTIONS (ARREARS).
  SLAVERY (ABYSSINIA).
  SLAVERY (ABYSSINIA).
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
AGRICULTURE.
  DAIRY CATTLE.
  DAIRY CATTLE.
  GRADING AND MARKING.
  GRADING AND MARKING.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  GOVERNMENT GRANTS, LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  GOVERNMENT GRANTS, LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYES, HOLIDAYS.
  INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYES, HOLIDAYS.
  ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY (LOANS).
  ROYAL MAIL STEAM PACKET COMPANY (LOANS).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMS TARIFF.
  AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMS TARIFF.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.
  ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.
  TINNED AND DRIED MILK (IMPORTS).
  TINNED AND DRIED MILK (IMPORTS).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  AIR MINISTRY (LAND).
  AIR MINISTRY (LAND).
  MESSENGERS AND RECORD KEEPERS.
  MESSENGERS AND RECORD KEEPERS.
  MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (MARRIED INMATES).
  MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (MARRIED INMATES).
  SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE ORDERS.
  SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE ORDERS.
HOUSING.
  REBUILDING (ORDER FOR POSSESSION).
  REBUILDING (ORDER FOR POSSESSION).
  RURAL WORKERS, SCOTLAND.
  RURAL WORKERS, SCOTLAND.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  GILLINGHAM, KENT (LOAN).
  GILLINGHAM, KENT (LOAN).
  TIN MINERS, CORNWALL.
  TIN MINERS, CORNWALL.
  COURTS OF REFEREES.
  COURTS OF REFEREES.
  BENEFIT CLAIMS, NORTH SHIELDS.
  BENEFIT CLAIMS, NORTH SHIELDS.
  KENT.
  KENT.
  PUBLIC SERVICES.
  PUBLIC SERVICES.
  INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE SCHEMES.
  INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE SCHEMES.
EAST AFRICA.
  DISPENSARIES AND MATERNITY CENTRES.
  DISPENSARIES AND MATERNITY CENTRES.
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.
  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.
CROWN COLONIES AND PRO- TECTORATES.
  POPULATION STATISTICS.
  POPULATION STATISTICS.
  BRITISH GUIANA (SCHOOL TEACHERS).
  BRITISH GUIANA (SCHOOL TEACHERS).
  DARTFORD AND PURFLEET TUNNEL SCHEME.
  DARTFORD AND PURFLEET TUNNEL SCHEME.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LORD MERTHYR.
VISCOUNT ALLENDALE: My Lords, I beg to move that leave be given to Lord Merthyr to vote in the House for the remainder of the Session.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I venture to ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House if he can tell us what are the proposals of the Government with reference to the remainder of these sittings?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for asking me this question, and I hope that the proposals which I have to make will suit him and those with whom he acts here. To-day we propose to take three more or less formal matters to start with, and then we continue the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill. We propose to sit after dinner to-night, in order to make as much progress as we can. It will probably be convenient to adjourn about eight o'clock for an hour. Then there is a Question on the Paper by Lord Askwith. I will ask him to postpone that till to-morrow, as we have not been able to make the necessary inquiries. Tomorrow there will be the Report of Amendments to the Mental Treatment Bill, which Lord Russell tells me is likely to last up to about six o'clock. We will then proceed further with the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill. I find that it is not very convenient, at any rate in some quarters, that we should sit to finish that Bill after dinner to-morrow, and therefore we do not propose to sit after dinner on that day, but we want to finish the Road Traffic Bill Committee on Wednesday. There are also one or two Questions, which I do not think will take very long.
1266
With regard to Wednesday I have consulted Lord Russell's convenience, and we propose to continue the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill then. We shall know how far we can get, and if necessary we shall ask your Lordships to sit after dinner on Wednesday. On Thursday we propose to take the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill. That will enable us to adjourn on Friday, which, I think, will be convenient to all of your Lordships. I believe there will be a Consolidated Fund Bill on that day, and it can be taken formally through all its stages. Also on that day there will be a Royal Commission, which, however, need not detain any of your Lordships. It is our responsibility to keep a House. It is proposed to come back on January 21, and the first business on that day will be the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill. We shall proceed with that Bill, so that it may receive the Royal Assent as early as possible. That Bill ought to be finished and the Royal Assent given to it by the end of January. I think that will give plenty of time really. In particular, it will allow of a very long interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with reference to the closing words of the noble and learned Lord, I have already agreed so far as my voice is of any value, to taking the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill next Thursday, although that allows a very short time between the First Reading and the Second Reading of a very important Bill. As regards January, well January is a long way off. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not think that I have entered into any engagement whatever so far as I am concerned as regards the proceedings in January.
LORD PARMOOR: No, I did not mean that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was only in case there might be a misunderstanding hereafter that I wanted to make that quite clear. I come back to the Road Traffic Bill. The noble and learned Lord has suggested that we should sit after dinner to-night. When I had the great advantage of private communication with him on this subject on Thursday, I think it was understood,

1267
though I may have been mistaken, that if the Government wished us to sit after dinner to-night they should intimate as much at the rising of the House on Thursday. Nothing of the kind was said in my hearing, though I think I was present at the adjournment. I do not want to tie noble Lords opposite down to a verbal bargain of that kind, but I do suggest to the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues that there is no great advantage in treating the Road Traffic Bill in the way suggested. It is a very intricate Bill and not a Party Bill, and the discussions upon it have not been of a Party character. There has been cross voting and noble Lords in different parts of the House have taken different views wholly without reference to any Party consideration, and I think I may say—although it is not unusual in your Lordships' House—that the discussion has been of a most businesslike character. I I do not think I have heard a bit of padding (if I may use the expression) from the very beginning of the debates to the end.
In these circumstances, if we sit after dinner I think the noble and learned Lord will be very much disappointed, because he will find a very limited number of people here and instead of having an adequate discussion of the Bill, he will have a very inadequate discussion. That is a great pity. Here is a Bill which has been received with a great deal of public favour, very well received by your Lordships' House and discussed in a most businesslike way. Unless, of course, there is some obscure reason which makes it important that this Bill should be passed by a certain date—of which I know nothing—I should have thought it was far easier to take the Bill in the ordinary way, sitting as your Lordships are accustomed to sit until about eight o'clock and not to press the matter forward in the way described. I feel very reluctant to seem obstructive and therefore do not use language of that kind, but I understand from those with whom I have spoken that it is not at all wished by noble Lords to sit after dinner; on the contrary, it is rather wished that we should not, and the only result of doing so would be a very inadequate discussion.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, may I point out that this Bill cannot possibly get to the Commons before the end of January? There is, therefore, no need whatever to hurry it. When we come back, in January and February we shall probably have nothing to do and we can, with great advantage to the Bill and to the country, discuss it in a proper manner; whereas, if we sit after dinner, the result is that there will be a perfunctory discussion, many people who desire to speak on the Bill will not be here and we shall lose the prestige which we have in the country of treating these things in a business manner. It is not as if Parliament were going to be prorogued within two or three weeks. We are going to sit here probably until the end of August. A simple calculation shows, therefore, that we have eight months before us. Having eight months before us, and having a Bill which is not a Party Bill and which deals with the every-day life of the people, is it not our duty to give that Bill every proper consideration? I think we have done that and in no Party spirit, but with a sincere desire to put a proper and good and workable measure on the Statute Book. In these circumstances, to ask us now on what will probably be a foggy night, to come back here and discuss with a few people over forty pages of Amendments, seems to me to be unreasonable. Personally I shall certainly move at eight o'clock that the House do now resume.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, perhaps I am to blame for not having made the announcement at the adjournment on Thursday of which the noble Marquess speaks. If so, it was due to some misunderstanding of what had been arranged. I certainly understood that we had definitely arranged to sit after dinner in any event to-night, because I knew it would be necessary for the sake of the progress of the Bill, and I had rot understood that it was desired that any announcement should be made at our rising on Thursday. But I do ask your Lordships to sit after dinner to-night, and in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, I would point out the considerations which are of importance. There are forty-three pages of Amendments. It is very important that those should be

1269
discussed. A great many are not of importance, but there are some of great importance. I am particularly anxious that the Committee stage of this Bill shall be concluded before we adjourn for the Recess in order that the Bill may be reprinted as amended in Committee, and that the Ministry of Transport and everybody else concerned may have a clear month in which to consider the Bill as amended before we take the Report stage. I think if we left the Bill half finished in Committee that would be a very unfortunate thing; and, so far as time in general is concerned, Lord Banbury is quite wrong. Unless the Second Reading of this Bill is got by, say, the middle of February in another place, its chance of getting through this Session will really be hopeless. I should be very much obliged to your Lordships if you would sit after dinner at any rate, and then we can see what progress we have made.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not wish to disagree with my noble friend Lord Banbury, but, if we are going to consider the question of the prestige of this House, the prestige of this House will suffer very considerably if it is published to the world that we are not prepared to come down here after dinner to consider an important Bill.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDICAL SERVICE) ADDITIONAL GRANT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read:
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Muir Mackenzie I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a non-controversial measure, and I can outline its provisions in two or three minutes. It passed through another place without amendment, and it is, as a matter of fact, a Certified Money Bill. Owing to the exceptional conditions which prevail in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland—the great distances, the climatic conditions and the straitened financial circumstances of many of the inhabitants—it is exceedingly difficult for the people to obtain the proper medical attention which they require, and it was the recognition of this fact in 1913 which led Parliament, in that year, to give
1270
special State assistance towards the improvement of the Highlands and Islands medical services. In that year an annual Grant was made for these purposes of £42,000 a year, and out of that money there are paid grants to doctors for their services, chiefly so that they will attend cases irrespective of distance, which is vital. Moreover, some of the money has been used for better nursing and surgical services.
The amount is £42,000 a year, but during the War that £42,000 each year was by no means wholly expended, and a balance accumulated to the credit of the Fund. Since the War things have been more normal. What I may call the authorised scheme has been in operation and the expenditure has been increased; as a matter of fact for some time it has exceeded the income. For instance, in the current year, the expenditure will be about £70,000, and the accumulated fund, to which I have referred, has been used up, so that it is necessary for Parliament to provide some additional money. That is what this Bill does. It is intended that this shall be done in future by placing the amount on the Estimates of the Department of Health for Scotland year by year, and not by a fixed annual Grant. For the current year actually over £10,000 is required, which means that as far as the current year is concerned the £42,000 has been used, and also the £20,000 of accumulated balance, and a little more than £10,000 will be required. In the future the amount which will be required in addition to the £42,000 will probably be in the neighbourhood of £30,000. I hope I have made the position clear.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Arnold.)
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
LORD ARNOLD: As this is a Certified Money Bill we propose, with your Lordships' permission, to take the Committee stage to-morrow.

WAR OFFICE STAFF.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to ask his Majesty's Government for comparative figures of the staff of the War Office in 1914 and 1929.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity of correcting the figures which were given by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, on a recent occasion when the staff of the War Office was under discussion in your Lordships' House. I had assumed that the noble Earl would take as the basis of his figures for 1014 those which were, I believe, supplied to him a year or so ago, and which have been given in answer to Questions in another place on more than one occasion, and that if he was in doubt as to the latest figures, or did not wish to use those for 1928, which were given in another place on February 11, 1929, he would have asked to be supplied by the War Office with the information. Unfortunately, he did not do so, and, speaking as I was immediately after him, I was unable to challenge his figures at the time. These figures were given considerable publicity by the Press, with the result that the public were misled, and the War Office staff which, as your Lordships know, is not in a position to defend itself, was unfairly criticised and attacked. In fairness to the War Office I trust the correct figures I am now about to give may receive equally wide publicity.
Lord Midleton stated that the Military Departments had increased from 660 to 903 and the Civil Department from 611 to 1,013—an increase in total from 1,271 to 1,916, or practically 50 per cent. If, as I gather, he has reckoned the Secretary of State and his staff and the typists and messengers who are common to the whole office as part of the Civil Department, the correct figures are as follow:—the Military Department, 741 in 1914, now 907; the Civil Department, 1,137 in 1914, now 1,391; and the present total staff of the War Office is thus 2,298 as compared with 1,878 in 1914; that is an increase of 22 per cent. and not 50 per cent. as the noble Earl said. Lord Midleton gave percentages of increase in the Secretariat, the Finance Department, the Contracts Department and the Local Audit Staff, varying from 65 per cent. to 72 per cent. The correct figures of increase are:—in the Secretariat, from 151 to 208, or 38 per cent.; in the Finance Department,
1272
from 243 to 303, or 25 per cent., and in the Contracts Department, from 56 to 78, or 39 per cent.; the Local Audit Staff is practically at pre-War strength.
Lord Midleton further stated that the figures of the War Office staff which he gave justified him in saying that the War Office came under the strictures of Sir Alan Anderson's Committee, an extract from whose Report he read in such a way as to convey the impression that the Report was an attack on the Civil Service, but the following two paragraphs, which I may perhaps be permitted to quote, put the matter in a very different light:—
"The increase in staff since 1914 is fully accounted for by the extra work which has been thrown on to the Civil Service since 1914, and the average individual output is certainly not less than in 1914."
"The immense increase in the Civil Service pay roll has been imposed on the taxpayer for reasons which commended themselves to various Parliaments before and since 1914, and the conclusion we reach is that no power except Parliament can materially reduce the load."
As regards the War Office staff, as I mentioned in reply to Lord Midleton's Motion, the size of the staff at the War Office is not only subjected to constant Departmental scrutiny but, since the War, has been examined by seven different Committees of Inquiry, in addition to annual examination by the Public Accounts Committee and two investigations by the House of Commons Select Committee on Estimates. In conclusion, may I repeat the assurance that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War is making every effort to secure yet further economy, but his efforts are, if I may be allowed to say so, not in any way assisted by attacks, based on inaccurate data, which cast aspersions on a body of hard-working and conscientious public servants.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: May I ask the noble Earl if the figures he has given are the figure of the actual staff to-day or the figures which were in the 1929 Estimates?
EARL DE LA WARR: The 1929 Estimates.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not propose to take up the time of your Lordships at this moment by rebutting

1273
any of the observations of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War, but I should like to be allowed to say that the figures which he has quoted do not in any way square with the figures which were published in the Estimates, and I would venture to say that after a whole month's incubation I think the War Office might have explained a little more clearly why it is that the figures to-day are not those which appeared in the Estimates. In one single matter I would like to refer to an observation made by the noble Earl. He said that the Committee who examined the War Department were satisfied that the average individual output was not less now than it was before the War. Well, I will give your Lordships one example which was brought up in another place last year, and has never been refuted, of the sort of individual output you may expect, and I would ask my noble friend to make a little inquiry into this point. In the Medals Department, which, of course, was enormously swollen by work after the War, there were, according to the Estimates last year, two officers and thirty-three other ranks at a cost of £5,000 a year. The number of medals issued was 28,500 and therefore each member of the staff was responsible for issuing three medals in the course of his day's work. I came to the conclusion that he must have had a tolerable adjournment for lunch in order to enable him to get through the day. I think if my noble friend would go into the individual output he would find the result much nearer my estimate than his.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, it is only with your permission that I can add anything to what I have already said, but if the noble Earl would like to have explained to him why his calculations went wrong I should certainly be glad to send him any information he would like. Generally speaking, it was in regard to copyists, surveyors, messengers and so on that he was wrong in his calculation.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
House again in Committee (according to Order):
[The EARL or DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 10:
Rate of speed.
10.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle of any class or description on a road at a speed greater than the speed specified in the First Schedule to this Act as the maximum speed in relation to a vehicle of that class or description, and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A conviction for a first or second offence under this section shall not render the offender liable to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence, including a provisional licence.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall not be found to have been driving at a speed exceeding any specified speed merely on the opinion of one witness that the speed exceeded the specified speed.
(4) The Minister may by order vary, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act in relation to any motor vehicles used for lire brigade purposes.
(5) Any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures any person who is employed by him to drive, or is subject to his orders in driving, a motor vehicle on a road to commit an offence under this section, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.
(6) If a person who employs other persons to drive motor vehicles on roads publishes or issues any time fable or schedule or gives any directions, under which any journey or any stage or part of any journey is to be completed within some specified time and it is not practicable for that journey or that stage or part of the journey to be completed in the specified time without an infringement of the provisions of this section, the publication or issue of the said time table or schedule or the giving of the directions shall be prima facie evidence that the employer, as the case may be, procured or incited the persons employed by him to drive the vehicles to commit an offence under subsection (1) of this section.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert:—
".—(1) Any person who drives a motor vehicle at a speed greater than the speed specified in the First Schedule of this Act as the maximum speed in relation to a vehicle of that class or description shall be deemed to have been guilty of dangerous

1275
driving as hereinafter defined unless he can show that in the actual circumstances of the case such greater speed could not involve danger to the public."
The noble Viscount said: We now approach the part of the Bill which I suppose has been most discussed outside your Lordships' House—that is, the part dealing with the speed limit. As your Lordships are well aware the law at present is that no motor car shall go faster than twenty miles an hour on the public roads. At the time that that provision was made I do not think it was an unreasonable provision. Motor cars were not so powerful as they are now, they had far less good brakes, and they were an entirely new kind of traffic. A provision limiting their speed to twenty miles an hour was, I believe, a reasonable one. I think it was not only a reasonable speed but it was regarded as a reasonable speed by the great mass of opinion in this country at that time. Motor cars were regarded with considerable suspicion—not perhaps with quite the fear and terror which they now inspire, but with considerable suspicion—and they were certainly not popular at that time.
I am quite sure the general public de sired the enforcement of that law; but in point of fact the motorists, and particularly those who owned private cars, declined to be bound by the law. They habitually broke it and the efforts of the police and other guardians of the law to enforce it proved fruitless. In some counties they took very vigorous measures and in others less vigorous measures. Sometimes they acted foolishly, sometimes they acted, not particularly foolishly but in the only way that was open to them in order to enforce the law. But the law was defied and successfully defied. We have seen several instances in my lifetime of attempts to defy the law. Some of them have been successful and some of them have been unsuccessful. There was the passive resistance agitation. That was unsuccessful. There was the General Strike. That also was unsuccessful. There were the proceedings in Ireland which were successful. They were far more serious, of course, than anything we have to consider now, but the principle is the same.
I want your Lordships to realise if you will that we are now faced with a general agreement on the part of a
1276
section of the population to refuse to be bound by the law of the land, and we are in the extremely awkward and disagreeable position for any Legislature of having to make up our minds what is the best course for us to pursue in those circumstances. It would be possible, of course, to advocate a more rigid and more vigorous enforcement of the law. That is the view which I have often heard expressed from the Benches on my right, but I do not gather that it is the view which finds favour with the majority of your Lordships at the present time. They think that we have got to surrender to the law breakers. I am not clear that that is not the true view. I am not clear that there is any other course open to you, but if you arrive at the conclusion that it is essential that we should alter the law because we cannot enforce it and because it is habitually broken—and that is the ordinary reason which is given for the alteration of the law—then I do beg your Lordships not to enact any form of law which will bring us into the same predicament again, because I think your Lordships will all agree with me that it is not of advantage, but very much the reverse, that we should hold out to people great and small the proposition that if a section of the population is determined not to obey the law then the law must be changed.
I am sure that if that became the general opinion in the country it would be disastrous for the whole of our civilisation. Accordingly it is a serious matter—from one point of view much more serious than the question whether motor cars are to go at twenty miles an hour or thirty miles an hour. We have a very serious constitutional issue before us, and one to which I do not hesitate to ask your Lordships to give the most careful attention. The Government have brought in a proposal which, as I am aware, has the great advantage of being the proposal recommended by the Royal Commission, and yet I cannot bring myself to think that it is a wise proposal. What is it? It is to take away the speed limit with respect to one class of car and one class only, and incidentally the car that belongs to the richer section of the population. The limit is to be taken away only with respect to light passenger vehicles. It is to remain, in one form or another, with regard to all

