Sitting of 7 February 1929

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

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
  Southern Motor Road.
  Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH),
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
  Torquay Extramural Cemetery Company Bill.
  Bill committed.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (No STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE),
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
  Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
  Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
  Derby Corporation Bill (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  Hendon Urban District Council Bill (by Order),
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  London and North Eastern Railway Bill (by Order),
  London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  Metropolitan Railway Bill (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  Metropolitan Water Board Bill (by Order),
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  Southern Railway Bill (by Order),
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill,
  "To empower the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Company to provide air transport services; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (AIR TRANSPORT, SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to empower the London and North Eastern Railway Company to provide air transport services; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
  METHODIST CHURCH UNION (SCOTLAND) BILL,
  "to authorise the union of the Wesleyan Methodist Church, the Primitive Methodist Church, and the United Methodist Church; to deal with heritable and movable property belonging to the said churches or denominations, to provide for the vesting of the said property in trust for the church so formed, and for the assimilation of the trusts thereof; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

  WINDERMERE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,
  "to transfer to and vest in the Windermere Urban District Council the undertaking of the Windermere District Gas and Water Company and to authorise that Council to supply water and gas; and for other purposes," presented, and

  1913
  read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

VIVISECTION.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg leave to present a petition, signed by 9,829 persons, praying that this House do prevent the practice of vivisection, believing that it is wrong to inflict pain and disease on living animals.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    CLAIM DISALLOWED.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that George Lister, late A. B. 55/3423, Royal Navy, Reference No. ll/N/21540, who has been detained for 12 years in Broadmoor Asylum, has applied for a pension for War service, and that this has been refused on the grounds that more than seven years have expired from date of discharge; and, seeing that a man in an asylum has not adequate means of keeping in touch with the regulations, that Lister's brother died from the effects of War service, but his relations have not been able to establish their claim, and the elderly parents, dependent on these two sons, are now penniless, whether, in view of his assurance that any case outside the seven years time limit would receive every consideration if sufficient medical evidence could be provided, he will reconsider the decision given in the case of George Lister?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am aware of the facts of this case. As, however, I have already informed the hon. and gallant Member, there is nothing in the information before me which would justify me in adopting the course suggested.
    Lieut. Commander KENWORTHY: How can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman justify refusing a lunatic the right to appeal on the ground that he did not appeal within the seven years' limit?
    Major TRYON: The man has made other communications to the Ministry, but one claim that he is making is that he is not insane.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider not preventing that claim on the ground that it is beyond the seven years' limit?
    Major TRYON: It is not the seven years' limit alone that has debarred the claim. The man referred to murdered a seaman and was found guilty of murder and to be insane.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But has not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman informed me that the trouble is that the claim is beyond the seven years' limit, and now he says it has nothing to do with that?
    Major TRYON: I have answered also on the other ground, that there are no adequate reasons, apart from the seven years' limit altogether, to grant the claim.

    DISABILITY PENSIONS (MR. A. E. ROGERS).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. A. E. Rogers, of 35, Mount Vernon Street, Liverpool, who joined up for war service in January, 1917, and was discharged from hospital suffering from neurosis; and classified C 3, in August 1917, who rejoined in January, 1918, and after four months was again admitted into hospital suffering from so-called shell-shock, being finally discharged in October, 1918, and has had both pension and treatment stopped on the grounds that his condition is not now due to war service; and whether, in view of the Ministry's acceptance previously that the disability, neurosis, was attributable to service and the man's total incapacity for work, he will now remove him from the liability of being maintained by the guardians of the poor in the West Derby Union of Lancashire?
    Major TRYON: I am fully aware of the facts of this case. On the occasion of his first enlistment, after three weeks' effective service at home, Mr. Rogers spent 10 months in hospital on account of a condition described as disseminated spinal sclerosis. On his second enlistment, he did four months' work in the

    1915
    Liverpool docks, followed by six months in hospital on account of neurosis. In this case, which has been given every consideration, I am advised that whatever elements, if any, in the case originally may have been connected with service, the man's present condition is not one in regard to which the Ministry would be justified in taking further action.
    Mr. HAYES: In view of the fact that it was the Ministry's doctors themselves who accepted this man's condition as due to his service while he was with the colours, and that the local authorities are now maintaining this man for a disability which was at one time accepted by the Ministry, cannot the case be reviewed?
    Major TRYON: It is true that this man did obtain payment from the Ministry, but I have evidence that on more than one occasion he deliberately deceived the medical board.
    Mr. HAYES: Has the pensioner himself had an opportunity of refuting this allegation that is now made for the first time, as far as I am concerned?
    Major TRYON: The claim that this man was injured by shell shock was quite clearly disproved owing to the fact that he never went overseas and has never been under fire.
    Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether or not the opinion expressed by his medical advisers was contrary to the subsequent diagnosis that has been formed?
    Major TRYON: Yes, undoubtedly, mistakes were made owing to the way in which this man deceived us.
    Mr. HAYES: As this is a very important matter for the ratepayers of Liverpool, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the doctors who first of all examined this man have since been asked for their opinion as to his present condition?
    Major TRYON: I have very full evidence, and I shall be happy to explain to the hon. Member how this man has on two occasions at least deceived the medical boards.

    FUNERAL GRANT.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that James Reilly, late private Highland Light Infantry, No. 12,715, and lately residing on the south side of Glasgow, died in Craig-lochart Hospital, in Edinburgh, on the 29th January, 1929; that the pension authorities refused to provide for his burial; that as a result he was buried in common ground; and if he will take steps to have full inquiry made and, if possible, a burial granted which will not be in common ground?
    Major TRYON: I have inquired into the facts of this case, which was, I regret, not eligible for a funeral grant. I have no authority to defray funeral expenses in cases where death has occurred from causes which are not connected with the man's war service.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this matter is subject to an appeal, and how can he say that the man's condition was not due to war service when there is going to be an appeal?
    Major TRYON: Of course, if there are any new facts which would enable me to do anything more than I am doing now, I shall be very happy to do it.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Before the appeal is decided, would it not be better to treat this man to a decent burial? Is it not common justice, before the appeal is decided, that the man should be buried, not as a pauper, but as an ordinary citizen?
    Major COHEN: Is it not a fact that the British Legion would give assistance towards that funeral?
    Major TRYON: I do not know whether I ought to answer about the British Legion, but I hear they were appealed to, and refused.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: But in a case like this, is it not possible for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's officials or someone else to see, with this terrible poverty, that a man who has admittedly suffered is given at least a decent burial?
    Major TRYON: I entirely appreciate the hon. Member's point of view, and if new facts enable me to help, I will gladly do so.

    DISABLED EX-SERVICE MEN (CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS).
    Viscount SANDONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention was called to the trials of two disabled ex-service men, Mr. Holden and Mr. Sarll, on 10th January at the Central Criminal Court, and to the remarks of the Judge in each case; and whether he will consider steps by which such cases can be dealt with at the discretion of the Judge otherwise than by the usual criminal procedure?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Everyone must feel the utmost sympathy with ex-service men who, by reason of mental impairment due to war service, bring themselves within the operation of the criminal law. The first difficulty is that the full facts cannot usually be determined until the man concerned has been brought before a Court of Trial. The question then arises as to the alternative courses of action that are open to the Court. On this point, I should observe that the learned Judges who dealt with the two cases mentioned by my Noble Friend expressed no dissatisfaction with the courses open to them under the law. As the law stands, a man who is found insane or mentally defective can be sent to a suitable institution other than a prison. In other cases, it is open to the Court to bind the man over on condition of his entering a suitable institution as a voluntary inmate if he is willing to do so.
    In the case of Holden the jury, with all the facts before them, did not find him insane, and he cannot at present be certified medically insane without further observation. Meanwhile, he is receiving every care and attention; and X-ray examination is being arranged, in consultation with the Ministry of Pensions; and there may be a question of an operation.
    The case of Sarll is on a quite different footing. He has no disability pension, and I understand that his condition cannot be attributed in any way to his war service, which was not rendered overseas. The learned Judge was prepared to bind him over on condition that he went into a suitable home, but he refused.

    COAL INDUSTRY (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Home Secretary if he has now completed his inquiries into the facts as to how many colliery companies in Great Britain have insured and how many have not insured against their liabilities to their employés under the Workmen's Compensation Acts: and can he state how many employés are covered by insurance and how many are not so insured?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The total number of colliery owners insured with insurance companies or mutual indemnity associations was, according to the last returns, 1,607. The total number uninsured was 476. The aggregate number of persons employed at the insured collieries was. shown by the returns to be 782,619. The corresponding figure for the uninsured collieries was 242,299.
    Mr. JONES: In making these inquiries, has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained what proportion of these people were affected by the liquidation of the concerns?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There are other questions on that point.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Home Secretary whether he is now able to provide statistics showing, with reference to the colliery companies in South Wales that have gone into liquidation during the last two years, the number which had not insured with an insurance company against workmen's compensation risk; and the number of workmen who are deprived of their right to compensation in consequence?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My information on this point is not quite complete but replies received from the liquidators of 32 South Wales companies, show that three of these companies had not insured and that in one case the failure to insure resulted in a permanent loss of compensation affecting 12 workmen. As explained in my replies to other questions on this subject, hardship has also been suffered by a number of workmen through the stoppage of the weekly payments pending a final settlement of the claims.
    Mr. JOHNasked the Home Secretary, (1) whether he is aware that about 800 miners have been deprived of

    1919
    their compensation payments because the Cambrian Colliery Company, the Naval Colliery Company, and the Glamorgan Colliery Company have gone into liquidation without having insured against liabilities to their employés, under the Workmen's Compensation Acts; and whether, in view of the distress in which these disabled miners and their dependants have been placed, he will take steps to expedite the payment of the compensation due;
    (2) whether, in view of the gravity of the situation, he has given further consideration to the question of introducing this Session a Bill making it compulsory on all colliery companies to insure with an insurance company against workmen's compensation risks?
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that several thousands of disabled miners and other workers employed in industries in which serious and/or fatal accidents are frequent have been deprived of their compensation payments in part or in whole due to the failure of the employers to insure against their liabilities to their employés under the Workmen's Compensation Acts; and, in view of the distress in which these disabled workers and their dependants have been placed, will the Government amend the Workmen's Compensation Acts during this Parliament?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The inquiries I have been making in connection with liquidation of colliery companies do not disclose quite so serious a situation as has been represented. There do not seem to have been more than four cases during the last two years, affecting some 24 workmen or their dependants, where, through failure to insure, the compensation has been permanently lost. On the other hand, it is the case that many workmen have suffered hardship through being kept out of their compensation for longer or shorter periods during the winding-up of the companies. I think it is clear that the present position is unsatisfactory and that it must be dealt with. I need hardly say that I sympathise very much with the unfortunate position in which these workmen are placed and I am taking steps to ascertain whether anything can be done immediately to enable liquidators, in those cases (which form the
    1920
    majority) where assets exist, to make-advances in compensation cases before liquidation is completed. The question of compulsory insurance is a much larger one. Obviously, any measure, if it were decided to adopt the system, could not be limited to colliery owners but would have to cover all industries and classes of employment, and there would be many technical difficulties in working out a scheme for the purpose. The whole position is being examined, but it is clear that I could not possibly give the pledge asked for without the fullest inquiry and consultation with my colleagues, and that any legislation on the subject would necessarily be of a complicated character.
    Mr. JONES: May I draw attention to the fact that the question to the Prime Minister refers to the need for legislation affecting injuries to other classes of workers and does not relate to miners alone? Further, has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the White Paper issued by the Government a few weeks ago dealing with the financial aspects of this question in the Workmen's Compensation Act of last year, which revealed that 25 per cent. of the people employed are not covered by insurance? [HON. MEMBERS "Speech!"] Is not that a serious state of things?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is a very important question, and it cannot possibly be decided without the fullest inquiry. I am making inquiries as to what legislation would be needed and what the effect of it would be. It is a far-reaching question.
    Mr. JONES: Is there any prospect that the Government will bring forward such a Measure during the present Parliament?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There will be plenty of time in the next Parliament.
    Mr. JONES: Will the Borne Secretary press for an immediate inquiry into the position of the men at the Cambrian and other collieries who have not received any compensation during the last three months? As they are in adverse circumstances, will he not make immediate inquiries?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, certainly; that is the very question upon which I am consulting my legal advisers.

    CLUB REGULATIONS.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Home Secretary whether, in order to afford the electors the opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the opposing arguments on the subject of club regulations, he will cause to be circulated, in advance of the General Election, the memorandum which he is preparing on the subject?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is a memorandum on the whole licensing question, which I am preparing for the Cabinet and is, of course, strictly confidential.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.
    Sir WALTER de FRECEasked the Home Secretary if he will specify exactly what restrictions remain under the Defence of the Realm Act?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 31st January to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain).
    Sir W. de FRECE: Are there any other restrictions?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No other restrictions of any kind except those imposed by this House.
    Sir W. de FRECE: I want a list.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will give my hon. Friend a list of the Statute's if he likes, but they are all on the Statute Book.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Am I not right in believing that my right hon. Friend told me. in reply to my question, that "D.O.R.A." was dead?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, dead and buried.

    ELECTORAL REGISTER (TRANSFERRED WORKERS).
    Mr. MARDY JONESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that some thousands of miners and other workers transferred from depressed industrial districts to employment, or absent in search of employment elsewhere, have been struck off the new voters' lists for
    1922
    their habitual homes and have thereby been disfranchised, as they have not been placed upon the new voters' lists anywhere else owing to being compelled to shift from lodging to lodging whilst in or seeking intermittent employment during the three months' qualifying period up to 1st December, 1923; and will he take the necessary steps to empower the registration officers to retain the names of all such persons as absent voters upon the incoming registers at the polling districts within which their habitual homes are situated so that they may preserve their right to exercise the Franchise at the forthcoming General Election?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can only refer to the reply given on the 22nd November last to the question put by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Robinson).
    Mr. JONES: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the position disclosed by the publication of the new voters' lists, and is he aware that a considerable number—a few thousand at any rate—of miners and other transferred workers have lost their right to register for their home place, and have not been put on for the places to which they have gone; and is it not rather serious that men transferred by the Government should be disfranchised in this way?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Really. the hon. Member must not say that. There is no difference at all between a man who is transferred, which is a voluntary operation on his part, under a Government scheme, and a man who goes from one part of the country to another to obtain fresh employment. The Acts are very wide and very democratic. A very short residence is required, but there must be some residence in order to get the voters' lists made up.
    Mr. JONES: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the abnormal conditions of unemployment, there has been an abnormal reduction of the voters' register in the mining and distressed areas?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I admit the difficulty, but it occurs all over the country in regard to men who are transferred, and there is no power to get them on the register.

    CHARITABLE COLLECTIONS.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Home Secretary whether it is his intention to introduce this Session a Bill to implement the recommendations of the inter-Parliamentary Committee in connection with charitable collections?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that in view of the state of public business, I cannot promise to introduce a Bill this Session.

    NIGHT CLUBS (POLICE SUPERVISION).
    Mr. MacLARENasked the Home Secretary (1) if he will appoint a special commission to inquire into and report upon the police supervision of night clubs;
    (2) how many night clubs have been closed in London as a result of law breaking from 1924 to 1927?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number of "night clubs" struck off the Register in 1924–27 is, I am informed, 48. I do not think it necessary or desirable to appoint a special Commission to report upon the matter. The Royal Commission now sitting on police administration is dealing with certain points, and the Commissioner and myself are going carefully and fully into the whole matter. In particular, I have informed the Commissioner that I propose to review the acts and character of all aliens concerned in the administration of night clubs, or concerned in the recent Goddard case, and have asked him to provide me with all relevant information in this connection. I have reason to believe that as a result of the recent proceedings a number of aliens have already left the country, and orders have been given preventing their re-entry without my sanction. I have always been ready to use and have used my powers of deporting aliens to the utmost degree advisable in connection with the breaking of the law and other misdeeds in clubs and I shall continue to use these powers in proper cases. I have this morning received from the Commissioner reports on some further cases which I am now considering. I have at the same time asked the Commissioner to let me have his considered opinion, as soon as he is
    1924
    able to give it, as to the best method of dealing with such clubs. This being so, I hope that the hon. Member and the House will allow the Commissioner and myself to deal with the matter.
    Mr. MacLAREN: Will the Commission which is now sitting have power within their Terms of Reference to go into the whole matter of the police supervision of the clubs; and will the necessary privacy required for such an inquiry be recognised by the Commission?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Commission have power to take evidence in private. It is not possible for me to interpret the reference to the Commission; they must interpret their own reference, but they undoubtedly have power to go a certain way, and the Commissioner's power is adequate to deal satisfactorily with the other part of the way.
    Mr. HAYES: Is the supervision of this particular class of work being transferred from the uniformed branch to the Criminal Investigation Department?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would the hon. Member defer that question for a short time?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What happened to the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman prepared and was going to introduce at the beginning of this Parliament?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Like so many good efforts, it "went west."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Have not recent events strengthened the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and myself in our desire to improve these matters?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am quite sure that if it is necessary to ask my colleagues in the Government for further powers in this matter, the information which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has will support us in that effort.
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the Home Secretary say whether he is maintaining friendly relations with any of these deported night club keepers?
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a statement by Sir William Horwood before this

    1925
    Commission, which implies that the right hon. Gentleman has not utilised to the full his powers to deport aliens?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would like to postpone answering that question. I have not had notice of it, but, if necessary, I shall be prepared to make a statement. I think that on the whole, however, it is better that there should be no controversy between the late Commissioner and myself.

    PRISON SERVICE (DISCIPLINARY ACTION).
    Mr. HAYESasked the Home Secretary the number of officers at Maidstone Prison against whom disciplinary action has been taken during the past 12 months; whether at disciplinary inquiries officers are allowed the right of questioning witnesses; and whether he is prepared to consider the setting up of machinery to deal with disciplinary cases similar to that now operating in the police forces of England, Scotland and Wales?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Apart from a few minor offences, there have been no cases at Maidstone Prison within the last 12 months in which disciplinary action has been taken as a result of an inquiry. At disciplinary inquiries prison officers are allowed the right of questioning witnesses. All prison officers have a right of appeil to the Secretary of State as the head of the prison service, and it is open to him, if the circumstances warrant it, to arrange for an inquiry by an independent person.
    Mr. HAYES: In view of the experience that has been gained in the last 12 months of the appeal tribunal in the police service, could not the right hon. Gentleman now extend the experimental stage to the prison service?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon Member does not perhaps realise that the Secretary of State is in a very real degree the head of the prison service, and all questions of dismissal have actually to come up before me for my personal decision before they can be carried out. Therefore, there is, in effect, an appeal to me, and, if an officer desires to put any statement before me, he has a right to do it, and it is invariably considered by me before I arrive at a deci-
    1926
    sion; I have also power to direct a separate inquiry if I think well.
    Mr. HAYES: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that I am anxious to remove the handicap of his having to decide something in the absence of the officer; if a prison appeal tribunal could be established, would it cot ease the situation considerably?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have had no request of that kind from the prison officers. Everything is going very satisfactorily, so far as I know, in the prison service, but, if the hon. Member has any information on this subject and will communicate with me, I Bill be glad to look into it.

    FILM, "END OF ST. PETERSBURG."
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that at the New Gallery Cinema, Regent Street, on Sunday last, 3rd February, the Film Society presented a film entitled "The End of St. Petersburg," a Russian picture commissioned for propaganda purposes in connection with the tenth anniversary of the Russian revolution; that during the presentation of the film the words, All power to the Soviet, appeared; that these words were cheered and the National Anthem hissed; and what action he proposes to take?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir, I am aware that this film was exhibited at a meeting of the Film Society last Sunday, and that there was some demonstration on the appearance of the words mentioned. The society state that no demonstration of any kind save that of respectful attention was remarked by members of the council during the playing of the National Anthem. I may add that a colleague in this House who was present assured me that the National Anthem was properly received by all the people at the meeting. The Film Society is authorised by the London County Council to exhibit privately on Sunday afternoons to a restricted audience of members and their friends films which have not been passed by the British Board of Film Censors, subject to certain conditions, of which one is that no film likely to lead to disorder or to bo in any way offensive in the circumstances to public feeling shall be exhibited. I have

    1927
    drawn the attention of the London County Council to the exhibition of this film, and they will no doubt consider whether it comes within the condition referred to. I am disposed to think, from information that has reached me independently, that such incidents as occurred have been exaggerated, and I do not contemplate any further action in the matter.
    Sir R. THOMAS: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) is an official censor; if not, whether the right hon. Gentleman does not consider that the time has arrived for the appointment of at least two or three official film censors?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that, while this was going on, the right hon. Gentleman left this city for a week-end in the country, and that these matters were only brought to his attention by the hon. Baronet the Member for Anglesey (Sir R. Thomas)? How is it that the right hon. Gentleman has to have his attention drawn to such a terrible—[Interruption.]

  DISTRESSED AREAS.

    LORD MAYOR'S FUND (ADMINISTRATION).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Education what staff Mr. Curtis-Bennett has at his disposal for the organisation and co-ordination of the various charitable and other funds for the relief of distress in the coalfields; and in which districts, areas and towns are there representatives of this organisation answerable to the Minister through Mr. Curtis-Bennett?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I should like to make it clear that Mr. Curtis-Bennett and his staff have been placed at the disposal of the Lord Mayor of London to assist him in the administration of his fund and are responsible to him and not to me. I am informed that the staff in London consists of 16 persons including typists. In addition, Mr. Curtis-Bennett has four full-time
    1928
    assistants, two at Cardiff for South Wales and two at Newcastle for Northumberland and Durham, acting as liaison officers between himself, the divisional committee and the various local committees operating in the area. For each of the other divisional areas he has the part-time assistance of one officer for this purpose. I should add that responsibility for the actual executive work of distribution does not rest on Mr. Curtis-Bennett's staff but on the divisional committee of the fund for each area, operating through local committees, or through the education and public health authorities, or in certain areas through both, as it may decide.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged to the Noble Lord, but his answer does not mean that he is not responsible for the money voted by this House?
    Lord E. PERCY: Of course, I am responsible for the money voted by this House, in so far as this House may decide that the Government should actually control its distribution.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Who pays the staff? Does the money come from the fund or does it come from the Exchequer?
    Lord E. PERCY: This House voted last December a certain sum for administrative expenses.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Could the President say whether any directions have been given as to the placing of contracts by local officers Are goods purchased wholesale or retail?