1277
other vehicles on the road, light or heavy. I think I am not misstating the point, but I trust that my noble friend Lord Russell will correct me if I am misreading the provisions of the Bill. This seem to me, I confess, a most unfortunate proposal.
What is certain to happen? Does any one believe that, with this example before them, the owners of the other vehicles will obey the law? I cannot think that any single person in this House believes it. I am quite sure that these drivers will disregard the law in exactly the same way as their richer neighbours have already so successfully disregarded it in the past. Of course they will. The tradesman's cart, the char-a-bancs, the omnibus and all the other cars that are utilised for poorer persons who like motoring—the drivers of all of them will break the law in just the same way as the richer motorists have broken the law, and have obtained a change. I think that exactly the same difficulty will arise and, in a few years, you will have the representative of the Ministry of Transport corning down and saying: "We have not enforced this law and we shall have to remove this limit also." Surely that is a most undignified and worse than undignified position for the Legislature to take up. I cannot think it is right.
I am strengthened in that view when I come to look at the reasons that are assigned for the proposed change. The Chairman of the Royal Commission, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, contributed an article to a newspaper which I was fortunate enough to read. He gives three reasons why the Commission recommended the abolition of the speed limit. The first is that there is no particular speed that can be described as either a safe speed or a dangerous speed. I do not express any opinion as to whether it is right—I do not happen to agree with it—but, whether it is right or not, surely it applies to every kind of motor car as much as it applies to the light passenger car? How can you make any distinction between the two? His next reason is that the psychological effect of a legal limit on a motor driver is had. If it is bad for the driver of the light passenger car, it is equally bad for the driver of every other car. The third reason is that the existence of the speed limit caused
1278
the police to be used to set traps to catch motorists on open stretches of road. But if it has had that effect in the past—and no doubt, to some extent, it has—it will surely have the same effect in the future, only it will be confined to a different class of car, and will not embrace cars which are used by the richer classes of the community. I am quite satisfied that, if there are reasons for the change such as are indicated by Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen with respect to the light passenger car, they apply equally to other cars. I do not forget that in another part of his article Sir Arthur gave special reasons why the limit should be retained in respect of heavy cars, but that is not the point with which I am dealing at the moment. My point is that, if the reasons that he gave for abolishing the speed limit in the case of light passenger cars are valid, they are equally valid in the case of other cars.
I will, however, deal for one moment with the distinction that he suggests between the classes of cars. He says that it is right to impose a limit in the case of public service vehicles because it is right to take great precautions for the safety of those who are travelling in those vehicles. I may he very dense, but I cannot see why it is more important to take precautions for the safety of people who voluntarily go in these vehicles than to take precautions for the safety of those who are walking on the roads and desire nothing less than to be brought into contact with a motor car. I do not follow that reasoning. The other reason is that commercial vehicles weigh a great deal more. But he surely has not read the Bill, or perhaps he was only referring to the Report of the Commission on this point, of which I cannot remember the terms. So far as the Bill is concerned, it is not true to say that it depends only on weight. All these vehicles, whatever their weight, are to be subjected to a speed limit.
EARL RUSSELL: No; not under 2½ tons.
VISCOUNT CECIL OK CHELWOOD: I was referring to the First Schedule. I may have misunderstood it, and I am very much obliged to my noble friend. The Schedule, referring to goods vehicles, fixes a maximum limit for those without a trailer of thirty miles an hour

1279
if all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres, and twenty miles an hour
"if all the wheels are not fitted with pneumatic tyres but are fitted with soft or elastic tyres."
There is no suggestion there as to weight. I may have misunderstood the point. I am quite aware that there is a distinction between motor cars and heavy motor cars, and that this distinction depends upon weight, but when you come to the Schedule, if I have not misread it, all goods vehicles are liable to a speed limit, and not only the heavier types. But, even if you take another case, all public service vehicles are subject to the speed limit. I may be wrong but, as I read it, any vehicle maybe a public service vehicle if it is constructed to carry more than eight passengers. Accordingly you may have a vehicle, as I understand it, constructed to carry nine passengers, and used for hire, which is subject to the speed limit, and you may have an even heavier vehicle, constructed to carry eight passengers, which is not used for hire, which will not be a public service vehicle and which will not be subject to the speed limit. I am not saying this by way of criticising the actual provision. The moment you lay down distinctions between cars, I do not care how you phrase them, you will find these anomalies. They are inevitable if you draw a line between two sets of cars. You will find it impossible to make any real distinction between the two sets. That is a great difficulty, as it appears to me.
I concede, though with the greatest reluctance and regret, that we have to give in. We cannot enforce the law that exists, and I am afraid that a mere change in the speed from twenty to thirty miles an hour would very likely not enable us to enforce the law. I admit that. I confess that, rather than have the proposal of the Government, I would prefer to have a speed limit applying to all vehicles. I think that the injustice of the proposal that the Government have indicated is impossible to defend. But I would rather try something which would be applied to all vehicles, and yet would not abandon altogether the conception of speed as a danger to the public, while not imposing an absolute, hard-and-fast line beyond which everyone was a lawbreaker. That seems to me to be the evil of the present system. The suggestion
1280
that I am laying before your Lordships is that you should have a speed which should be declared to be the proper, the safe speed—let me put it in that way—for all kinds of vehicles. No doubt very properly it would have to be very different in the case of heavy vehicles from what it was in the case of light ones, but it would be a safe speed. If then, any one driving beyond that speed was charged with dangerous driving on the ground that any speed greater than that was a danger in the condition of the road, it would be for him to say, it having been proved that he was going at a greater speed than the safe speed, that in all the circumstances of the case the speed was a safe one and that there was no danger to the public.
The case is put of a road on the top of a down with a perfectly clear line of vision all round so that there is no chance of anybody being hidden behind a bush or hedge and going across the road at the last minute, and it is said, on such a road as that is it not perfectly legitimate for any one to go as fast as he likes? I am not sure that any such road really exists. Such roads may exist but they are very rare. On all the roads I am acquainted with there are from time to time depressions in the ground and so on which may always conceal a child or something else. Supposing such roads do exist, it probably is safe to go at a very great speed, but if you are driving on the ordinary roads of this country I am satisfied that in the great majority of cases a speed greater than 35 miles an hour is commonly a dangerous speed, and the provision I should like to make is that anyone who drives at more than 35 miles an hour does it at his peril. He is prima facie driving dangerously unless he can show in point of fact that the circumstances were such as to make it safe.
With that provision there is no reason why it should not apply to vehicles of all kinds. You have a safe speed appropriate to each kind of vehicle and you say that, if the vehicle is going faster than that, then prima facie it is being driven dangerously. We are then never likely to be put in the humiliating position which we find ourselves now, a branch of the Legislature forced to admit that, because a branch of the law is habitually broken, it ought to be

1281
changed. We ought to avoid such a future contingency as that and it is for those reasons, broadly, that I propose the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 34, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to save the rights of Lord Howe who has an Amendment later, I shall put the question in the form "That line 34 stand part of the Bill."
EARL RUSSELL: I have listened to the noble Viscount's arguments. They are arguments, of course, that we have heard before with I think one exception, which certainly has never been stressed so much before, and that is that the Legislature, humiliated by the motorist, is going to make this alteration because the country is not strong enough to enforce the law. That seems to me a complete mis-statement of the position. I am not prepared to admit that Parliament or the police are not strong enough to enforce any law in this country which it is thought proper should he enforced. The reason I ventured to give on the Second Reading is that public opinion condemns the law and does not believe in it. Public opinion thinks that the law has no moral sanction behind it and no reason behind it and that is why these police traps for speed alone have disappeared almost entirely in this country. I would recall to the noble Viscount on this point the evidence of a chief constable who was called before the Committee on his Bill. The question was put to him: "If you had had no Section 9 in existence in your county during the last three years would it have made any difference to you?" and he replied: "No difference whatever."
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I would remind my noble friend that there was very strong evidence from the Metropolitan Police to the exactly contrary effect.
EARL RUSSELL: But at the moment I was putting a case which was not that of the Metropolitan Police and I do not see why the noble Viscount wishes to correct me. The chief constable in question said he was able to manage his county—as is true of the majority of chief
1282
constables—without any reference to the existence on the Statute Book of Section 9 imposing a speed limit of twenty miles an hour. Since the noble Lord referred to the Metropolitan Police, may I say that a majority of chief constables at a meeting they held declared themselves against any fixed speed limit. It is perfectly true the Metropolitan Police and Metropolitan Magistrates have always taken a different view. They still take that view in spite of the Report of the Royal Commission. The law is not being altered because Parliament and the police are unable to enforce it. The law is being altered because the present law does not prevent motorists driving dangerously, and we desire to alter the law because we are quite certain a speed limit is not the way to stop it. That is the reason the law is being altered. This speed limit affords a protection which is entirely illusory. We want to afford a protection which is real and which will be insisted upon.
Then the noble Viscount said, as he was fully justified in saying as a debating point: "If what you say about the speed limit is true why does it not apply universally? Why should not everything go as fast as it can on all occasions?" There is no particular reason why it should not go as fast as is safe on all occasions, but it is obvious that what may be safe for a light motor car under proper control and with proper appliances is not safe for a large steam engine weighing from 11 to 15 tons. The same speed limit cannot be safe for both of them. My noble friend has delivered himself into my hands when he talked about a safe speed. I have already explained there is no such thing in all circumstances as a safe speed for any vehicle or at any moment. The speed which is safe is a constantly changing thing, no matter what the vehicle or what the circumstances. If you adopted the suggestion of the noble Viscount to fix a speed limit of thirty-five miles an hour on the ground that that is a safe speed, what is immediately the argument, what is immediately the psychological effect? It is that, in all save exceptional circumstances, thirty-five miles an hour is a safe speed and not a dangerous speed. That is exactly the psychology we desire to break down and put an end to. We desire to make it clear that any speed may be

1283
dangerous at any time and any place, that it must depend upon the circumstances and that you can never say ten miles an hour or fifteen miles an hour is safe any more than you can say twenty miles an hour or thirty-five miles an hour is safe.
This particular Amendment of the noble Lord suggests something to which I would have no objection as a test for myself. That is to say, that it puts the onus upon the driver of proving, if he is exceeding some arbitrary fixed speed, that he is not driving dangerously. So far as I personally am concerned I should not have the least objection to facing that test, but that is putting the law the wrong way round. The objection to it is what will follow when a speed limit is fixed and you have the necessary implication that speeds lower than that speed are safe. No speed is safe. You cannot have a safe speed either at the top or at the bottom of the scale. You must in each case take the circumstances as they stand. I am quite satisfied myself that the effect of this change and the administration of this new law by the police will be to impose greater caution upon motorists and not less. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lord Brentford for what he said upon the Second Reading. Let no motorists suppose that what is intended by this Bill is to give them licence. It is not intended to convey to the motorist that because there is no speed limit he can drive as fast as he likes. Far from it. It is intended to convey to him that it is his duty at all times and in all places to drive at that speed which in the circumstances is safe, and if anyone makes the mistake of supposing that he will have a licence to drive furiously, I think and hope that the police will teach him that he has made a mistake.
Speed is now, under the old section which is included in this Bill, an element in dangerous driving, and may, if proved, be itself sufficient proof of dangerous driving in given circumstances. The old section, the words of which we have retained, provides that if any person drives at a speed which is dangerous to the public that will be an offence. I think your Lordships, if you adopted this Amendment, would check what I hope we are going to succeed in doing by this I
1284
Bill—namely, putting a new spirit into the motoring public—a spirit not of artificial limits but of caution at all places. I know the noble Viscount thinks that once a limit is fixed it will have some effect upon people. Upon reckless motorists it will have no effect. Upon the more or less careful motorist it may have the very dangerous effect of making him think that too high a speed is a safe speed. I hope that we may take this Amendment as a test Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: After the noble Earl opposite has replied in that form, I feel great diffidence in saying anything more, but anybody who has dealt with the question of motorists, both in the civil and the criminal courts, knows perfectly well that every motorist, either upon a criminal charge or in civil litigation, always says at once: "Oh, I was driving under twenty miles an hour." We know perfectly well what the effect of having a speed limit has been. If you have a speed limit of twenty miles an hour everybody thinks he is entitled at all times to drive up to twenty miles an hour. If the noble Viscount would take out his car and drive it himself—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I have not got one.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: If the noble Viscount allowed himself to be driven past a school at an hour when the children were rushing out from that school, he would realise at once that a mile an hour might be too great a speed at which to go.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No one doubts it.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: If you have a thirty-mile an hour limit you get people to think that they are always entitled to go at thirty miles; and they are not. As the noble Earl opposite has said, you have to take into consideration every particular circumstance for a particular spot. The noble Viscount has put down an Amendment in which he puts it upon a person to prove a negative, which I thought was absolutely wrong from all ideas of legislation. The person has to prove that the speed could not involve danger to the public. How on earth is he going to prove that it could not be dangerous to the public? It is a perfectly novel idea in our jurisprudence.

1285
Then see what the effect is going to be. Has the noble Viscount looked at paragraph 5 of the First Schedule? Supposing you get an invalid carriage or ambulance coming up with a patient who is being rushed to hospital: are you going to involve the driver of that ambulance, in the penalties under Clause 101? That is the present proposal—namely, that he is guilty of the offence of dangerous driving under Clause 11, unless the driver can prove that it could not have been dangerous. Is it contemplated that in those particular circumstances the person is to be left to die upon the ambulance rather than that the driver should take upon himself the risk of going to prison for three months if he is not able to prove that his driving was not dangerous to the public? Again, who is the public? Is it the person on the ambulance or the person on the street? Your Lordships will also observe that there are very heavy penalties, unless the driver can prove a negative.
The noble Viscount has drawn attention to the fact that a difference is made between two different kinds of vehicles. Let me give your Lordships an instance. Take the motor car used by the ordinary man with an ordinary and not very great income. I resent very much that it should be suggested that these light Morris cars or Baby Austin oars should be necessarily the perquisite of the rich They are not, and they are to be exempted from the speed limit. Then the noble Viscount asks, Why not all? Can you really draw a parallel between such a car as a Morris-Cowley and a large char-a-bancs? In the case of the Morris-Cowley you are probably dealing with a person who both drives and owns the car. That is not the case of the char-a-bancs. There you are dealing with the unfortunate driver, who is scheduled to drive according to a time-table, and who knows that he will be dismissed if he does not keep to the schedule. If you look at this Bill, that is very nicely provided for by subsection (4) of Clause 101. There you are dealing with these big vehicles, and the owner has to show, not a negative but a positive, and a very good positive to. He has to show that he has "used due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act," and if he does not do that then the owner, as well as the driver, is responsible.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It does not let off the driver.
THE EARL OF HALSBUKY: No, but it ropes in the owner, and it seems to me there is very good reason why there should be differentiation between the owner-driver of a light car, who is probably not a rich man, and the managing owner of a big char-a-bancs company, who probably is. I do not approve of a speed limit, and I hope your Lordships will not accede to this Amendment. If it be taken as a test on the question of a speed limit, I hope you will reject it, and certainly on its particular wording I hope you will have nothing to do with it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I would like to ask whether, if we vote against this Amendment, it will be open afterwards to put in a speed limit? I am in favour of a speed limit, but I do not want to waste time by discussing it now if we can discuss it later on. I cannot support the Amendment, because it says there shall be a speed limit later on but that if a man can prove that he was not driving dangerously then the speed limit vanishes.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: I do not think the noble Earl opposite, or the noble Earl who spoke last but one, has really grappled with one point which stood out in the speech of Lord Cecil as a fresh point. It is a little difficult to discuss this because this Amendment involves a reference to the Schedule and to the Amendments to the Schedule, but we ought to bear in mind that this part of the noble Viscount's scheme will introduce into the Schedule that which is absent at present, a speed limit of 35 miles an hour for those private motor cars which are now, according to the Schedule, to have no limit. The point that he has raised, to which no answer has been attempted, and, I think, no answer is possible, is this: How do you think that you can enforce speed limits upon commercial cars when uncommercial cars are to be free from any speed limit at all?
The arguments that have been urged by the noble Earl opposite against speed limits upon the ground that they mislead the mind of the chauffeur into thinking that to him all things are lawful, and it docs not matter whether they are expedient

1287
or not so long as he keeps within his speed limit, apply equally to the driver of a commercial vehicle, who has a speed limit. And how does anyone who has witnessed the enormous driving force of the organised motoring interests, displayed through all these debates, think that it will be possible to choke off the opposition and the attacks of the organised owners and drivers of vehicles which are to be subject to a speed limit? Whatever else you must have in a Bill like this, it appears to me that in the matter of a speed limit it must be the same for everybody. That is the fundamental principle, I understand, of modern democracy—that everything must be the same for everybody; and at any rate if you keep up a speed limit for one class of motor car and none for another you only bring over again the sad chapter of our experiences now for nearly a generation, and, owing to what is called public opinion—which means the organised desire of motorists to go faster and faster and faster, and nothing else—the law will once more be defied and, a sufficient body of lawless persons having met with a sufficient body of inept magistrates, the result will be that the law will have to go by the board.
I should not like to see that happen again in my time. But that is what will happen. No democratic Government will stand up against the organised demand by the owners of commercial vehicles to have their speed limit abolished, if the Government propose to maintain a discrimination and to leave one class of cars free. I do not at this present moment wish to commit myself to a preference between speed limits for all or speed limits for nobody, but I am quite satisfied that you cannot have this half-and-half scheme anyway. If you are to have a speed limit, I think it is reasonable to make it high, that is to say, high in comparison with the capacity of the modern car, not only for speed but for stopping. If Parliament had done its duty twenty-years ago it would have amended the twenty-mile limit by a single-clause Act of Parliament, because when the motor car ceased to be an uncertain and often dangerous piece of mechanism, and had been developed far more rapidly than public opinion developed into a highly flexible and easily controllable piece of machinery, then was the time to have
1288
altered the speed limit and make it more rational. Then would have been the time when we might have hoped that benches of magistrates might have enforced the law, instead of betraying it.
But as it is, we have now reached a stage when, if there is to be a speed limit at all, it must be high. I cannot understand why, if there is one at all, it should not be a perfectly rational plan to adopt the noble Viscount's suggestion, not of proving a negative or any other chop-logic of that kind, but, by changing the burden of proof, calling upon the man who has exceeded the speed limit laid down for him to show that he did no harm. It is a thing that is perfectly familiar in the Admiralty Court, where, if you break the sea rules prescribed by law, you are held to blame unless you can show that you could not have done any harm—that it could not have led to an accident. In the same way, if you only use the positive expression here, and instead of saying "could not involve danger to the public" you say "was safe to the public" there will be no difficulty in the matter. I ask your Lordships to consider this, not as part of the trite and almost tedious controversy which has gone on between the speed men and those who wish to walk about peacefully, but as a matter of practical legislation, and I ask you to try the experiment of putting the burden of proof that he was doing right on the man who prima facie is doing wrong by exceeding a speed limit. And if you are going to decide to have no speed limit at all, I would like you to ask yourselves the question, considering the multitude of cars driving on the roads, and considering how much driving to the common danger can be done without breaking anybody's neck, what chance do you think the police have of proving a case against people who, if only let alone, will break every law on the subject that there is?
LORD DANESFORT: The question of the speed limit is one which affects the comfort and, it may be, the lives of almost every man, woman, and child in this country, and what we are considering at the moment is this: shall we, by abolishing the speed limit, reduce the appalling death toll consequent upon the driving of motor cars—some six thousand deaths every year—and shall we reduce the terrible injury to limb, something like

1289
150,000 a year from the same cause? I suppose we all have our own individual opinions, formed partly by prejudice—I do not deny that in my own case prejudice may exist—opinions formed very often by very imperfect experience. In a matter of this sort I suggest that it would be wiser to accept the opinion of experts who have had most opportunity of testing by actual practice what the best course to be adopted is. I look at the Report of the Royal Commission and I find that among those who are in favour of retaining a speed limit (and I do not say for the moment what it should be) is, first of all, the Commissioner of Police in the Metropolis. Well, he has an enormous experience, he has a huge area to cover, and his deliberate opinion is that there should be a speed limit. The majority of the city and borough chief constables with very wide experience are also in favour of retaining the speed limit. Then there are the Metropolitan Magistrates and also, as I understand, the Magistrates' Association generally, who are in favour of the speed limit. Surely the persons before whom these cases come, who hear the evidence in each case, know to what the accidents are due: they, too, are in favour of keeping the speed limit.
And what is the alternative? The alternative, if you abolish the speed limit, is to rely solely on the prohibition of driving to the danger of the public. I venture to say that that is no real protection. Driving to the danger of the public is very largely a matter of individual opinion, and very often a matter—as, indeed, the Royal Commission's Report finds—of the individual opinion of the bench before whom the case comes. The Report says that from the point of view of the Royal Commission it is very difficult to rely upon laws as to dangerous driving. In point of fact, the Commissioner of Police in the Metropolis says that it is very difficult to get a conviction for dangerous driving unless an accident has taken place. Now you are going to substitute for all speed limits for these lighter cars this question of dangerous driving, and yet we have evidence from the experts who say that many magistrates will not convict for dangerous driving unless someone has been killed or injured. Is that a right state of things?
It is quite true the Report also states that there are some chief constables who say that they can get convictions sometimes
1290
even though there is no actual accident. Other chief constables say they find a great difficulty in getting convictions if there is no accident. Surely the fact that there is this difficulty in getting convictions in cases where the charge is driving to the danger of the public, shows that you cannot rely alone upon danger to the public in order to protect the public from these terrible casualities which now take place. The Report suggests—and I think the Bill carries out the suggestion to a certain extent—that if you greatly increase the penalty for driving to the danger of the public you will probably have better results. Surely, if you are going to increase these penalties, you increase the difficulty of getting convictions. It is difficult enough now to get convictions in cases of driving to the public danger. Those benches of magistrates who already are averse from giving convictions in these cases would be far more averse from finding there is danger to the public when the penalties are greatly increased, as the Bill proposes to increase them.
I have given your Lordships a list of some of the experts who gave evidence. Who are the people in favour of abolishing the speed limit? They are all motor organisations, but, very significantly, the Report says, that is exactly as might be expected. They want their members to be able to drive fast. That is the inference which I gather from the Report. They do not want to have any speed limit put upon the people who belong to their associations. There are certainly some county councils who favour the abolition of the speed limit, and no doubt their opinions are of value—I do not suggest for a moment they are not—but taking the police and magistrates, and the chief constables whose opinions I have already cited, I think there is no comparison in the weight of evidence in favour of retaining the speed limit as compared with the evidence which desires to abolish it.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, says—and I think my noble friend Lord Halsbury said something of the same kind—that motorists will think that if there is a speed limit they can always drive up to that limit safely. Supposing there is a speed limit of thirty-five miles an hour, is there any motorist so senseless, so reckless, so abandoned that, if the speed limit is put at thirty-five an hour, he will think that

1291
he can drive in a crowded street in London at thirty-five miles an hour, past all the side streets and everything else? If there is such a person the sooner he comes under the observation and the correction of the law the better. The truth is that motorists are not—I was going to say such fools—so reckless, perhaps I might say they are not such criminals as to suppose if the speed limit is thirty-five miles an hour, they can drive anywhere and everywhere at thirty-five miles an hour. Of course they will use their discretion, especially when they know that a penalty is attached if they are found exceeding the limit.
There was a reason given for abolishing the speed limit by certain of those who came before the Royal Commission. They said: "Speed is not in itself dangerous if the car is under control." That is just the question—if it is under control. If you have a heavy car going at thirty, forty or fifty miles an hour upon a road which may be slippery and if that car has to be pulled up suddenly it will skid and go into the bank or into some other car. The truth is when you have a car going at a high speed, especially a heavy car, it cannot be said that it is under control. Cars come from round the corner, and children and dogs come out of doors—and I do not think your Lordships will leave dogs out of the question—to cross the road, and the man with the best intention in the world cannot pull up. Therefore, this suggestion that speed is not in itself dangerous is a very misleading one and I would ask your Lordships to pay little attention to it. When I am told that speed in itself is not at all dangerous I ask myself: Why is it that when we had nothing but horse traffic the number of casualties on the road was exceedingly small, and why is it now that we have motor traffic we have 6,000 deaths a year and 150,000 injuries? Surely, the answer is: "Because the motor goes twice, thrice, four times as fast as the horse." Therefore, I beg your Lordships to have regard to the evidence that was given by the experts and to vote for the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Cecil.
EARL HOWE: Perhaps at this stage the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) would like me to say what I have to say on my Amendment, and I may be forgiven if I address my remarks on the
1292
speed limit upon the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Cecil. The Amendment we are discussing now proposes to raise the speed limit to 35 miles an hour. In my Amendment I desire to raise the speed limit to 40 miles an hour. The reason I want to have the speed limit is a purely personal one. I do not in any sense represent anybody except myself in speaking on this particular Amendment. A good deal has been said this afternoon upon the subject of the psychological effect of speed limits. At an earlier stage we decided the question of the examination of drivers. If the House had been able to agree to the Amendment, which in that case was moved by the noble Viscount (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) and had set up a system of examination of drivers, I myself should not have desired to move my own Amendment. As the House was not able to accept that, I am to a certain extent afraid of the psychological effect.
I hold the view that there are a number of people in these days of mass-produced vehicles—an increasing number of people—who drive motor cars on the road with very little road sense and very little imagination. I do not believe that there are very many intentionally reckless drivers; in fact I am sure there are very few. I believe those who do err, err much more sometimes from inattention and sometimes from lack of imagination. I believe they err in many respects unwittingly, but I am a little afraid of the effect of the total removal of the speed limit. I am afraid that if it encourages a number of comparatively speaking inefficient drivers to put up their general speed it may result in an increase in disasters. The one thing I am most anxious about in this Bill is that whatever we do we should try to do something to lessen the appalling total of road casualties which are published from time to time.
Now in my submission the trouble with regard to the speed limit, and the reason why it has been so consistently disregarded, as it undoubtedly has been, is to be found in the altogether unequal operation of the speed limit clause. You go from a County like Kent where no one, I think, has ever seen a speed limit trap, to a County like Surrey where the police adopt methods which have in time become quite notorious in character. You go from there to Hertfordshire where

1293
again you will hardly, if ever, find a single speed limit trap. If there is going to be one you may perhaps see a notice in the newspapers from the chief constable warning everybody that he has had complaints about excessive speed and that unless the complaints are reduced he will have to set up a control. That is the reasonable way of doing things. A motorist, however, travelling from one area to another never knows how the speed limit will be administered. In one area he is subject to rigid control and in another no notice is taken of him so long as he does not endanger anybody in a town or in an urban area.
If we do away with speed limit offences and leave the motorist to be dealt with under the dangerous driving or careless driving clause, then I would like to submit to your Lordships that the matter will become very largely, or may become very largely, unless unhappily some accident results, a matter of personal opinion. On the other hand exceeding the speed limit is a question of fact. I was very much attracted by the argument put forward by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Summer, when he alluded to that point. My noble friend Viscount Cecil gave us a very gloomy view when he said that those who wanted to do away with the speed limit were probably representatives of the rich. I rather traverse what he said, in company with what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury said, because I think he must have forgotten that motor cycles are also included under this Bill, and that it is proposed that the speed limit for motor cycles also should be abolished. I do not think he was quite fair to people who use motor vehicles when he suggested that it was only people who are the fortunate possessors of this world's goods who desire to do away with the speed limit. Equally I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, was quite fair to the motoring organisations when he said they wanted to drive fast. It is purely a difference of opinion as to whether it is better to control motor cars by limiting their speed or by imposing more severe penalties for dangerous driving, or perhaps both. I submit to your Lordships that there is a psychological danger that if you do away with the speed limit certain people who are not really qualified to drive their vehicles will be induced to
1294
go faster, it is for that reason that I desire to submit to your Lordships the Amendments I have put on the Paper.
EARL RUSSELL: When I was listening to the noble Earl I could not help asking myself one or two questions. He has put on the Paper an Amendment to impose a speed limit of forty miles an hour. That is the speed limit that he has chosen himself. I am not going to put questions to him, but I could not help asking myself one or two questions. If this is to be the speed limit, does the noble Earl propose invariably to observe it? That was one of the questions. When the speed limit was twenty miles an hour was the noble Earl never accused at any time of going at more than forty miles an hour even with that limit? Is it not true that these limits are to be merely fanciful things not intended to be observed and not intended to be a rigid code of law which people are bound to observe? I just want to add one other word in reference to the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort. He quoted a great many authorities, and most of those he quoted were of his own way of thinking, but he left out one authority. There was one authority that listened to the whole of the evidence, that heard what everybody had to say on all sides, and that was the Royal Commission. That authority would surely have no prejudged opinion and that authority came down unanimously against the continuance of the speed limit.
LORD RAGLAN: In many parts of the country and in one part of Scotland especially which I know very well there has been for many years no prosecution for exceeding the speed limit. I am not aware that anybody has suggested that there are more accidents there than in places where the speed limit is enforced. There is also, I believe, one county in England where for many years there has been no prosecution and there again I do not think there are any more accidents.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: There are not so many cars perhaps.
LORD RAGLAN: Oh, yes there are. In many parts of the country this proposal in the Bill will not mean so radical a change as some of my noble friends seem to think.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There is one point which I should like to mention which has not yet been mentioned. I think there are countries abroad where there is no speed limit, and what happens, I think, is that people are rather inclined to break records in getting from one point to another—to do, say, 600 miles in a day. I must say I do not think that is a desirable thing. If there were a speed limit they could not do it. I have looked carefully at Clause 13 and I do not think it would cover that. My noble friend behind me suggested that the rate of driving all over the country would rise if we did not have a speed limit. I think that is probably true, and that people would set out to make records, and I think your Lordships will agree that that would be undesirable.
EARL HOWE: The noble Earl opposite has put some questions to me.
EARL RUSSELL: No, I put them to myself.
EARL HOWE: Perhaps I might claim the indulgence of your Lordships' House to answer the questions. As far as speed limits are concerned, personally I have observed or disregarded them as much in the past as the fortunate possessor of Motor Car A 1. If I might, I should like to suggest that if the noble Earl cannot accept my Amendment or the Amendment of the noble Viscount he might perhaps consider whether some sort of recommendation to this effect could not be included with advantage in the code which the Minister proposes to issue.
LORD ATKIN: I feel a little difficulty in seeing how we can determine whether a speed limit is desirable or not upon the actual proposal made in this Amendment, because I for my part am quite able to appreciate the point of view of those who say they think there ought to be a speed limit of some kind and yet may entirely object to the proposal of this Amendment. Certainly it seems to me that—unfortunately not for the first time—we have a proposal for a new criminal offence made in a way which is quite contrary to the spirit in which we generally provide for criminal offences. It is proposed that now and for the future there shall be the criminal offence of driving to the danger of the public and in certain circumstances the onus
1296
will be thrown upon the accused person of proving that he is innocent of that particular offence. I think that is wrong and I venture to suggest that the real objection to this Amendment is that it mixes up the question of the speed limit with the question of dangerous driving.
I had hoped, and I still hope, that as a result of passing this Bill there will be a new era in respect of the way in which people enforce the law as to dangerous driving and in saying that I particularly refer to courts of summary jurisdiction. In the past they have been careless and lax in respect of that offence, which is a very serious one, and I hope that in the future prosecutions will be more numerous, the attention of the police will be directed more to this offence, apart from any question of the speed limit, and punishment will be tightened up. I am quite sure that benches of magistrates have not in the past been severe enough in eases of dangerous driving, and I agree with what has been said that in some courts magistrates have taken the view—to my mind an entirely fallacious one—that there cannot be dangerous driving unless some person has been actually endangered at the time. That seems to me to be entirely wrong. I have always taken the view that the reckless driver who drives round a blind corner or up a hill with a blind brow is a very serious offender against the public interest and ought to be dealt with very seriously indeed. It is pure accident, in cases of that kind, that the man has not committed manslaughter. It is pure chance whether there was somebody round that corner or just beyond the brow of the hill. He takes the risk and, to my mind, he ought to be dealt with very seriously. You will never get magistrates to view the case from that aspect so long as the question of dangerous driving is mixed up with the entirely different question of whether or not a person has committed a breach of the speed limit. In itself the speed limit has no connection with the public danger.
You will observe that by this Amendment—
"Any person who drives a motor vehicle at a speed greater than the speed specified in the First Schedule of this Act as the maximum speed in relation to a vehicle of that class or description shall be deemed to have been guilty of dangerous driving as

1297
hereinafter defined unless he can show that in the actual circumstances of the case such greater speed could not involve danger to the public."
This involves the whole question of the speed limit, so that the magistrate will have to consider cases of a man driving a heavy lorry who is charged with exceeding twenty-two miles an hour, or a person driving a light van at thirty-two miles an hour or of somebody else driving at twenty-seven miles an hour. The court will have to assume that the man was guilty of dangerous driving unless he can prove that he had not endangered the public. That seems to me to be a very unfortunate state of things. It is confusing the speed limit with the entirely different question of driving to the public danger, and the result will be that the attention that ought to be directed to serious eases of dangerous driving will be deflected again to the question of the speed limit, which is much less important.
There is one other point to which I should like to call the attention of the Committee. It constantly happens in practice that a man charged with exceeding the speed limit will admit that it was quite true that he was driving at thirty-seven miles an hour, or whatever it may be. He pleads guilty and leaves it to the magistrate to impose a fine. But, if this Amendment is agreed to, if he is charged with exceeding the speed limit, in every case he may find himself convicted of dangerous driving unless he appears in court and proves a negative. This would impose a very serious burden upon him. I hope that in the interests of the country and in the interests of this Bill, which, I think, has made a clear distinction between the speed limit and dangerous driving, we shall concentrate on dangerous driving. Do not let us mix it up with the question of the speed limit. Driving at any speed may be evidence of dangerous driving, but do not let us mix it up with some statutory speed limit. I venture to suggest that it would be a very grave misfortune if we did any such thing, and accordingly, whether we have a speed limit or not, I hope that the House will decide against the Amendment of the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: There is one point that has not been mentioned in regard to the speed limit. As the noble Earl will remember from the speech that
1298
I made on the Second Reading, I am not an advocate of high speed. I felt very considerable diffidence before I agreed to the proposal to eliminate the speed limit from the Bill. What I think caused me to agree to that proposal was the real difficulty of enforcing a speed limit. Whether you make it twenty or thirty-five or forty miles an hour, as my noble friend Lord Howe wants to make it, you can enforce it only by what are commonly called police traps. If the House now, after twenty years, is going to consider the question over again and definitely decide on a particular speed—let us say forty miles an hour—it must be that Parliament definitely decides that this speed limit is to be obeyed. It is quite impossible that we should pass a speed limit and not ask the police of the country to see that it is properly observed. One of my noble friends behind me has told the Committee of two countries that he knows where there is no speed limit in operation.
As your Lordships know, I was responsible for the administration of the police for some years and, from the knowledge that I have, I say that it is quite impossible to enforce a speed limit of any kind as it should be enforced with anything like the present numbers of police. All over the country the police are doing their utmost to cope with the ordinary duties that fall upon them, and if you are going to enforce a speed limit, as it has not been enforced for the last ten years, you will have to have an enormous number of policemen in addition to those you have at present to enforce the limit by the only possible means—namely, police traps. If you are going to do that, you will place a very heavy additional expense upon the ratepayers and upon the Government. Let me say at once what you are going to do. You are going to do what you did a few years ago—namely, to render the police more unpopular. There is no doubt whatever, as I said in a speech in the other House some years ago when the police of the country were passing through a clouded period, that a great deal of their unpopularity was due to the fact that in certain districts they were compelled, quite rightly, to enforce a speed limit which was not in accordance with public opinion at the time. As one who has been responsible for the police, I hate to see them engaged in a duty

1299
which has not the approval of the great mass of the people behind it.
I put it to your Lordships that, if you decide on a speed limit—decide if you like—you must be faced with the fact that you have to enforce it. Can you do so? Many of your Lordships are magistrates, many are on standing joint committees or are responsible for the administration of the law, and know exactly the position of the police forces in the counties. Are you prepared to go down to your counties and county benches and standing joint committees and say that this speed limit of forty miles an hour, or whatever it is, is to be enforced, that Parliament has decided the whole question over again and that, in the interests of public morality, you have to enforce it? I am sure your Lordships know that nothing is worse than to have an Act of Parliament, particularly a modern Act of Parliament passed after full consideration, if it is not, or perhaps cannot be, enforced.
I should like to add how entirely I agree with the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin. Some years ago, when I was addressing the Automobile Association—I resigned the Chairmanship of that body when I became a Minister—I warned its members that if they asked for the abolition of the speed limit, they would be subjecting themselves to a much more serious position. At whatever speed a motorist drives, if he drives dangerously it is right and proper that he should be most severely punished, and I believe that my noble friend will admit that is the right line. The main argument I have in opposing the Amendment is to ask your Lordships, are you going to enforce it or not? I do not believe anybody ought to Vote for the reimposition of a new speed limit unless he is prepared in his own county and on his own bench to see it carried out.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I only want to make sure of one point which is of interest to all those who, like myself, are constantly on the road. I was much impressed by what my noble friend Earl Russell said about the mental effect of a speed limit which induces a driver to suppose that, if he is driving within that limit, he is driving safely. Why does not that apply equally to the speed limits which
1300
are specified in this Bill for other classes of motor vehicles than the ordinary kind of car? Surely the effect of each of these provisions of a speed limit must be to induce the drivers of the different classes of vehicles to suppose that, if they keep within those limits, they are driving safely. Whereas the whole argument of my noble friend Lord Russell was that it was very dangerous to make anybody suppose that observance of any limit whatever was necessarily safe.
Similarly, I should have thought that the tendency of retaining these different speed limits would be to induce magistrates to come to the conclusion that, if a driver of one or other of these specified classes of vehicles kept within the speed limits in the schedule, it would rebut any charge that he had been driving dangerously. I can understand entirely abolishing the speed limit and relying entirely upon the charge of dangerous driving. I can also understand retaining the speed limit everywhere. What I cannot understand is that you retain it in all these other classes of vehicles and abolish it in the case of the drivers of private cars. My own feeling, deepened by the tendency of this debate, is that probably the wisest thing is no longer to rely on speed limits of any kind but to induce a state of public opinion that calls for vigilance and care on the part of motorists and that insists on the part of magistrates that the least tendency towards dangerous driving should be severely punished.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do not wish to detain your Lordships but I should like to say a few words on the course of the debate. First of all with regard to the speech of my noble friend Lord Atkin, I really was very much interested by it. I have the greatest respect for him and I could not follow or agree with any single sentence he uttered. He began by saying it was a very wicked thing indeed to throw the onus of proof upon the accused. Surely, it is the commonest thing in the world, once a prima facie case has been proved against somebody in a number of different offences, for him to have to prove that in point of fact, though that was true, it did not amount to the offence with which he was charged. My knowledge of the law is infinitely inferior

1301
to his but my recollection is that in a great number of cases—in connection with adulteration for instance—that is the condition of the law and I have no doubt anybody more familiar with the law can give a great number of instances. It is applying no new principle but an ordinary principle, after proving a prima facie case, to ask the driver if he can show any kind of fact which proves that it does; not amount to causing danger to the public. Whether you accept the phrasing of Lord Sumner, which is very much better, or of myself, that is surely a very legitimate thing to do.
I press very strongly upon the noble Lord the great importance, even from his own point of view, of some such provision. He relies on dangerous driving. That is his great idea. He wants dangerous driving and a very severe penalty. I believe that is entirely wrong. It is not a question of very severe penalties. That has never been the way in which the law has been enforced. It has been enforced by certainty of punishment and not by very severe punishments and great uncertainty as to whether you are punished at all. The reckless man, if he thinks the chances are five to one against his being punished at all, will continue to be reckless and it does not make a great deal of difference to him whether the, penalty at the end is very severe or not. The thing is certainty of punishment and, if you rely on dangerous driving alone, you leave it in the greatest uncertainty possible. Dangerous driving is necessarily a matter of opinion. The noble Lord gave instances of going round a comer too fast, or on the wrong side, and things of that kind. Some people will think it depends upon the corner. There are extreme cases which everybody would agree are dangerous but, unless you lay down particulars to some extent, you will find the greatest uncertainty and variety as to what will happen in each particular case. You will encourage people by giving greater probability of their being able to escape. The noble Lord wanted to know whether speed may be dangerous driving. That has, been the condition of the law up till now. Dangerous driving has been one offence; exceeding the speed limit has been another. Is he satisfied? No. He wants to abolish speed as an
1302
element of dangerous driving. He wants to go further than the noble Earl, who says that speed is to be an element of dangerous driving, and to say that speed should not be an element.
He went on to say how difficult it would be to enforce my Amendment with its various speeds. That is a difficulty with the Bill as it is drawn. It is a very great difficulty which the noble Earl has said ought to be dealt with to some extent when he comes to the Schedule by reducing the number of categories. I do not want to go through all that has been said. With what has fallen from the most reverend Primate I entirely agree. You can rely on the conception of dangerous driving alone or on the conception of driving above a certain limit, but there is a third course, which is the one suggested in this Amendment—namely, that you should not regard exceeding the speed limit as conclusive but merely as prima facie evidence of dangerous driving. That seems to me a provision in the Amendment with which my noble friend Lord Brentford did not deal. He treated it simply as an Amendment in order to enforce a speed limit. It is not that. I quite agree with him that, if it was that, it would be open to the objection he raised, that you would have to have a large force of police to enforce it. In this Amendment that is not so. You concentrate the mind of the driver on what is safe. That is the whole point of the Amendment and you do so much more than you do under the Bill as it stands.
I shall not detain your Lordships any longer I only want to say one word as to what fell from my noble friend Earl Russell. He said that there is no such thing as a safe speed. I agree, but that is not the defence of his Bill. As the most reverend Primate pointed out, he relies on particular speeds as safe speeds or otherwise as scheduled for the great mass of vehicles other than these favoured and privileged private motor cars. I know that several noble Lords have taken me to task for suggesting that is unduly favouring a particular section of the population. I do not want to press that unduly, but it is a fact which your Lordships ought to bear in mind that in the main most of the people who will be freed from the speed limit will be the rich people of the country. You cannot get

1303
over it. I do not know whether it will be right or wrong, but it will be the fact.
I cannot help feeling that fundamentally, although Lord Russell did not use the expression, he has still got in his mind what I have often heard him state, that speed is not in itself dangerous. It is really a fallacy. It is a fallacy which I am surprised should have taken in so acute an intellect as that of my noble friend. Of course speed is not dangerous in itself. That is to say, if you take a car into the middle of the Sahara Desert you can drive it as fast as you like without danger, except to yourself, but it is much more dangerous, in the kind of conditions which you find on the ordinary English road to drive at sixty rather than thirty or twenty miles an hour. There cannot be any question about it. The case which you have to meet is the unforeseen danger, and you can stop much more readily, and take measures to avoid serious danger, if you are going slowly than if you are going fast, and if, unhappily, you do not succeed in avoiding an accident, you do less damage according to the slower speed at which you are going.
When you say that speed is not in itself dangerous, that is true, but no more is careless driving dangerous, or driving when you are drunk. It all depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. If you are in a desert you can drive at any speed, and be blind drunk, and yet do no harm to anybody except yourself. Speed is an element of danger, and nothing else. I do believe that it is an element. Much more than that, I believe that 99 per cent., or at any rate a very considerable proportion of accidents, are due in the end to driving too fast—not exceeding, I quite agree, this or that limit, but driving too fast. It is the general cause of accidents. Those who drive fast ought to know that they are encouraging, and deliberately encouraging, the fearful toll of accidents which take place. That is the whole truth. The parts of the roads where people in fact drive fast are the commonest places for accidents to occur. It is not in the crowded parts of the towns, where they have to drive slowly, but in the relatively open places, where they can get up a good speed. It is for that reason that I say it is perfectly legitimate and reasonable to say that speed ought to be
1304
recognised as an element in dangerous, driving, and unless we are going to leave it to be a matter of opinion, with all the uncertainty and consequent ineffectiveness of the law, then it is reasonable to say, broadly speaking, that on the roads of England at any rate you should not drive at more than 30 miles an hour, unless you are perfectly certain that you are not doing so to the danger of the public. For these reasons I feel that I must press my Amendment to a Division.
EARL RUSSELL: I am not at all surprised that the logical mind of the most rev. Primate put a question to me as to the difference between the speed limit for heavy cars and no limit for light cars. I shall be perfectly ready to develop that subject when the time comes, but I will merely say this now, that the conditions are altogether different. First of all those cars are generally driven by more or less responsible people, and the vast majority are under control. Secondly, and quite equally important, we have to regard, in connection with those vehicles and their lower speed, the wear and tear of the roads. That is one of the reasons, and a most important reason, for the lower speeds for these heavy vehicles. They do an infinite amount of damage to the roads when travelling at higher speed. I really rose in order to make a suggestion to the Committee, in the interests of convenience. Lord Cecil's Amendment has apparently a certain want of friends in its own substance, and I think that if the Committee would like to express its opinion as to the speed limit it might be well perhaps if we first negatived the noble Viscount's Amendment, and then took the question of speed limit on the next Amendment by Lord Howe. That will give us a clear-cut issue on the question of a speed limit.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I shall certainly divide on my Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I will put the question in this form, namely: Clause 10, page 12, line 34, that line 34 stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Falkland, V.