    SOUTH SHIELDS.
    Mr. BATEYasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that South Shields is not included as a distressed area in connection with relief from the Lord Mayor's Fund; and, as there are many unemployed miners living in that borough, will he immediately take the necessary steps to rectify this omission?
    Mr. LAWSONasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that South Shields is not scheduled as a distressed area for purposes of the administration of the Lord Mayor's Fund; the reason for this; and whether he will cause further investigation to be made into the matter?
    Mr. ROBERT WILSONasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the borough of South Shields is not included in the list of distressed areas of the Lord Mayor's Mansion House Relief Fund; and, seeing that there are 10,000 miners resident in the town, wherein there are also two collieries, will he lay the claims of this town before the Lord Mayor's Committee for inclusion?
    Lord E. PERCY: I will answer these questions together.
    South Shields has been included as a distressed area for the purpose of grants from the Lord Mayor's Fund for the provision of boots for school children and assistance to necessitous mothers. The question whether assistance should be given in any other form falls to be decided by the Lord Mayor of Newcastle's Divisional Committee, who are understood to have the matter under consideration.
    Mr. BATEY: Could not the Noble Lord make representations to the Committee to say that there are so many miners living in the area who are unemployed?
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not understand the hon. Member. I have said that the hon. Member's statement in his question that this is hot dealt with as a distressed area is incorrect, and that assistance is being given.
    Mr. BATEY: I am not clear on the point. Are we to understand that South Shields is scheduled as a distressed area to come under the Lord Mayor's Fund?
    Mr. SPEAKER: An answer has been given as regards that point.
    Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. I understood the Noble Lord to say that they came in for boots only.
    HON. MEMBERS: That is not a point of Order.
    Mr. BATEY: I want to be clear on this point. I understood the Noble Lord to say that it was scheduled for the purpose of supplying boots and something else, but that it was not scheduled for relief under the Lord Mayor's Fund. It is that we are asking about; we want it to be scheduled for relief under the Lord Mayor's Fund.
    HON. MEMBERS: Speech!
    Mr. BATEY: It is not a speech. I want to ask the Noble Lord to make that point clear.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has put his supplementary question under the guise of a point of Order.
    Mr. LAWSON: May I ask a question on this matter? The Noble Lord is well aware that South Shields is in very much the same condition as many of the distressed areas in the North. Is South Shields scheduled and treated in all respects as other distressed areas?
    Lord E. PERCY: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "scheduled." There has been no seheduling. South Shields is being treated by the Divisional Committee of Newcastle as a distressed area, as part of the distressed area of the Northumberland and Durham coalfield, and it has been receiving relief in the matter of boots for school children and assistance for necessitous mothers, which includes practically all that the fund has been doing up to now. I must safeguard the discretion of the Divisional Committee for the future.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the Noble Lord aware that the town council and all the local authorities have protested that they are not being treated as a distressed area?
    Lord E. PERCY: I think they are entirely mistaken.

    GLYNCOHRWQ DISTRICT.
    Colonel APPLINasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the delay of over six weeks that has occurred in setting up the local relief committee at Aberblaengwyn, adopted for relief by Enfield; and whether he will take immediate steps to expedite the setting up of this committee, in order that the relief organised and waiting at Enfield may be put into operation at an early date?
    Lord E. PERCY: The villages of Abergwynfi and Blaengwynfi, which have been adopted by Enfield, form part of the urban district of Glyncorrwg. A local committee of the Lord Mayor's Fund for this district was formed on 31st January. This committee is now actively engaged, with the assistance of the representatives of the Coalfields Distress Funds organisation

    1931
    at Cardiff, in the work of organising its district, which is expected to be completed within the next few days. Enfield are at present sending contributions direct to the district and have been advised to continue doing so until they are satisfied that the local organisation of the fund is in a position to take over their commitments; but it is hoped that arrangements will then be made, as in other cases of adoption, for contributions from Enfield to be forwarded through the Lord Mayor's Fund.
    Colonel APPLIN: May I assure my constituents in Enfield that this committee will be set up within the next few days?
    Lord E. PERCY: It was set up on 31st January.

    POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the conditions prevailing in certain mining areas of Durham and Northumberland; and whether, in view of the fact that similar conditions prevail in many other industrial areas, he will withdraw his order that out-door relief shall not be granted to able-bodied men and their dependants, and restore, for the time being and until some better means of assistance is found, the conditions which prevailed before the recent tightening up of his regulations?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I make full allowance for exceptional conditions where they prevail as well as for the physical difficulties of introducing task work when the number of applicants for relief is high, but I am convinced that, in the general interest, a return to the policy embodied in the Relief Regulation Order, 1911, ought, so far as possible, to be secured.
    Mr. LANSBURY: In arriving at that decision has the Minister of Health taken into account the amount of distress due to increasing unemployment during the past year?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: In view of the fact that in South Wales and elsewhere
    1932
    there are many thousands out of work, and that a large percentage of them are single young men, can the right hon. Gentleman not do something for them as they are not being given any relief at all under the regulations?

    SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS (REPORT).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Minister of Health whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Report presented to him by his inspector and medical officer who recently visited the South Wales distressed areas on his instructions, as reported to the House before the Recess, in order to investigate and report on the social and economic conditions prevailing in such areas; and will he state what conclusions these officials arrived at and what proposals they made for dealing with distress arising from unemployment and other causes?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I propose to lay this Report on the Table of the House at an early date. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Report itself.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Would it not be possible for the Minister of Health to give us at least a final summary of the Report?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I propose to give the whole Report.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I mean to-day. That is rather important in view of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has just given.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot give a summary by way of an answer to a question.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Does the Report state that distress prevails in the districts visited by the inspector and the medical officer, and what is their view of the relief that should be given?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think we knew before that there was distress in that district. I cannot answer as to what measures they propose.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Previous to the Adjournment, the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that he was sending these officials specially to investigate this question. [HON. MEMBERS:

    1933
    "Speech!"] The question I want to put is a perfectly simple one. The Minister of Health, in response to a discussion previous to the Recess, sent these gentlemen to South Wales to inquire whether distress prevailed, and I wish to know whether they have reported that the distress has been adequately dealt with under the Regulations of the Ministry of Health?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that the hon. Member had better await the Report.
    Mr. LANSBURY—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman had better await the Report.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if I put down a question, be will be good enough to give the House the conclusions arrived at by these gentlemen, which are of some importance to the people concerned?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I really cannot answer that question without seeing what the hon. Gentleman's question is.
    Mr. LANSBURY: You are much too clever—
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I cannot summarise the conclusions in answer to a question. I shall lay the whole Report on the Table at an early date.
    HON. MEMBERS: When?

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the conditions of overcrowding and poverty prevailing in the mining areas of Durham and Northumberland; whether he is aware that similar conditions prevail in many other great industrial centres; and whether, in the face of these conditions, he is now prepared to respond to the appeal made to him by the Opposition some time ago that a non-party committee of this House be appointed to consider and prepare schemes of national work and social service, such as land drainage, slum clearance, road making, and other works which have been proposed, in order to give useful employment to those who are now unemployed?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The measures which are being taken to relieve distress and aid employment are well known, and I need not recapitulate them. I do not think that a useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a committee such as the hon. Member suggests. The large-scale measures which I understand he contemplates would involve great State borrowings, which, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, would in the end do much more harm than good. In our view, the objects which we all desire can best be attained by perseverance in our policy which aims, by relief of trade from the burden of rates and in other ways, at the absorption of the. unemployed into productive industry and their transference from areas of distress.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is the Prime Minister aware that this state of things has been going on now for some 10 years; that unemployment is actually increasing; and that those concerned do not care a fig how it is done as long as it is done; and is his only answer to a proposition of this kind to say that things are as bad as they are?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech at Question Time.
    Mr. LAWSON: I am entitled to an answer.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in spite of all that is being done by himself and by the local authorities, there are a quarter of a million more out of work to-day than there were at this time last year?
    An HON. MEMBER: The general strike!
    Mr. WALLHEAD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the raising of the Bank rate will assist that restoration of trade of which he speaks?

  EDUCATION.

    REORGANISATION.
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education how many education authorities have initiated reorganisation schemes with separate buildings for junior and senior schools; how far it has meant the reduction in the

    1935
    number of head teachers; and whether he can make any statement as to the progress made in the proposed reorganisation of education in elementary schools on these lines, as advocated by the Board?
    Lord E. PERCY: I find some difficulty in answering this question, because it seems to reduce the whole problem of the reorganisation of education to terms of bricks and mortar. Local Authorities generally are dealing with the problem, but I cannot give statistics of their progress in these terms. For some years past the number of head teacherships has been slowly decreasing, but the net decrease in 1924 was greater than in any subsequent years.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department has been sending out directions in favour of the reorganisation of our education system on the basis of separate buildings for junior and senior schools, and that it is not a mere matter of bricks and mortar but a question of reorganisation on a new basis?
    Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member asks me to give statistics on the basis of separate buildings for junior and senior schools, but that is really only one of the factors in a very complicated organisation, and I do not think that that is the way to look at the problem.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of education authorities have been carrying out his policy, and have been reorganising education on this basis; and are we not entitled to know how many authorities have schemes of this character?
    Lord E. PERCY: I think all authorities are considering or carrying out schemes of this character.

    ST. ANNE'S SCHOOLS, EDGE HILL.
    Mr. HAYESasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the hardship imposed upon some of the poorest people in Liverpool in having to make provision for the rebuilding of St. Anne's schools, Edge Hill, consequent upon the old schools being condemned by His Majesty's inspector; and whether he will consider some form of financial relief for such non-provided schools?
    Lord E. PERCY: This school has not been "condemned." Ever since 1911 its accommodation has been regarded as inadequate; the Managers have been the first to reeognize this fact and have shown themselves anxious to provide new or additional accommodation. The school was, therefore, included in the Board's list of defective premises but in view of the obvious difficulties which faced the Managers I have refrained from fixing any date for the termination of the recognition of the existing premises. If the hon. Member has been following the discussions on educational policy which have taken place during the last three or four years he will know that I am very keenly conscious of the burden which the replacement of such a school imposes on a poor parish, but I think he is well aware of the fact that I am at present precluded by law from relieving that burden.
    Mr. HAYES: In view of the examination made of this subject by the President of the Board of Education and his experience, is he in favour of introducing legislation which will do something to help effectively in this problem, which is getting worse and worse?
    Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member has overlooked the fact that in 1926 I announced that the Government were prepared to introduce amending legislation on certain lines which I thought would ease considerably the position of Liverpool and elsewhere, provided that they were satisfied that: the legislation was generally acceptable.
    Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the position now with regard to the proposed legislation?
    Lord E. PERCY: It is the same as it was then, and, as the hon. Member seems to be enthusiastic on this subject, I hope that he will give it more attention than he did in 1926 when I made the announcement.

  POOR LAW.

    WEST HAM.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health the kind of test work the West Ham Poor Law Commissioners insisted upon being undertaken by men receiving

    1937
    Poor Law relief; if he is aware that one man refused such test work with the result that he was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment; what portion of the amount of 28s. per week paid to this man for his wife, four children, and himself was in cash and kind; whether this amount is the maximum allowed by the West Ham Poor Law Commissioners; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed that the test work required to be performed by the West Ham Guardians may be any of the following tasks, namely, sawing and chopping wood, excavating sand and gravel, digging, mowing and similar work on the land, coaling and corn grinding. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, the relief paid was 31s. a week, of which 14s. was in cash and 17s. in kind. The guardians have no fixed scale of relief and no maximum is fixed by them. The case does not appear to me to require any action on my part.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health if any definite arrangement has been made with the West Ham Corporation in respect to the outstanding loans and interest affecting the Poor Law union area; whether any consultation has taken place with the borough treasurer in this connection; whether his attention has been called to the published statement of the chief commissioner of the board of guardians stating the financial effect of the Local Government Bill in respect to the borough; and whether he proposes to issue a statement showing the financial rearrangements?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No such arrangement as the hon. Member refers to has been made, and no consultation with the corporation has yet taken place. I understand that the statement made by the chairman of the West Ham Board of Guardians was an estimate based on the latest available figures of the probable effect of the provisions of the Bill on the general ratepayers of the county borough. The financial arrangements to be made as regards the West Ham Union and the county borough will be announced as soon as possible.

    DOCK AND CASUAL LABOURERS, HULL (RELIEF).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in certain seaports, including Hull, many workers at the docks and other casual labourer, employed in work of national importance, are permanently resident in respectable lodging-houses either because they are single men or because their homes have been broken up, or owing to the housing shortage, and that the Poor Law authorities have a rule not to give outdoor relief to these men however great their need; that if a man in similar circumstances is a lodger with a family or has a furnished room he can get outdoor relief; whether this is by his orders; and why this ban on the relief of such workmen cannot be removed?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that boards of guardians commonly, and as I believe properly, distinguish, in the exercise of their discretion, between applications made for relief by inmates of common lodging-houses and other persons, but I should not criticise a board of guardians who decided that no discrimination should be made against persons who were correctly described in the terms suggested in this question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make that known to the boards of guardians? Is he aware that large lodging-houses, some of which are provided by the dock companies, are not common lodging-houses in the ordinary sense, but are really the homes of these men?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That was the impression I derived from the hon. Member's question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let the guardians know that?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is: there a special rule applied to Hull and the guardians there authorising outdoor relief to single men living in their own homes; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he and his Department prohibit that kind of relief in other areas?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that that can be deduced from my answer.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he would not object to assistance being given to these men, and I am asking whether it is not a fact that they are being treated as if they were living in their own homes? Is it not a fact that within the last two months he has prohibited other boards of guardians from giving relief to single and able-bodied men generally in their own homse?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said nothing about able-bodied men. The distinction made here is between the ordinary common lodging-house and a particular kind of lodging-house, and the same distinction would apply in Hull or elsewhere.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will the Hull Board of Guardians be allowed to give outdoor relief to able-bodied men?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did nor say that.

    RELIEF (URGENT CASES).
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Health the number of boards of guardians which have forwarded him resolutions urging that authority should be given to chairmen of parish councils or to guardians to grant relief, excluding relief in money, in sudden and urgent cases; and whether he will introduce an amendment to Clause 6 of the Local Government Bill giving county councils the power to include such authority in their administrative schemes?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: 47 boards of guardians have forwarded resolutions on this subject, but, as I have indicated in reply to earlier questions, I see no reason for altering the present arrangements in this matter.

    HOUSING IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to introduce legislation this Session to amend the conditions under which compensation is paid for property included in an improvement scheme under Section 9 of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919, and Section 46 of the Housing Act, 1925?
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to carry out his conditional promise with etc., Act, 1919, and Section 46 of the the Housing Act of 1925?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply, a copy of which I will send to them, which was given by the Prime Minister on the 14th November last to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Hackney Central (Sir R. Gower).

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    RADIUM.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Health whether work is still being continued at the mine in Cornwall where radium deposits have been found; and, if not, whether there is any proposal to restart operations?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not in possession of any information on this subject.
    Mr. MORRISON: Could the right hon. Gentleman try to find out something?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that I have no information.
    Mr. MORRISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get some information?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member may recollect that there is a Committee looking into the whole question. I propose to await their Report.
    Mr. MORRISONasked the Minister of Health in view of the fact that the Swedish nation has recently purchased six grammes of radium sulphate at an approximate cost of £10,000 per gramme, whether he will inquire into the possibility of a similar purchase being made by his Department, thus effecting a saving of £2,000 per gramme on the price of £12,000 at present being charged to British purchasers?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen Press reports to the same effect as the first part of the question. I have no funds at my disposal for the purchase of radium, but the whole question will be considered by the Government when the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Civil Research has been received.
    Mr. MORRISON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to how long it will be before the Report is issued? Is it likely to be a month, or a year?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no reason to think that it will be as long as a year, but I cannot say when it will be.

    MATERNITY AND CHILD-WELFARE (GRANTS).
    Sir ROBERT NEWMANasked the Minister of Health with regard to the schemes which have been submitted to the Ministry by county boroughs and other local authorities for building new maternity and child-welfare centres, whether in cases where the schemes have been already approved by the Ministry on the principle of a 50 per cent. grant, that undertaking will be adhered to by the Ministry if the local authority so desire it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The grants for maternity and child-welfare other than the training of midwives and health visitors will be wholly discontinued after 31st day of March, 1930, and will be absorbed in the now grants to be given under the Bill.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to issue to Members a revised financial memorandum relating to the Local Government Bill prior to the Report stage being taken?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not proposed to issue a revised financial memorandum relating to the Local Government Bill prior to the Report stage being taken. The main Amendments affecting the financial provisions of the Bill were fully explained in Command Paper 3257.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the principal Government Amendments will be on the Paper for the Report stage?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot, off-hand. They will be put down as soon as possible.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND BOARD OF TRADE.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that electricity is not a matter of transport and that the merchant marine is, he will interchange those two sections of the Ministry of Transport and Board of Trade, respectively, especially in view of the fact that the latter Department also has responsibility for gas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have noted my Noble Friend's suggestion,. but I do not think it is practicable.

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. HARRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the number of Custom House officials on 31st December, 1923, and 31st December, 1928, respectively?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The total staff employed in the Customs and Excise Department on 1st January, 1924, and 1st January, 1929, respectively, was 11,314 and 12,069.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is that due to increased work in collecting Safeguarding Duties?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, it is another form of the increased employment that is afforded by them.

    AFFORESTATION.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great and growing distress in the mining areas, the impossibility of absorbing more than a very small number of unemployed miners in general industry, and the fact that each unemployed person costs the country at least £60 a year, he will consider the possibility of increasing the afforestation programme already outlined?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have already promised to ask Parliament to vote a provision for afforestation in the next 10 years exceeding by more than 50 per cent. the statutory sum provided in the first decennium. In addition, the Forestry Commission expect an increase of 100 per cent. in their revenue from forest products. I fear I can hold

    1943
    out no hope of any further increase in the financial provision.
    Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the amount of the Tote will be?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think it is £5,500,000.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Could not this expenditure be covered by means of a loan rather than out of the revenue, seeing that it is productive expenditure, and that all the experts declare that there will be a very great shortage of timber in the future?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is entirely another question.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the new opportunities will be provided for miners, in view of the unemployment that exists in many agricultural areas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say without notice.

    CENSUS.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Health the extra cost of taking the census every five years; and whether any part of this cost will fall on the rates?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The cost of any census depends, not only upon the scope of the inquiries which it may include, but also upon the rates of remuneration which may be current at the time that the census is taken for the kind of services which it is necessary to employ. It is very difficult, therefore, to furnish any estimate of the cost of census-taking over any future period, either on the quinquennial system or, indeed, on the present decennial system. But it may be assumed that the average cost per census under the quinquennial system will fall considerably short of the average cost on the present system, other things being equal; and in any event no part of the cost will fall upon the rates.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost to the
    1944
    Exchequer if unemployment benefit were made a national charge?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The total contributions of employers and employed towards the unemployment insurance scheme now amount to approximately £31 millions a year, and if the scheme were entirely a State charge without alteration in any other respect, this sum would have to be found by the Exchequer, in addition to its actual contribution of £12 millions. My hon. Friend will, however, realise that so fundamental a change as the abolition of all contributions would tend to have considerable reactions on the whole structure of the scheme.
    Mr. HAYDAY: In addition to the £31,000,000 which now represents the contributions of employers and workpeople, is there not a figure representing the deficit; and what would be the total amount paid, say in the last year, in unemployment benefit?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The deficit which has been accruing in the last two years to the National Insurance Fund is a very small monthly proportion of the contributions by the State, the workers, and the employers.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Do these figures take into account the hundreds of thousands who are returned as unemployed but are refused the right to benefit, and can the right hon. Gentleman say what would be the total amount paid in unemployment benefit if all unemployed persons had been admitted to benefit during the past year?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Obviously, I cannot.
    Mr. W. THORNE: In a case where there is an overdraft, will the Fund be expected to pay this, seeing that the Bank rate is increased to-day?

    SOCIAL SERVICES (EXPENDITURE).
    Sir W. de FRECEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total cost of the public social services at 31st March, 1924, and the cost per head of the population?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Return of Expenditure on Public Social Services in Great Britain contained in House of Commons Paper No. 205 of Session 1924–25, from

    1945
    which it will be seen that the total expenditure in the year ended 31st March, 1924 (or latest available year) on the Services specified in that return, exclusive of expenditure out of loans, was about £332 millions. This figure represented an expenditure per head of estimated population of approximately £7 13s. 4d.

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    Mr. GEORGE HIRSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of the National Debt on 31st December, 1928; how much it works out at per head of the population of the country; the interest paid on the National Debt for the last financial year; and how much it works out at per head of the population?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The total nominal amount of the National Debt on 31st December, 1928, was £7,738,300,000, and the charge for interest and management in the financial year ended 31st March, 1928, was £313,816,287. Divided by the number of the population, these figures become £170 6s. and £6 18s. respectively.

    INCOME TAX (RESIDENCE ABROAD).
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any information available at the Treasury to show the number of British subjects who are not permanent residents of other parts of the Empire but who live abroad, either ashore or afloat, and not being liable to British Income Tax contribute nothing directly to the revenues of this country?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it possible to ascertain the number of persons by means of the figures of passports issued?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I doubt whether that would be a complete guide.
    Mr. CRAWFURD: Would it not be possible in connection with the next Census to arrive at some figure of those who habitually spend six or seven months abroad?

    WIRELESS LICENCES.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the receipts of wireless
    1946
    licences amounted to £1,250,000, of which £824,000 was paid to the British Broadcasting Corporation and £254,000 to the Exchequer, he can see his way to reduce the wireless licence from 10s. to 7s. 6d.?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to answer this question. No, Sir. I share the view expressed by the Crawford Committee that a fee of 10s., which is equivalent to 1d. for three days' programmes, is not unreasonable, and I do not propose to recommend a reduction.

    SLATE CLUBS.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the statement of a magistrate that 20 men have committed suicide in the last few months in consequence of their positions as secretaries or treasurers of slate clubs, apart from many others found guilty of defalcations in similar capacities; and whether he will inquire into the constitution and arrangements of such clubs?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I have seen a Press report of the statement referred to. As already stated by my predecessors, I do not think that any attempt at State control of these clubs would be practicable or effective.

    COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will give details of the share capital representing cable communications only in the various companies within the Communications Company?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Communications Company will only acquire physical assets relating to cable communications and shares held by the existing cable companies in companies which carry on communication business. The Merger Company, with the capitalisation of which the Governments are not concerned, intends to acquire all the ordinary shares in the Eastern Telegraph Company, the Eastern Extension Australasia and China Telegraph Company and the Western Telegraph Company. The share

    1947
    capital and reserves of these companies, according to their latest balance sheets, amount to rather more than £26½ millions, but I have no means of apportioning this figure to purely cable assets.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the proposed annual payment of £250,000 by the Communications Company for the loan of the Government's beam system will be subject to a royalty of six and a quarter per cent. payable to the Marconi Company?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.

    GOVERNMENT FILMS (PRESERVATION).
    Captain CAZALETasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether there are any official arrangements for the preservation of films which are of national or historic importance and interest?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Arrangements are made for the preservation of films produced at the instance of Government Departments. A list of such films is included in an answer given on 16th February, 1927, to the hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir W. de Frece), of which I am sending a copy to the hon. and gallant Member. There are no arrangements for the acquisition and preservation of privately-produced films.

    GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
    Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the cases in which sub-contracts of Government contracts are being placed abroad, either in part or as a whole; and whether he will investigate the possibility of ensuring that all such work, financed by national resources, is placed at home for the encouragement of British employment?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Government Departments place contracts within the limits of their own authority without reference to the Treasury. I understand that, as far as is practicable, they apply to subcontracts the same principles as govern their stipulations for British materials in
    1948
    main contracts. But if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the cases on which his question is based I will have inquiry made.

  NINE MILE POINT COLLIERY, MONMOUTH (DISPUTE).
  Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the House any information as to the cause of the trouble between police and unemployed miners at Nine Mile Point Colliery yesterday; whether any arrests were made; how many persons were injured; whether in any cases the injuries are serious, and whether full inquiry is to be made into the matter?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have made inquiry and find that the trouble yesterday started with a determined attack by a large crowd on four miners who had been working at the colliery. There had been demonstrations on the previous days, and on Tuesday the miners who had been working and their police escorts were stoned. Yesterday no arrests were made: 11 persons, including two constables, received injuries requiring medical attention, but they are not, I am glad to say, serious.
  Mr. EDWARDS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the question?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have made inquiries and I propose to make further inquiry if necessary.
  Mr. EDWARDS: Does the Home Secretary think it is good business financially, or even common sense, to keep 50 policemen hanging about looking for trouble?
  Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is alleged that among the injured were a crippled boy and a little girl who was doing some domestic work in a front garden, and what explanation can he give that these things should have happened, provided they are true?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have given the information in my possession. The hon. Member had better be a little more careful before making suggestions of that kind.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the cause of all the trouble is the charges made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) the other day?
  Mr. EDWARDS(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether, in spite of the circumstances connected with the offer of employment on unknown terms to the men formerly employed at the Nine Mile Point Colliery, the Employment Exchanges are being used to induce the men to accept this employment or lose their unemployment benefit?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The terms which I quoted in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford yesterday were, as I understand, in the words in which they were offered to the men. I am not aware that any of the men suggested that these terms were not sufficiently specific. If this is the contention, it can be made before the Court of Referees, which will no doubt take it into careful consideration. The action of the Exchange in the matter was entirely impartial and was limited to submitting to the men the terms offered by the employer and reporting to the insurance officer the cases in which these terms were refused.
  Mr. EDWARDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the men sent over from the Rhymney Valley were secured by the Employment Exchanges, although they knew that there was a dispute at that colliery, and how can this Action be reconciled—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member knows quite well that I cut out that part of his question, and he should not ask it as a supplementary.
  Mr. EDWARDS: I was perfectly aware that you cut out that part, but I understood that often a supplementary question is put which has not been allowed in the original question.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry to say that that is done sometimes., but it certainly ought never to be done.
  Mr. HAYDAY: Seeing that the insurance officer has disqualified these men from unemployment benefit on the ground that there is a dispute. does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Employ-
  1950
  ment Exchange should be used for supplying men to take the places of others in dispute? Further, is there any truth in the statement made in the question, that the men were told that they would be disqualified from benefit if they refused the positions offered in the circumstances?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No. I have no reason to suppose that that was said to the men when they were offered the work that was put before them, because it does not lie with the Exchange officials to decide whether they would be disqualified or not for a statutory cause. The Exchange is bound to place offers of employment before the men, and it informs the men if there is a dispute in the locality, so that they may know it. It is performing its necessary duty in submitting the terms to the men for their acceptance or not.
  Mr. T. SHAW: In view of that answer, may I ask, seeing that the insurance officer, who is an officer of the Department, acted as if this were a dispute, whether the men who were sent to this place were told of the action of the insurance officer in ruling, as far as he was concerned, that there was a dispute?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not sure. I hesitate to speak from memory on a point about which I am not quite certain, and I should like to look up the circumstances. As far as I know, the men were told by the Exchange officials that there was a dispute on at the place. So far as this insurance officer disqualifies a person, he does so as: a court of first instance, and, if appeal is taken, as in the six test cases, it will be brought before the Court of Referees.
  Mr. HAYDAY: Does not the Act place responsibility upon the Exchange officials to warn person:; that if they refuse to accept a position where there is a dispute it will not interfere with their right to unemployment benefit?
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is a point which does not arise immediately out of the question. I should like to refresh my memory about it, and then I will tell the hon. Member, or the House, if he will put down a question, precisely how the matter stands.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the cause of all this trouble, violence

  1951
  and even bloodshed the fact that an attempt has been made to break up the men's union?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the Prime Minister state what business will be taken next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, Committee stage of Supplementary Estimates for the Ministry of Labour, Colonial Office, Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland.
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday: Local Government Bill, Report stage, first, second and third Allotted days.
The Business for Friday will be announced later.
If there is time on any day, other Orders will be taken.
Mr. MALONE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the general course of business with a view to announcing the probable date when he will advise a Dissolution?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think the time is quite ripe for that.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. James Brown to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL,
"to amend the Licensing Act, 1872, and the Licensing Acts, 1910 and 1921; and for other purposes relating thereto," presented by Colonel Gretton; supported by Major Carver, Sir George Courthope, Mr. Gates, Mr. Wells and Mr. Everard; to be read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the Salford Corporation, Petition for Bill, the Stand-
1952
ing Orders ought to be dispensed with:— That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2."That, in the case of the Birmingham Corporation (General Powers) [Lords,] Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with, and that the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the provisions of 28, so far as they affect lines of frontage that have already been prescribed, be struck out of the Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  PRIVATE BILLS (CONSOLIDATION).
  That they have appointed a Committee consisting of six Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider all Private Bills for the exclusive purpose of consolidating the provisions of existing Private Acts of Parliament, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Progress, 6th February.]
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Committees.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 15, line 25, after the first word "Council," insert the words "reconstituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act."
    In line 39, after the word "Every," insert the words "such reconstituted."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to move, in page 16, line 1, to leave out from the beginning to the word "all," in line 9.
    This is one of a series of Amendments which have the same object in view. The right hon. Gentleman has submitted a scheme, which has been approved, to hand over the work of the education authorities to the county councils and the large burgh councils in Scotland. He is giving something to Scotland worse than is being given to England under the general scheme, and in connection with administration he is also giving us something which is not as good as the English system. In the Education Act, 1921, Section 4 (1) provides:
    "Every council having powers under this Act shall have an Education Committee…
    Sub-section (2) provides that:
    "Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section seven of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919,
    (a) all matters relating to the exercise by the council of their powers under this Act, or of any powers connected with education conferred by or under any other Act, scheme or order on the council expressly as a local education authority or as a council having powers under this Act, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money, shall stand referred to the education committee…"
    4.0 p.m.
    The proposals in the Bill would make it possible for the newly constituted education authorities, the county councils on the one hand and the burgh councils
    1980
    on the other, to approve schemes which might be relegated or delegated by them to the education committees of the counties or the burghs, but only a portion of the work which is laid down for them to do. The series of Amendments which we seek to move would delegate all powers associated with education administration to the education committees of the county councils or of the burgh councils. It may be argued by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his reply, that I am asking for something more than even the English education committees have got. I am prepared to admit that at once. You have given us a different system from the English system. You have given us only 30 education committees for the 33 counties in Scotland, and I submit that, in view of the larger areas which they have got to administer, I am not asking too much when I ask for greater powers for these education committees than have been given to the English education committees. The whole of the Amendments —the others being consequential upon the one I am now moving—if taken in sequence on the Order Paper, would make the paragraph read:
    "All matters relating to the exercise by a county council or the town council of a burgh being a county of a city of their functions (other than functions relating to the raising of money by rate or loan) relating to education (including all matters relating to the giving of instruction in religion to children whose parents do not object to the instruction so given), shall be delegated to the education committee."
    That, I admit at once, is entirely different from the proposals which are in the Bill, which would give no uniformity as far as Scottish education is concerned. I think we are entitled to get at least as large powers for the education committees as they have got in England, but we are being given something less under this scheme. I would like to draw the particular attention of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary to a memorandum in connection with the Education Act, 1921, issued by the English Board of Education, which summarised the position of the council with regard to the education committees then being set up. It said:
    "The council must refer every educational matter to the committee except the raising a rate or borrowing money;
    May, in case of urgency, act without awaiting the report of the Committee;

    1981
    May delegate, on any terms it pleases, its powers under the Act to the Committee; but
    Must not delegate its powers of raising a rate or borrowing money."
    I want to emphasise the fact that under the English scheme they must refer educational matters to the committee, except the raising a rate or borrowing money. Under the Clause now before the Committee it does not follow that the council must delegate or refer to the education committee all matters dealing with education. Now that this Committee has abolished the ad hoc authority, I want education, as far as its administrative side is concerned, to be delegated to the education committees that are to be set up in accordance with the provisions of this Bill. I believe that even my bitterest opponents in this House will admit that I know something about education administration, and, recognising that we have done some bad things in connection with it, and wanting now to make as good a job as possible of the work still left for us to do, I am submitting this, not merely on my own behalf, but as the unanimous decision of those representing the executive of the education authorities. If you do not retain the ad hoc principle, then we want the powers dealing with education to be delegated to the education committee which are to be set up.
    I have, therefore, much pleasure in moving this first Amendment which, as I have said, is one of a series which seeks to give us a little more powers than are given to the English authorities, but powers which we are justified in demanding, the only difference being in the further Amendment of mine which says that matters shall "be delegated" instead of merely "stand referred." With this explanation, I trust the Secretary of State will be able to meet us. He has refused up to the present any of the requests made by the executive of the education authorities, and has refused to meet any of the demands made by the education authorities themselves. He can rest assured that I am speaking on behalf of the whole of the education authorities in Scotland in making this request, and I trust that on this matter of administration solely and wholely of education we shall not be hampered in our work by the county council, but that
    1982
    full powers will be delegated to the education committees.
    Mr. HARDIE: This Clause represents the wreckage of all that is known as the basis of Scottish life. We are to-day starting out amongst the ruins that have been left, due to what has taken place by previous votes in this Committee. The desire of Members on these benches is, if possible, from the wreckage still to get a grip upon some of the most important parts that have been rent asunder, and to keep as much direct control as possible, even if it only be in one or two places, realising that after the smash which has been made by this Government we shall not be able, even with these Amendments, to get anywhere near what we would like to see in a Bill. The whole of the ideal has been smashed, and to-day, when we are dealing with this small Amendment to try to tie things together, we realise, quite sincerely, that the smash has been such that the educational system we have known in Scotland has gone until some Government comes to rebuild it. Since there are so many Amendments, and since the more important in relation to Clause 12 follow this one, I will content myself by asking the Secretary of State for Scotland just to keep in mind that when he is dealing with this to-day he is dealing with something more than sentiment, and that a great deal depends on what he is going to do.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): It is just because we are dealing here with something much more important than sentiment, that I am unable to accept this proposal. It is clear from what the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) has said, that this proposal is aimed at endeavouring to tie up, as he said, as much as possible the remnants of the ad hoc system for a body which is to be charged with the duties of carrying on education. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment said—and I think said truly—that none of his opponents—I hope the word "bitter" may be dropped out—would deny that he knew a great deal about education and the educational machine. I agree, and I am sure those who know my hon. Friend will also agree. But what is the practical side of this question? The hon. Gentleman has not really explained what he means

    1983
    by education. I would point out that the intention in this Bill is to let matters which concern the ordinary conduct of education—pure education—be referred to the education committee. But there are other problems such as the feeding of children, provision of recreation and playing fields for children, and it would be most unfortunate if the new bodies which we are creating in the great cities and in the counties did not deal with them as a whole. I visualise, for instance, the possibility of a joint committee dealing with the question of recreation in a great city like Glasgow, and avoiding some of those difficulties which have arisen in practice where the ad hoc authorities actually built upon the playground of one of the schools, lessening the lamentably small number of playgrounds in the great city of Glasgow by putting up a building which, if there had been reasonable cooperation between the bodies charged with education and health services, would have been avoided.
    I would plead with this Committee to realise, whatever those ad hoc education authorities may claim for their past work, that in the interests of the children it would be lamentable if there were ruled out in this new scheme the complete possibility of working with the health authority of the city on the question of school feeding or on the question of recreation. These matters are all linked with education. Some of them are the main foundations which make it possible for the children to benefit by education, but how can you, in words which will be sufficiently clear, avoid hampering all co-operation, which is essential for the full development of these services, if we accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman? I think, on all those grounds, the Committee will agree that it would be unreasonable to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: May I point out that the English Act says:
    "All matters relating to the exercise by the council of their powers under this Act, or of any powers connected with education conferred by or under any other Act, scheme or order on the council expressly as a local education authority or as a council having powers under this Act, except the power of raising a. rate or borrowing money, shall stand referred to the education committee."
    1984
    I am prepared to accept, on behalf of the executive of the education authorities, instead of the words "to be delegated" the words, "shall stand referred to," which is in conformity with the English Act. Will he explain how it cannot work in Scotland?
    Sir J. GILHMOUR: I am frequently accused of being dragged at the heels of England, and with being the messenger boy of the English Minister. What appears to be the complaint now is that I have struck out a line of my own, and that I choose to look at this matter from a purely Scottish point of view. All I would say to the hon. Member and his friends is this, that I think my scheme gives much greater freedom and elasticity, and the possibility of much greater benefit to those who, after all, we are considering, and whose interest we are considering, than by tying them up by a definition as in the English Bill. It is for that reason alone that I advise the Committee not to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. HARDIE: The Secretary of State made a reference to a building undertaking in Glasgow. In such a case, first of all, there is the scarcity of land. Secondly, if it is a densely populated industrial area and there is not space on which to build schools to accomodate the children, the moment you seek to go outside the area you are faced with the question of the transfer of the children to and from the area.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): The hon. Member has surely chosen a most unfortunate defence of the Amendment. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment and who spoke with a great deal more intimate knowledge of education, is not prepared to defend that Glasgow transaction. There was no question of a shortage of land. There was no question of a possible transfer of children. There was available an open space across the street. This was in the possession of the public health authority, which was desirous of giving ample accommodation for the school building. The building, however, was put up in the playground of the old school, so increasing the already lamentable shortage of playground space.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I accept what has been said, but I would point out that the school could not have been built on the playground without the consent of the Education Department. That Department had the right to veto the scheme. I am glad to hear the suggestion of the Under-Secretary of State, because I am having a fight at Kirkcaldy now, where even some of the parents are seeking to have a building put up in the playground of a certain school. Now I shall be able to go from the House of Commons and tell them that there is no possibility of their encroaching on the playground space.
    Major ELLIOT: That is precisely what we are dealing with in the Bill—to give local powers to meet the local demands, so that the matter should not be referred to the bureaucracy in Edinburgh or in London for the determination of such a difficulty between two bodies which are levying on the same ratepayers' purse in Glasgow. The power to resolve the difficulty should have been left in the City of Glasgow, and it should not have been brought for decision to the bureaucracy in Edinburgh or in London. That is what we maintain.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I am one who is profoundly convinced of the rightness of the ad hoc system of educational control. That question was argued the night before last, and I shall not go over the old ground. Nor am I in any way shaken in my belief by the facts of the dispute over the regrettable incident in Glasgow. I am certain that if we had retained the ad hoc system it would not pass the wits of the Secretary of State or his advisers to devise measures which would prevent the possibility of such an occurrence in the future. But as we have destroyed the ad hoc system I must say that I find it impossible to support the Amendment in its original form. Having abandoned the ad hoc. system, let us, at any rate, get the maximum amount of benefit we can from the ad omnia system. Let us in every possible way avoid such overlapping as has occurred in the past, and use this new but worse system for what it is worth. I understand, however, that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment is willing to accept a lessening of it. The Secretary of State is desirous that there should be the utmost co-ordination, the
    1986
    utmost putting of ideas into a common stock. If that is to be done, surely the education committee should be consulted on every occasion about all matters which might have any educational bearing at all? Surely that is the way in which to get the maximum advantage? The opinion of the education committee on each and all of these matters would be at the disposal of the ad omnia authority of county or burgh or city when the time came to make a decision. If my hon. Friend will alter his Amendment to say that these matters shall be referred instead of delegated to the committee, I shall support him.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think there is some misconception in this matter. As I read the Clause, I find, in line 8, that these things "shall stand referred" according to the text of the Bill already.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: There is a misunderstanding. According to Sub-section (3, a), there are different things that might not be delegated or referred to the committee, and I am seeking to delete these things.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not see how it is possible to have a compromise on the lines suggested. We are past the point for omitting the words that it is necessary to omit.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: There are other Amendments on the Paper relating to the questions that are to be delegated or to "standard referred," and it will be still open to you to call those Amendments.
    The CHAIRMAN: Let us be quite clear, so that there may be no misapprehension. The hon. Member has referred to this as part of a scheme, and has suggested the substitution of the word "delegated" for "referred." Does he wish to move that this be left out without reference to the rest of his proposal?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: No. On page 550 of the Amendment Paper there is an Amendment, in page 16, line 15, to leave out the words "stand referred," and to insert instead thereof the words "be delegated." When we come to that Amendment, if we do not move it, the result will be that all the schemes will stand referred to the Committee.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is not this discussion a little academic? If the Secretary of State would agree to the suggestion that has been made, the hon. Member who moved this Amendment might not press it now, but leave the matter over to the Report stage.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is really what I had in mind.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I suggest that the compromise offered by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment might be accepted. The case that he has put has not been answered. His proposal is intended only to put Scotland in no worse position than England.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): The desire and intention of the Government are that all purely educational matters shall stand referred to the education committee. It is equally the Government's desire that it should be open to the town council or county council to say that on such a matter as the feeding of school children or the erection of school buildings or the provision of playgrounds, the matter should be referred, in the first instance, to the more appropriate committee other than the education committee, whichever it happens to be. It is in order to keep that open that we have put in the words "save as otherwise provided." They are very wide words, but it is difficult to give a definition more closely. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give the assurance that in the administrative schemes that shall be made quite clear. But he wants to leave what I have mentioned open to the discretion of the respective authorities, town or county; for instance, that the question of school buildings should be referred to the building committee. They must necessarily lay the plans before the education committee. That is just the type of thing in regard to which you want to know how it will work out best for the local authority. That is the reason why my right hon. Friend is 10th to accept the Amendment, and why he is able to give the assurance which I have suggested on his behalf with regard to purely educational matters.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: After the very fan-statement which has been made by the Lord Advocate it seems that we are not at cross purposes. It is really a question
    1988
    of trying to have technically defined what is to be the work of the education committee and what should be definitely delegated or referred to that committee. If I can get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, we might tome to some agreement as to what ought to go out of the hands of even the committee that is to be set up, and to be handed over to a joint committee or a health committee of the county council. I realise the difficulties in administration. If we could have an assurance that there is a desire to meet us before the Report stage, we might be able to get a satisfactory Amendment or Clause drafted so as to meet the particular point that we are both trying to argue at the moment.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: It may ease the situation if I tell the hon. Member that we propose to accept a later Amendment which provides for consultation in framing the scheme, though we cannot accept it quite in the form in which it is on the Paper. That will probably cover the point.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: If we get an assurance that the Government are ready to meet, once move, the representatives of the existing authorities to see if it is possible to devise a scheme, which can be put into the Bill and which will ensure that purely educational matters such as questions of curriculum and staff shall be referred to the Education Committee, I feel sure we would be able to come to some arrangement.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I readily give that undertaking.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 16, to leave out from the word "education" in line 5, to the end of line 7.
    We now come to what is, I am sure, to all hon. Members from Scotland a very important matter, namely, religious instruction in schools, and, with the permission of the Committee, I propose to deal with the whole subject suggested by some five Amendments which appear on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and also one or two Amendments in the names of other hon. Members. It may be convenient if I draw attention to the Amendments to which I refer.
    Mr. BARR: If the Lord Advocate is going to traverse this wide range of Amendments—and I recognise the reasonableness of the suggestion—will it follow that the field is opened now for a, general discussion on this question of religious instruction in schools?
    The CHAIRMAN: Whatever field is opened by the Lord Advocate, with the consent of the Committee, will be opened to the hon. Gentleman also, but, of course, he may not open a second gate in another field.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I desire to suggest to the Committee that we should deal with this question as a whole on this Clause. I was about to draw attention to the various Amendments which appear later on the Paper relating to this subject. The second Government Amendment is in page 16, to leave out from the word "education" in line 12 to the word "shall" in line 14. The third Government Amendment proposes to insert, in page 16, line 20, at the end, the words:
    "(b) All matters relating to the provision of instruction in religion in terms of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, shall stand referred to the education committee."
    The fourth Government Amendment proposes to leave out from the word "including" in page 16, line 39, to the word "including" in page 17, line 1, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "(i) in all cases at least two persons interested in the promotion of religious instruction in terms of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, to be recommended by a meeting of representative of the churches or denominational bodies (other than those having a right to recommend as hereinafter in this paragraph provided for) having duly constituted charges within the area, and the scheme shall prescribe the constitution of the meeting and the manner of convening it; and (ii)."
    A fifth Government Amendment appears on the Paper proposing to leave out from the word "person" in page 16, line 40, to the word "and" in page 17, line 1, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "interested in the promotion of religious instruction in terms of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918."
    That Amendment by mistake has not been taken off the Paper. It is superseded by the Amendment which I have just read and which was put down last night, and it may be struck out. Then there
    1990
    are two Amendments, one in the name of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), to leave out from the word "least" in page 16, line 40, to the word "and" in page 17, line 1, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "three persons who shall represent the churches on denominational bodies in the area other than those connected with the transferred schools"
    and the other in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) which is practically identical in terms with the Government Amendment at page 16, line 39. I shall point out the difference later.
    I am sure the Committee will forgive me if I try to approach this question primarily from a historical standpoint. I need hardly remind the Committee that the question of religious instruction in schools has always been a very active question in Scotland. In 1872, when the school boards were set up, Section 68— the "conscience Clause" as it was called was inserted. It assumed that religious instruction was to continue to be given according to use and wont in the schools which were then set up, provided that every parent who did not want religious instruction to be given to his child should be entitled to withdraw that child from the religious instruction, and that the child was not to be prejudiced in its secular education by such withdrawal. That continued until the Act of 1918 when the important change made was the enlargement of the educational administrative areas.
    Those who were in the House of Commons in 1918, and many of those who were not here then, will remember the extraordinary difficulty which arose over this very question. One of the most difficult points arose from a certain move to try to have religious; instruction made mandatory. We are all glad to think that that was avoided in the end, and that the formula was arrived at which is embodied in Section 7 of the Act of 1918. As a lawyer, and a person who is familiar to some extent with Acts of Parliament, I may say that this is a very striking illustration of vagueness in legislation. Hon. Members will recollect that everyone was extremely anxious and doubtful as to how that formula would carry out the wishes of the country as a whole. May I say at