Hemphill, L.

Hood, V.

Manners, L.

Argyll, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Marks, L. [Teller.]

Wellington, D.

Merthyr, L.

Monkswell, L.

Beading, M.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Salisbury, M.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Beauchamp, E.

Amulree, L.

Passfield, L.

Clarendon, E.

Armstrong, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Cottenham, E.

Arnold, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Askwith, L.

Raglan, L.

Halsbury, E.

Atkin, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Remnant, L.

Lucan, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Morton, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Russell, E.

Clwyd, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Stanhope, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Shandon, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Darling, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

de Clifford, L.

Allendale, V.

Denman, L.

Swaythling, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Teynham, L.

Brentford, V.

Dynevor, L.

Thomson, L.

Chaplin, V.

Faringdon, L.

Wavertree, L.

Churchill, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cecil of Chelwood, V. [Teller.]

Gladstone V.

Sumner, V.

Knutsford, V.

Danesfort, L. [Teller.]

Falmouth, V.

Novar, V.

Newton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), after "drive," to insert "any motor vehicle on a road at a greater speed than forty miles per hour or."The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 35, after ("drive") insert ("any motor vehicle on a road at a greater speed than forty miles per hour or").—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: It seems to me that this has been decided by the last Division. Of course, we shall resist this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved to leave out subsections (2) and (3). The noble Viscount said: This is a very short point, but I do not understand on what ground the Bill says that it shall be impossible to suspend the, licence of a person guilty of an offence for the first or second time. I should have thought that it would carry out the wishes at any rate of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, not to limit the discretion of the tribunal in this respect. I should have thought that in
1306
every case of this kind there ought to be a power at any rate on the part of the court to suspend the licence.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3).—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
EARL RUSSELL: We certainly had thought this Amendment was consequential, but if the noble Viscount puts it as a substantive point I think the short answer is that, first of all, it has been the law now for a very long time that there should not be a disqualification on a first or second conviction for a speed offence; and, secondly, we do not think it is a proper penalty to impose, or that a mere excess of the speed in the Schedule is in itself a thing which should properly lead to a man being disqualified, unless he made a habit and practice of doing it. I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD ATKIN: The noble Viscount might consider the question of whether the Amendment of Lord Banbury, which follows this, is preferable. I can quite understand, of course, that in the case of a first offence it would not be right to make a man subject to disqualification, but in the case of a second offence it might be rather different. After all,

1307
now, for the first time as I understand, we are going to make a real speed limit. In the past it has been illusory; for the future the noble Earl and all of us desire that, where there is a speed limit, it should really be enforced. If that is so, I think there is some advantage in giving to the magistrates an option—they certainly ought not to be compelled. But if a man, say, within a fortnight is convicted of exceeding the speed limit again, the magistrate should have an option of suspending the licence for a time—quite a limited time.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, has already twitted me with my fondness for following precedent, and this Act has been in force for many years. We are not advised that there will be any great advantage in changing it. If the House thinks strongly about it, and thinks that a power of disqualification should be given for a second offence, I should be quite willing to leave it to your Lordships. But it is an undesirable and unnecessary change.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think it would be better for me to withdraw my Amendment, because it will be better to take the discussion on Lord Banbury's Amendment which follows.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out, "or second." The noble Lord said: The subsection as it stands says that—
" A conviction for a first or second offence under this section shall not render the offender liable to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence, including a provisional licence."
The effect of that seems to me to be that the person who drives at a greater speed than that specified in the First Schedule will know perfectly well he can do it twice and be convicted twice, and yet not be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence. It seems to me this is such a very serious offence that, if a person has been convicted once, on the second offence he certainly ought to be liable to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence. We have heard a discussion during the last few moments as to the difficulty of enforcing the law. I do not believe it is so much because the police could not enforce the law, but because the penalties were so small that
1308
a large number of people thought it was safer to disregard the law: if they were caught the penalty would be very small. If we are in the future to endeavour to enforce the law we must see that the penalties are adequate.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 1, leave out ("or second").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
EARL HOWE: It seems to me that this Amendment will refer exclusively to the livelihood of the working man.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Why should we be killed by working men?
EARL HOWE: If the noble Lord will forgive me for a few minutes, it seems to me it would be a very severe penalty indeed to say that because, say, a light goods vehicle had exceeded a specified limit more than once, the man driving it should lose his licence automatically. It would probably be his only means of livelihood, at any rate, if he lose his job it is very difficult to get another in these days. I submit that we ought not to agree to the Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I correct my noble friend? The omission of these words will not render a man automatically liable to lose his licence on the second offence, but it gives the bench an opportunity of saying: "You have committed an offence once and now you shall not have your licence." If it is not left out the bench cannot do that.
EARL RUSSELL: This really is a very small matter. I cannot conceive that an instance would arise where a bench would say the convicted man, on the second offence, merely for exceeding the speed limit, should be prevented from having a licence unless they were satisfied it was a case involving dangerous driving. If that were so then he ought to be prosecuted for dangerous driving. But if the House feels these words should be left out I will not resist it. I do not feel it is necessary myself.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I think it is a little hard. These are all working men. They are men who have mostly been selected and trained by their employers. They see owner-drivers driving at any speed they like private cars of exactly the same weight as the small cars with

1309
which they are delivering goods on a round. These men are convicted of having transgressed the speed limit by a mile or two an hour, not driving dangerously at all; there is no element of danger in it. These men have done it without an accident perhaps, and there may be four or five years between the two convictions. To say that they are to be liable, in those circumstances to have their licences taken away by a bench of magistrates is very hard, while owner-drivers may drive the very same weight of car at any pace they like.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: That is an argument for a speed limit.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I do not think it is. I am all for strong punishments for dangerous driving, but I do not think this is the case.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: We were told just now the real point about having a speed limit for trade oars was that they broke up the roads.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Big ones.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: This applies to them all—to every car in the Schedule that has a speed limit—and it depends upon their being trade vehicles not on their having any particular weight of car. Everyone that runs in excess of the speed limit will be pro tanto breaking up the roads. I do not understand why there is so much solicitude for destroying the road and so little about destroying human life. It may be explained later on. Still, a person who once and again, with a heavy car or a light one, does his best to break up the road which your Lordships have to pay for in the rates, seems to me to be a person who does deserve to have the hand of the magistrate laid upon him, and, if it does take away his livelihood, it is unfortunate, but he knows he should not do it, and he should not do it.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope the word "second" is retained. From one's experience of dealing with this question one knows that it is an extremely serious thing to deprive a man of his means of livelihood. That is what it means. A great deal has beer said about the rich and the poor man in these debates with which I do not agree. I think that aspect of it has been exaggerated by the noble
1310
Viscount, Lord Cecil. Surely this is a case where the poor employee ought to be fairly protected. This is the existing law and it is a very strong thing to change it. I hope therefore the word "second" will be retained.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "or obtaining." The noble Viscount said: These words "or obtaining" surely suggest that the driver has not got a licence and is therefore guilty of a double offence. I do not therefore think that the magistrate should be definitely precluded from preventing him temporarily from obtaining a licence. "Holding" is on a different footing, as the convicted person already had a licence, and is, therefore, only guilty of a single offence.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 3, leave out ("or obtaining").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: Of course the disqualification applies to holding or obtaining a licence. A man may not have had a licence in the first instance and it means that if he has a period of disqualification he shall not during that period have any effective licence he can use. If he has a licence already it is suspended, but it would he ridiculous to allow him to take out a new licence during the period. The words must, of course, remain.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "including" and insert "or holding." The noble Viscount said: This is on a different footing, I think, because the person who is referred to here is allowed as an act of grace to have a licence. If he drives without one surely that is a very dangerous thing. Therefore the word "including" could not be left in the clause but the words "or holding" should be inserted instead.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 3, leave out ("including") and insert ("or holding").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: The words "including a provisional licence" simply extend the definition of licence. It means any kind of licence, including a provisional licence. The words are quite right.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: But it means obtaining a licence surely?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If that is so, I must ask your Lordships to divide on it. If this man chooses to drive without a licence he can still obtain one under the clause as it stands.
EARL RUSSELL: No. I really do not understand how the noble Viscount construes the clause. He is disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence, including a provisional licence.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Therefore it means he can obtain a provisional licence.
EARL RUSSELL: No, it means the exact opposite.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out subsection (3) and insert
"(3) A person charged under this section with the offence of driving a motor vehicle of any class or description on a road at a speed greater than the maximum speed allowed in the case of a vehicle of that class or description, shall not be liable to be convicted of the offence solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that in the opinion of the witness the person charged was driving the vehicle at such greater speed."
The noble Earl said: This is really only a drafting Amendment. It is merely to substitute a better subsection.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 5, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (4), to leave out the first "order" and to insert "regulation." The noble Viscount said: If the Minister is allowed to make an order it means that the order will not be reviewable by Parliament. I think the tendency is to give too much power to Ministers, who are not only empowered to make orders but are frequently judges of their own conduct or misconduct. If the word "regulation" is substituted for "order" either House will be able to set aside such regulation.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 9, leave out ("order") and insert ("regulation").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: What the noble Lord says is quite true, but does he see what the subject matter of the order is? It is merely a question of fire brigade vehicles. I should hardly have thought it necessary to lay a regulation affecting them on the Table of the House. But if the noble Viscount presses it we have no objection.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: As long as the fire brigade is allowed to drive as it likes when it is actually doing its work I have no objection, but if it goes out for practice and does such things then I do object.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I think it ought to be "regulation."
EARL RUSSELL: I am perfectly willing to accept "regulation."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 10, leave out ("order") and insert ("regulation").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DE CLIFFORD LORD DE CLIFFORD moved, in subsection (4), after "brigade" to insert "or ambulance." The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Cranbrook who is unable to be present. He put it on the Paper on behalf of the London County Council. I think it is quite reasonable that if fire brigade vehicles are to be allowed to exceed the limit in the course of fire brigade duties, ambulances which are used with the object of saving life should be put in the same position.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 12, after ("brigade") insert ("or ambulance").—(Lord de Clifford.)
EARL RUSSELL: An ambulance would weigh under two and a half tons and would be able to travel at any necessary speed without this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (5) to omit the words "Any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures" and to insert "If any person is convicted under Section five of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring." The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, leave out line 13 and insert the said new words.—(Earl Russell.)
LORD AMULREE: I should like a point cleared up in reference to this Amendment. It seems to me that if the words are amended so as to read "If any person is convicted under Section live of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, of aiding, abetting" and so on, the clause will not apply to Scotland, because the Summary Jurisdiction Act only applies to England. If these words are introduced there will be no provision as far as I can see for dealing with this matter in Scotland.
EARL RUSSELL: if that is so the matter will be considered, but I should have thought that it was probably covered. This Amendment is to be read with another Amendment which I shall propose in line 16. If the Amendments are agreed to the subsection will then read:—
" If any person is convicted under Section five of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring any person who is employed by him to drive, or is subject to his orders in driving, a motor vehicle on a road to commit an offence under this section he shall instead of being liable on being so convicted to the same punishment as the principal offender be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment."
I am told that, as the subsection is now drafted, some question might arise as to a new offence, and the object of the Amendment is to make it clear that it does not make another summary jurisdiction offence but only increases the penalty.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think I should point out that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has an Amendment to line 13 to leave out "or procure" and to insert "procures or incites." I do not know whether the noble Lord desires to move the Amendment?
LORD RAGLAN: It is merely a drafting Amendment. The word "incites" appeared later in the clause and I thought it should be inserted here.
EARL RUSSELL: It is covered by this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, thinks that the next Amendment is necessary?
LORD RAGLAN: Yes, I think so. It is to omit from subsection (5) the words "who is employed by him to drive, or is subject to his orders in driving, a motor vehicle on a road." The noble Earl accepted a similar Amendment from me to a previous clause. I do not know whether he thinks that this is the same argument, but it ought to be an offence "to aid, abet, counsel or procure" someone to commit an offence. Another objection is that, as the clause now stands, a person might, let us say, offer a taxi-driver a pound to get to the station in five minutes, and would not be committing an offence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 14, leave out from ("person") to ("to") line 16.—(Lord Raglan.)
LORD ATKIN: I think the noble Lord is mistaken. It is, under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, an offence to "aid, abet, counsel or procure" a person to commit that which is an offence. The only thing this clause does is to increase the penalty.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL: My next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 16, leave out ("shall") and insert ("he shall instead of being liable on being so convicted to the same punishment as the principal offender").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to add to subsection (5):—
" and if any person is convicted summarily of the offence of inciting to commit an offence under this section, he shall notwithstanding anything in proviso (c) to subsection (1) of Section twenty-four of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, be liable to the same punishment as if he had procured the commission of an offence under this section."
The noble Earl said: The clause as drafted does not provide any special penalty for the offence of incitement. The object is to provide the same penalty as for aiding and abetting.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 21, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved to add to subsection (5):—
"Provided that an owner or other person who is present in the vehicle at the time of the commission of an offence under this section by the driver shall not be deemed to be aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of that offence by the mere fact of his presence in the vehicle."
The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment in order to avoid any risk of passengers in a car being summoned for "aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring" the driver to commit the offence, merely owing to their presence in the vehicle at the time of the offence. It might be argued that this proviso is unnecessary owing to the fact that further evidence than mere presence is essential under the subsection as it now stands. For this reason I consulted the legal officers of one of the large organisations which concern themselves with motoring, and they agreed with me that a proviso, either in the form that I have suggested or in similar words, is advisable. They consider this Amendment desirable, and I hope that the noble Earl will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 21, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Swaythling.)
EARL RUSSELL: This is to avoid the conviction of a person in consequence of the mere fact of his presence in the vehicle. It is quite impossible that anybody could he convicted on the mere fact of his presence in the vehicle. He must do something more than that before any court could conceivably convict him and, if he does more than that, it may or may not be proper that he should be convicted. The fact of his presence could not possibly cause a conviction. I think this is really quite unnecessary.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the beginning of subsection (6), after "who," to insert "drives or." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is intended to cover owner-drivers. There may not be many cases, but it is conceivable that six or more persons might enter into partnership, and in that way I think the clause could be evaded, as they could not be said to employ each other. If the noble Earl would prefer
1316
me to postpone this Amendment to another stage I am quite prepared to do so.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 22, after ("who") insert ("drives or").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD DANESFORT: I should like to say that I hope the noble Earl will accept this Amendment. It seems to me to fill a gap. If a man employs somebody to drive, there has to be a schedule of times, but, supposing he drives himself, there is no provision for a schedule, and yet the necessity for it is just as great as if he employed someone to drive for him. I think the noble Earl will probably see that this is only filling a hiatus.
EARL RUSSELL: No, I do not think it does. It is quite unnecessary, so far as I can see, and I do not think it makes sense either. This is the case of a person who employs someone to drive motor vehicles and issues a time-table or gives directions. How on earth could he issue a time-table or give directions to himself?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: He could issue a time-table.
EARL RUSSELL: He commits the offence himself, if he drives. The noble Viscount may wish to consider this point again, but, so far as I can see, it does not at all agree with the clause or make sense of it.
LORD DANESFORT: I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Earl. Perhaps the matter can be discussed on Report. Surely a man can publish or issue a schedule, although he is going to drive himself.
LORD ATKIN: If my noble friend will consider the subsection, he will see that it begins:—
"If a person who employs other persons"—
and it goes on to say:—
"….The publication or issue of the said time table….shall be prima facie evidence that the employer….procured or incited the persons employed by him to drive the vehicles…."
and so on. I do not think it has any relation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to leave out Clause 10. The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to raise the whole question of the speeds fixed in the Schedule. This clause governs the Schedule providing maximum speeds for different classes of commercial vehicles, and we want very much to discover the basis on which the Government have fixed the speeds they have selected for the various classes. I should like to submit to your Lordships that in certain circumstances it would be almost impossible to enforce the different rates of speeds laid down in the Schedule. Further, under certain conditions it might make matters very difficult for the drivers of other vehicles on the road. Suppose you are overtaking a vehicle whose maximum permitted speed is fixed, you have to judge, when you come up behind it, what class of vehicle it is. It will not always be very easy to distinguish between the various classes of commercial vehicles defined in the Schedule. I should like to submit that it would be very much more practicable and, I should imagine, much easier to enforce the necessary speed limits if they could be reduced to two or, at the most, four. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 10.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: I think I explained to your Lordships in my reply on Second Reading that we agreed that it would be better if we could manage to coalesce these numerous speeds, perhaps into four, and we are still hoping to do so. That I think would meet exactly the point the noble Earl has raised.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Of course this clause must stand, I agree, but I should like the noble Earl to consider between now and the Schedule the question of the speed limit for the ordinary commercial van. I do not mean the char-a-bancs or the motor omnibus. When the noble Viscount was moving his Amendment it seemed to me that there was some little difference of opinion between the noble Earl and my noble friend as to whether the ordinary trade delivery van was included in the speed limit.
EARL RUSSELL: I was wrong.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. He is not
1318
very often wrong. Then we get this position. I shall not use the analogy of a Rolls Royce car, but I may have an ordinary small car, a Morris Cowley, for instance, and may be allowed to drive it at sixty miles an hour, but Mr. Brown, who uses the same car for taking goods home from his shop, is limited to thirty miles an hour. I will give a further example. I may be a shopkeeper and may drive my wife out on Sunday at sixty miles an hour, but if I drive cheese home on Monday for a customer I am limited to thirty miles an hour. It is quite impossible to justify that and I hope the noble Earl will consider it before the Schedule.
EARL RUSSELL: We have already noticed what the noble Viscount calls attention to and we shall give it all the consideration possible.
On Question, Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Reckless or dangerous driving.
11.—(1) If any person drives a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition, and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road, he shall be liable—
(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
(2) The Court shall order particulars of any such conviction to be endorsed on any licence held by the person convicted.
(3) On a second or subsequent conviction under this section the convicting Court shall exercise the power conferred by this Part of this Act of ordering that the offender shall be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence unless for special reasons the Court thinks fit to order otherwise, but this provision shall not be construed as affecting the right of the Court to exercise the power aforesaid on a first conviction.
(4) Where a person is convicted of aiding, abetting, inciting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence under this section, and it is proved that be was present in the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence, the offence of which he is convicted shall, for the purpose of the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to disqualification for holding or obtaining licences, be deemed to be an offence in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words preceding paragraph (a) except "on the road he shall be liable," and to insert
"A person driving a vehicle on a road shall drive the same with proper caution and at a speed not greater than is reasonable and safe having due regard to all the circumstances including the conditions at the time of any particular area, the traffic, surface and width of the highway, and no person shall drive any vehicle upon a road in such a manner as to endanger the life, limb and/or property of any person and if any person drives a vehicle in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section."
The noble Earl said: I desire to move this Amendment, the purpose of which is to endeavour to define the offence of dangerous driving. I should like to submit that the clause as drafted in the Bill includes the very indefinite words "or might reasonably be expected to be on the road." Speaking from the point of view of one who is accustomed to cover great distances, and there are many people in this country who do, it is really an extraordinarily difficult thing for any driver of any motor vehicle to be aware of the traffic which might reasonably be expected to be on the road. In certain circumstances to pass through Epsom at certain times of the year might be very dangerous. Traffic might reasonably be expected to be on the road that would not be there at other times. The purpose of this Amendment is to try to embody in a form of words everything that a driver of a motor vehicle can actually see when he is driving. It brings in the circumstances, including the conditions at the time, the traffic, surface and width of the highway (both most important) and also goes on to the words as they stand on the paper. The Amendment is founded upon a dangerous driving law which actually exists in the State of California at the present time. I have no information as to how it has worked there, but it seemed to me and to many others to be much clearer in its meaning than the existing Clause 11 of the Bill.
I should like to recall to your Lordships what was said on the subject by my noble friend Lord Cecil on the Second Reading. The words he used were:—
"To have a definite standard I should have thought would have been much clearer to the motorist and much more satisfactory to everybody else because it throws upon the
1320
motorist the burden of showing, if he has broken those rules, that, in fact, he was not guilty of conduct that was likely to endanger the public."
I entirely agree with those remarks. The penalties that are now to be imposed for dangerous driving are extremely severe, and rightly so, but I think everybody, including even the motorist, has a right to absolute justice in the matter. If we can embody in our Bill some form of words which will define for the motorist that which really does constitute dangerous driving and which is satisfactory from the point of view of the Minister, the police, and the motorist, we shall have done a great thing. The question of dangerous driving is a very serious one indeed and I hope will always be looked upon as such by all those concerned.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 35, leave out from the beginning to ("on") in line 41 and insert the said new words.—(Earl Howe.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to save the other Amendments, including one by the noble Earl, I shall put the question "that line 35 stand part of the clause."
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know that I am of opinion that American drafting is better than ours. I must say that I prefer the clause which has now stood the test of twenty-six years judicial interpretation. These words were in the Act of 1903. They have been in force ever since. They are perfectly easy to understand, they are general and they are simple. The noble Earl's object, I understand, is to define the whole set of things which you are to look at before one is guilty of dangerous driving. That may make it possible that there are some things that he has not included. I infinitely prefer the clause as it stands. They leave the thing where it ought to be:—
"drives a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public."
They seem to me very apt and very proper words.
The Committee knows what happens in these cases. A jumble of facts is presented to the magistrates and, by the application of their common sense, they disentangle from that jumble of facts an impression, a conviction as to whether the driving was dangerous or not. We