    1991
    once that it has proved a complete success. Everyone will agree upon that point. That success has been due to the good will of everybody, but, above all, to the good will of the teachers of Scotland. Everyone may be congratulated on the way in which what is known as the "use and wont clause" in the 1918 Act, has been carried out.
    We are now changing the authority from an ad hoc authority to an ad omnia authority. Two difficulties have been suggested in that connection. The first suggested difficulty was about the continuance of Section 7 and the second was as to the effect of the change from an ad hoc to an ad omnia authority, regarded from the angle of what the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has very rightly called "the religious inspiration and drive" which is at the back of education in Scotland. We have endeavoured—and I hope to persuade the Committee that we have done so with some success—to safeguard both these points. I wish to make clear at once that this Bill, while it changes the constitution of the education authority, in no way touches or alters the statutory provisions for the carrying out of education under the 1918 Act. For instance, Section 7 stands untouched by this Bill. I may add, because some anxiety has been expressed on the point, that Section 18 relating to transferred schools also stands untouched by this Bill in any respect. It is important to make that quite clear. In order to make the first point about Section 7 doubly clear, this first Amendment is proposed. The second Government Amendment takes out the words
    "(including all matters relating to the giving of instruction in religion to children whose parents do not object to the instruction so given)"
    which are a not too happy paraphrase of Section 7. Then by a further Amendment already mentioned, we propose in place of those words to introduce a direct reference to Section 7 in order to make it quite clear that Section 7 is still alive, should there be any doubt about it. By the Amendment which we propose to page 16, line 20, we place this question of religious instruction under a separate sub-heading "(b)" and thus avoid applying to it the words "save as otherwise provided." That means that
    1992
    religious instruction must stand as not qualified by those opening words. I hope the Committee will agree that the effect of these Amendments will be to put beyond any doubt, first, that the "use and wont Clause" of Section 7 of the Act of 1918, still remains a real protection with regard to general religious instruction in schools; and, second, that matters relating to religious education must and shall stand referred to the education committee under the scheme. There is no "save as otherwise provided" to alter that provision. I think that deals with the first point.
    The second and more important point is the effect of the change from an ad hoc to an ad omnia constitution of the authority. How is one going to preserve the "religious inspiration and drive"? The Section in the 1918 Act which gives the transferred schools certain rights in regard to religious instruction in schools, stands untouched. Therefore, it was admittedly right that some of the co-opted membership on the education committee should represent those transferred schools with the idea of carrying out the agreement—as I think it may be called— arrived at under the Act of 1918. Then there are other members who represent the remaining religious interests in the area. How are they to be provided for? Originally we had some words which I think were not too happy about persons conversant with the custom in giving religious instruction, and I hope the Committee will agree that those words are improved upon by the Amendment on the Paper in which the words "interested in the promotion of religious instruction" are used as showing the type of men we desire. There remains the question of what is to be the minimum number in each case—and this is only the minimum number for the scheme.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Will that apply all round?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: They are all minimum numbers. The reason for the minimum number, and the reason against raising it, was that you might find in certain small areas—because every extra co-opted person means another elected person—that there would have been a difficulty in finding enough elected members for the committees. For that reason we were anxious not to alter the minimum, although the intention is that

    1993
    greater numbers should be added, subject, of course, to the statutory limit on the total number. We have now come to the conclusion that it would not be unsafe from that point of view to put in "two" and there is an Amendment on the Taper which I have already quoted and which alters the original "one" to "two." There is still the question of how you are going to select this representation and I welcome the very striking words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) and the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) two days ago on this point. The hon. Member for Bothwell said:
    "I have always advocated religious instruction in the schools, and I have taken part in the work of the examinations. I regret to say that some people who ought to have done the work have not been as keen in doing the work as in talking. The complaint has been made from time to time that in the transferred schools they have a guarantee under the 1918 Act which is not given in connection with the public schools. I believe that at that time the Government never believed that it was necessary to put it in the Bill; I do not think that it is necessary yet, but there is no reason why it should not be inserted in the Bill, always provided that, if a parent does not want any form of religious instruction for his child, he should be able to say so. He must give that liberty, and he must give the same right in the public schools as in the transferred schools."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1929; col. 1691, Vol. 224.]
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said:
    "At the present moment I have two petitions from parish churches in my own constituency. They are anxious, like all the people in Scotland, to have guarantees for the continuance of religious instruction in the schools. The right hon. Gentleman has met them as far as that part of their demand is concerned, but they also ask—-and I, who am not a Protestant, think they are quite justified in asking—that, just as the other religious bodies, the Catholics and Episcopalians, are to have co-opted representation on the education committee, they should have representation also.
    It is said that there is no need for representation in their case because they are in a majority now, and it is not necessary to protect the majority against a minority, If they are in a majority now, as they undoubtedly are, what possible harm could be done by giving to them an additional representative? A majority can never become more powerful by the addition of one member. The present Tory Government have not exhibited any strength because they have had a majority of 200. Every time an election is fought, they go out and put up a candidate to try to get one more. I sub-
    1994
    mit, and I think it is proper that it should come from me, that the parish churches of Scotland are as much entitled to representation as any other religious denomination, and I demand it on behalf of the parish church people in the constituency that I represent. I hope that the Secretary of State will accede to my request, and will not give it out, that under the provisions of his Bill, as far as co-option is concerned, no Protestant need apply."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1929; cols. 1661–62, Vol. 224.]
    It is natural to find that the right hon. Gentleman has put his name also to the Amendment to which I referred standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown). What we propose is that:
    "in all cases at least two persons interested in the promotion of religious instruction in terms of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, to be recommended by a meeting of representatives of the churches or denominational bodies (other than those having a right to recommend as hereinafter in this paragraph provided for) having duly constituted charges within the area, and the scheme shall prescribe the constitution of the meeting and the manner of convening it."
    The term "duly constituted charges" is of course a technical ecclesiastical term, and that provides for representation for religious bodies other than those who have a right to representation in respect of the transferred schools. The provision for them is; at least two. Having got so far, I would like to say a word as to a certain distinction between this Amendment and the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. There is a small difference about a provision that the constitution of the meeting must be prescribed, but the only real difference is the use of the word "nominated" instead of the word "recommended." In adjusting our Amendment, I had the alternatives before me, and I do not think that there is any real material difference between the two words. My reason for using the word "recommended" is that it is the word used as regards the transferred schools. If the Committee, for reasons satisfactory to itself, prefers the word "nominated" to the word "recommended," we are perfectly willing to agree, the only condition being that it should go in at both places. In common with everyone in this Committer and the whole people in Scotland, one is only anxious that the

    1995
    religious instruction of our children should be preserved where it is desired to have it preserved and conducted on the lines on which it has been so successfully carried on during the last 10 years.
    There remains another point which I have not dealt with yet and which is proposed in a new Clause, and that is the question of discontinuance of "use and wont." In Section 7 of the Act of 1918 it was within the discretion of the education authority to discontinue "use and wont" if they so settled. That meant, of course, that, as long as they were proper and reliable administrators, they would not be likely to do it unless the electors of their area wanted them to do it. Under the change of body which we have here, from the ad hoc to the ad omnia, authority, it has been observed quite naturally that in the case of the persons who are elected on the ad omnia basis, education becomes one of a number of things, and religious education becomes even less a part of the general programme on which they are elected. Having that in view, we have devised what I hope the Committee will regard as the best safeguard that can be conceived for settling that question, recognising that the people who ought to be entitled to settle this question, and are best entitled to settle it, are the electors in the area concerned. If we could have a plebiscite or a poll or a referendum on that question and that question only, we could get at the wishes of the electors on this most important subject, untrammelled with any consideration of any other matters which may enter into the ordinary election of a town council or a county council. I suggest that this is the wisest and best safeguard that Parliament can give to the people of Scotland for making sure that "use and wont" shall not be discontinued unless the people of the area are anxious, or the majority of them, that it should be so discontinued and that this is the fairest way of providing the safeguard. That proposal is contained in the new Clause. I am very hopeful that we are really all at one in what we desire to do in this matter. I am hopeful that the proposals of the Government, subject to the alteration of the word "recom-
    1996
    mended" if the Committee desires it, will meet the general sense and. desire of the Committee, and that we may be able to dispose of this very important and vital matter by general agreement.
    Mr. JAMES BROWN: I am sure that all of us, interested as we are in religious education, have listened with close attention to what the Lord Advocate has said. I was particularly pleased with the recognition by the Lord Advocate of the inspiration to be derived from religious instruction. It did not seem to me, however, that that part of the appeal was acquiesced in by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I think in his argument he rather compared the corpus sanum with the mens sana. I think, and I hope every Member of the Committee will agree, that, however necessary and essential health may be, the spiritual aspect is the best; after all. If you have a spiritual drive, then the other things will naturally follow. In the Amendment the word "two" remains. We had in our Amendment the word "two" also, and that has been accepted, but, had I known and if I had had my way, we would have asked for the larger number. I believe that three would have been preferable. It is true that we may get three or four, but everybody knows who deals with these things that the minimum always tends to become the maximum. I am pleased that the Amendment which stands in my name is seconded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley). We want to show that in Scotland, whether we are Presbyterians or Catholics, we are anxious for religious teaching. I do not care what the denomination is, and I claim to be a good Presbyterian—no, I claim to be a Presbyterian—in those days we welcome every denomination which is anxious to uphold religious instruction for the youth of the country. Therefore, I am particularly glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston and the learned Lord Advocate and my own humble self are in agreement that this will be a good thing for Scotland.
    5.0 p.m.
    The only thing is the method of selection, and I am not going to dwell upon that; but I will be very glad indeed if the Committee takes a hint from the Lord Advocate and allows us to use the

    1997
    Word "nominated" instead of "recommended." I agree that there is very little in it, but the learned Lord Advocate, as a lawyer, will allow that some little stress may be laid on the meaning read into it. The word "nominated" is stronger; many people might refuse a recommendation but they would hardly refuse a nomination. I hope the Committee will agree and will give us this word, so that there will be no dubiety. After the concessions have been made, I can confidently say that there will be no opposition from our side.
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: My only excuse for intervening in this Debate is that the topic about which we are now speaking is one in which I am very deeply interested. I do not know whether the Committee will remember that I raised this question on the Second Reading of the Bill and ever since, as the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland know, I have been very assiduous—perhaps too assiduous—in trying to press the point of view which I am glad to find I bold in common with a large number of the Committee with regard to the necessity for the recognition of religious instruction in the schools of Scotland. There were, it appears, in the beginning, deficiencies in the Bill itself and these, I know, did not arise out of any neglect on the part of the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate in regard to this question, but they arose out of difficulties of draftsmanship. Having special regard to the provisions of previous Acts of Parliament, it was very troublesome indeed to find the best solution and the best form of expression which could meet the needs which we all recognise. First of all, the Lord Advocate found a way of returning to the Act of 1918, by which he brought in the principle which we all desire to see recognised, and then, by very ingenious methods, he has devised a form of plebiscite for making it quite certain that never shall there be taken away the right to have religious instruction in the schools of Scotland according to the "use and wont" Clause without a direct reference to the people affected. That is a matter upon which we ought to congratulate him.
    The second thing was to correct the anomaly which had grown out of the Act of 1918. For when all these things had
    1998
    been put right, there still remained the fact that there was an apparent slur left upon the great bodies of the Presbyterians in Scotland in respect that they had no right of recommendation and nomination of members to be co-opted upon the education committees in the same way as those who hold transferred schools. There was no such right of recommendation or nomination on the part of the great majority of the Presbyterian communities of Scotland. I greatly appreciate the speech that was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in that matter because, as we know, he does not belong to the same communion as we do, but he recognises with the same ardour and earnestness the propriety of religious instruction in our schools, and the very great value it has in the building up the character of our people. Accordingly, we now have what was in the main—and we ought to give him credit for it—the design produced by a very eminent divine in Scotland who has done more than any man in recent times to bring together the great communions which for long have been divided. We now, I think, are in a position to thank the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate for the previsions which they have made to meet the desires which we all cherish.
    It only remains for me to say—and I am not raising it in any spirit of controversy, but only to correct an apparent misapprehension—that in the course of the Debate two days ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston twitted me, as a son of the manse, for being prepared to surrender the position that in Scotland we should be entitled to have religious instruction in the schools. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman must have been speaking in entire forgetfulness of what I insisted upon in the Second Reading Debate, and he also must have failed to read a public speech present of mine in Glasgow in which I said that, if in any way the position was being endangered, I would be prepared to vote against the Government proposals and to adhere to the ad hoc system in order that religious instruction might be safeguarded.
    The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood my attitude on this matter, and also my origin and upbringing. I am one of those who is not

    1999
    only a son of the manse but is also a child of the board school system of Scotland. I spent all my young life in the board school, and I was given religious instruction there. I was fortunate enough to have as head master a man who was one of those who remained after the system of parish schools came to an end, and were taken over by the School Board. They were men of learning and culture and in the true sense of piety and, long before there was any popular election for the educational authorities of the schools of Scotland, they created a position for our schools which put us in the forefront of all the world. I admit, however, that the Shorter Catechism on which we were brought up was rather strong meat for children. It was a most interesting work, but it was too full of metaphysics and theology for a child to understand. But it had its effect, and any Scotsman brought up on the Shorter Catechism would be undismayed if he had to confront an explanation of Einstein's theory of relativity. We were at least taught our Bible, and in my time we learnt by heart very many of the most beautiful chapters of the Scripture. These taught us not only to appreciate undented English, but also implanted in our memories for our guidance passages that not only moulded the character of many of us but, I am sure, helped us in the dark times of our lives. For these reasons, I am glad that the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate have found this admirable way of solving the problem with which we are faced.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I wish to support the tributes of admiration which have been paid to the Lord Advocate for the able and lucid speech with which he opened this discussion, but there are two points in the right hon. Gentleman's statement on which I wish to say a few words. I agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) and I would prefer the word "nominate" to the word which is on the Paper. Then, as regards the methods of representation, the Lord Advocate said he felt it would be unsafe from the point of view of the balance of the new committees to include three.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir, the hon. Baronet is mistaken. I said that,
    2000
    as for every additional co-opted person it is provided that there must be another elected member of the committee to maintain the balance, in the smaller towns or areas there would be a difficulty in dividing up the committees and providing room in them for more than the limit that there is in the Bill. It is a difficulty of numbers.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: This is a very important question, particularly in the Highlands of Scotland—and I am speaking for the Highlands—for there you have not only the parish church but, in a great many parishes, in fact, in most parishes, you have the United Free Church in a majority. That may be overcome by the union of the churches but, further than that, in a number of parishes the Free Church is in the majority, and in some parishes the Free Presbyterian Church is in the majority. There are also other important bodies, such as the Baptists and the Congregationalists, and other religious denominations. For these reasons I would beg the Lord Advocate to take this into consideration, and see if it would not be possible, at any rate in the Highlands of Scotland, to ensure that there should be three representatives.
    Mr. COUPER: What is the church to which the hon. Baronet refers as the Free Presbyterian Church? There is no such church to my knowledge.
    HON. MEMBERS: Oh, yes, there is.
    Mr. SKELTON: I would like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that has been done, and to say that I also hope that the word "nominated" will be substituted for the word "represented." I want to point out only one other element in the solution that has been come to, which seems to me to be very fruitful, and to be of future value to the Scottish community, namely, that, in the selection of the two co-opted members of whom we are speaking at present, the whole of the religious community and the whole of the various churches will come together for the purpose of nominating these two members. There, again, I think the solution arrived at has, in its own small way, been one in favour of union, and it expresses what is undoubtedly one of the strongest feelings in Scotland at present with regard to all denominational questions. I am

    2001
    sure that such a view will appeal to the ecclesiastical statesman to whom the House is so much indebted for the solution now before it, and so much of whose life has been spent in furthering church union. The extreme care and importance of the contribution made by the ecclesiastical statesman to whom I have referred, and the assistance he has given to Members of this House, seems to be a very happy example of the relations which should exist between Church and State.
    Mr. BARR: I should like, first of all, if I may, to give a little information to the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper), one of whose constituents I am, and who, in this particular matter as in some others, does not accurately represent my views. I may inform the Committee that the Free Presbyterian Church —and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has one of the largest churches of any denomination attached to it in his division—was formed in the year 1392 and consists of those who were opposed to the passing of the Declaratory Act in the Free Church of Scotland. I am sure the Committee is enlightened by that statement.
    We are in very placid waters here to-day, and we rejoice that we are, but I should like to remind the Committee for a moment that the waters outside are not just so placid and that there has been something of stormy water and of stormy weather on this question outside; and even in this hour of congratulations—and I will congratulate as heartily as any the Lord Advocate on his statement here this afternoon—I think the Government have not been without blame in their handling of this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has succeeded beyond all his predecessors in uniting, in opposition to or in criticism of what was the former attitude; of the Government on this matter, two parties that never were united before. The Orange Lodges in the West of Scotland have passed resolutions against the position and have threatened even Conservative Members of this House that they will not have their votes unless satisfactory assurances are obtained on this matter; and, on the other hand, the Roman Catholics some time ago felt in the same way in regard to the treatment which they were receiving, and in a headline of one of their papers they had of
    2002
    this Bill, "Catholics contemptuously treated." Not only so, but the members of the right hon. Gentleman's own communion were up in arms; and I should like, without treading further on this ground on this particular matter, so that we may know the storms that there has been, if we are into the calm now, to take the liberty of reading to this Committee the words of the Rev. J. A. Swan, of St. David's Parish Church, Glasgow, who was echoing the position and speaking, not for himself only, but generally, I think, with the support of his Presbytery, of the Government's former mishandling of this question. He said:
    "This new insult and affront to the soul of the people of Scotland was felt very acutely and deeply. Something more ought to be done to give expression to a feeling which was shared, not merely by ministers and elders, but by everybody in whom Scottish blood flowed. If the people of Scotland allowed this th:ng to go through they were unworthy of their history, their traditions, and their descent."
    I am glad that we have come into a better understanding, and I think it is due to the action taken by other parties in the House as well as to the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman. Now I entirely agree with the Lord Advocate's resume of history and particularly, to begin with, regarding religious instruction not having been mandatory in the past. Even before 1872 it was not mandatory. That is reflected, of course, right down to the Act of 1918, where the 7th Section puts the matter on custom, and says that the
    "education authorities shall be at liberty to continue the said custom."
    It is interesting to note that in 1872, when a motion was carried in the Free Assembly of the Church of Scotland, really against a mandatory Clause, the official and successful motion was carried by a well-known minister of that day, Dr. Elder, and he took up the various Acts in Scotland, 1567, 1696, 1808 and 1861, and pointed out that religion was not made mandatory in the sense of a positive statute in any one of these. In fact, in a measure, the Act of 1872 was a compromise. It neither proscribed nor prescribed religious instruction; that is to say, it did not make it obligatory on those who did not desire to receive it and it certainly did not proscribe it.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the settlement he has made, as pro-

    2003
    posed here to-day, and I agree with him also that it would have been a mistake to insist, as some desired, on a mandatory Clause. The effect of that would have been what no one, I think, in this House desires. It would have made our education less national and more denominational. In Scotland in past generations great sacrifices have been made to build up a national system, and although it is quite true that in the Act of 1918 there was a certain denominational settlement, so far as the transferred schools were concerned—and I am glad to think that no one to-day proposes to interfere with that settlement—the real desire still was and has been to keep our scheme national in every possible way. The next effect of it would have been that it would have made our schools less educational and more dogmatic. The right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) paid a tribute to the instruction in the Bible that he had received, and it is the high educational value of the Bible that gives it its place in the national system of Scotland. The work of instruction in it is splendidly done by our teachers, and I say that after 11 years on the school board of Glasgow, going from class to class while that instruction was given. I should like to read to the Committee, on the educational value of the Bible, which I maintain is the ground on which it holds its place in the national system, words that were used by one from whom you might hardly have expected them. Dr. Huxley, it is well known, was a member of the school board of London from its establishment in 1870, and Dr. Huxley said:
    "The higher feelings could best be cultivated by a study of the Bible, with such grammatical, geographical, and historical explanations by a lay teacher as my be needful."
    There is one other point that would have followed the inbringing of a mandatory system. You could not have had it without imposing tests on teachers. These were abolished in 1861, but you cannot set up a system, enforced by Statute, of particular doctrines without taking measures to ensure that these doctrines are carried out, and I believe that the day is past when beliefs or tests will be imposed on any part of the population or on any part of our national service.
    2004
    Now we come to the question of safeguards, and, of course, the real safeguard that the people of Scotland had for religious instruction was in the ad hoc system, in which they had the full power of representation, in which they had also the full freedom and the benefits of minority representation; and the prime responsibility for all the trouble has been in the departure from the ad hoc system. I think it was the Lord Advocate who said that the administrative scheme still stood, that we were carrying over entirely the system of the past, and he used the words that if we had a proper and reliable administration, then the people could directly affect a question like this. I think that what has been said to-day, and the expedients to which the Government have resorted— and I am supporting them—are the best proof that you are not having the old direct control of education either in this or any other regard that might be mentioned. I now come to the particular two safeguards that have been indicated, only one of which, I take it, we shall be free to discuss this afternoon. The first is the election of these two persons on the part of the churches that are outside the transferred system. If any of us had any reluctance about this provision, it was because, having freely criticised co-option, we did not feel altogether free to take a pan in setting up this system of co-option, but I think at the same time, now that the old system has been departed from, we have to make, as my hon. Friend said, the best of the situation and to have the best system of co-option that we possibly can have.
    Then, in the next place, as has been pointed out, when you have the churches connected with the transferred schools having this right of making nomination, it is impossible to withhold it from, and it is right that it should be given to, the other churches on similar terms, and I think we are gratified that the friends who represent the transferred schools and the other churches are in agreement with us in that matter. There was a further kind of fear, and it is not altogether absent from my mind, that if the churches came in in this way in considerable numbers, or came in even in their representation, there might be a disposition to press on catechisms and formularies representing the churches more than has been done in the past. It is an interest

    2005
    ing fact that while the Shorter Catechism is taught largely in Scotland, there are some cities, like Dundee, and other districts, that have confined themselves to biblical instruction and have never used the Catechism as a formulary in the schools. There was also this, that there was a pressure on the part of some for supervision of the religious instruction, even on the part of the churches, and I believe that that would have brought alienation as between the teachers and the churches, and would not have been for the good of this question. If I might give one more quotation in this regard, I think the words that were uttered by Principal Martin, of the United Free Church of Scotland, were exceedingly apposite and well chosen. He said:
    "The great teaching profession did not need any interference or supervision from the Church, and the profession met the ministry of the Church in Scotland on level terms in this matter or any other."
    I do not propose, this afternoon, to enter on the question of the plebiscite, because that will come up for discussion otherwise. I am very glad, however, as one who has had a considerable amount to do with another plebiscite in another matter, to know that the Government are coming round to think of the value of plebiscites in this matter. I do not enter into that at all, but while you are putting up safeguards, it is more to ease the situation, it is more to show that we pass on a system and that we are assured that it will continue in the hands of the people of Scotland and by their decision. I do not always agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I would like, on this particular matter, to quote with approval words that he used. He said this, in his letter to Dr. John Whyte, on the 17th November last:
    "The real bulwark of religious instruction in Scottish schools is not proportional representation. It is the serious conviction of an overwhelming proportion of Scottish public opinion. It is inconceivable to me that that bulwark should ever disappear. But, if it did, what value would attach to any paper security?"
    Dr. Lyon Playfair in 1872, in a discussion in this House, said:
    "Scotland is, undoubtedly, a religious country; but it is so because religion has welled up from the hearts of the people, not because it has been squirted over them by Acts of Parliament."
    2006
    Without all your safeguards, I believe that religion would have been safe, even in the hands of the reconstituted county councils without any plebiscite. Like others, I have been anxious to see this matter harmoniously and unanimously settled, and although on different points we may have preferred another solution, I do not believe that any opposition will be pressed from this side, although we will feel free to state our opinions, and even our objections, in regard to the prebiscite. In some quarters, not among those who have spoken to-day, but in parts of Scotland, are those who say that there must be safeguards against the day when Labour would come into rule in county councils and elsewhere, but we on this side are moved also by those high aspirations and the driving power to which reference has been made. I have pleasure, therefore, in taking part in the harmonious settlement of this question. There is a sphere for the public school and a sphere for the Christian Church, and I sometimes think that some of my friends in the Church seem to desire to roll over to others too much of the work that properly appertains to them; and the Christian Church cannot too soon realise that she has some great obligations to the young people of the land of which she can never divest herself nor hand over to others. There is a sphere for the home and for the Church, and when the home and the Church both realise their duty towards the Christian upbringing of the young, it will be as life from the dead to both home and church.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Bare) has addressed the Committee in spite of the arrangement that has been come to by the Lord Advocate, because had he not spoken, I should not have had the great pleasure which the hon. Member's remarks always give me whenever he speaks in this House. I do not want to bring a further blush to the face of the Lord Advocate, but I wish to say that the arrangement which he and the right hon. Gentleman made to-day will remove a weight from the religious minded people of Scotland such as has never been done for many years past; and I can honestly say that it has given an encouragement to the Presbyterian churches of Scotland which will be a driving force and inspiration in their

    2007
    work of which we in Scotland will feel the benefit. I hope that the word "nomination" will be accepted instead of the word "recommendation." Men of every denomination gathered together to make a decision are the people who know, and it would be a very ill thing if a committee outside that body were able to reject a recommendation, which obviously they could. "Nomination" is, I think, the correct term, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I intervene for the first time in the discussions on this Bill. I have listened to most of the speeches on this question with mixed feelings. I cannot say that I look back to my religious upbringing, which was of the very strict and narrow order, with the same degree of happiness as the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). I do not want to enter the rights or wrongs of the settlement of this religious dispute; I am only glad that at last a settlement has been made. I wish to raise a point with regard to the calling of the conference. The conference is to be called by the clerk of the education authority, and all religious denominations have to be summoned to it. I do not know whether I represent a constituency different from others, but in my constituency there are, without exaggeration, 12 religious denominations. There are the Free Presbyterians, the Original Secessionists, the Wee Frees, the United Frees, the Parish, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Jewish community and also a section of the Jewish people who do not quite accept the orthodox Jewish outlook. Is it the purpose of the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure that, when this conference is called, the Jewish community will be summoned with the others? As I understand the Amendment proposed by the Lord Advocate, all religious denominations will be summoned.
    In Glasgow there are at least 4,000 Jewish children, and an increasing number attending the schools of that faith. The Jewish community have asked me to raise the point, and to ascertain whether they are entitled to be summoned to the conference, and to take part in the election. Quite recently the Edinburgh Education Authority issued a circular on
    2008
    the subject of religious education. That letter was quite satisfactory from the point of view of 99.9 per cent. of the population, but it was not one with which the Jewish community could claim to be in agreement. In some respects it rather insulted their faith, although not intentionally, and it is fair to say that immediately the attention of the Education Committee was drawn to it, they withdrew the circular. Is there any safeguard in the calling of this conference to secure that in districts like my own, where the Jewish people represent a section of the population, they will have the right to be summoned?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The test of the right to send representatives to the meeting is whether the churches or denominational bodies have duly constituted charges within the area. I understand that that undoubtedly includes the Jewish faith.
    Mr. COWAN: Not only the Scottish Members of the Committee, but the people of Scotland generally, will be pleased and proud at the manner in which this discussion has been conducted. We could have had no better prelude to our discussion than the speeches of the Lord Advocate, the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) and the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne); and I wish to express what all Members feel, a sense of indebtedness to them for having so well expressed the feeling of Scotland on this great matter. It is a particular satisfaction to me that the arrangement embodied in the Act of 1918 is to be carried into the future. It was my privilege at that time to take a leading part in a conference with members of the various churches, and after considerable discussion we came, as in the present instance, to an amicable solution, and the parties having settled the matter among themselves, the Government wisely assented to the arrangement and embodied it in the Act.
    The Lord Advocate has made an appreciative reference to the part that the teachers have played in this matter, and I thank him for it. I wish to thank also the right hon. Member for Hillhead for the tribute he has paid to the teachers of a past generation. I know that I am speaking for the great body of the teaching profession when I say that they consider the opportunity of giving re-

    2009
    ligious instruction not as a task laid upon them, but as a valuable privilege, and I am sure that the arrangement come to to-day will be received by them with pleasure. I would also express my appreciation of the ingenuity which invented the method of the referendum, but I am sure that not in the lifetime of any of us will it be called into use. Once more I thank the Government for having come to this arrangement, which appears to be satisfactory to all parties, and I trust that this question of religious differences of opinion will never enter as a matter of controversy into the public life of Scotland.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I also want to congratulate the Government, and the churches, too, in having accepted the formula submitted by the Labour party in order to get out of this difficulty. On Tuesday, when we were discussing this Bill, I made a challenge to the Secretary of State to tell us how he was going to get out of the difficulties. He was not able to respond to the challenge, nor was there any response to it until the Order Paper appeared this morning. I am pleased in a humble way to say that the Labour party have been able to get the Government and the churches out of the difficulties, and now we have complete harmony in the problem of religious instruction and representation. These are facts known to those who have been associated with the work, and I am pleased to have been a humble instrument in God's hand in helping to bring about some solution of the problem which seemed to me beyond the solution of the Government and even of the churches.
    The people of Scotland are deeply interested in religious instruction, and as a Member of this House I would have done everything possible to retain the right of having that instruction in our schools, because I have a very pleasant recollection of the manner in which religious instruction was given to me. I believe that but for religious instruction, which would have been in danger unless we had the compromise which has been satisfactorily agreed to, I might not have been on this side of the House. Possibly I might have been on the other side of the House, because I can well remember how the teacher, deeply interested in the giving of religious instruction, made the whole class of which I was a member repeat for half-an-hour "The earth is.
    2010
    the Lord's and the fulness thereof." When we had finished he said, "Remember, not the landlord's, but the Lord's." It was a good message to me and I have remembered it ever since.
    Then the same teacher gave us one of the Commandment: "Thou shalt not steal." He kept us repeating that for half-an-hour, and followed it up with a little lesson. He said, "You in this class must know that that means three things. It means that you, the members of the class, shall not steal; you shall be honest in after life, honest with your fellow men, and honest, with your fellow women and honest in the discharge of the duties which you are called upon to undertake. But it also has a second meaning; not only that thou shalt not steal, but that thou shalt not be stolen from." That helped to make me a rebel. Then he said, "It has also a third application. It means that those who have stolen shall restore that which they have taken." That religious instruction has remained with me in after life and has been of tremendous use in helping me in the work in which I have been engaged.
    The Amendment which is immediately before us provides for two things. We have got over our difficulties so far as regards the continuance of religious instruction, but the Amendment also determines that there shall be at least two representatives on the newly-constituted education committees to see that religious instruction is given in the way in which the Churches desire it to be given. And not only the Churches. That was the snag which the Churches found them-selves up against from the start. They did not include other denominational bodies in any of the formulas which were suggested for the consideration of the Secretary of State. I should have the greatest difficulty in my own home in selecting an individual to represent it in the matter of religious instruction, because one of us is a Baptist, another belongs to the Brethren, a third belongs to the Salvation Army and there is one who goes to church, so we have practically all the denominations represented. [Interruption.] We are a united church at home. The Churches themselves, as a result of the discussion which took place either on Tuesday or Wednesday, agreed that these representatives were to be not merely representatives of the Churches but representatives of the other

    2011
    denominations which have charges in the respective areas, so that under the Amendment which has been submitted by the Lord Advocate not only will representatives of the orthodox Church—the Free Church, the Established Church and the others—but also representatives of the Salvation Army or of any other constituted denomination having a charge in a particular area be called to the meeting from which the nomination is made of representatives on the education committee. I am glad this is to be left to the free consideration of the Committee, which has already expressed the view that it prefers that it should be a nomination instead of a mere recommendation, because that will be more emphatic. I have the greatest pleasure, particularly after the bitter way in which I attacked these proposals on the Second Reading of the Bill, in supporting the proposals now submitted.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish to say a few words on this Amendment, because as I have been a grouser I do not wish it to appear as if I am the only party out of tune. It seems that we cannot do any better. We have been asked to try what we can do, and as the formidable party with which I am in a sense associated appears to be satisfied I do not suppose I should succeed in doing anything better. I would like to support what the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) said about the unity which has now been brought about after the difficult situation in which the religious bodies found themselves placed by the action of the Government. It was a very awkward predicament in which they were placed, having regard to the manner in which the Government had flouted religious feeling in Scotland, and the reverend Dr. Whyte had much difficulty in dealing with it, but now, at any rate, there seems to be unity of opinion. In the true sense, religion wells up from the heart of the people, but I am afraid, notwithstanding this arrangement for sustaining religious education in the schools, that the people of Scotland are drifting away from a recognition of the Bible as a factor in building up the nation in righteousness. A perilious situation is confronting the nation in these days. All the Churches are being faced with a decreasing membership. The grounding we have
    2012
    had has, no doubt, been very satisfactory from the theoretical standpoint, but the essential thing to be borne in mind is that whatever the grounding we have had there is a sorry falling off, an utter failure to apply those religious principles which alone will enable us to grapple with the mighty issues which are confronting our country to-day.
    Mr. MAXTON: I wish to intervene for a minute or two because I have been informed—I am sorry that I was not in the House at the time—that the Lord Advocate, in the course of his speech in support of the Amendment, made use of a quotation from a speech of mine as a plea for the continuation of sectarian religious education in the Scottish schools. I feel I should not be playing an honest part towards the Committee and my electors if I let the impression go out that I believed that religious education of a sectarian nature in schools was a factor making towards human perfection. I have had my share of religious instruction in Scottish schools, and I have given my share of religious instruction in Scottish schools, and personally I do not believe that the attempt to teach either the Higher Catechism or the deeper theological truths to undeveloped minds between five and 14 years of age can aid the development of those child minds, and I look forward to an early date when a plebiscite will be taken of the Scottish people and when instead of sectarian religious instruction and Biblical knowledge being part of the curriculum in a Scottish school there will be an attempt in the whole environment—in the whole attitude of the teachers towards the pupils and in the attitude of the community towards education—to produce a better and a more intelligible ethical standard throughout the Scottish nation than has ever been achieved by sectarian religious instruction.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made:
    In page 16, leave out from the word "education" in line IS, to the word "shall" in line 14.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. WESTWOOD:
    In page 16, line 15, to leave cut the words "stand referred," and to insert

    2013
    instead thereof the words "be delegated."
    In page 16, to leave from the word "committee" in line 15, to the end of line 20.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Does the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr, Westwood) wish to move his two Amendments?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: There was an understanding that the Government were to take this matter into full consideration before the Report stage.
    Mr. HARDIE: There is one point I wish to raise in this connection. My name is also down to these Amendments. A reference was made to the use of school buildings and school playgrounds, and I want to get the matter cleared up. The question is as to the relation between one body and another in the use of these buildings. If, however, the Under-Secretary thinks that it would not be appropriate to deal with it now, but that it should be raised on the Question of the Clause as a whole standing part of the Bill, I will give way.
    Major ELLIOT: Of course, that is a matter for the Chairman, but, if the hon. Member wishes to pursue further the points with regard to the use of certain playgrounds and school buildings by related bodies, it seems to me that it might more properly come up on the Question of the Clause standing part of the Bill.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move his Amendment?
    Mr. HARDIE: In the circumstances, I do not propose to move it.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 16, line 20, at the end, insert the words:
    "(b) All matters relating to the provision of instruction in religion in terms of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, shall stand referred to the education committee."
    In page 16, leave out from the word "including," in line 39, to the word "including" in page 17, line 1, and insert instead thereof the words-
    "(i) in all cases at least two persons interested in the promotion of religious instruction in terms of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, to be nominated by a meeting of representatives
    2014
    of the churches or denominational bodies (other than those having a right to nominate as hereinafter in this paragraph provided for) having duly constituted charges within the area, and the scheme shall prescribe the constitution of the meeting and the manner of convening it; and (ii)."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    In page 17, line 7, leave out the word "recommended" and insert instead thereof the word"nominated."— [The Lord Advocate.]
    Mr. SULLIVAN: I beg to move, in page 17, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (5).
    6.0 p.m.
    I am afraid that this Sub-section will mean the addition of a large number of members to the committees. I want to know exactly what powers the members of a county or town council will have in regard to this question of co-option. Supposing a majority of the members of a committee who are not members of the council carry some resolution. I want to know would that resolution be obligatory on the council and would the council be compelled to put it into effect? Then there is the suggestion with regard to poor relief. The proposal is that one or more members should be co-opted who have had previus experience of Poor Law administration. In this case the Government seem to be preserving the old fabric and at the same time adding one or two more members to the committee.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: In regard to the co-opting of members of these committees the ultimate control is in the hands of the council. Under Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, the council is required or empowered to appoint persons who have a special knowledge or experience of the functions of the committee up to an extent not exceeding one half of the members. As regards co-option on any committee except the education committee it does not exist in the county at all and it is only in the towns that it is possible. It is permissible for the town council to say whether they want co-option or not. Those councils which do not wish to co-opt need not do so.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: Sub-section (5) says:
    "Any committee of a county or town council (other than an education committee or a school management committee under Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918) which such council is required or empowered to appoint."

    2015
    If you except the committees under 1918 what other committees have to be appointed?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: There are other Amendments dealing with that point.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: But those committees do not cease to exist.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: They are dealt with under Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918. Those committees are not set up under this Bill at all.
    Mr. JAMES STEWART: This Clause does not provide for the period of time which a co-opted person may serve.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: That is in the discretion of the authority.
    Mr. STEWART: Surely the Government are not going to leave this Clause so ambiguous as that.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The whole matter of co-option is at the discretion of the authority. If they desire co-option they can settle the length of service. That will be settled by the scheme, or subsequently by taking advantage of what is merely an enabling power.
    Mr. STEWART: I think this Clause makes the position of the town council far more complicated and you are doing no good whatever. Up to the present no reason has been given why these duties should be put upon the town council.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: It is quite voluntary.
    Mr. STEWART: The fact remains that authority is given to town councils to co-opt members on any committee. Take for example the Corporation of Glasgow with its many committees. No matter what the number of the committees may be their functions remain the same, and most of those committees must remain separate entities. You are now proposing to give to the members of the Glasgow Corporation power to co-opt members for any period that they may think fit. It may happen as in Glasgow that the members of both parties are approaching equality but the number of Socialist members on the town council is growing and the time may not be far distant when they may be in a majority.
    2016
    Here you are giving the councils power to appoint members for any period of time that the majority of the council think fit.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: They can alter the composition of the committee any day they choose as regards the co-opted members. The co-opted member has no statutory right to remain if the town council does not want him to remain.
    Mr. STEWART: I cannot understand the meaning of it. It may be that my intelligence is of such a low order that the words put down here arc beyond my comprehension. The Lord Advocate tells me that it is within the power of the town council to appoint these members for any period—
    The LORD ADVOCATE: They cannot bind their successors. No statutory right is given to the co-opted member on his appointment, and, equally, no existing town council can make an appointment of a co-opted member which would bind any subsequent town council to retain that co-opted member. In the same way, if a town council, having appointed a co-opted member, desires to make a change, it can do so: there is no question of any right.
    Mr. STEWART: It may be that that is the correct interpretation, but there are many people on the town councils in our country who will interpret it in the way that I have, and, unless this be amended, it will, I submit, lead to confusion. The Lord Advocate may shake his head, but suppose that this is done, and that the members are appointed and they carry on, as has been done in other cases. I was a member of a committee similar in character to this—the Blind Persons Committee of the Corporation of Glasgow. Certain persons were appointed to that committee by Act of Parliament, and, unless my memory is at fault, it was not possible for us to put them off when they had served our purpose. Thank goodness, the Glasgow-Corporation has not used these powers to any great extent, and I do not think that any town council in our country will be willing to have these powers thrust upon it. So far as I am aware, the leading corporations of Scotland have not desired to appoint any co-opted persons at all.