1321
all agree there may be infinitely varied driving in different cases. Sometimes it may be one thing, sometimes another. The noble Earl wants to leave out any reference to the amount of traffic one may expect on the road. I was horrified to hear him say that yon saw nothing on the road. That is not the test. It is reasonable and proper that there should be a test of what you may expect to see on the road before you get to it, whether it is a cross-road, a lane, a cottage or a school. Because you see a road clear for 600 yards in front of you you are not entitled to assume it will be clear until you come to the end of that distance. It is precisely this assumption which has caused so many accidents and I hope the clause will be retained as it stands.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My noble friend has referred to me and it gives me great pleasure on this occasion to support my noble friend Earl Russell. I do not think the proposed Amendment would make the meaning any clearer. Indeed, I would hesitate to ask your Lordships to insert here and now any thing like a code of dangerous driving. I have an Amendment, which I shall submit later on, in which I propose that, in the code proposed to be established, attention should be directed to this particular matter and attention should be called at any rate to some of the main principles to which everybody ought to adhere in driving. That will be a matter to be discussed later and that was the matter I had in mind when I made the observation on the Second Reading. I do not see that this Amendment will really make the matter more precise; than it is in the Bill because it expressly excludes from being an element of dangerous driving what there may be on the road, although it may not actually be in sight at any particular moment. I hope my noble friend will not press it.
EARL HOWE: I hesitate to intervene, but I think the noble Earl when he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will see that he slightly misrepresented what I said. I did not state that the motorist did not see anything on the road. What I tried to do by my Amendment was to specify all the things you actually see from a motor vehicle when you are coming to a cross-road or anything else. "The conditions at the time" were intended
1322
to cover the cross-roads and the traffic. I tried to bring in every important item, with reference to the width of the highway and so forth. If the Minister is not able to accept the Amendment at this stage—I quite understand that—at the same time the matter might be further considered so far as the wording of the existing clause is concerned—namely "or which might reasonably be expected to be on the road," about which I have an Amendment at a later stage.
LORD SANDHURST: I cannot help thinking that it would be unfortunate to leave out these words. Not very long ago I read the report of a case before the magistrates, in which they refused to convict because there was no evidence that any person was actually in danger. That is the very thing which one wants to secure—namely, that magistrates should occasionally convict although no accident has happened and presumably nobody has been put in danger by reason of the motorist taking the risk. If you omit these words you will make it more difficult for the magistrate to convict where there has been no accident, and that is what one wants to prevent.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had on the Paper an Amendment to subsection (1) to leave out "or which might reasonably be expected to be." The noble Earl said: In view of what has been said in the course of the debate I do not want to re-state the various reasons for this Amendment, except to point out that from the point of view of the driver the words of the subsection "expected to be on the road" are very ambiguous and very difficult indeed in certain circumstances to comply with. Anyone driving a car on the road must drive having regard to the conditions which he actually sees. He might not see possible causes of danger, and the retention of these words makes it exceedingly difficult for the driver who sincerely wishes to drive to the safety of everyone else. In the circumstances, however, I will not move this Amendment.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), after "expected," to insert "by such person." The noble Earl said: The clause as it stands follows Section 1 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, and I submit to your Lordships that these words have

1323
caused a good deal of trouble in the administration of the Act. The Amendment which I move would make it clear that the person driving is to have regard to the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected "by such person" to be on the road. A local bench of magistrates might have a wholly different opinion of what is meant by "traffic which might reasonably be expected."
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 41, after (" expected ") insert (" by such person ").—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: I have a little sympathy with the noble Earl on the question of what might reasonably be expected to be on the road. It is, of course, a thing which would be differently interpreted by different benches of magistrates. It might depend how well they knew the road, and I have no doubt the noble Earl would receive different treatment if he came up before my noble friend Lord Cecil from what he would receive if he came up before me.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Where would he get it worse?
EARL RUSSELL: There. It introduces some element of uncertainty, but it is not what the driver might reasonably expect, but what any reasonable person might reasonably expect to be there, and I think we must keep the words of the clause as they are.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: I think it is rather hard upon a man who is driving a long distance, and goes into a part of the country which is unknown to him, and so far as he can see the road is clear of traffic and there are no warning signs. He is going along, and he does not think he is doing anything wrong, but if he were brought up before the magistrates for dangerous driving the magistrates might say: "We know that a lot of traffic is accustomed to use that road." It would be very difficult for this man to know of this traffic, and I think the Amendment is a very reasonable one.
EARL RUSSELL: I know I shall again get the applause of Lord Cecil for what I am going to say. I think the noble Lord has given us exactly an attitude of motorists which is to be deprecated. A motorist travels upon a road which he does not know and assumes that it is his
1324
private railway track. He takes it for granted that the road ought to be free for his passage. That is a frame of mind to which an end must be put. It is the cause of accidents.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: I do not think that that is at all the case. If a motorist comes to a road where the surface is good, and the road is wide, and there is apparently no turnings, I do not see how he can expect traffic to be upon it.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I would like to say one word. The whole motoring community knew that if the speed limit was to be abolished they would be shot at under Section 1 of the old Act. They accepted that with their eyes open, and I do not think it is fair that we should now be asked to whittle down the bargain.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It is the first that I have heard of this bargain, although I suspected it, and I should be glad if the noble Earl would give us the whole history of it, and then we shall know what Amendments to press and what not to press.
EARL RUSSELL: I knew nothing about it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I did not suspect the noble Earl did.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to insert "but a person shall not be convicted under the provisions of this subsection merely on the opinion of one witness." The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to try to secure mere justice for the motorist. As the clause stands it is merely necessary to have one witness for a case of dangerous driving. There is always bound to be, and I suppose always will be, a tremendous difference of opinion as to what does, or does not, constitute dangerous driving. I would like to submit that there are two sorts of dangerous driving. There is one sort where the issue probably is really never in doubt and it is a question of fact where a person is injured as a result, and there is the other sort of dangerous driving where no one is injured, which is not a question of fact but merely a question of opinion.
I should like to submit most urgently that there is the danger of grave injustice being done to the individual if the charge is brought on the unsupported evidence of one individual only. The penalties under this Bill are very serious indeed, involving long sentences of imprisonment. If you can prove a charge of dangerous driving I think you are quite justified in sending the offender to prison, but the motoring community as a whole have a right to certain safeguards in the matter. After all, there are over two million holders of driving licences in this country, and every one of them will be seriously affected by the passage of this Bill. I do not believe that there are very many deliberately dangerous drivers. I believe there are a good many who err from carelessness or lack of imagination. There are all sorts of things about dangerous driving. Supposing a man to be driving a motor car and coming up to a cross-road at twenty miles an hour, with perhaps bad brakes: he will only just be able to stop in time if there is something coming. But another man who is coming to the cross-road at forty miles an hour, with perfectly good brakes, and on a road with a perfectly good dry surface, is easily able to stop. Yet the ordinary observer might very likely say that the man going at the higher speed was driving dangerously, whereas, in fact, he was driving much more safely than the other man. There will be a question of opinion and a conflict of evidence and, I submit, a grave danger of injustice to the individual.
It is not so much the rate of speed as the way in which people move about that causes danger. One of your Lordships, speaking this afternoon about a certain accident, said that if an accident happened it was obviously because somebody had driven too fast. That is not at all necessarily true. A man may be driving along at a perfectly normal and proper speed, but that will not save him from a pedestrian who suddenly steps off a side path in his way. I submit that if a motorist is to be sent to prison on this charge it should require more than one witness. Under the existing Motor Car Act an infringement of the speed limit clause necessitates two witnesses, whereas the dangerous driving clause only necessitates one. Everybody who has driven motor cars much knows perfectly well the way in which the police in certain areas have endeavoured to enforce
1326
the law. Their object in those particular areas has really been to raise money for the relief of local rates. Certainly it was so in the old days, though that was altered by the Roads Act of 1920.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 8, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD SWAYTHLING LORD SWAYTHLING moved to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out "merely on the opinion" and inserting "on the uncorroborated evidence." The noble Lord said: I do not regard my Amendment as one of very great importance, but I think it would strengthen that of the noble Earl by the substitution of the words that I propose, and I hope he will accept them.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Leave out ("merely on the opinion") and insert ("on the uncorroborated evidence").—(Lord Swaythling.)
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl made a long speech dealing largely with the speed limit, which we have already decided. People are sent to prison every day on the evidence of one policeman, and I see no reason why a motorist should not be fined; £10 and have his licence suspended on the evidence of one person, if it is such evidence as the bench thinks it possible to accept. There is no reason for making any distinction between the motorist and any other class of offender.
EARL HOWE: I can assure the noble Earl that all the interests with which I am in touch are very anxious indeed about this point, and I think there is a danger of grave injustice being done and a possibility that thereby you may do moral harm to the Bill. If a case of real, proved injustice occurs it will destroy a good deal of the influence of this measure.
LORD DARLING: I think there must be some misapprehension about this. Nobody can be convicted of driving to the danger of the public on the opinion of any witness. The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, saw one fault in the Amendment because he proposes to introduce the words "on the uncorroborated evidence." But the noble Earl has returned to the charge by saying that there are a lot of people who are very anxious that nobody should be convicted on the opinion of one witness. They cannot be, for the simple reason that in the court where the witness

1327
is giving evidence he could not be asked or allowed to answer such a question as: "In your opinion, was this motorist driving negligently or to the danger of the public?" He has to state what he saw. Matters of opinion may only be spoken to by experts, whose business it is to be experts in the particular matter as to which they express an opinion. Now, if I had been on the bench and anybody had come and said to me: "I am an expert in dangerous driving, and therefore I wish to give evidence," I should immediately see that the jury were inclined to pay no attention to that man at all. I should have had him first cross-examined as to where he had learnt the art, and how many times he had been convicted.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I understand that the noble and learned Lord's objection would not apply if the noble Earl, Lord Howe, accepted my proposed Amendment to his Amendment.
EARL HOWE: Yes, I accept it.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, negatived.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved in subsection (2), to substitute "may" for "shall." The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that for a first offence against the dangerous driving clause it shall be at the discretion of the court to have the licence of the driver endorsed.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 9, leave out (" shall ") and insert (" may ").—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: This again is an attempt to whittle down the whole clause. The courts have always been required to endorse the conviction on the licence, and there is no reason to depart from it. Dangerous driving is intended to be a disgraceful offence, and the man is intended to carry it on his licence so that it can be seen.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOODmoved, in subsection (3), to leave out "a second or subsequent" and insert "any." The noble Viscount said: This is providing that, unless the court shall otherwise order, the licence shall be suspended
1328
on the first offence as well as on the second and subsequent offences. My noble friend Lord Russell said just now that if such an extraordinary thing were to happen as a charge against my noble friend Lord Howe being brought before a court of which I was a member I should punish him more severely than he would. I do not think so at all. I do not myself attach any great importance to the additional powers of imprisonment and so on which are to accompany the offence of dangerous driving. I do not attach any great importance to this one way or the other. I certainly do not attach the slightest importance to the increase of the fine. But I do attach immense importance to this question of suspending the licence, because I think that is the real thing that ought to be done in all cases where a person has shown that he is not really to be trusted on a road. I think it is the proper punishment for this kind of offence. I cannot see why, if it is appropriate on the second offence, it is not appropriate on the first offence.
I agree that there may be very hard cases which you must provide for, and the Bill does provide for them on the second offence. Where for instance the man's living depends upon his being allowed to drive a car, you would naturally hesitate to suspend his licence, unless it was a very clear or a very bad case. It is right in all cases of that kind that there should be a right to the court not to suspend the licence if they were clearly of opinion that it ought not to be suspended; but, subject to that, I think that prima facie it ought to be suspended. I feel most strongly that we should not be in half the trouble we are if the courts had freely exercised that power in the past. The fine is absolutely farcical in the case of a rich man. A fine of £5 or £10 or even £20 added to his costs of driving is so small in proportion that it really does not count at all. In my judgment you ought never to send a man to prison unless he is really a criminal—that is to say, unless he is guilty of something much more than recklessness or carelessness, unless he has really done something which, according to the ordinary judgment of the day, is regarded as a wicked thing. I do not think people ought to be sent to prison merely because they have made a mistake, or have failed to carry out their duty, unless they have done so wickedly.

1329
Therefore I do not defend sending motorists to prison, in spite of my noble friend's opinion of me. I do not think it is practicable.
I have sat as a member of Quarter Sessions and I know that the atmosphere in the Court makes it quite impossible to send a man to prison unless he has really been wicked or indifferent to life and limb. But what you want to do is to stop dangerous driving. The man is not wicked at all, but one who takes risks; he is very likely guilty of high spirits and things of that kind. Such men are the dangerous people. Why you should wait for a second offence to suspend their licences I do not know. Once you have proved in point of fact that a person is guilty of dangerous driving then I think that prima facie you ought to suspend his licence. While, as I say, there may be special and particular circumstances when it ought not to be done, and for them the Bill makes provision, I earnestly hope my noble friend will see his way to accept this Amendment. It would be such a pleasure to me to have one Amendment accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 12, leave ("a second or subsequent") and insert (" any ").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
LORD RAGLAN: The noble Viscount keeps alluding to rich people. I sit on a bench where nearly all the cases that come before us are motoring offences, and I do not think I have ever at any time had before me a person who can be described as a rich person. Nine-tenths of the persons who come before us are professional motor drivers in some form or another. The effect of this Amendment would be to make benches more unwilling to convict these people and so deprive them of their livelihood.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Viscount in the greater part of his speech seemed as if he were talking about the penalties, but his Amendment has nothing to do with penalties. His Amendment merely has to do with powers of the court, and all he is asking your Lordships to do is to tell the court that, on a first conviction, they shall suspend the licence unless they decide otherwise. The Government think it sufficient to make it a second conviction. I do not think there is any necessity for this ferocity and I do not think it will do any good. They
1330
have already for a first conviction the power to suspend if they think fit. It is merely a difference in the way it is done. On the second offence the Bill puts it the other way round—you should suspend unless you give a reason why you should not. I hope the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment.
On question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BRENTFOBD VISCOUNT BRENTFOBD moved, in subsection (3) after "section," to insert "within three years after a previous conviction." The noble Viscount said: I hope I shall not be twitted with seeking to whittle down the old Act, but I do think here there may be some period of time fixed. The subsection says that "on a second or subsequent conviction the court shall exercise the powers" and so forth, of disqualifying. Suppose a man is convicted of dangerous driving when he is quite young and rash, and then later on, in ten, twenty or thirty years time, he gets another conviction? I think there might be some period of time fixed. It is not really very serious to have only had a couple of convictions in twenty years, and, after all, this does mean disqualification. It is only for a special reason they are not to be disqualified. I think if you are to have a disqualification you should put some period of time. I have suggested three years, but if that is thought not enough well then it might be even five years. I would not mind five years. I can see my noble friend Viscount Cecil looking at me sternly. He is kind-hearted, and he might perhaps help me in this by fixing a reasonable time within which a man should have a locus penitentix, if he is not convicted more than twice within five years. My noble friend shakes his head, so it is no good appealing to him. I will see if I can get better luck with the noble Earl opposite. He at all events looks more friendly. It is rather hard to have to look for one's friends on the opposite side of the House. If the noble Earl can give me any help in this direction I shall be very glad.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 13 after ("section") insert ("within three years after a previous conviction.").—(Viscount Brentford.)
EARL RUSSELL: I think the noble Viscount's object is quite a reasonable one, but would he attain it by these words? The court might perfectly well

1331
regard the lapse of time since the previous conviction as a special reason and a proper reason for not ordering disqualification. Then the alternative of two convictions in five years would not be covered by this. If you set out a hard and fast line I am rather inclined to think you make it more difficult to do. If between now and the Report stage the noble Viscount can think of some words that would carry out his intentions without excluding the court from considering other intentions he may let me know. It seems to me you would have this danger, that you may direct their minds to one thing when there are many other circumstances to which they might direct their minds.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: The noble Earl is more amiable than the noble Viscount. I will in the circumstances ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL: The next two Amendments in my name are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 21, leave out ("inciting")
Page 14, line 21, after ("procuring") insert ("or inciting").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I am not sure as to the period of disqualification. Have the magistrates a discretion as to the period to disqualify?
EARL RUSSELL: As I understand it—I speak without having referred to the clause—the magistrates may disqualify a man for anything from a week upwards.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Careless driving.
12.—(1) If any person drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A conviction for an offence under this section shall not render the offender liable to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved to leave out Clause 12. The noble Viscount said: I am very doubtful about the wisdom of this clause and I hope my noble friend will consider it very carefully. This is a clause on which I think
1332
he has departed from the recommendations of the Royal Commission. As I understand it the Royal Commission—I may be wrong, but I think I am right in saying this—thought this should not be included in the Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: They thought it too vague.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am against this clause partly on the ground that it is too vague and partly on the ground that some benches of magistrates of whom your Lordships have heard in this debate—not from me, but from others—who are thought not to have carried out their duties with sufficient severity, will be given a bolt-hole. Whenever evidence is really clear that a man has been guilty of dangerous driving but they have a sympathy with him for some reason, they will be able to find him guilty of careless driving, and I am afraid they will. Indeed, there was a very disquieting phrase used by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, himself in moving the Second Reading to that effect—perhaps I should not say to that effect, but to the effect that this would be an alternative in a case where a man was charged with dangerous driving and the magistrate thought it would be better to convict him of careless driving. I do feel that is very dangerous.
I am beginning to be very much frightened of this Bill. I admit it. It seems to me that with the assistance of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and the bargain of which he has told us, the Bill is gradually becoming a Motorists' Protection Bill to prevent anything happening to a motorist whatever he does. I am seriously afraid that this clause will undermine the one thing that so far we have got out of the Bill—namely, a somewhat increased severity of the dangerous driving provisions. That really is all that has been done so far for the safety of pedestrians. If you pass this clause enabling a Court to find a motorist guilty of careless driving rather than dangerous driving, you will, I am afraid, greatly lessen the force of the dangerous driving clause.
Here I must confess—no doubt the noble Earl will be surprised—to a certain sympathy with the motorist. Careless driving may mean anything. Anybody may be of opinion that a driver has