    2017
    Again, when the town council has assumed the functions of the parish council under the Poor Law, one or more persons are to be associated with it— for how long? If we are only to have them for a year, as the town council may want them, what is the use of appointing them at all? Common sense, to me at any rate, would seem to indicate that the placing of co-opted persons on town councils will only be throwing a bone of contention among the various members of the council, and will serve no useful purpose whatever. I speak from knowledge and experience, and I can say that as a rule the co-opted persons had had no training in town council work when they came to us, and, in consequence, were not of so much value as they otherwise would have been, and the council would have been glad to be rid of them. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will be pressed and carried to a Division.
    Mr. HARDIE: With regard to the term for which co-opted members may be kept in office, the Lord Advocate indicated that it would end with an election—
    The LORD ADVOCATE: When a new town council came into office.
    Mr. HARDIE: In the case of a town council like that of Glasgow, where one-third of the members retire every year, you cannot get what may be called an election period which would determine what the length of service of a co-opted member is to be. There is nothing in this Clause to indicate that, once a co-opted member is there, he has any particular period to serve, or that it is possible to remove him from his appointment. There is nothing even to indicate that the parent body which makes the co-option shall at any time take powers to remove a co-opted member should he prove to be unsuited for the work of the committee to which he has been appointed. This question must be faced if the Measure is to be made workable. The question of an election period must go by the board, since only one-third of the members of the council are elected every year; there is never a general election unless there is some change in the burgh area or something of that kind.
    With regard to the possibility of the co-opted members being in a majority, I
    2018
    can conceive of that happening in the absence of a sufficient number of elected members. It is all very well to say that the parent body would deal with that, but this is a point which must be considered if the Bill is to work efficiently. Suppose that a committee meets on a very special question, and the number of co-opted members present is greater than the number of elected members, and they come to some decision, no matter whether it involves finance or not. Supposing that that decision is taken on the day after the council meeting, it will not be until 30 days afterwards that the decision of the committee will come before the council. I admit that under the Bill the parent body has the control of finance, but the decision may relate to a matter which they cannot control from the point of view of knowledge.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: Of course, if there is a difficulty about this provision, I am perfectly ready to look into it again, although a very similar procedure is now followed in other cases whore there are no specific conditions as to the time of service of co-opted members. My recollection is that town council committees are reconstituted annually after the election each year, and it is on that basis that I have assumed that a reconsideration of these appointments would take place every year. What I want to emphasise is that the individual co-opted member has no statutory right to stay in office if the town council do not wish him to remain. Moreover, the question whether there shall be a system of co-option at all is for the individual town council to decide, and it is perfectly easy for them to lay down the conditions under which they will exercise co-option, including, if you like, the retirement of co-opted members every year. Therefore, it does not seem to be necessary to provide for that in the Bill. I am, however, quite willing to consider the matter, because we only want to get at the most workable system. We believe that this may be a useful power for town councils to have. Hon. Members opposite, and some on my own side also, frequently say, "Why do you object to putting this into the Bill? It may be of use, and what harm does it do?" On this occasion I am returning the compliment, and saying that I think that this may be a use-

    2019
    ful power to put into the Bill, because it is already in existence as a common form for constituting a committee, and I suggest that we should be wise to retain it in the Bill. Hon. Members opposite are rather assuming that these co-opted members are going to be unbusinesslike people.—
    Mr. HARDIE: I do; co-option always brings that.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: If you assume that, you might also assume that the selection might be made with a desire to wreck the work of the committee, and surely one cannot assume that.
    Mr. HARDIE: Have you ever been with them?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, I have not, but I have been a member of many committees of very varying kinds, and some of the best business has come out of committees which were apparently the most irreconcilable at the beginning, because very often that means keenness on a common object. I should hope that that would be true even on the footing suggested by the hon. Member. You must rely on the business being conducted in a proper manner by these committees, and it is hardly likely that an epidemic of influenza, or whatever might happen to cause a chance majority of co-opted members at one meeting, will result in upsetting the whole apple-cart, especially when we know that an emergency meeting of the council would be sufficient to put it right, while, at any rate, it could be put right at an ordinary meeting. I do not, therefore, think that that is a very practicable criticism.
    Mr. STEWART: Do I understand the Lord Advocate to say that he will amend this proposal?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, Sir. At present I am quite content with it, but I am quite willing to have some further conversation with the hon. Member, and to reconsider it. I cannot promise more than that. At present I am not moved by any preference for anything else.
    Mr. STEWART: Does the Lord Advocate mean conversations here, at the Table?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, informally.
    Mr. STEWART: Then I shall be able to demonstrate that I am not so foolish as the Lord Advocate seems to think.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I never suggested that the hon. Member was foolish.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I find myself in some difficulty in regard to this matter. The Committee will have observed that we have some Amendments down with regard to the Poor Law, and, the ad hoc authority having been got rid of, we are in the dilemma that for the purposes of the Poor Law, persons are to be appointed who have some knowledge of the administration of that vast service. While we are against co-option, nevertheless, the elective basis having been got rid of, I cannot sec how at the beginning persons with the necessary knowledge of the service are to be obtained unless it be by some method of co-option. I take it that the term "town council" includes both the town council of a large burgh and that of a small burgh. We have here two powers. In the first place, the large burgh, which itself has been charged with the administration of the Poor Law and other services, will have, on the one hand, the right to co-opt two committees, and, on the other hand, a mandate as regards poor relief; but in the case of the small burghs in a county I take it that this is one of the powers which may be delegated under Clause 13.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, this does not apply to small burghs at all. It only applies to committees appointed for the purpose of functions transferred under the Act.
    Mr. W. M. WATSON: I hope we shall have the promised conversations, but there is one point I want to put before the Lord Advocate finally makes up his mind. This is undoubtedly a sop to those who have been serving on parish councils, which the Government have now destroyed. I suppose they are convinced that under their system it will be possible to administer the Poor Law without very much difficulty. The point I want to put is this: In reply to a question by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. W. Benn) yesterday on the point of large burghs not being able to undertake all the duties without increasing the number

    2021
    of the councillors, the Lord Advocate said he would consider the insertion of a provision which would enable a town council to increase the number of its members. If that is so, what is the case for having co-opted members? By increasing the numbers the difficulty can be met. I do not see the case for co-option. It is certain that, even though the provision is allowed to remain in the Bill, very few town councils, if they have any respect for themselves, will go in for co-option. They will consider that, if the Government have thought fit to give them this duty, they are capable of undertaking it without having co-opted members in their rank. I feel sure the Lord Advocate, on reconsideration, will agree that there is nothing to be said for opposition to having co-opted members on these larger town councils, in view of the fact that they are not likely to be welcomed. I hope the Lord Advocate will agree, before Report, to have such conversations as have been promised with a view to getting over the difficulty.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I think there is more substance in the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) than the Lord Advocate appeared to admit. If we leave out, as we are going to do presently, the words "county or," any committee of a. town council may-co-opt under this. I cannot see that there is any limit on that. If it was only intended to apply to large burghs it would say, "Any committee of a town council or a large burgh."
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The next Government Amendment makes it clear. It will then read "Any Committee of a town council other than" so and so "which is appointed for the purpose of any function to which an administrative scheme under this Act applies." None but large boroughs can have administrative schemes.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Would it not be possible to say "of a large burgh" to make that quite clear? With regard to the system of co-option, all those who have spent their lives in public and municipal life dislike it. There seem to me to be only two possible defences for it. One is that there may not be enough people elected on the council to do the work. There is a good deal of feeling among a number of the big corporations
    2022
    —the City Council of Aberdeen is one— that if they are to have all these powers thrown upon them- education, the duties of parish councils and so forth— their numbers ought to be enlarged. I hope that will be considered at a later stage, but it ought not to be done by co-option but by direct election.
    Then there is another point. You wish to include on the councils people who have special knowledge of Poor Law administration. You art; doing away with parish councils and you want to mitigate that disadvantage to some extent by getting on to the councils people of experience. As a matter of fact, under this Clause we are only getting one on in each council. Why not leave it that you have that one or, if you like, two co-opted for that purpose in the first council? But that is not an argument for a permanent power of co-option. There are two parts of the Clause. One gives an instruction that within a year after the commencement of the Act the committee 3hall include one or more members of the outgoing parish council. But that is only a temporary instruction. The power of co-option is permanent, and that is what is objected to by us, and by all the great municipal corporations. The argument that the Lord Advocate has used that it is necessary to bring in the representative of the old parish council, does not apply to this permanent power of co-option. I am glad to hear that the Lord Advocate is willing to consult with Members of the House on the question of re-drafting the Clause, and if he would undertake to consider all these points that we have urged I should be willing to see the Amendment withdrawn.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am afraid neither the Lord Advocate nor most of those who have spoken have concentrated on the real point at issue. There are two principles involved in this Sub-section. The whole of the town councils have already intimated that they have no desire for co-option. They want to be able to carry out their own work properly. In almost every town council which will be affected by this change you have individual members who have been connected with poor Law administration. Why talk about co-option now? Even some of the large county councils—Fife, for instance—have rejected the principle.

    2023
    But there is something worse in connection with this Sub-section. It is so indefinite, so badly drafted, that there is no time limit to the length of service of the co-opted members. You have an illustration of what goes on in England, where they arrange for their aldermen so that they can pass on their powers to those who are of their way of thinking just before an election comes round, and they are left in control of certain services, irrespective of what the immediate result of the election may be. Surely no one can justify a thing like that. Again, it says "any committee of a county or town council," so that an education committee will have a right to co-opt.
    The. LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member has misread the Clause. It is the town council in appointing a committee that is going to exercise transferred powers that can co-opt, and not the committee itself. That comes in a subsequent Sub-section.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: If it comes in a subsequent Sub-section, you have the same principle in mind of allowing subcommittees to go in for co-option. In some of our work we have had representatives from the town council on the education committee appointed for three years and they were independent of the elected representatives, and were working contrary to them. If you are going to allow co-option, there ought to be a maximum period of office. It is rather a pity that we should have to divide now that we are getting on towards agreement, but it is impossible, in the frame of mind the Government are in, to avoid taking a Division.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I hope the principle of co-option will not be accepted by anyone on this side, whatever modification is proposed by the Lord Advocate. He has been arguing throughout for the acceptance of a principle which is entirely opposed to the principle of co-option. He has said that for the purposes of education and Poor Law no special qualifications are desired, that education does not stand by itself and, equally, that the Poor Law does not stand by itself, but is linked up with the other activities and functions of local
    2024
    government. If that is true, it follows that any member of a local authority is quite qualified to undertake educational and Poor Law administration. I am entirely opposed to the principle of co-option; I see no virtue in it. For example, the Government are proposing that a town council which may be composed of 30 members should have one-third—that is provided for in a subsequent Amendment—of co-opted members, which means that 10 out of the 30 members are to be co-opted. What is the principle underlying that? Are we to assume that a person who may have special experience is entitled to be on a body merely because of that experience, entirely apart from the wishes of the electors? Surely, that is a most vicious principle, and I am amazed that any member of the Committee, should accept it. We are not prepared to accept the principle of co-option in respect of this House. No one would dare to suggest such a thing. Nevertheless, it is proposed to impose that pernicious principle on local authorities, whether town or county councils.
    I seriously suggest to the Members of the Committee that if they accept this principle now, it will extend and develop until, eventually, it will be the accepted practice in local government in Scotland and, may be, on this side of the Border. I am entirely and definitely opposed to it. I was a member of a town council for a number of years, and on that body every member was well qualified to undertake the various activities associated with local government. It would have been possible at that time to select at least two-thirds of the members, although they were not appointed specially to undertake educational or Poor Law functions, who would have been qualified to deal with educational and Poor Law matters. As that state of affairs applied then, it can apply now. Would the Lord Advocate seriously suggest that he could not find on the Glasgow Corporation, members well qualified to deal in an expert fashion with educational matters or with any function that might be transferred to them?
    If it be true that members of local authorities can be found to discharge those functions, there is no case for accepting the principle of co-option.

    2025
    The Lord Advocate has been arguing against it. He has said, quite definitely, that we do not want a separate education authority, that we do not want a separate Poor Law authority, because those are not things that stand apart from questions affecting local government. The Under-Secretary of State, for Scotland argued, the other night, that education was not confined to the mere curriculum, to the mere instruction of the child, but that it was a question of building, rating, finance, health and the like. Those are all local government functions, and any average town councillor in Scotland is competent to deal with matters of that kind. Therefore, the case for co-option falls to the ground. The Government have no right to impose co-option. I hope that hon. Members on this side will go into the Division Lobby against the Government, in spite of any compromise or proposed modification that may be suggested by the Lord Advocate.
    Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I understand that the Lord Advocate will redraft the Clause.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I said that I might reconsider it.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: It seems to me that it does need some alteration. Have the Government any idea how to meet the difficulty that may arise assuming that the existing Poor Law authority refuses to be co-opted I can well understand the hurt dignity of those who have devoted their attention to the Poor Law causing them to say that they will not be co-opted. In that case, there will be a deadlock. The Clause stipulates that the committee shall include one or more members of the outgoing parish councils. That position must be safeguarded in any re-drafting of the Clause.
    Question put, "That the words 'Any Committee of,' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 111.

    Division No. 180.]

    AYES.

    [6.51 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Albery, Irving James

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

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

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

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

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Jones, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

    Edmonson, Major A. J.

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

    Atkinson. C.

    Elliot. Major Walter E.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Berry, Sir George

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Fielden. E. B.

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Blundell. F. N.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Lloyd. Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Forrest, W.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    McLean, Major A.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Galbraith. J. F. W.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

    Burman, J. B.

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

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Goff, Sir Park

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Campbell. E. T.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Meller, R. J.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hacking, Douglas H.

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

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Harland, A

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

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

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Oakley, T.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

    Couper, J. B.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Hohier. Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Penny. Frederick George

    Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Radford, E. A.

    Smith. Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Raine, Sir Walter

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

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wells, S. R.

    Remer, J. R.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

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

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

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

    Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

    Ropner, Major L.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Withers, John James

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Rye, F. G.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Sandon, Lord

    Tinne, J. A.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Savery, S. S.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Captain Margesson and Captain

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

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Bowyer.

    Shepperson, E. W.

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

    NOES.

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney A Shetland)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

    Hardle, George D.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

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

    Harris, Percy A.

    Potts, John S.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hayday, Arthur

    Purcell, A. A.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayes. John Henry

    Ritson, J.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Bellamy, A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bondfield. Margaret

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Scurr, John

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shiels, Dr. Drurnmond

    Briant, Frank

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Shinwell, E.

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Kennedy, T.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smillie, Robert

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stamford, T. W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, John James

    Stephen, Campbell

    Clark, A. B.

    Lee, F.

    Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lowth, T.

    Thomas. R t. Hon. James H. (Derby)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lunn. William

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

    Connolly, M.

    Mackinder, W.

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Cove, W. G.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Townend, A. E.

    Dennison, R.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Dunnico, H.

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

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    March, S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Maxton, James

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Welsh, J. C,

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Montague, Frederick

    Westwood, J.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Morris, R. H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

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

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

    Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Murnin, H.

    Windsor, Walter

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wright, W.

    Groves, T.

    Palin, John Henry

    Grundy, T. W.

    Paling, W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

    Further Amendment made:
    In page 17, line 17, leave out the words "county or."—[The Lord Advocate.]
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 17, line 20, to leave out the words "such council is required or empowered to appoint," and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "is appointed for the purpose of any
    function to which an administrative scheme under this Act applies.?
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 112.

    Division No. 181.]

    AYES.

    [7.1 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Aibery, Irving James

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

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

    Berry, Sir George

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Atkinson, C.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Pilcher, G.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Brings, J. Harold

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Radford, E. A.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Harland, A.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

    Renter, J. R.

    Broun-Lindsay. Major H.

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)

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

    Burman, J. B.

    Henn. Sir Sydney H.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Ropner, Major L.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Ross, R. D.

    Carver, Major W. H.

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

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

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Rye, F. G.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Sandon, Lord

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Savery, S. S.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    James, Lieut,.Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

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

    Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Lamb, J. Q

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Lister, Cunilffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Couper, J. B.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    McLean, Major A.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

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

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Fade, Sir Bertram G.

    Meller, R. J.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Fielden, E. B.

    Meyer, Sir Frank.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Wells, S. R.

    Forestier-Walker. Sir L.

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

    Write, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple

    Forrest, W.

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

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Foster. Sir Harry S.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Withers, John James

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

    Womersley, W. J.

    Gaibraith, J. F. W.

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

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Gimour Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Oakley, T.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Wragg, Herbert

    Gower, Sir Robert

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Captain Bowyer and Major the

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Penny, Frederick George

    Marquess of Titchfield.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    NOES.

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Compton, Joseph

    Harris, Percy A.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Connolly, M.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Cove, W. G.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Dennison, R.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Barr, J.

    Dunnico, H.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Bellamy, A.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Gardner, J. P.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Briant, Frank

    Gibbins, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Broad, F. A.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Bromley, J.

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

    Kennedy, T.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Buchanan, G.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Lawson, John James

    Charleton, H. C.

    Groves, T.

    Leo, F.

    Clark, A. B.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Cluse, W. S.

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

    Lorgbottom, A. W.

    2030

    2031

    Lowth, T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Sullivan, J.

    Lunn, William

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Taylor, R. A.

    Mackinder, W.

    Potts, John S.

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

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Purcell, A. A.

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

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Ritson, J.

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Townend, A. E.

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

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    March, S.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Maxton, James

    Scurr, John

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Montague, Frederick

    Shiels. Dr. Drummond

    Welsh. J. C.

    Morris, R. H.

    Shinwell, E.

    Westwood, J.

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

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Murnin, H.

    Sitch. Charles H.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Smillie, Robert

    Windsor, Walter

    Palin, John Henry

    Stamford, T. W.

    Wright, W.

    Paling, W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.

    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 17, line 22, to leave out the word "one-half," and to insert instead thereof the word "one-third."
    Mr. SHINWELL: I shall not detain the Committee more than one moment. I hope the Lord Advocate will enlighten me on one point. He is suggesting here that one-third should be substituted for one-half. I want to know why one-third is better than one-half. Does that in any sense vitiate the principle of co-option? If the principle of co-option is good, why not make it 100 per cent? Why say one-third Is it suggested as a compromise? We are entitled to some explanation from the Lord Advocate. If he believes that the principle of co-option is good, why stop at one-third? What is the virtue of that particular figure? We are entitled to some enlightenment from the Lord Advocate upon this point, and, until I have it, I am not prepared to waive my opposition on this matter.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I understand the hon. Member suggests that the principle of co-option should be carried out to 100 per cent.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am not suggesting that the principle should be carried to
    that length, but if the principle is a sound one I ask "why stick at one-third"
    The LORD ADVOCATE: If you have 100 per cent., it will be co-option to the obliteration of election. Co-option does not necessarily imply that the majority of the body should be co-opted. It is invariably less than 50 per cent. and sometimes considerably less than 50 per cent. Already to-day we have had some arguments against the 50 per cent. In this particular case we think one-third a wise proportion.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made:
    In page 17, leave out from the word "and" in line 25, to the word "any" in line 26.—[The Lord Advocate.]
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 17, line 27, to leave out the words "those purposes" and to insert instead thereof the words "the purposes of poor relief.?
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes. 109.

    Division No. 182.]

    AYES.

    [7.15 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Albery, Irving James

    Brassey. Sir Leonard

    Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

    Brings, J. Harold

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

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Brittain. Sir Harry

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Atkinson, C.

    Brooke. Brigadier-General C. R. L.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Barclay-Harvey C. M.

    Burman, J. B.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Berry, Sir George

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Blundell, F. N.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

    Couper, J. B.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

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

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

    Ropner, Major L.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Ross, R. D.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Rye. F. G.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

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

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sandon, Lord

    Dixey, A. C.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Savery, S. S.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Locker- Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Lumley, L R.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Fielden, E. B.

    MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

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

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    MacIntyre, I.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Forrest, W.

    McLean, Major A.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

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

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col Anthony

    Margesson, Captain D.

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

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

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

    Meller. R. J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

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

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

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Oakley, T.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Harland, A.

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

    Welts, S. R.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Hennessy. Major Sir G. R. J.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Hills. Major John Walter

    Perring, Sir William George

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Pilcher, G.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Price, Major C. W M.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Radford, E. A.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng, Universities)

    Held, D. D. (County Down)

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major the

    Marquess of Titchfield.

    NOES.

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

    Gardner, J, P.

    Leo, F.

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

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Livingstone, A. M.

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

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)

    Lowth, T.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

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

    Lunn, William

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Greenwood, A, (Nelson and Colne)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Barnes, A.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Mackinder, W.

    Barr, J.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Bellamy. A.

    Groves, T.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Grundy, T. W.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

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

    Briant, Frank

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    March, S.

    Bromley, J.

    Hardie, George D.

    Maxton, James

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Mitchell. E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Montague, Frederick

    Buchanan, G.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Morris, R. H.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hirst, G. H.

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

    Clark, A. B.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Murnin, H.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Collins. Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan Neath)

    Palin, John Henry

    Compton, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Connolly, M.

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Dennison, R.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Potts, John S.

    Dunnico, H.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Ritson, J.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Lawson, John James

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    2034

    2035

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Scurr, John

    Sullivan, J.

    Westwood, J.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Shiels. Dr. Drummond

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

    Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

    Shinwell, E.

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

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Windsor, Walter

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Townend, A. E.

    Wright, W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Smillie, Robert

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Stamford, T. W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 17, line 30, to leave out Subsection (6), and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "(6) A committee of a town or county council shall not raise money by rate or loan, nor incur capital expenditure without the consent of the town or county council as the case may be."
    Local authorities are not sure that the phrasing of the Clause is sufficient protection on the financial side against the committees, and they suggest the wording of the Amendment rather than that of the Clause.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: If the hon. Member will look at the next Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State, he will see the subject dealt with. If there is any further desire to reconsider the drafting between now and the Report stage, I shall be very glad to reconsider it. Meantime, I prefer our Amendment to that of the hon. Member.
    Mr. BROWN: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made:
    In page 17, line 31, leave out the words
    "any function relating to the raising of money by rate or loan or the incurring of,"
    and insert instead thereof the words:
    "the power of raising money by rate or loan or of incurring."
    In line 39, leave out the word "one-half" and insert instead thereof the
    Word "two-thirds."—[The Lord Advocate.]
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 18, line 1, at the end, to insert the words:

    "(i) a person who is not a member of the council or of the committee shall not be appointed to any sub-committee except with the consent of the council;

    (ii) a sub-committee of the education committee of a council may consist, to an extent not exceeding one-half, of persons who are not members of the council."

    Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the word "one-half," and to insert instead thereof the word "one-third."
    The Amendment is designed to reduce the number of co-opted members. All through we have opposed this principle of co-option, and while we have not succeeded in wiping it out entirely, we want to reduce to a minimum what we believe to be an unfair thing in education.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: We cannot accept the hon. Member's proposed Amendment to our proposed Amendment. The education committee itself has a different rule, a measure of one half, applied to it, and it would be illogical to have a differentiation between the committee and the sub-committee.
    Question put, "That the word 'one-half' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 108.

    Division No. 183.]

    AYES.

    [7.29 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Burman, J. B.

    Albery, Irving James

    Blundeil, F. N.

    Calne, Gordon Hall

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

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Carver. Major W. H.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cassels, J. D.

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

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

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

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Atkinson, C.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Berry, Sir George

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Remer, J. R.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

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

    Couper, J. B.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

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

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Ross, R. D.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    Rye, F. G.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

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

    Kinloch Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sandon, Lord

    Dixey, A. C.

    Leigh, Sir Jonn (Clapham)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Savery, S. S.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

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

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Skelton, A. N.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lumley. L. R.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Forrest, W.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    McLean, Major A.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

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

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

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

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

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

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Meller, R. J.

    Sugden, sir Wilfrid

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Tinne, J. A.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

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

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Watts, Sir Thomas

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Oakley, T.

    Wells, S. R.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

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

    Harland, A.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Penny, Frederick George

    Womersley, W. J.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Honnessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Pilcher, G.

    Wragg, Herbert

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

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Radford, E. A.

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major the

    Marquess of Titchfield.

    NOES.

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

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Kirkwood, D.

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

    Gardner, J. P.

    Lawrence, Susan

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

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Lawson, John James

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Leo. F.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Barnes, A.

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

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Barr, J

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Lowth, T.

    Batey, Joseph

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lunn, William

    Bellamy, A.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Groves, T.

    Mackinder, w.

    Briant, Frank

    Grundy, T. W.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Bromley, J.

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

    Maclea,. Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney a Shetland)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Buchanan, G.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Maxton, James

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Mitchell, E. Hosslyn (Paisley)

    Clark, A. B.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Morris. R. H

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R,

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Murnin, H.

    Compton, Joseph

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Connolly, M.

    Jenkins, W, (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Palin, John Henry

    Cove, W. G.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Jones. T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Dennison, R.

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Dunnico, H.

    Kennedy, T.

    Potts, John S.

    2038

    2039

    Ritson, J.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Welsh, J. C.

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Sullivan, J.

    Westwood, J.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

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

    Whiteley, W.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

    Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

    Shinwell, E.

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Townend, A. E.

    Windsor, Walter

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Wright, W.

    Smillie, Robert

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Stephen, Campbell

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.

    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    It being after half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the
    business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
    Further Amendments made: In page 18, line 13, leave out the word "one-half," and insert instead thereof the word "two-thirds."
    In page 18, line 32, leave out Sub-section (9).—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 106.

    Division No. 184.]

    AYES.

    [7.36 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Albery, Irving James

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

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

    Dixey, A. C.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Atkinson, C.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

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

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

    Berry, Sir George

    Forrest, W.

    Luce, Maj. Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Betterton, Henry, B.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    MacIntyre, Ian.

    Brassey. Sir Leonard

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    McLean, Major A.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Briggs, J Harold

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

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Goff, Sir Park

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Meller, R. J.

    Burman, J. B.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

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

    Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

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

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

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hariand, A.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Oakley, T.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

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

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Penny, Frederick George

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Couper, J. B.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Plicher, G.

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

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Price. Major C. W. M.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Remer, J. R.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

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

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wells, S. R

    Ropner, Major L.

    Southby, Commander A. R, J.

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

    Ross, R. D.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Rye, F. G.

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

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Sandon, Lord

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrld

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Sassoon, sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Savery, S. S.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Shaw. Lt.Cot. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Sir Victor

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Warrender.

    Skelton. A. N.

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

    NOES.

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Oliver, George Harold

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

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

    Palin, John Henry

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hardie, George D.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Potts, John S.

    Barnes, A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Ritson, J.

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bellamy, A.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Briant, Frank

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Shinwell, E,

    Bromley. J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Brown. James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Smillie, Robert

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Charleton, H, C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Clark, A. B.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Taylor, R. A.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawson, John James

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

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lee, F.

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

    Compton, Joseph

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Connolly, M.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Townend. A. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lowth, T.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lunn, William

    Wallhead, Richard C,

    Dennison, R.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Dunnico, H.

    Mackinder. W.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gardner, J, p.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Westwood, J.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

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

    Whiteley, W.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Maxton, James

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Graham, Rt. Hon. WM. (Edin. Cant.)

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Morris, R. H.

    Windsor, Walter

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Wright, W.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Groves, T.

    Murnin, H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.

    CLAUSE 13.— [Power of delegation to town councils of small burghs.]
    Amendment made:
    In page 18, leave out from the word "as," in line 41, to end of the Clause, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "the councils concerned may agree appoint—

    (a) the town council of any small burgh within the county, or

    (b) the district council of a district within the county, or

    (c) a joint committee of such a town council and district council (of which joint committee the members of the county council for the burgh and district shall be members)

    to act as the agents of the county council to carry out any function (other than a
    2042
    function relating to education or police) vested in the county council and exerciseable within the small burgh or district or small burgh and district, as the case may be, so however that a function relating to any form of medical or surgical treatment shall not be so delegated except with the approval of the Central Department, and subject to the terms of appointment a council or committee so acting as agent may act through a committee or sub-committee thereof.
    (2) Any council so acting as agent or having representation on any such joint committee may contribute towards the expenses incurred by the council or committee in so acting as agent, and any such contribution by a town council may be defrayed out of such rate leviable by the council and payable by owners and occupiers in equal proportions as the council may determine."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 195; Noes, 102.

    Division No. 185.]

    AYES.

    [7.48 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Albery, Irving James

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Applin, Col. R. V. K.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Pilcher, G.

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

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Atkinson, C.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Radford, E. A.

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Berry, Sir George

    Harland, A.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Blundell. F. N.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Remer, J. R.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

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

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

    Brass, Captain W.

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

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Ross, R. D.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hilton, Cecil

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

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

    Rye, F. G

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forlar)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Burman, J. B.

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Sandon, Lord

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Sassoon. Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Savory, S. S.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

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

    Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

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

    Hume, Sir G. H.

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Skelton, A. N.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Couper, J. B.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Courtauld, Major J, S.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

    Lumley, L. R.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen

    Tinne, J. A.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    McLean. Major A.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

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

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

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

    Dixey, A. C.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Wayland. Sir William A.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Wells, S. R.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Meller, R. J.

    White, Lieut.-Col Sir G. Dairymple-

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Williams, Com. O. (Devon, Torquay)

    Fielden. E. B.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

    Womersley, W. J.

    Forrest, W.

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

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Woodcock. Colonel H. C.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon, Sir L.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Oakley, T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

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

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Sir Victor

    Goff, Sir Park

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Warrender.

    NOES.

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

    Bromley, J.

    Connolly, M

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

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Buchanan, G.

    Dennison, R.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Charleton, H. C.

    Dunnico, H.

    Barnes, A.

    Clark, A. B.

    Evans. Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Satey, Joseph

    Cluse, W. S.

    Gardner, J. p.

    Bellamy, A.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Briant, Frank

    Compton, Joseph

    Gillett, George M.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lee, F.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Shinwell, E.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Granfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Lowth, T.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Lunn, William

    Smillie, Robert

    Groves, T.

    Mackinder, W.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Stephen, Campbell

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

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Sullivan, J.

    Hardle, George D.

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

    Taylor, R.,A.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Maxton, James

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Townend, A. E.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Morris, R, H.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

    Wall head, Richard C.

    Here Belisha, Leslie

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Hudson, J. H. (Hudderefield)

    Murnin, H.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Welsh, J. C.

    Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Palin, John Henry

    Westwood, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Paling, W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Kennedy, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Windsor, Walter

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

    Ritson, J.

    Wright, W.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Scrymgeour, E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lawson, John James

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Mr. Hayesand Mr. Whiteley.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Schemes for administration of functions.)
    The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. E. BROWN:
    In page 19, line 23, to leave out the words "Poor Law (c.)
    In line 23, to leave out the words "lunacy and mental deficiency (e)."
    Mr. E. BROWN: May I explain that this is the first of five Amendments, two of which are negative and three positive? Unfortunately, I understand that the Amendment in which I am really interested, the last positive Amendment, is not in order. Therefore, it would be merely a waste of time to have a discussion which could not be carried out by an Amendment of the Bill, and, with your permission, Mr. Herbert, I do not propose to move my Amendment.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member does not propose to move either of his first two Amendments to line 23?
    Mr. BROWN: No.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 14, to leave out from the word "deficiency," in line 24, to the word "and," in line 26, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "and (e) roads, but that only in the case of a county council."
    This is a purely drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to move, in page 19, line 30, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that the administrative scheme, so far as relating to education, shall be framed by the county council or the town council, as the case may be, in consultation with the existing education authority for the area to which such scheme shall apply."
    This Amendment is explanatory of its purpose. There is a desire on the part of the outgoing education authorities at least to be taken into consultation by the new education committees or the new county councils in framing schemes for the administration of education in the respective areas. As I understand that the Government are going to accept either this Amendment or at least the principle associated with it, I have no desire to take up the time of the Committee. This is about the first definite move on the part of the Government to try to meet us in this work of administration.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am quite prepared to give an undertaking to consider this whole matter. I hope that we may be able to arrive at some reasonable arrangement when we come to the Report stage.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is that satisfactory? The right hon. Gentleman really can promise to consider the matter, as this Amendment is quite in line with all that he has previously said He has more than once declared that exceptional experience is embodied in the existing education authorities, and surely he is going to avail himself of all their ex-

    2047
    perience and knowledge for the use of the new authority. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman cannot give a guarantee now to accept this very fair and moderate proposal. I cannot understand his outlook and that of the Lord Advocate, who was with him a few minutes ago. They always temporise, and they are always willing to consider; but it is not clear that they propose to do anything practical. I do not regard their promises as very hopeful, if I may put it in that way. We ought to have a much more secure undertaking than that which the right hon. Gentleman has just given.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: All I should like to say, so far as the Government are concerned, is that we quite readily accept this Amendment in principle. Of course, I am not bound by any terms whatever in the Amendment.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: That is far more satisfactory than the first olive branch which was held out by the Secretary of State. It is now quite definite that he is prepared to accept the principle, and that is all that we are suggesting. We recognise that every word used in the Amendment may not have just the right effect, and we are prepared to admit that some re-drafting may be necessary; but, if we can get a promise that the principle is accepted, that is all we require. On the understanding given, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made:
    In page 20, leave out from the word "may," in line 1, to the end of the Subsection and insert instead thereof the words:
    "provide for the county council appointing to act as agents of the council district councils or joint committees of town councils of small burghs and district councils, which joint committees shall contain representatives of the county council and be constituted in such manner as provided in the scheme to carry out the functions specified in the scheme so far as relating to their respective districts, but subject always to the terms and conditions set forth in the scheme."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 20, line 12, at the end, to insert the words:
    2048
    "(4) An administrative scheme may provide that any assistance to which this Subsection applies, which might after the commencement of this Act be provided either by way of poor relief or by virtue of any enactment other than the Poor Law Acts, shall be provided exclusively under and by virtue of the enactments other than the Poor Law Acts and not by way of poor relief, but nothing in this Sub-section or in any scheme shall diminish or otherwise affect the duty of the council to provide relief for the poor.
    The assistance to which this Sub-section applies shall be the maintenance and treatment of sick persons, including, without prejudice to the said generality, persons suffering from any infectious or other disease, or lunatics or persons mentally deficient, or the provision made for the health of expectant mothers, nursing mothers, or children under five years of age or for blind persons, or for the feeding, clothing, and treatment of school children.
    (5) Every administrative scheme relating to education made by the council of a county within which a large burgh is included for the purpose of education shall, unless the county council and the town council of the large burgh otherwise agree, make provision whereby for the purpose of the medical inspection, supervision, and treatment of the children attending the schools within the burgh the county council shall utilise to such extent, and on such terms and conditions as the councils agree or, failing agreement, as the Department of Health determine, the medical and nursing staff of the town council, and the clinics, and hospitals, under the control of that council. and every such scheme which shall be made by the county council, and approved by the department only after consultation with the town council shall be binding upon the town council.
    (6) In order to meet as far as practicable the interests and convenience of the county council, the town council of the small burgh concerned and the inhabitants thereof, every administrative scheme of a county council relating to roads shall make provision with respect to the opening or breaking up of any classified road within a small burgh whether by the county council for the purpose of reconstructing, repairing, or maintaining the road, or by the town council for the purpose of laying, replacing, repairing, or maintaining water, sewer, gas, or other pipes or electric cables or others under the said road."
    This Amendment is of some length and of very considerable importance. It is one which, I think, will be welcomed in all parts of the Committee, and_ particularly, perhaps, on the benches opposite. It is an Amendment providing for the break-up of the Poor Law, and it is to be taken in conjunction with the new Clause which appears later on the

    2049
    Paper—["Provision for treatment of sick persons"] —but which it will not be in order to discuss now.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the "break-up of the Poor Law" the right expression to use?
    Major ELLIOT: I think I can use any expression I wish. The hon. Member uses expressions which are not mine, and no doubt I can use expressions which are not his. But to return to the Amendment. There is at present a great bundle of duties, of most varying kinds, applied to persons in varying circumstances wrapped up together under the heading of the Poor Law. There is the entering of the people upon the Poor Rolls and what is called "the stigma of the Poor Law." This applies to great groups and classes of individuals to whom none of us would wish to see it applied. It deals more particularly with one group, that of the sick. There will be no doubt whatever in any section of the Committee that this is one of the steps for which it is worth while introducing the Bill. It may be that hon. Members opposite think it is the only step for which it is worth while introducing the Bill, but I would remind them that here we have an Amendment, the executive words of which begin:
    "An administrative scheme may provide that any assistance to which this Sub-section applies," which might after the commencement of this Act be provided either by way of poor relief or by virtue of any enactment other than the Poor Law Acts, shall be provided exclusively under and by virtue of the enactments other than the Poor Law Acts and not by way of poor relief, but nothing in this Sub-section or in any scheme shall diminish or otherwise affect the duty of the council to provide relief for the poor.
    The assistance to which this Sub-section applies shall be the maintenance and treatment of sick persons, including, without prejudice to the said generality, persons suffering from any infectious or other disease, or lunatics or persons mentally deficient, or the provision made for the health of expectant mothers, nursing mothers, or children under five years of age or for blind persons, or for the feeding, clothing, and treatment of school children."
    As I say, we have to take this in conjunction with the fact that, at a later stage, we shall proceed to move the new Clause which we have on the Order Paper dealing with the wide extension of hospital facilities, and the provision of hospital facilities other than under the
    2050
    Poor Law Acts for the sick person of our cities and counties. The new Clause is most important. The present provisions, while important in their way and very useful and important from the point of view of accountancy and book-keeping, are not as important as the fresh hospital facilities which will be possible under the scheme suggested in our new Clause dealing with hospitals. But this, in itself, represents a great step in the direction in which we all desire to move. It is a step which has been recommended by many Committees, and I think it has unanimously been pressed upon the attention of the Government. It is another forward step in the history of our public health in Scotland when we are able to move such a provision as this.
    Mr. STEWART: I am quite in agreement with the Under-Secretary that this is a step forward if it stood by itself, but, as he himself has said, this addition to Clause 14 has to be taken in conjunction with the proposals that are contained in a new Clause that is to be moved after all the other Clauses have been dealt with. My objection to this is that while you are seemingly transferring to the local authorities, to the local public health authorities, whether they be county councils or town councils, these duties, you are also imposing on the local authority, if the new Clause is carried, some new duties that will transform our public health from being conducted as it has been for many years past. In all our new Acts there is this tendency to impose on our public health authorities Poor Law conditions. I am opposed to that, although it does not really figure in this Bill, but I cannot divert my mind from the fact, as the Under-Secretary has said, that this Amendment must be taken in conjunction with the proposed new Clause. I know that in the Amendment there is good mixed with bad, but the conditions that are consequent on the carrying of this Amendment are bad, and, therefore, I am going to oppose this Amendment. I wish to keep myself free from entanglements. While I recognise that there is good contained in this Amendment, if it was only this Amendment and nothing more then I should try and wait for a little time to amend it on the lines that are in my mind; to make our public health free as infections diseases are at

    2051
    the moment. But the Government have got to carry this and they tell us in the second paragraph of this Amendment:
    "The assistance to which this Sub-section applies shall be the maintenance and treatment of sick persons,"
    I call the attention of the Members of the Committee to that. "Sick persons;" it is not that. That is only a pretence. You are going to. institute an inquisition. You are going to haul the relatives—the grandfather, the father, the son or the son-in-law before your Committee to explain their position and to show why they should not be called upon to meet all the legal requirements of maintaining their relatives in the position that is expected. You are going to impose on men a burden that they are frequently not able to bear. I do not want to make the point that I hope to be able to make, if I am spared, when the new Clause comes along, but I hope that the Secretary of State and those associated with him will not impose on the public health of Scotland Poor Law conditions. I will conclude with my regret that, on this great opportunity that has been given to the Government and no others of consolidating public health and making it a unified treatment, of taking away any degrading conditions that may obtain thereto, and of making it as free as the present infectious diseases are free-there is free treatment for venereal disease—I regret that the Government have not taken that opportunity. Under this proposal a man who is suffering from epilepsy acquired through no fault of his own, or suffering from cardiac disease, will be compelled, if he is able, to pay for treatment, and, if he is not able, his child, or someone else who is connected with him in a degree which makes the burden legal, will be compelled to pay. I hate it, and I wish that every Member of the Committee also hated it as I do.
    Mr. E. BROWN: There was one phrase used by the Under-Secretary to which I should like to call attention, and that phrase was "the break-up of the Poor Law." Now, that phrase has been used for many years to denote a process of dealing with the Poor Law which really must transform the whole attitude of the State towards the assistance given to poor people, whether sick or well, from the present pauper status to the status of people recognised as
    2052
    being dealt with by a social service committee. I think the Under-Secretary has gone rather far in describing this Amendment. although I do not oppose it, as "the break-up of the Poor Law," and for this reason. If the Committee will go a little further into this Amendment than the Under-Secretary did, they will find that there is a distinction between the three sections of the Amendment. One part deals with the sick poor, one part deals with the medical treatment of children under the education committee of the council, and one part deals with roads. If we take the third part first, the words run very differently from those in the first part. When you come to the question of whether or not you shall break up a road, the words are mandatory; that is to say, when a scheme is made relating to roads it
    "shall make provision with respect to the opening or breaking up of any classified road within a small burgh";
    but when we turn back to the first part, which is very near to the heart of the Under-Secretary—I am sure that at the back of his mind he regrets not having had the word "shall," for we do not break up the Poor Law in this matter— what we do is to make it possible that when an administrative scheme is made it may provide that assistance shall be given under the Public Health Acts rather than under the Poor Law. In so far as the schemes are made and this provision is incorporated, it will be a step towards transferring this great body of suffering poor from the Poor Law to the non-pauper status, and if it were mandatory, the Under-Secretary would have far more justification for his statement than he has now.
    I wonder what stands in the way of making it mandatory instead of permissive. Cannot the Secretary of State for Scotland strengthen his own desire to break up the Poor Law as regards the treatment of these sick persons? Why cannot he, in Sub-section (4) as well as in Sub-sections (5) and (6), provide that instead of the word being "may" it shall be "shall"? Personally, I believe the time has come when we should realise that what we want with regard to public assistance is to cut away the pauper status entirely; and while I welcome this permissive move, I cannot think that the connotation of the words "break-up of the Poor Law" is justified in this

    2053
    connection, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to see his way before the Report stage to make this addition to Clause 14 mandatory throughout.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I hold the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in very high respect, as he knows, but I am not going to allow myself to be blinded by what appears to me to be an obvious attempt to mislead the Committee, for what does he really mean by the breakup of the Poor Law? Does he mean its abolition, or does he mean its distribution? In the provisions that are outlined here distribution is clearly implied. If the Under-Secretary really believes in the abolition of the Poor Law, why does he not say so in specific terms? There need be no ambiguity about it. We all know what is meant by the abolition of the Poor Law, the elimination of pauperism, and obviously, if that were the intention, there would not be a single reference left in these provisions to the Poor Law administration or Acts. That is my first objection to this series of Sub-sections as they stand. The Poor Law remains. It may be less offensive; nevertheless, it is maintained in principle.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) in his objections to the optional references in these Subsections. To begin with, what is the advantage of a break-up of the Poor Law if it is optional, if it is left to the discretion of the local authority, for here the intention is to leave the discretion entirely in the hands of the local authority? It is permissive, not obligatory. The county council or the town council need not do this thing or that, however advantageous or desirable it may be, unless it pleases; and, as would appear from my reading of these provisions, even the right hon. Gentleman cannot bring pressure to bear on the local authority to take one step or the other, apart from the clear intentions outlined in the Measure itself.
    Take a glance at Sub-section (5), which relates to the provision of treatment for school children, medical inspection, supervision and treatment, medical and nursing staffs, clinics, hospitals, and all that is associated with the personnel of these institutions. Everyone will agree that it is of the highest importance that children should be properly safeguarded. The Under-Secretary himself quoted a
    2054
    Latin phrase the other night with very great effect, and I gathered from what he said then that he believes it is just as important to have a sound body as a sound mind, that indeed one cannot be dissociated from the other. If that be the general opinion of the Committee, as I understand it to be, then the provision of treatment of this character for school children is of the utmost importance. It is paramount, and it should occupy the first place in our thoughts upon these matters; and yet let the Under-Secretary note that he provides an administrative scheme relating to this matter which shall be applied, but with this proviso:
    "unless the county council and the town council of the large burgh otherwise agree."
    What earthly reason induced the Government to make that provision, unless they are afraid that it will not please certain reactionary county councils in Scotland to make the provision compulsory? It may be, of course, that the Government are half-hearted about it themselves, but if they are, clearly the Under-Secretary is not entitled to say that this means the break-up of the Poor Law. It means nothing of the kind.
    There is another factor that is worth considering for a moment. I take it that the intention of the Government in introducing this Bill, taking it as a whole, is to remove anomalies and, so far as is possible, to effect a large measure of co-ordination in the activities of the local authorities in Scotland. If the Under-Secretary seeks to remove anomalies, the provisions of this Clause will not be sufficient. Take, for example, the case of a family of which the breadwinner is unemployed; he may have been unemployed for a considerable time, and, as a result of the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acta, disqualified from insurance benefit. He cannot receive relief from the local authorities under the Poor Law, because he is able-bodied, but he may be admitted into a parochial institution under the Poor Law, and that part of the Poor Law Acts continues under this Bill. On the other hand, his child at school may be the recipient of medical inspection, medical treatment, boots, clothes or food. There we have the extraordinary anomaly that, while the breadwinner, the able-bodied person, is subject to the provisions of the anti-