1333
been careless. There is no kind of indication of what it really amounts to. The clause speaks of driving "without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons." If a driver on a wet day drove through a puddle and splashed somebody I suppose that would be driving without reasonable consideration. It may mean a hundred things which would scarcely amount to any criminal offence though there might be bad manners. All these things may be offences in the eyes of some benches of magistrates. I think it is very doubtful if they should be treated as criminal offences. If there is financial injury you can always sue for damages, but I think we ought to confine the criminal law to what are really criminal offences. Both because I am afraid that it will diminish the effectiveness of the provisions as regards dangerous driving and on the ground that it will create a new and extremely vague offence, I would ask the noble Earl if he cannot see his way to have the clause removed.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 12.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
LORD RAGLAN: I venture to think that this may be a very useful clause. It will enable you to catch a dangerous driver in his youth and check him before he does any harm.
EARL RUSSELL: The clause is, of course, open to the observation which the Royal Commission made about it, that it is vague in language, but the penalties under it are far less severe than those under the previous clause. The noble Viscount spoke about a driver splashing persons. Suppose a motorist is passing a number of women coming out of church in their best clothes and splashes the whole of them: I am not at all sure that that is not a matter for which he might not very properly be fined. Under the Town Police Clauses Act you are fined for much smaller offences than that. Is it not as bad as leaving litter in the parks, for which you can be fined, or spitting in public places? It is a thing he ought not to do and it hurts people and I think he might quite properly be fined.
What exactly is meant by driving "without due care and attention" I do
1334
not know, but no doubt benches of magistrates will have no difficulty in construing it. If they find a man driving with one hand, for instance, and not paying attention to what is going on, or perhaps looking at a person beside him, that might be an offence. This clause may be useful and it is possible that it may ultimately come to be used for dealing with things which will appear in the highway code which, although they are not legal, are obviously things a careful driver would do. I think it would also serve, as the noble Lord opposite said, as an educational clause and a First Offenders Act for the driver who might otherwise become criminal. It would apply to all sorts of things. I think it has its uses and I should be sorry to leave it out. It is an experiment, but I think it will work and prove useful.
LORD ATKIN: I am a little alarmed about this clause and about the words "without due care and attention." That really means negligence. It will be the definition of negligence if a man drives without due care, and it is very difficult to see how a man can drive a motor car along a road negligently without really driving dangerously. I think there will be a very real danger that magistrates will adopt this as a loophole for escaping a conviction for dangerous driving and if a case were sent for trial a jury might do the same. We are, after all, desiring to concentrate upon dangerous driving. I feel great difficulty about this clause unless you put in words which one generally does in these circumstances, that if a man is charged with the major offence of dangerous driving he can be convicted of this offence. Otherwise you may try a man for dangerous driving and find that what he had really done was to drive to the inconvenience of the public without due care and attention. In that case unless you had such a clause you could not convict him at all. I am not at all sure that it would not be safer to confine this clause to driving without consideration for other persons. My own idea is that if you say a motorist who drives a motor car negligently, that is without due care, is only committing a minor offence, you are giving away a great deal of what you intended to do by creating the offence of dangerous driving. Although I am not inclined to leave out the clause altogether if the

1335
noble Earl adheres to it I think the phrase "without due care and attention" is really very dangerous.
EARL HOWE: I should like to ask a question of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. The Minister is going to issue at a later stage a code for the highways. Would it be possible to provide that if anybody was proved not to have observed something laid down in that code he could be convicted under this clause?
EARL RUSSELL: I think not. We are most anxious that the highway code should not be regarded as a code of law. It is intended to be a code of advice and manners. In answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, I quite understand that a clause of this kind does cause lawyers a certain anxiety. I share his feelings about it and, if he can suggest to us before Report any words by which we can make it more successfully achieve its purpose, we shall be very glad indeed to consider them, or to consider advice from any of your Lordships. But I think this will be a useful clause. It is not really an alternative to Clause 11. If a man is accused under Clause 11, as it stands now, I do not think you can convict him under this clause. It seems to me that there might be quite appropriate cases of really minor offences that would properly come under this clause. I quite appreciate the objection to the words and, if any better ones can be suggested, we shall be only too willing to consider them, but we should not like to lose the clause altogether.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: After the two observations that this cannot be used as a "bolt-hole" on a charge of dangerous driving and that the noble Earl will consider the wording of the clause further, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: Perhaps it will be convenient to your Lordships to adjourn now until a quarter past nine.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine o'clock.]
Clause 13:
Prohibition of motor racing and speed trials on roads.
13.—(1) Any person who promotes or takes part in an organised race or trial of speed between motor vehicles on a road shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "an organised" and to insert "a." The noble Lord said: I do not quite understand why this clause is limited to organised races. Organised races may be much safer than impromptu races for the public. If the words "an organised" are taken out and the word "a" is put in, organised races will still be covered.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 37, leave out (" an organised ") and insert (" a ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: The object of this clause is the specific object stated, the prevention of the organisation of racing, and makes the promoters of a race liable. A private race between two or three people will be dealt with under the dangerous driving clause. The intention of this is to follow the Royal Commission's suggestion about the prohibition of organised racing.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Does this apply to the international races which take place?
EARL RUSSELL: Which race? To be held in this country?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: In the Isle of Man.
EARL RUSSELL: That is not this country. It is a very different thing. That is held under a special Act of the Isle of Man.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Punishment of persons driving motor vehicles when under influence of drink or drugs.
14.—(1) Any person who when driving or attempting to drive, or when in charge of, a motor vehicle on a road or other public place is under the influence of drink or drugs to such an extent as to be incapable

1337
of having proper control of the vehicle, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
(2) A person convicted of an offence under this section shall, and without prejudice to the power of the court to order a longer period of disqualification, be disqualified for a period of twelve months from the date of the conviction for holding or obtaining a licence, and the court shall order particulars of the conviction and of the disqualification to which the person convicted has become subject to be endorsed on the licence, if any, held by that person.
(3) A person liable to be charged with an offence under this section shall not be liable to be charged under section twelve of the Licensing Act, 1872, with the offence of being drunk while in charge, on a highway or other public place, of a carriage
(4) A police constable may arrest without warrant any person committing an offence under this section.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or when in charge of." The noble Lord said: These words were inserted in the 1872 Act to cover the case of persons left in charge of a horse-drawn vehicle. In the case of a horse-drawn vehicle the person left in charge must be able, if not to drive the horse, at any rate to control the horse and this is essential for the public safety. In the case of a motor vehicle, however, thousands of people are left in charge every day who have never driven or had any intention of driving a car. These persons, who are merely sitting in a car to prevent any one stealing it, would, if they are slightly under the influence of drink, be liable under this clause as it stands to four months imprisonment and a fine of £50.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 8, leave out ("or when in charge of").—(Lord Raglan.)
EARL RUSSELL: I quite appreciate the point of the noble Lord. Without these words a great many people who cannot be properly convicted would escape conviction because you would not be able to convict unless there was actual evidence that the person had been driving or had attempted to drive. That is, unless someone has seen him doing so, whereas the policeman who found him had no doubt he was driving or intended to drive. I think I dealt with the point before. If a car was found smashed against a lamppost and a man was found asleep in the ruins of it you might then
1338
say he could properly be convicted for the words would cover his case. The Home Secretary attaches great importance to these words. His advice from the police of the country is that a great many who ought to be convicted would escape unless they were left in. I do not know whether the noble Lord desires to press his Amendment in view of that.
EARL HOWE: Might I ask whether the noble Earl has forgotten the illustration given to us by Lord Brentford on the Second Reading debate, where he cited the instance of a young lady who found herself unable to drive and was discovered asleep in the vehicle? She wisely had not attempted to drive.
EARL RUSSELL: I think it is perfectly clear that in such circumstances the court ought not to convict. First of all, if I were the chief constable I should not authorise a prosecution in a case of that sort, but if he has authorised it I do not know that the court is bound to convict, if she has done no act to show that she was in charge of the motor car. She might have been a stranger. There have been two hard cases within recent months, but I think you must leave it to the police and the justices.
EARL HOWE: I hesitate to take up time with this point, but is the noble Earl quite right when he says that a person found inside a vehicle under the influence of drink might be a stranger. Surely, in the eyes of the law, being inside the vehicle such a person would be in charge of it.
EARL RUSSELL: A person is not bound to be in charge of a house because he happens to be found asleep in it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I do feel that a strongish ease has been made out for moderation here. I agree that any one suspected of driving or attempting to drive in such circumstances ought to be punished, but the punishment is a very hard and severe one. I think if a person overtaken by drink has the good sense not to attempt to drive it is a little hard to say that he or she shall be necessarily disqualified for twelve months. I hope the noble Earl will reconsider the matter before the Report stage.
LORD ATKIN: I sympathise with the noble Earl here. A good many eases might escape because it might be said: "True, I am the chauffeur, but I was not driving at the time. I was at a parking place, and I committed no offence." I think it would be a little dangerous to say that such a person had not committed an offence, but on the other hand I think the punishment provided in the old Act, and now, is too severe. I was going to appeal very strongly to the Committee on subsection (2), and as I have not an Amendment down, perhaps I may refer to it now. My object throughout on this Bill has been to see that dangerous driving is capable of being severely punished. On the other hand I think it is of the greatest importance that, when dealing with punishment, you should not interfere with the discretion of the court which has to award the punishment.
These automatic punishments are to my mind the greatest mistake, and I will tell the House why. It arises particularly on these charges of drunkenness. As the law now is, if a man is convicted of being drunk in charge of a motor car, as well as of driving a motor car, then automatically his licence is suspended for twelve months. It is done under the Act of Parliament. While that may be a very proper punishment for 70 per cent. of the cases, there is a number of cases in which it would be too severe a one. You observe that being drunk in charge of a motor car has nothing to with danger to the public in itself. The man may be driving a motor car with complete safety to the public as far as they are concerned. The last case in which I was concerned was one in which the policeman said that he found a man proceeding (because vehicles and men always "proceed" when policemen are giving evidence) along the road in a zigzag course. He found the driver very drunk and fortunately the car drew up and almost ran into the police station, so it was very easy to deal with him. That man was no danger to the public, but he was convicted and fined and his licence was automatically suspended. He did not happen to be a young driver, but it does happen sometimes that men for the first time are charged when the offence does not demand this serious punishment of a year's loss of licence.
They have been to the public house and have had just the one drink too
1340
many and for the first time they are found in charge of a car or driving a car and a policeman, quite rightly, charges them, and a magistrate then has to consider what happened. If he convicts, a man loses his licence for twelve months and it means that he loses his livelihood. That is the result of the punishment and, although he can or could regain it within three months as far as his employer is concerned, he is out of action for twelve months. As a punishment that very often is too severe for the particular facts of the particular case. The result is that it happens, I am sorry to say, over and over again—I believe Lord Brentford will bear me out in this—that magistrates and juries have refused to convict just because of that particular punishment. If you do not have an automatic punishment, nobody could say to the jury:" Well, this is the result. You know, if you convict this man he is deprived of his livelihood for twelve months." More than that, the magistrate would have the right to consider what would be a proper term of suspension—very often a week, a fortnight, a month or two months, would be perfectly adequate for the offence, and would pull the man up at once.
What we really want is to create a better judicial opinion among benches of magistrates. I believe this is going to happen, but I think in order to do it the right thing to do is to make the punishment not automatic. I think it would be perfectly proper that, instead of having subsection (2) as we now have it, we should have subsection (2) as it stands in Clause 13, that is to say:—
"A person convicted of an offence shall, unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise, and without prejudice to the power of the court to order a longer period, be disqualified for a period of twelve months."
I would accept that because that gives a discretion to the court for special reasons in special cases. I believe it would result in a very much better administration of the law in regard to these particular offences. It is very important that it should be dealt with. It is a very serious offence in nine cases out of ten when a man is driving a car at all, but there are exceptional cases which ought to be left to the discretion of the court, and if that were done I think there would

1341
not be this objection that is raised to including the offence by the person who is in charge of the motor, as in that case the magistrate would be able to exercise his discretion and say: "Here is a special case and we will not automatically suspend the licence." I should say that I have spoken to magistrates in a good many places and to a good many of the London Police Magistrates, and I have had very serious complaints about the operation of this very provision. It interferes with convictions for drunkenness.
LORD CLWYD: I am rather diffident to express an opinion opposed to that of my noble and learned friend; but my experience does not agree with his upon this point. My experience has been that when such a case as this has been before the magistrates we have been quite prepared to deal with it as the merits or the demerits of the case demanded. I do not know whether it is clear in the Bill as it stands that the man who has been convicted can within three months apply for a cancellation of the suspension. I take it that is so. In more than one case in recent experience that has been done, and we as a bench were able to reconsider the matter in the light of the assurance given and the financial loss inflicted upon the man who had offended. I only desire to say giving every possible weight to the importance of the opinion expressed by my noble and learned friend, that my experience has been somewhat different from his.
EARL RUSSELL: I think we had better be a little more orderly. At the moment we art on an Amendment to leave out "or when in charge of." On that point may I say that I do sympathise very much with the view that has been expressed by noble Lords. I would rather not accept it at this stage without an opportunity of consulting my right hon. friend the Home Secretary, because I know he does attach great importance to these words. I will see that the debate is brought to his notice, and that a further decision is taken on the matter before Report stage. I hope that will satisfy your Lordships for the present. If my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin should move an Amendment I shall be glad to consider it.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: So far as the first Amendment is concerned I apologise for not having moved it. What has been said would, I think, satisfy me. The noble Earl knows the points I put in the previous debate, and I will not detain your Lordships any further.
LORD RAGLAN: I think it is the wish of the House that I should withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "motor." The noble Earl said: This is the first Amendment of this sort I have had an opportunity so far of moving. The purpose of this Amendment is to make this Bill apply to all vehicles and all road traffic. This Bill is called a Road Traffic Bill. As I pointed out in the few remarks which I ventured to make on the Second Reading the Bill deals almost exclusively with motor vehicles and with no other form of traffic. It does not very much matter what sort of vehicle is on the road, whether it be power driven or any other, if the person driving it or attempting to drive it is under the influence of drink it constitutes a public danger. Our object in this Bill should be to try to reduce public danger on the highway; therefore I submit this Amendment for your Lordships' consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 8, leave out ("motor").—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: This really would be quite inappropriate. The punishment is inappropriate to a person driving a horse or any other vehicle. This is not a Bill dealing with the general highway law, and I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment here, for it would be quite unsuitable.
EARL HOWE: May I enquire then why the Government are calling this Bill a Road Traffic Bill? I submit the point is of some urgency and should receive a little more consideration. There is a very strong feeling about it on the part of quite a number of people.
On Question, Whether the word "motor" shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Atkin, L.

Chaplin, V.

Clwyd, L.

Clarendon, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Danesfort, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Denman, L.

Lucan, E.

Knutsford, V.

Marks, L. [Teller.]

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Novar, V.

Newton, L.

Onslow, E.

Sandhurst, L.

Plymouth, E.

Alvingham, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Russell, E.

Amulree, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Arnold, L.

Wavertree, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Abingdon, E. [Teller.]

Bertie of Thame, V.

Dynevor, L.

Cottenham, E.

Churchill, V.

Faringdon, L.

Howe, E. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Redesdale, L.

Stanhope, E.

de Clifford, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD ATKIN LORD ATKIN moved in subsection (2), to leave out "A person convicted of an offence under this section shall, and without prejudice to the power of the court to order a longer period of disqualification, be disqualified for a period of twelve months from the date of the conviction for holding or obtaining a licence "and to insert" A person convicted of an offence under this section shall, unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to order otherwise and without prejudice to the power of the court to order a longer period of disqualification, be disqualified for a period of twelve months from the date of the conviction for holding or obtaining a licence." The noble and learned Lord said: I propose to put myself in order in regard to the speech that I inflicted upon your Lordships a short time ago. This Amendment would meet the hard cases that I referred to and, in my humble opinion, would very much assist in the administration of the law.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 15, leave out from "A" to "licence" in line 20 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Atkin.)
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: The House will remember that on an earlier occasion I made a statement in regard to the difficulty of obtaining convictions at Quarter Sessions. It was a very serious difficulty that I experienced when I was Home Secretary. We could not get convictions in regard to certain cases. I did not tell the House what those cases were but, as a matter of fact, they were these cases of drunkenness in charge of a motor car
1344
which, of course, involve the disqualification for twelve months of which my noble and learned friend has spoken. We could not get magistrates at Quarter Sessions or juries to convict of these offences except in very serious cases indeed, because they did not like this automatic penalty. I am sure it would be better if your Lordships could accept this Amendment and leave it within the power of the bench to inflict disqualification for any period they like. Under this Amendment, as I understand it, it might be for a month, or twelve months, or even longer. It would give magistrates discretion to impose a disqualification for as long as they thought fit, but it would not compel them to disqualify for twelve months if they thought a month's disqualification would be sufficient. I am sure your Lordships will realise that the form of Amendment proposed by the noble Lord is really much better for the administration of the law and will really not hurt the Bill at all. In those circumstances I hope the Government will accept it.
EARL RUSSELL: I have a special right to speak to your Lordships about this clause because it is my own baby. Having now considered it for some time I am prepared to hand it over to a new foster parent and to agree with the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. I have received definite information similar to that which the noble Viscount has referred to, that all magistrates who understand the question think this is a dangerous way of doing things. Even when I put it in I thought it was a dangerous way. I think it better as is proposed here to say that the court

1345
shall disqualify unless for special reasons it thinks it should not. It will improve the Bill and I have much pleasure in accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "committing" and insert "whom he believes to be guilty of." The noble Lord said: I think that in a case of this kind it would be for the court and not for the constable to say whether an offence had been committed. Some alteration is desirable and I would be prepared to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Howe except that it disregards the rules of grammar.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 30, leave out ("committing") and insert ("whom he believes to be guilty of)".—(Lord Raglan.)
EARL RUSSELL: It is perfectly true that no one can decide that a person has committed an offence under the clause until he is convicted, but this is the usual form of words, and I do not suppose it means more than the Amendment says. I think it better to leave the words as they are now. The constable can arrest a man now if he thinks on reasonable grounds that an offence has been committed. If in fact he does not think an offence has been committed he ought not to arrest him. This is the usual form and I think we ought to keep it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Does not this put the constable in a difficult position? If he arrests without warrant a person whom he believes to have committed an offence and that person—perhaps quite wrongly—is not convicted, is not the police constable liable to an action for having done something he is not entitled to do?
EARL RUSSELL: Are not all the powers of summary arrest by the constable in the same position? If he arrests a "drunk and disorderly" in the street he arrests him because he believes he is drunk and disorderly. It does not follow the man will be convicted.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Is it not true that where a felony is committed a constable may arrest if he reasonably thinks that the person is
1346
guilty? It is "if he reasonably thinks." That is my impression of the law. Perhaps the noble Lord would look it up between now and Report.
EARL RUSSELL: I think I am right in saying that where a felony has been committed a constable can arrest on information, whereas anybody can arrest who sees a felony committed. How is a person to know whether what he sees is a felony or a misdemeanour? I think these are the usual words and that it would be unwise to change them.
LORD ATKIN: I cannot help thinking that perhaps it might be worth while giving a little more consideration to this matter before Report. Ordinarily speaking a constable can arrest from reasonable suspicion of a felony, whereas a private individual is not justified unless a felony has in fact been committed. When the question is whether a man was drunk or not drunk within the meaning of the Act there might arise a doubt which might prevent a constable being protected.
LORD SANDHURST: Might I call attention to a similar provision in subsection (2) of Clause 19, which relates to a constable arresting without warrant a person who within his view commits an offence under the Act? I think it may not be inappropriate to call attention to that now, in order that the noble Earl may look into it.
EARL RUSSELL: I shall be glad to take further advice on this matter, and to see what are the usual words, and what are the precedents, before the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Restriction on pillion riding.
15.—(1) It shall not be lawful for more than one person in addition to the driver to be carried on any two-wheeled motor cycle, nor shall it be lawful for any such one person to be so carried otherwise than sitting astride the cycle and on a proper seat securely fixed to the cycle.
(2) If any person is carried on any such cycle in contravention of the provisions of this section, the driver of the cycle shall be guilty of an offence.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection

1347
"( ) A person under fourteen years of age shall not be carried on any such motor cycle."
The noble Earl said: I should like to call your Lordships' attention to this Amendment. In Clause 9 your Lordships have laid down restrictions on driving by young persons. It only mentions there the restrictions on driving. Clause 15 subsection (1) lays down regulations as to how people should be carried on motor cycles on pillion, but it does not say anything about the age of the young person who shall be carried on a pillion. It seems to me that you have here a rather dangerous state of circumstances. The Bill says that a young person under sixteen shall not drive a motor vehicle on the road. Over sixteen he may. But a boy of sixteen who purchases a motor cycle on the hire-purchase system may take his little sister, say twelve years of age, on the pillion, and if the machine is capable of it may drive at seventy miles an hour along the road. It seems to me that such a combination is a very dangerous one, and I suggest that young persons carried on the pillion shall be at least fourteen years of age, which is the age at which a young person may ride a motor bicycle at the present time. It has been suggested to me that the practice of carrying quite small children on push bicycles is equally, if not more, dangerous, but as this Bill deals only with motorists, I do not think I can raise that point now. I think, however, that some limit of age should be placed upon those people who can be carried on a pillion, because it is a dangerous way of riding.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 36, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
EARL RUSSELL: I should have thought it was a little hard that a boy of sixteen and a-half could not take his brother of twelve to school pillion riding on his motor bicycle if he had got a mile to go. It is really quite as safe as most things that boys of that age do.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will put the age at twelve if you like.
EARL RUSSELL: I would rather, if I had to put it in, put it lower than that. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that children, particularly of the poor, very often have to look after themselves at a remarkably early age, and that quite
1348
competent sisters of younger children, aged about nine or ten, may be found looking after them in the poorer parts of the town. It is unnecessary to put in this limitation, and I would rather not put it in.
EARL HOWE: I think Lord Onslow has told us already that he does not drive a motor vehicle himself. Those who do will realise the truth of what I am going to say. One of the sights that personally I like seeing better than anything else is the poor people going out on their motor bicycles and side-cars into the country to get a day's fresh air at the week-end. I am perfectly certain that humble folk in our great cities get more enjoyment out of this than from anything else in their daily lives. Poor people are not able to afford to employ others to look after their children. They must of necessity take them out with them, and you do, in fact, see motor cycles and side-cars going out into the country with children.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It does not say anything about side-cars.
EARL HOWE: I agree, but I am trying to point out that it does mean a great boon for the humble folk to be allowed to take small children on their motor cycles. I do not see why we should always be told that it will necessarily be a young boy of sixteen who will be taking a small child out into the country. It does not happen in that way. As a matter of fact, you see very few young boys of sixteen. What you do see is very much older folk taking out women on their pillions. I hope we shall not introduce any more strict regulations on pillion riding.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I think the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has a better case than the noble Earl, Lord Howe, admits. Lord Howe has drawn a very attractive, idyllic picture of a family going out on a motor cycle to get fresh air in the country, but as a matter of fact under the Bill only one other person can go out on the motor cycle besides the driver, and the only question is whether it is safe to take a little child of perhaps eight or ten on a motor cycle or not. I must say that I have seen—more often I think in the case of push bicycles than on motor bicycles—cases which really did seem to

1349
me frightfully dangerous—little tiny babies being taken on a bicycle. Fourteen may be too high an age, but I should have thought some restriction of age was desirable in this case.
EARL RUSSELL: I agree. We have all seen these children on push bicycles, apparently in a very dangerous position. But let us remember that we are dealing with public safety—this is a question of the safety of the child looked after by its parents. I really think unless you can show that there is a mischief which requires curing, that is, that children are exposed to danger in this way and that dangers do occur in consequence, you ought not to go imposing restrictions on people who ought to be able to look after their own children.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to add to subsection (2) "as well as any person or persons carried on any such cycle." The noble Earl said: This second Amendment is of a different character. I suggest that the person who rides improperly on a pillion should, if necessary, be liable. It may be that it is an older person who rides on the pillion, and who may bring undue influence on the person who drives the cycle. I do not see why both should not get into trouble if they are contravening the law and why the most responsible one should not be punished.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 39, at end insert ("as well as any person or persons carried on any such cycle").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
EARL RUSSELL: Your Lordships will remember that a moment ago you decided that it was possible that the person on the pillion should be ten years old or less. I think you can hardly make such a person responsible for the conduct of the person who is driving.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Not responsible for their conduct; responsible for their own conduct.
EARL RUSSELL: Do you not make them guilty of the offence? I think so. "The driver of a cycle shall be guilty of an offence as well as any person…" You cannot make them guilty of their own conduct. After all if they were in themselves taking any active part in doing anything wrong they could be convicted for aiding and abetting without any extra words.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, after Clause 15, to insert as a new clause:
" .Any person who without lawful authority drives a motor vehicle upon any foreshore or upon any commons or waste lands as defined under Section one hundred and ninety-three of the Law of Property Act, 1925, or upon, any lands whatsoever to which the public have rights of access for air and exercise shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for the first offence, and to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds for every subsequent offence, provided that it shall not be an offence under this section—

(a) to drive a motor vehicle upon such foreshore commons, waste lands or land aforesaid for the purpose of saving life or extinguishing fire, or—

(b) to drive a motor vehicle upon any place, road or highway in or upon or through such commons, waste lands or land aforesaid which is built or provided for the purpose of driving motor vehicles or carriages thereon."

The noble Viscount said: The object of this clause is to restrain people from driving on common lands and downs and foreshores except on roads prepared for the purpose. I have to speak by hearsay here, because I am not familiar with the matter myself. I understand there is a considerable grievance, particularly on downs and foreshores, where motors are driven on what used to be entirely reserved for people who are on foot or horseback. It is, I am told, a very serious grievance in some places. I do not know whether this is the proper way of dealing with it, but I thought I would raise it for your Lordships' consideration.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
EARL RUSSELL: It is a great pleasure to be able once in a way to go hand in hand with the noble Viscount. There is a grievance and great complaint in this matter, and I am very sympathetic. The Ministry of Transport is also sympathetic with the objects of this clause, but it would require a good deal more careful drafting to make it fit in. However, so far as the principle of the clause is concerned, we are very sympathetic, and we will certainly try to bring up a properly drafted clause on Report to meet the object.
EARL HOWE: While not wishing to abuse the noble Earl in charge of the Bill unreasonably, I hope from what he has said that we are not going to have imposed a severe set of new restrictions upon people who wish, quite reasonably, to go and enjoy a picnic in the country, for instance, or to camp by the roadside. I hope we shall not find an entirely new set of penalties devised against that. I am sure every reasonable user of a motor car is ready to do anything possible to assist the noble Earl in preventing the unreasonable use of any foreshore or other place where private rights or public amenities are unjustifiably interfered with. I would insist on consideration being given to humble folk with their motor bicycles and side-cars or with the cheaper forms of motor vehicles.
EARL RUSSELL: We have borne in mind what the noble Earl has just said, and it is for that reason this clause requires redrafting so as not to prevent anyone parking on the side of the road, which, I am sure, is not the intention of the noble Viscount. What we are not in sympathy with—and I do not know whether that is what the noble Earl suggests—is cars scampering up and down all over the downs, having trials of their own and manœuvring up and down the, South Downs. That use of the downs was not intended and we are not in sympathy with it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to insert as a new-clause:—
Motor vehicle lights to be lowered in lighted streets.
" . When a motor vehicle is being driven during the hours of darkness along a road lighted with street lamps it shall be an offence under this Part of this Act for the driver to maintain the illumination of the headlights of the vehicle at full intensity unless the beams of light are deflected downwards so as to avoid dazzling the drivers of vehicles approaching from the opposite direction."
The noble Earl said: This is a new clause which I most sincerely wish to commend to your Lordships' consideration. It has been the constant experience of many of us to have encountered motor vehicles being driven at night along well-lighted streets in our City and in the lesser lighted streets, using headlights to the full intensity to the inconvenience and danger of all other
1352
forms of traffic whether pedestrian or vehicular. The Amendment which I submit to your Lordships makes it an offence to maintain headlights at full intensity if the beams of light are not deflected. The expression "beams of light" has been inserted rather than headlights because that gets away from the recommendation of some form of proprietary article. At the same time it does allow the motorist in certain circumstances to use headlights, but he must do so in such a way as to avoid inconveniencing other people.
It may be necessary, for instance, to use headlights in fog provided the beams are dipped, but I submit it is an unjustifiable abuse of headlights to use them at full intensity where street lights exist. It may be said, of course, that street lighting is inadequate in the outskirts of cities. No doubt it is, but in foreign countries you are not allowed to use headlights. In France they are extremely strict about that. If you use headlights or other than the most severely limited lighting in the most humble French village you are likely to be stopped and, if necessary, hauled up by the gendarmes. I hope the noble Earl will give some promise in regard to this Amendment, which I may say receives the practically unanimous support of all motoring associations with whom I have been able to get in touch since I put the Amendment on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 15 insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: This matter was really fully dealt with only two years ago in the Road Transport Lighting Act. Under that Act the Minister has full powers to make any regulation he thinks necessary in this matter. The noble Earl's clause is extraordinarily vague. It refers to a motor vehicle driven "along a road lighted with street lamps." Well, one knows a great many roads that are lighted with street lamps at such long intervals that it really makes it more dangerous than if there were no lamps at all. These alternations of little pools of light with long stretches of darkness would be extraordinarily dangerous without headlights. In appropriate cases the matter can be dealt with by the Minister under an Act which is only two years old.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Can the noble Earl tell us whether the Minister has made any regulations? Those of us who drive are still very much worried by these huge headlights and I think all motor drivers are anxious that something should be done to stop the road hog who deliberately uses headlights while driving through towns. The noble Earl says there is power to make regulations, but has any Minister made them? If not, I think he ought to give us a little more indication that he is prepared either to make regulations or to adopt something in the nature of this clause.
EARL RUSSELL: The position is that it is extraordinarily difficult to know what to do about this matter. The Act-to which I have referred is only two years old. There have been trials of headlights that do not dazzle, trials of dipping headlights, trials of this and trials of that. I myself know how horrible these headlights are at night when you come upon them. But before the Minister can properly make an order he must be satisfied that on the whole he is going to do more good than harm and is not going to imperil people's safety on the road. He has not yet made an order because he has not yet been satisfied about this. If he made an order he would have to give some definition of the degree of street lighting required before it would be safe to make an order. He has powers to do it whenever it is possible to do it, and I have no doubt that, if any motion were made by the local authorities in the proper course, he would exercise those powers.
EARL HOWE: I do not want to labour the point. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill is one of the most experienced motorists in this country. He probably knows more about motoring than I am ever likely to know. I should like to submit to him that it is a most dangerous thing to encounter a car with these headlights at full intensity when it is raining and there are drops of water on the wind-screen. It produces conditions of the greatest possible danger. It is no use waiting for the local authorities to act. Local authorities are not necessarily impressed with the motorist's difficulties in this matter. The noble Earl speaks of little pools of light at infrequent intervals. I agree, but you could still use your headlights providing you did not
1354
use them in such a way as to get into people's eyes. They could be dipped or you could use the secondary lighting, which is the rule in France. It does not create any difficulties over there, it is strictly insisted upon and really enforced. I submit to the noble Earl that on practical grounds he might give us a little more hope in this matter than he has been able to give us so far.
EARL RUSSELL: What the noble Earl says is perfectly true. I have been on perfectly straight roads and I have been compelled at fairly frequent intervals, on meeting cars with very big headlights, to draw right into the side of the road and to go very slowly because I could not see. I agree that this is intolerable and an extremely annoying state of things. But really it is very difficult to know what is the remedy to apply. If the noble Earl, who is interested in the subject, after I am relieved from this task, will come and see us at the Ministry of Transport, we shall be glad to have any hints that he can give us as to what can be done. It is no use making an order unless it is one that everybody can obey and is quite reasonable.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I should like to say one word on this point. The Royal Commission, on which I have the honour to be serving, made a very definite recommendation with regard to dazzling headlights. I will not road it to your Lordships, but briefly the suggestion is that something should be done by way of dipping or swivelling headlights. I use them to any car, and the kind that I use seems to me to be very perfect, but I do not notice that there are many people who use them to-day. There is no doubt whatever that an advancing car with its headlights full on does blind you to such an extent that there are moments when you cannot see the left-hand side of the road. If you have dipping or swivelling headlights—I prefer the swivelling kind—you do at least see the left-hand side and know if there is any danger of running into something. I venture to submit that it might be possible for the Minister to advise manufacturers to put some such standard device of this kind on their cars. This might meet this great difficulty, do great service to users of the road, and tend to make our roads much safer at night.
EARL RUSSELL: That is perfectly true, and I think that, as a matter of fact, the thing is being considered. The noble Earl knows that it is not long since the Royal Commission reported. I will undertake, on the Report stage, to be able to furnish a full report of anything that is being done or contemplated in this matter. I think we are quite alive to this problem. It is a very great nuisance to everybody.
EARL HOWE: If I withdraw this Amendment now and put it down on Report, will the noble Earl be prepared to deal with it?
EARL RUSSELL: Certainly, put it down again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16:
Requirements as to employment of drivers and attendants.
(3) For the purposes of this section the expression "trailer" shall not include any vehicle solely for carrying water for the purposes of the drawing vehicle or any vehicle not constructed to carry a load.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "or any vehicle not constructed to carry a load." The noble Viscount said: Unless we clearly state what sort of vehicles these vehicles not constructed to carry a load are, there may be a danger in allowing this phrase to stand. Am I right in assuming that gypsy living vans come under this description? If so, if they are allowed to go in unlimited numbers without attendants, it must of necessity be courting disaster.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, leave out line 13.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: It is not intended to cover gypsy living vans or anything of that sort. It is something of the same nature as the vehicle which is carrying the water barrel—some additional light vehicle constructed to carry agricultural tools or something like that.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If it is constructed to carry something, surely it is not a vehicle not constructed to carry a load. Agricultural implements are a load.
EARL RUSSELL: I shall find out what sort of vehicle is used to trail behind the water barrel. It is not of great importance and certainly it is not one that needs an attendant.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I am told that when steam rollers are engaged in rolling the road there is only one man on the machine driving them. There are of course two when they are travelling about the country, but generally when the roller is actually working the second man is on the road. Will the noble Earl make inquiries about that and if I am right have a small Amendment on that?
EARL RUSSELL: I am not sure about that. The words in the Act as it stands say that two persons shall be employed in driving and attending the locomotive. I suppose the person on the road is attending to it. I shall find out anything my noble friend wants to know.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Restriction on the number of trailers drawn]:
EARL RUSSELL: I have two drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 18, leave out ("of any class")
Page 16, line 27, leave out ("any such vehicle") and insert (" vehicles of the respective classes aforesaid").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Limitation of time for which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously on duty]:
LORD NEWTON: On this clause I would make an appeal to my noble friend who is always so reasonable. This is a contentious clause and one of considerable complexity. I understand my noble friend is in communication with various associations concerned and I suggest he should withdraw the clause now and bring up a fresh one on Report.
EARL RUSSELL: There have been so many representations already received on this clause that we are satisfied it needs a great deal of consideration and redrafting. It does not, as it is now drawn, meet the normal and proper requirements of trade. If your Lordships

1357
will allow it to stand unamended, we will bring up a fresh one on Report.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Duty to give name and address and power of arrest in certain cases.
19.—(1) If the driver of a motor vehicle who is alleged to have committed an offence under the foregoing provisions of this Act as to reckless or dangerous driving or careless driving refuses, on being so required by any person having reasonable ground for so requiring, to give his name or address, or gives a false name or address he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any police constable may arrest without warrant the driver of any motor vehicle who within his view commits any offence under the provisions of this Act as to reckless or dangerous driving or careless driving, unless the driver on being so required either gives his name and address or produces his licence.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Earl said: I am rather anxious to see this subsection omitted because it gives power to any person to demand a driver's name and address on the pretence that he has possibly been guilty of reckless, dangerous or careless driving. I submit that this may lead to dangerous or unreasonable interference with traffic and the annoyance, of quite innocent drivers. Take ladies driving motor cars by themselves, for instance. Is it reasonable that power should be given to any busybody to stop a lady, and ask for her name and address? I submit the subsection is quite sufficient which enables a constable to take names and addresses in case of accident as provided in Clause 21.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 27, leave out subsection (1).—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: This is quite an old clause and quite a necessary clause. It does not say that anything shall happen to them then and there on the road if they do not give their names to a private person, but they are merely liable to be summoned. Suppose what you have is merely the number of a vehicle, and you then make inquiries, and write a letter and ask for the name and address of the owner. It is perfectly right if you are prepared to allege an offence that you should be given the name and address. It does not give a right to a private person
1358
to stop a ear on the road, hold it up, and demand the name and address of the owner. It only says "on being required by any person having reasonable ground for so requiring, to give his name or address." Surely it is the duty of a person to give his name and address if, it is suggested that he has committed an offence, and I cannot see any harm in it. It is the law now and it works quite well.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (2), to leave our, "on being so required." The noble Lord said: As the clause reads it might appear that the motorist is liable to be arrested unless he is required by the constable to give his address.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 38, leave out ("on being so required").—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: I suppose what the noble Lord means is that if the constable chose not to require the name and address to be given he could proceed to arrest the man. That is not the intention, and I think these words might come out, subject to consideration whether the clause requires re-drafting.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Restrictions on prosecutions under the preceding sections.
20. Where a person is prosecuted for an offence under any of the sections of this Act relating respectively to the maximum speed at which motor vehicles may be driven, to reckless or dangerous driving, and to careless driving (other than subsection (5) of the section relating to maximum speed) he shall not be convicted unless either—

(a) he was warned of the intended prosecution at the time the offence was committed; or

(b) within twenty-one days of the commission of the offence a summons for the offence was served on him; or

(c) within the said twenty-one days a notice of the intended prosecution was served on or sent by registered post to him or the person registered as the owner of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence,

but failure to comply with this requirement shall not be a bar to the conviction of the accused in any case where the Court is satisfied that neither his name and address, nor

1359
the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained within the said twenty-one days, or that there is other reasonable cause for the failure and that the accused has not been prejudiced thereby.
EARL RUSSELL: These are two drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 18, line 2, leave out ("sections") and insert ("provisions of this Part")
Page 18, line 5, leave out from ("driving") to ("he") in line 6.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had on the Paper an Amendment in paragraph (b) to leave out "twenty-one" and insert "fourteen." The noble Earl said: If I may shortly explain what I am anxious to do probably the Minister will be able to tell us what it is possible to agree to. The point of view that I desire to submit is this, that nobody minds when the summons arrives for a motoring offence. If a driver committed an offence under the Act and was going to be summoned and charged he would not mind how long afterwards the summons arrived, but what is of the greatest importance to the motor driver is that he should receive notice of the intention to summon him, with a rough idea of what the case against him is at the earliest moment. It is of some importance, if you are going perhaps on a long journey. It may be said that you have at 3.45 p.m. on a certain day committed an offence, but unless the warning reaches you very soon after it would be quite impossible for you to prepare a defence and to recollect the details of what happened. If the noble Earl could make some concession about this point I think we should be able to meet the desires of the police authorities, who, I understand, ask for a longer period for the service of the summons.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 10, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("fourteen").—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: I sympathise very much with the object of the noble Earl. I think it is very hard on the motorist if his first knowledge that he is alleged to have committed this offence arises even fourteen days after he has committed it. It is very difficult, if he had no reason to suspect that at the time he
1360
had done anything wrong—if there was no shouting, and so on—for him to say exactly where he was on the journey, what he was doing, to remember the conditions of the road or the weather. That, I suppose, is the penalty he pays for being able to travel 200 miles in a day. But it is not the service of the summons that matters; it is the difficulty of sometimes finding the man to give notice to. Where they could, I quite agree, the police ought to give notice on the spot. But when they cannot give notice at once their contention is that they often have great difficulty in finding out the man's address and reaching him, and that twenty-one days is the least they must have for extreme cases.
They do not in the least mean—and I hope that chief constables will see that they do not mean—that they are to take twenty-one days in every case. They ought to be as quick as possible. But if they do not have twenty-one days a great many people will escape who ought not to escape. It is very difficult to reconcile those two views. I cannot say how strongly I feel the injustice done to a man who does not suspect having committed an offence himself of first hearing of it a week or two afterwards. I hope the police will make a practice of giving notice as soon as possible, but as at present advised I am afraid I must ask the House to leave twenty-one days in.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: If the noble Earl looks at the clause I think he will find that the police are not damnified if they cannot get the name and address of the man. It says that
"failure to comply with this reqirement shall not be a bar to the conviction of the accused in any case where the Court is satisfied that neither his name and address, nor the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained within the said twenty-one days…."
That extends the time. All that my noble friend asks is that when the name and address are known, the police shall give notice within fourteen days. I understand he is willing even to extend the time for the service of the summons, but that is not the point. The motorist wants to know within fourteen days that he is alleged to have committed an offence, and when and where.
EARL RUSSELL: It does not follow that his name and address are known at the time the offence is committed.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: If they are not known the concession he is asking for does not apply. The police have as much time as they like if they cannot find the name and address. If the noble Earl will carefully read the conclusion of Clause 20 he will see he could make the Amendment suggested by my noble friend Earl Howe at all events to paragraph (c), making that fourteen days instead of twenty-one. That would be a slight concession and of some benefit.
EARL RUSSELL: When I face the noble Viscount on this subject across this Table I am bound to confess I do feel a little like the poacher turned gamekeeper. I have taken the view before, when I was entitled to take views of my own, that twenty-one days was perhaps rather a long period. With the saving at the end it might be possible, but, as I said, I must consult my right hon. friend the Home Secretary on this. I will give it the most favourable consideration and will call attention to the proviso at the end. I think it desirable there should be the longest notice.
EARL HOWE: I have an Amendment in paragraph (c) to insert "giving particulars of the time and place and all details in the possession and knowledge of the police authorities." I do not know whether it will be possible for the noble Karl to meet me on that Amendment? I shall be rather glad to hear whether he can tell me anything about it.
EARL RUSSELL: Had we not better wait till we come to it?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in paragraph (c), after "prosecution," to insert "giving particulars of the time and place and all details in the possession or knowledge of the police authorities of the occurrence which forms the subject of the prosecution." The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 14, after ("prosecution") insert the said words.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know whether it is quite reasonable that particulars of the time and place and all details in the possession and knowledge of the police
1362
authorities should be given. It is not usual, I think, for a police prosecution, in the case of an offence, to give away its case before the trial. To give all details in the possession of the police, or the knowledge of the police authorities, is a good deal to ask for. I think the noble Earl has gone too far in this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: If I have gone too far could a summary of the alleged offence be delivered at the earliest possible moment? Under the Bill we are providing for two charges—dangerous driving and careless driving. Either or both may be of rather a serious nature and very difficult to defend. It is only fair to the man so charged that he should be given a chance to know roughly what the charge is against him.
LORD ATKIN: The noble Earl will see that (b) and (c) are alternatives. The summons would contain particulars of the offence having been committed at such and such a time on such and such a day, and I think the notice ought to contain the same particulars as are contained in the summons. I do not know if the noble Earl expects more than that.
EARL HOWE: That is all I want.
EARL RUSSELL: I think the time and place and some information of the nature of the offence should be in the notice.
EARL HOWE: That is what I wanted.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not accept the Amendment now
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: How long does the noble Earl propose that your Lordships should sit?
EARL RUSSELL: I hope we might go on till eleven. We have only sat one hour and a quarter since dinner.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:
Duty to stop in case of accident.
21.—(1) If in any case, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on the road, an accident occurs to any person, whether on foot or on horseback or in a vehicle, or to any vehicle or animal in the charge of any person, the driver of the motor vehicle shall stop and, if required so to do by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address, and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
(2) If in the case of any such accident as aforesaid there is no person capable of requiring or in a position to require the driver of the motor vehicle to give his name and address, or if in any case owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road an accident occurs to any vehicle or animal not in charge of any person, the driver of the motor vehicle shall report the accident at a police station as soon as possible, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence thereof.
(3) In this section, the expression "animal" means any horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat, or dog.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 28, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "on horseback" and insert "riding any animal." The noble Viscount said: If I may be permitted to use a contradiction in terms this clause is so comprehensive that it is not quite comprehensive enough. As the clause stands only those on horseback are covered. This Amendment is intended to cover those riding mules, donkeys and circus animals to whom an accident might equally occur.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 29, leave out (" on horseback ") and insert ("riding any animal").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Viscount said "circus animals." I suppose this is intended to cover any one riding a zebra. I will consider the words, but I think they might be improved to make clear what is meant. It might cover a boy riding a cow.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: An accident might happen to a boy riding a cow.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), after the second "in," to insert "or upon." The noble Viscount said: As the clause stands those riding bicycles or tricycles are not covered, as they could not be said to be in their vehicles. They would be upon them.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 29, after ("in") insert ("or upon").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, I suppose that is right.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Might I ask the noble Earl when he is considering other things connected with this clause to consider whether these words are at all necessary, whether it would not be much better to say "occurs to any person"? Why say "whether on foot or on horseback"? Suppose he is lying down.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: Do you mean drunk in the road?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Not necessarily drunk. He might be asleep by the side of the road, and the car might swerve.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, I think that is the proper Amendment. The whole of this line really had better come out. Then it would read: "an accident occurs to any person, or to any vehicle or animal." There is no reason to describe what the person to whom an accident occurs is doing. I think we had better leave the line out. I will move that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 29, leave out (" whether on foot or on horseback or in a vehicle").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "in the charge of any person." The noble Viscount said: I may have misread the clause but, as I understood it, this subsection merely provides that where an accident has happened to a person or animal or vehicle the driver of the motor car should stop. Then it requires that if any person is in charge he is to give his name and address. Then in the second subsection he is to give information, if there is no person in charge, at the next police station. If I may say so, that is a very proper provision. But why is it necessary to say "in charge of any person"?
Let me put an ordinary case. Suppose a dog is run over. Of course you must-assume the motorist sees he has run over it. If he has not seen it, it does not apply. Is it not much better that he should stop? How can he give any useful information at the police station unless he stops? If a dog was run over he could see if it had a collar and take the name and address and give information

1365
at the police station. If he was a humane man and the dog was only injured he might take it home. The same would apply to other animals. I only take the case of a dog because I know something of dogs and not of other animals. It does seem that he should stop and give such information as he can at the police station. That is the purpose of my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 30, leave out ("in the charge of any person")—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
EARL RUSSELL: I think the idea in the first subsection is to indicate the person to whom the name and address shall be given. In the second subsection, there being nobody in charge of the animals, the driver has to go elsewhere. Would it not be proper to require him to stop in the second subsection?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If my noble friend will forgive me, the driver is not required, in the second subsection, to stop at all. When the accident has occurred, it is dealt with in the first subsection. When he has ascertained, as I suggest he should, all the particulars, then, in the second subsection, he is required to give information at the next police station. The first subsection, surely, deals with what has happened at the scene of the accident, and the second with what he must do at the police station. I should have thought it only right that he should stop and see what he has done. I live on a common where there are rights of grazing. Nobody is in charge of the animals, of course, and if somebody runs into a cow or a sheep, why should he not stop and see what he has done? If the cow were slightly hurt, it might make a great difference as to what action should be taken.
EARL RUSSELL: These are alternative subsections, one providing for what happens when there is somebody there and the other for when there is not. In the first case the driver must stop and tell that person; in the second he must tell a policeman. I suggest that the point would be better dealt with in the second subsection.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I beg your pardon. I am quite content.
EARL RUSSELL: I think that would be reasonable. I do not know how anybody is to know if he has stopped when there is nobody there.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: You will make it his duty.
EARL RUSSELL: If the noble Viscount will find the right place, and move accordingly, I shall be willing to accept.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I will do so on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), after the fourth "vehicle," to insert "and the person in charge of such vehicle or animal." The noble Earl said: The clause requires a driver to stop after an accident and give his name and address. This Amendment extends the obligation to all persons in charge of vehicles or animals. A horse-drawn vehicle might be responsible for an accident or the driver might be a material witness. The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the prevalent obligation to other persons using the highway, in accordance with the title of the Bill—the Road Traffic Bill. We want to see that it is one.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 31, after ("vehicle") insert ("and the person in charge of such animal or vehicle").—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: Now that the noble Earl has explained it, I see the object of his Amendment. I still think it is undesirable. This is not a general highway Bill. I suppose one reason for its present form is that the motorist generally has a reasonable chance of finding a man in another vehicle. A horse drawn vehicle does not usually pursue a motor car. This Amendment is unnecessary, and, for the same reason as the last Amendment, undesirable.
EARL HOWE: I submit that persons in charge of vehicles or animals may be material witnesses. Under the Bill we impose serious charges of dangerous and careless driving, and a great deal may turn on the evidence of such witnesses in court. The matter ought to receive the most careful consideration. Can the noble Lord assure me he will give further consideration on Report stage if necessary?
EARL RUSSELL: If the noble Earl can point out how it can usefully be worked, I shall consider it but I do not see what is to happen. If the man is there in charge of the vehicle, you can talk to him and ask his name and address. If it is suggested he will whip up his gig and drive away, well he will probably do it anyway and you can always follow him.
EARL HOWE: In view of the assurance from the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I beg to move, in subsection (2), after "shall," to insert "stop and shall."
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 1, after the word ("shall,") to insert ("stop and shall.")—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
EARL RUSSELL: I shall accept that Amendment subject to re-drafting.
EARL HOWE: I am not clear about the implication of this Amendment. Suppose you are driving across a common and run into something, how is one to know you have stopped? How long is a motorist to stop? If a motorist is unfortunate enough to run over a dog and kills it I believe he is liable to an action at law. I believe you are legally bound to let the poor brute suffer if you do what the law says.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: How can you report an accident without stopping? la it the idea that he flies past the police station at sixty miles an hour and yells out: "I have run over a dog"?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am merely trying in my Amendment to indicate what every decent motorist would do. He runs into a horse or over a dog. Any decent man would see what damage he had done, whom the dog belonged to and give the police any information available. I see a noble Lord laughing, but it is no laughing matter. When the Report stage comes no doubt these words may have to be redrafted, but I think they will show what is intended.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord means stop at the scene of the accident. That was what I understood.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes.
EARL RUSSELL: The words may have to be redrafted, but motorists do not always stop. I recollect in Devonshire seeing a car from London—they always say "a car from London "—drive furiously through a village, run over a dog and leave it howling. That is an intolerable thing. The noble Earl asks who will report the motorist if he does not stop. There is often a hedger or a ditcher in the country.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, in subsection (2), after "station," to insert "or to a police constable." The noble Lord said: This is a very trivial Amendment and I have no particular desire to make things easier for motorists, but it does seem desirable that they should be able to report an accident as soon as possible and if it can be more conveniently done by informing a police constable than by going to a station I do not see why it should not be.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 2, after ("station") insert ("or to a police constable").—(Lord Newton.)
EARL RUSSELL: I will consult the Home Secretary about this. It is not quite certain whether it would be desirable. For instance, it might not be desirable to interrupt a police constable on point duty. Where practicable it is better that motorists should report at a police station
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved, in sub section (3), after "horse," to insert "head of." The noble Lord said: May I venture to suggest that the word "cattle" is a plural noun?
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 5, after ("horse") to insert ("head of").—(Lord Raglan.)
EARL RUSSELL: I do not think it is necessary to accept this alteration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "goat," to insert "cat." The noble Viscount said: Some people are as fond of cats as others are of dogs, and I therefore appeal

1369
to the noble Earl to insert this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 5, after ("goat") insert ("cat").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: I am just as fond of cats as of dogs, but I really think this Amendment should not be pressed. Cats, after all, are very irresponsible creatures, but they can generally look after themselves.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Inquiries into accidents.
22.—(1) Where an accident arises out of the presence of a motor vehicle on a road, the Minister may direct inquiry to be made info the cause of the accident.
(2) Where any such accident has occurred, any person authorised by the Minister in that behalf may at any time, on production if so required of his authority, inspect any vehicle in connection with which the accident arose, and for that purpose may enter any premises where the vehicle is, and if any person obstructs any person so authorised in the performance of his duty under this subsection, he shall be guilty of an offence.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK THE EARL OF CRANBROOK moved, in subsection (1), after "accident," to insert "causing death or serious bodily injury to any person." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to provide that the Minister shall not hold inquiries into every trivial little accident which occurs.
EARL RUSSELL: I have already stated, I think with the utmost clearness, that it is not the intention of the Minister to hold inquiries in every case. Very far from it. I even went on to say that very often the most important case was not one which aroused the most sensational headlines, because of the number of deaths. I think we must leave it to the Minister to select those accidents from which he is likely to learn useful lessons. "Causing death or serious bodily injury" is not the dividing line. I hope you will leave the Minister entirely free to enquire into those accidents from which he thinks he can usefully learn something.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I think we are really putting into the hands of any future Minister tremendous power of multiplying officials and holding
1370
inquiries. There are 150,000 accidents every year, big and little, important and trivial, and the Minister is now going to take permission, at his own sweet will, to hold an inquiry into every one of them. The noble Earl says he will not do so, but there is the power to do it. We may have a Minister who likes to multiply officials and run all sorts of expensive inquiries, and I think the noble Earl might consult the Minister and get some limit on the power given by this clause. If we pass this measure without any qualification at this point, and in a year or two's time we find all over the country inquiries of all kinds being multiplied and he goes to Parliament and asks for more inspectors, there will be a revolt. Could not the noble Earl consult the Minister as to whether some means could not be found to limit this?
EARL HOWE: I hesitate to disagree with Lord Brentford, but I cannot support the contention he has put forward, and I desire to support the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I have an Amendment down which would really extend the field of inquiry. The real aim of this Bill is to save life on the highways, and reduce the number of accidents. We can learn very much out of the accidents by carefully enquiring into them.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I also wish to support the Minister. When I was concerned with trying to promote legislation on this subject, one of the great difficulties was the lack of information. You really did not know what were the causes of accidents and the best ways of dealing with them. I believe there is still a considerable lack of information on the subject, and I hope we shall not cut down the right of inquiry; it is extremely valuable. To say that it should only occur in cases of death would be unreasonable, because you have the coroner's inquiry, and that is the one case in which you do get information. There may have been a series of accidents at a particular place. You ought not to wait until one of them has caused serious bodily injury before you enquire. You should enquire immediately it becomes clear that the place is a dangerous one. I hope we shall not cut this down. My inclination, like that of my noble friend Lord Howe, is, if anything, to extend this clause.
EARL RUSSELL: I am very much surprised at the attitude that Lord Brentford has taken up. It is not so long since he sat in another place, where, as he knows, complete control of finance is exercised. No Minister could go in for increasing his staff largely without his being challenged on his Estimates. Really I do not know why it is assumed that a Minister is going to behave unreasonably. With great pains the London Traffic Advisory Committee made an intensive inquiry into the accidents to children in Greater London. They took note of the time of day at which they happened, the ages of the children, and all the material factors, by which it was hoped to arrive at some guidance as to what steps you should take to prevent the accidents and the deaths. It is precisely statistics of that sort that will be useful. In a very small number of accidents will anything in the nature of a formal inquiry be required, but it is necessary that we should have the statistics, and there are certainly a certain number of accidents in which formal inquiries will be most useful. The whole object of the inquiry is to try and reduce the roll of dead and injured. I hope nothing will be done to limit this power which we do regard as a very valuable and important one, which, after all, the Minister has in the London area and which he is not supposed to have exercised in any unreasonable way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "motor." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to enable the Minister to direct inquiries into all road accidents and not only to single out the motor. While horse-drawn vehicles are in these days a declining quantity it ought at least to be possible for the Minister to direct inquiries into all forms of accidents. The Minister ought not to be deprived of the opportunity of enquiring into an accident even though a power-propelled vehicle is not necessarily involved in it.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 9, leave out ("motor").—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: This is quite an unnecessary extension of the Minister's power. In any accidents worth enquiring into you may be sure there will be a
1372
motor vehicle involved. I think a collision between two farmers' carts would hardly be worth the inquiry.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "at any time." The noble Viscount said: Unfortunately my noble friend Lord Askwith is unable to be present and he has asked me to move the Amendments in his name. He is moving them on behalf of the Tramways and Light Railways' Association. What he does not want is for people to be rung up at any time of the night, and therefore he proposes to leave out the words "at any time."
Amendment moved—
Page 19, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("at any time").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know why there is this general idea that Ministers behave unreasonably and do all sorts of unreasonable things. I do not think this Amendment will prevent ringing up in the middle of the night. It is desirable that the words "at any time" should remain. There may be cases in which it is important that the Minister, or his expert deputy rather, should be able to inspect the vehicle in the shortest possible time after the accident. The accident may occur at seven or eight o'clock at night and the expert might not got down till ten or eleven o'clock, and it might be very desirable to inspect the vehicle at the earliest possible moment. You must leave this to the judgment of His Majesty's Ministers.
LORD ATKIN: I think this power is a very extensive one and a very serious infringement of the ordinary rights of the individual. As a rule no police officer is allowed to enter the premises of a private individual without a warrant. In the present case it is not the Minister who is to go and inspect. No doubt he would adopt a reasonable attitude. It is any person authorised by him. He is to give authority to a particular person to inspect a particular vehicle on his behalf. Surely there ought not to be power to inspect at any unreasonable time and it should not be left to the agent of the Minister to determine the time. He might go into private garages at any time of the night simply because it might not be personally convenient to him to wait till the morning. He might do that because

1373
he wished to get away by an early train or something of that kind. This is a serious infringement of the ordinary rights of the individual and the inspection should be made at some reasonable time.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I foresaw the point which has just been made by the noble and learned Lord, and had put down an Amendment on the Paper to meet it. But I prefer the Amendment which Lord Bertie moved on behalf of Lord Askwith and I hope that the noble Earl will see his way to accept it.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I do not think that the noble Earl's explanation will hold much water. The clause appears to refer to an inspection authorised by the Minister. Is it assumed that he is to be in his office waiting for a telephone message ready to send his officers away? It is unlikely that it would be possible for the Minister to authorise an inspection at eleven o'clock of a motor car which had caused an accident at eight o'clock. The matter would not go before the Minister until the following morning and it seems clear that there can be no urgency to authorise this inspection the same night.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I think it is quite clear that Lord Atkin is not correct in his view that the Minister would send a special man with special authority. Surely inspectors would have a general authority, and the Minister would know nothing of a visit of inspection to my garage. Some inspector—perhaps one of half a dozen having general authority—would look to that side of the business. The Minister is far too busy to deal with each single accident and to give a special order. That being so, I think the provision ought to be limited on the lines suggested by my noble friend.
LORD DANESFOBT: I hope the noble Earl will limit this power of inspection to a reasonable time. You are very seriously infringing what is considered one of the rights of the subject—to have his house free from intrusion. What possible objection can there be to putting in some such words as "at a reasonable time"?
EARL RUSSELL: If the precedent of railway inquiries is followed undoubtedly the inspector to make the inquiry would
1374
be appointed separately in the case of each accident. I do not say he is necessarily appointed under the signature of the Minister himself. It would be done of course by one of the principal officers, who would appoint him. But certainly the practice is to appoint an inspector ad hoc to enquire into the particular accident, and if that practice is followed here a definite order would be given on each particular occasion. If your Lordships feel that you must assume that the Minister or the subordinates of the Minister will be unreasonable I will accept the Amendment. But I really think there is no ground for the apprehension expressed and there may be occasions when it may be unfortunate. There may be something to conceal in the case of a vehicle involved in an accident. There may be some defect which may be concealed six hours later, but which might not be concealed if the inspector called at once.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg to move the next Amendment in the name of Lord Askwith.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 16, after ("may") insert ("during any reasonable hours of the daytime").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: I cannot accept these words. I do not know what "reasonable hours of the daytime" mean. The word "daylight" might do, but I think the words of Lord Swaythling's Amendment "at any reasonable time" would be better.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I understand Lord Askwith is prepared to accept Lord Swaythling's Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 10, after ("enter") insert ("at any reasonable time").—(Lord Swaythling.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does not the noble Earl think that it would be a good opportunity now to allow us to go home to bed?
EARL RUSSELL: I am given to understand through the usual channels that we are waiting for the Unemployment

1375
Insurance (No. 2) Bill to come up at half-past eleven. We could go on with this Bill until that time, but I am perfectly willing that the discussion should be adjourned now if the noble Marquess wishes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think some one must wait for the Unemployment Insurance Bill. But there is no reason why the House as a whole should sit.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: After all, though there has been no obstruction of any kind, we have made very little progress. There are many pages of Amendments left, and at least I think we ought to sit until half-past eleven or twelve.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I observe that the noble Earl has not been here the whole time.
EARL RUSSELL: I am entirely in the hands of the noble Marquess, but I was given to understand that your Lordships would be willing to sit until half-past eleven. If the noble Marquess wishes, I will move that the House be resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would not insist. I do not desire to obstruct in the least, but I think the course I suggest would be convenient to your Lordships. I think it is wiser. May I move that the House do now resume?
EARL RUSSELL: Certainly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved, That the House be now resumed—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSUEANCE (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL AND ROSS WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter before twelve o'clock.