    2055
    quated Poor Law Acts and may be compelled to go into the poor house, his child is subject to the provisions outlined here in what have been described by the Under-Secretary as the break-up of the Poor Law.
    The thing is absurd, and yet the Under-Secretary will not deny that that condition of things might obtain. What we on these benches and hon. Members on the benches below the Gangway ask — and it is what the Under-Secretary would desire also—is that every member of the family, if they are in an unfortunate plight through unemployment, sickness or any other cause, should be treated in precisely the same fashion, that is to say, with medical inspection, institutional treatment without the stigma of pauperism, relief in kind or in money as the case may be, every member of the family who, for the time being, is in an impoverished condition, should be given such treatment as can be provided by the local authorities under existing Acts. How is that to be done if one member of the family is to be treated entirely differently from another? That is not the break-up of the Poor Law. The anomalies will still remain and become very grotesque in application, and I submit that the purpose of the Government, if it indeed be to break-up the Poor Law, is not attained by the provisions outlined here.
    Since neither the Under-Secretary nor I really believe that this means the break-up of the Poor Law, the point of real substance is whether the provisions should be optional or obligatory. I urge that at this stage it is desirable to make a clean break from the past. We have had too much permissive legislation, with the result that in one district in Scotland special treatment of a desirable kind has been provided, while in another district no treatment at all has been provided. Indeed, that has characterised Poor Law administration in Scotland, and it has always required the heavy hand of the central Department in order to effect, as far as possible, some kind of uniformity. Uniformity has never been actual in operation, although there has been an approach to it as a result of the operation of the central Department. We want to see uniformity in respect of the definition of services. The local authori-
    2056
    ties must be told definitely that whatever administrative scheme is to be applied, it shall be applied whether the county council like it or not. So in all parts of Scotland wherever poverty exists—and, unfortunately, there is an abundance of poverty at the present time, and, still more unfortunate, it is likely to remain for a considerable time— the same treatment should be provided, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to see his way to remove the word "may" wherever it appears, and introduce the definite word "shall" in its place.
    Mr. W. M. WATSON: I hope that by now the Under-Secretary will realise that he made an unfortunate slip when he said that this Clause would me the breaking-up of the Poor Law, because subsequent speeches have shown that there is no intention to break up the Poor Law. No doubt this will mean a change in the treatment of the sick poor, and it is to be hoped that the changes that are proposed to be carried out by this Bill will bring about that desirable result. It may be quite true that the parish councils, as we have known them, have not been able to undertake the care of the sick poor to the extent that is desirable, and if the Under-Secretary means that the new bodies that will have to administer the Poor Law will be more able to bear the burden of the proper treatment of the sick poor, the change will be desirable.
    On the Second Reading of this Bill, I agreed with the wiping out of the parish area as a unit of administration on the ground that it was too small, and one of the reasons that led me to that conclusion was that the sick poor were not receiving from some parish councils the attention and medical treatment that they required. If the transference of this power to the county council and the large burghs will give to the sick poor the medical attention and treatment that they desire, the change will be very desirable. If that was in the mind of the Under-Secretary it may lead to something like the breaking up of the Poor Law; at any rate, it will make a very desirable change in that system.
    It must have struck the Members of the Committee that the Under-Secretary took up as much time in reading the part of the Clause which he did read as he occupied in explaining it. We should have been more indebted to him if he had

    2057
    told us in greater detail how these proposals will carry out what it is intended they should accomplish, namely, the break up of the Poor Law system. It is rather strange that the Clause should include not only a part to deal with the sick poor hut a part to deal with the treatment of children, and another part dealing with the roads; that is a curious combination to have in one Clause. In regard to the treatment of children, I believe that in certain areas there has been a working arrangement between burghs which had facilities for treating children and the education authorities, and, so far as I can see, this Clause will lead to a development of that system and will enable children to get better treatment than hitherto. I hope this Clause will do what the Under-Secretary claimed, and that we shall see a definite breaking up of the Poor Law system, though personally I do not look for that as the outcome of this Clause; but if we get better treatment for the sick poor under the new system it will be a big improvement on what has happened in bygone days.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: There are two or three things which I hope to see carried out under the new system which is being set up. I hope that by the broadening of the parish area we shall make it possible to give hospital treatment to the people within the area. At present, when hospital treatment is required people must go to the poor house hospital, and as that carries the stigma of pauperism we find it very difficult, and sometimes it is almost impossible, to get people to take advantage of that treatment. I sincerely hope the Secretary of State will keep in his mind the desirability of sick people in the country districts getting hospital treatment without the stigma of pauperism, and if that can be accomplished it will be to the credit of the alteration which is being made. I would like to point out that I can find no mention of the able bodied poor or unemployed men in this section, unless they come under the general description of "poor."
    Major ELLIOT: This Clause deals only with the sick. It would be out of order to discuss the others, because this deals only with the sick.
    Mr. SULLIVAN: I take it that we are making provision for the able bodied in some other part of the Bill. Another point to which I would like to draw attention, because it was under consideration some time ago, is the desirability of providing some institution which shall be an alternative to the prison or the lunatic asylum. People are sometimes brought before the magistrates charged with a breach of the law who really are not criminals, and it is a question whether they ought not to be certified as cases for a lunatic asylum. I can give one illustration. One day I was asked to try an old woman who was charged with being drunk and disorderly and who had some 46 convictions. I refused to send that woman to the cells, because I felt that it would be doing a greater injustice to her than she had done to society. I made inquiries into the question of drunkenness, and it turned out that the woman had never tasted drink. She had taken threepenny-worth of methylated spirit, and, as she had previously been an inmate of an asylum, the spirit went to her head and she became stark, raving mad.
    I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider the provision of institutions which would be something between prisons and lunatic asylums in order to provide for these sort of half-way cases. It may be necessary to detain some of these people for a period—perhaps to keep them for a long time and to give them some training—but at any rate it is not right to send them to prison, because once they go to prison they will almost certainly return, there, and we get cases such as the one I have mentioned, where they come up week after week. Those are really menial cases, and not criminal cases, but the doctors will not certify that they should be sent to an asylum. I do not think I need say more, except that I hope that the proposals outlined here will be carried out as the right hon. Gentleman suggested they would be. As was said by another speaker, every district does not do its duty, either in the treatment of the poor or in the matter of education. I hope that proper provision will be made for education and that where a child requires other things for its well being they will be provided. If these things are done, I feel it may help us in the long run, and

    2059
    at any rate it will make it easier for the people to accept the alteration in the law which we are bringing about.
    Mr. HARDIE: It is a pity that the conventions and traditions of this House prevent us from dealing with this business in a proper way. We have just been compelled by a stupid arrangement called the Guillotine to dispose of a Clause which had in it many things which have not been discussed. I do not know whether it is—
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order, order. The hon. Member must not criticise the Orders of the House.
    Mr. HARDIE: I think it is quite in order just to—
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: No, it is not. The time-table is the decision of the House, and the hon. Member cannot discuss that now.
    Mr. HARDIE: But I am referring to the passing of a Clause—
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member persists in referring to the decision of the House, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
    Mr. HARDIE: But the decision of the House is not what I am referring to.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I have already warned the hon. Member not to deal with the decision of the House, and if he continues, I must ask him to resume his seat.
    Mr. HARDIE: I am going to deal with this Clause and I was—
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I have asked the hon. Member not to deal with the decision of the House. As the hon. Member has three times disobeyed my ruling, I must ask him to resume his seat.
    Mr. HARDIE: I have not.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has done so.
    Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order! I was just explaining exactly why, on the last Clause, so much was left out that ought to have been put in. I was complaining about the system in this
    2060
    House with regard to the running of the business, and I was going to bring that in as an argument in connection with the Clause now being discussed. It was not a question of disobeying your Ruling. I was simply leading up to the Clause standing on the Paper in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland. That was all. A good deal has been said about the improvements which will be brought about under this Measure. We were told that this Clause would effect great improvements so far as administration was concerned, but now when we get the schemes adumbrated, instead of showing any improvement they show distinctly a backward tendency. I find in the first line of Sub-section (4) of this Amendment that the word "may" occurs. One would have thought that any Government dealing with poverty sickness, instead of bringing in the word "may" they would have made it far more definite. I did think that the Secretary of State for Scotland would have been in favour of introducing a definite improvment in this respect.
    We are now dealing with a very definite factor in the Clause. We have been told that advantages will accrue by combination of local authorities and the Secretary of State for Scotland said that a tremendous improvement would be brought about by two bodies combining together. In Glasgow at the present moment we have a dispute between the electricity department and the tramway department in regard to the electricity supply. The tramway department desires to supply its own electricity instead of taking it from the corporation station. If we consider the services administered by the Glasgow Corporation, it will be seen at once that the committees are at loggerheads in regard to some of their public services. We have been told that there would be a breaking up of the Poor Law, but the Amendment we are discussing in no way carries out that suggestion. The proposal in relation to schemes may be applied but you cannot say you are applying the same law when you are dealing with a different scheme.
    Major ELLIOT: With regard to these schemes, it says definitely that, instead of a person being treated under the Poor Law, he should be treated under another law.
    Mr. HARDIE: Then why not insert a definite word and say that this "shall" be done? The Government Amendment means that these people are not going to get the advantages which have been promised under this Bill. Sub-section (5) of the Government Amendment reads:
    "Unless the county council and the town council of the large burgh otherwise agree."
    That means that unless they agree nothing can be done.
    Major ELLIOT: The Sub-section referred to by the hon. Member says that unless they otherwise agree the scheme shall provide, and the word used is not "may," but "shall."
    Mr. HARDIE: The word "shall" is overruled by the word "may."
    Major ELLIOT: The Amendment proposed by the Government provides that every administrative scheme made by the council of a county shall make provision
    "unless the county council and the town council of the large burgh otherwise agree."
    There could be nothing more definite than that statement.
    Mr. HARDIE: But they could disagree. I want the provision to be made quite definite so that no one can escape the provisions of this Act. I am always suspicious about anything that is permissive in an Act of Parliament. Under the Education Act you may have a provision that you "may" provide free books. That generally means that those books are not going to be provided, no matter how great is the need for their provision. In Scotland we have suffered a great deal in the past through having the word "may" in our Acts of Parliament. In this Bill we want to secure freedom from what is called the general taint of pauperism, but as the Bill now stands it seems to mo that we shall be just as far from achieving that object as ever we were. We have been told that this Measure will bring about many beneficial changes and improvements, but I have failed to find them up to the present moment. I hope that on the Report stage some attempt will be made to improve this Measure in the direction which I have indicated.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: Like my colleagues who have already spoken, I want to say that the Under-
    2062
    Secretary, in the brief explanation which he gave of this Amendment, did not explain this Clause sufficiently. For example, he stated that under this Clause we should have a breaking up of the Poor Law. In making a statement of that kind, he either said too much or too little. He gave no justification or explanation of the statement that the Amendment provided for the breaking up of the Poor Law; he made the broad general statement, and added that he thought the provision would meet with the approbation of Members in all quarters of the Committee. So far as we are concerned, if it had made provision for the breaking up of the Poor Law, it would have met with our approbation, but, as far as we can see from the wording of this long Amendment, it contains no justification for the Under-Secretary's statement that it means the breaking up of the Poor Law. It is true that under it a council may provide for the treatment of the sick poor, for expectant mothers, and for the feeding, clothing and treatment of school children; but, as has been pointed out more than once in this discussion, while some of the local authorities will attempt to carry out those provisions, others will not make any attempt to do So at all, and there is nothing to compel them to do so. If it had said that they shall make this provision, the Amendment would have been very much stronger. The Under-Secretary also reminded us that later on the Secretary of State had made provision for the addition of a new Clause to the Bill, and that, of course, made us inquire into what the proposed new Clause contained. On looking at it, one finds that, while Clause 14 provides for relieving the sick poor, for looking after the health of expectant and nursing mothers and children under the age of five, and for certain other matters, yet, once that duty has been undertaken by either the one council or the other, it Incomes the duty of that council to recover from any person, or, in the event of that person being unable to pay the amount recoverable, from the relatives of that person, the cost of the treatment in whatever institution these persons are treated.
    Major ELLIOT: That only refers to institutional treatment.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Supposing that it only refers to institutional treatment, a considerable part of the treatment of the sick poor is institutional treatment, and if, as I suspect is the case, that proposed new Clause charges the council, whether the burgh council or the county council, with the duty of recovering the cost of treatment from that section of the sick poor, it simply carries forward the present system, and does not break up the Poor Law in the way in which we, as a party, intended that it should be broken up. Consequently, like my colleagues who have already spoken on this Amendment, I am strongly of opinion that it does not carry out what the Under-Secretary says it carries out. I was rather tickled by the way in which the Under-Secretary danced over the Amendment and attempted to make it commendable to those on these benches, but, in explaining it in the way that he did, he made us a little suspicious about the whole thing, and, before we become consenting parties to the Amendment being carried, we are entitled to a much more detailed explanation from him, or from the Secretary of State himself, than we have had hitherto. I hope that they are going to accept this invitation. The broad general statement has been made that this Amendment provides for the breaking up of the Poor Law, and that that is a matter which ought to commend it particularly to my colleagues on these benches. If there be a provision of that kind in the Amendment, we fail to see it, and I think we are entitled to an explanation as to how it is possible for the Amendment to do what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says it will do. The explanation we have had up to now has failed to convince us. We do not agree that the provision the right hon. Gentleman is making in the Amendment will carry out what he said it would, and consequently I hope he will accept my invitation and prove to our satisfaction how it breaks up the Poor Law or is an Amendment which would be satisfactory to us.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Notwithstanding the explanation of the Under-Secretary I wish to support the plea that we should not leave the matter so indefinite that there is doubt whether it will secure what the Clause intends to accomplish. The Under-Secretary has made out from his
    2064
    standpoint, a case that the Amendment endeavours to meet part of the plea that has been made from this side. It is partly the intention of the Amendment that there should be an opportunity to decide under what law a line of action is to be taken. We have found in public life that when you have, as is often the case, a minority who would seek to secure just the very thing the Government apparently intend here, the majority feel that this is a mere optional arrangement. They say, "We are not really intended as a Board to go along those lines." It is only a matter of preferential consideration from the standpoint of a minority. If the Government were to do justice by the claim they make for the Amendment, the word "shall" should be inserted instead of "may." If that alteration were made, the Government would be better able to claim sincerity for its intentions to provide for this improved course of treatment. As it is, with our knowledge of the working of Boards, they will get credit for upright intentions and, in the result, nothing will happen.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am not going to ask for an explanation of the whole of the scheme that is before us, hut I am interested in that part of the Amendment which deals with the feeding and clothing and treatment of poor children, and we are entitled to know exactly where we are being led. One of the things that create a fear in connection with the so-called break up of the Poor Law is not so much that you are going to break it up as that you may be going to carry the taint of pauperism into some other administrative schemes and some other works of assistance that are given to the poor people. Any parent who is in poverty and unable to provide food and clothing for his children is entitled to have it provided without any taint of pauperism. All along I have been afraid of the possibility of handing over to the Poor Law Committee the work of attending to necessitous school children. This is one of the questions we were prepared to discuss with the Secretary of State with a view to avoiding overlapping.
    I have always claimed, as an educational administrator, that the duty of looking after the children, either from the mental or the physical point of view, should be the duty of the educational

    2065
    authority. Now you are going to have several statutory committees working under the county councils or in the large burghs, and I am anxious to know whether you are going to lay it down that the responsibility of providing food and clothing will be the responsibility of the Poor Law committee or the education committee. I feel sure the Under-Secretary will be quite willing to explain the scheme so far as it refers to the feeding and clothing of necessitous children. I also agree with the point that has been raised by the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie) that, instead of it being left optional on the county council so far as the first part of the scheme is concerned, it ought to be compulsory. You are going to leave that again in the position of having schemes which may vary to a tremendous extent as between one county and another. Surely it is not too much to ask that they shall be compulsory instead of optional. I hope on the specific point I have put, dealing with the feeding and clothing of necessitous children, that that work, having been kept clear of the taint of pauperism for the last 10 years, will in no way be associated with it in the years to come.
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wheatley.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Are we not to have a reply from the Under-Secretary?
    The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I call upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I thought you were about to put the Question. I merely wanted an assurance that we were to have a reply. I am quite willing to give way to my right hon. Friend; otherwise, I have some observations to make.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I want to put one question to the Under-Secretary before he replies, in order to clear up a point of uncertainty. Will he tell us how, under this scheme, he proposes to deal with the maternity cases of the poor?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I should like to be assured on one point. The Secretary of State for Scotland will remember that I introduced a deputation to him in Edinburgh regarding school children in Dumbartonshire, 700 of whom were not able to go to school because they had no
    2066
    boots. The trouble at that time was to know which of two authorities were responsible, the parish council or the education authority, for bearing the expense of providing boots for the children in the dead of winter. The children could not get boots because the two authorities were quarrelling as to their responsibility. I want to be assured that under the proposals of the Government that sort of situation will not occur again, and that we shall be able to allocate at once responsibility to the appropriate authority for providing not only boots but, if necessary, clothing and also food for the children attending school. I hope that the Under-Secretary, when he rises in his might, will try to illuminate the situation of gloom that has arisen owing to the fact that whilst we were taking our food, we were informed that in his recent speech, instead of dealing with the subject in his usual brilliant fashion and making the thing plainer, he cast a gloom over the bright prospect that we had in our minds when we left the House. That prospect has become somewhat dark and dismal, and I wish to give the hon. and gallant Member an opportunity to clear up the matter, seeing that he has been the individual who has created the rift in the lute.
    Major ELLIOT: It is for the purpose of removing such overlapping as that of which the hon. Member complains, that this proposal is brought forward. In future, there will be one local authority, and it will know what its responsibilities are. In reply to the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), I would point out that this Clause is for the purpose of allowing the local authority to treat maternity cases other than under the Poor Law, that is, under the Maternity Act, which except for this Bill they might not have been able to do.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am surprised at the Under-Secretary. I was under the impression that he rose to reply to the very many substantial points that were put to him in the Debate. It is not treating the Committee with courtesy to reply in such a cursory fashion. A very substantial point has been raised, namely, whether in the reorganisation of the scheme the local authorities should be empowered to act under the Statute, rather than that they should be left to their own discretion.
    Major ELLIOT: As I explained in introducing the subject, it is OUT desire that these steps should be entered upon by the local authorities, and as the local authorities are the democratic bodies that are responsible for the public health, we do not think it necessary to impose conditions telling them to do things which we believe they will do for themselves.
    Mr. SHINWELL: The question whether the local authorities should be compelled under the Statute to act or whether the powers should be left to their discretion, is of very great importance.
    Major ELLIOT: It is not a question of whether they shall act or not, but whether they shall submit a scheme.
    Mr. SHINWELL: This subject has been one of very acute controversy in local government circles in Scotland, and also in England, for many years. I understand the Under-Secretary to say that it is undesirable to impose powers upon the local authorities, and that, as true democrats, the Members of the Government who are now on the Front Bench prefer to leave this power in the hands of the local authorities, to use as they think fit. Surely, if the power is one that should be exercised, as appears to be the opinion of the Government, the local authorities should be compelled to exercise it. I would remind the Committee of what the Under-Secretary said when he introduced the Clause. He said that this meant a break up of the Poor Law. In reply, I pointed out that it meant nothing of the kind. Does he accept my view or not? Does he withdraw his statement that this means the break up of the Poor Law? If he does, why does he not say so? Has he any views upon this matter, has he been suddenly struck dumb as a result of the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), or is he afraid to pursue the subject because of the number of hon. Members on these benches who are ready to meet anything that he has to say? It cannot be for want of eloquence or because of the lack of power to argue because, as is well known, the Under-Secretary has all the qualifications that are necessary, and we are only too willing to listen to him when he is disposed to speak to us.
    We are entitled to further information upon the points that have been raised by
    2068
    hon. Members on these benches. Moreover, the very cogent utterances of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) have not been answered. Are we to be treated with contempt by the Under-Secretary? We are not going to take it lying down. The matter is one of great-importance, affecting the administration of local government in Scotland, and not a single word has come from hon. Members on the back benches on the other side. There is, for example, the hon. and gallant Member for West Stirlingshire (Captain Fanshawe), who has ventured to address the Committee on almost every Clause that has been under review, but on this matter he has not spoken. I detect a subdued silence on the part of other hon. Members on the other side. I do think that we are entitled to a clear explanation of the position of the Government in respect of this matter.
    Finally, I put this question to the Under-Secretary quite definitely and specifically: Does he not think it would be better from the standpoint of the unfortunate people of Scotland who require, and depend upon, the functions and activities of the local authorities, that the powers should be placed in the hands of these bodies of dispensing such treatment as is intended under the Measure? Is he in favour of "may" or "shall"? That is the whole issue before the Committee, and they want further elucidation on that point. If he is not disposed to say anything about the matter, his right hon. Friend, who has not spoken for some hours, will perhaps be inclined to take up the cudgels on behalf of the Government, or perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who is itching to be up, might possibly show something of his forensic abilities and knowledge of medical jurisprudence, and say something to the Committee about this vital matter. The hon. and learned Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton), who has just arrived and whose clarity in debate is familiar to all of us, might be able to say something on the matter also. He knows nothing about it, it is true, but that is not at all uncommon. Perhaps we might have something from him. For the moment I am prepared to leave the matter there.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I rise to say a word about the very misleading speech of the Under-Secretary. The matter is not quite

    2069
    as simple as is suggested by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell). The issue between "may" and "shall" cannot be settled in a moment. The Under-Secretary suggested that he was democratic to-night, but two nights ago he was defending bureaucracy and appealing to Caesar. Now Caesar is suspect. The Under-Secretary cannot ride away with that argument. He cannot come here and suggest that the reason why "may" is in the first part, while "shall" is in the last part, is that he desires not to interfere with the liberty of the town council or the county council. There used to be an argument in the old days of theology about the sheep and the goat, but in more sophisticated and modern days the problem is not one between the sheep and the goat, but is to do with the llama. This Clause is a llama Clause, a sheep Clause and a goat Clause. In the first part it may be described as a goat Clause from this point of view, because "may" is the governing word. The third part, in my judgment, is the sheep Clause, because with regard to the disturbance of roads, sewers, drainage and anything of that kind it says they shall not be broken up without regard to coordination. There the Under-Secretary says "shall." In the middle, it is neither one nor the other. Dealing with the question of the children with regard to the functions to be performed through the education authorities, it says "unless." So that we are neither "may" nor "snail"; it depends entirely on the particular view the town council or county council takes.
    The Under-Secretary cannot expect the Committee to accept a statement of that-kind right away by expressing his great love for democracy. I am half inclined to hand in a manuscript Amendment to substitute "may" for "shall" in the first Sub-section. I think we are entitled to know why it is to be "shall" for the breaking up of roads, and not "shall" with regard to the various functions in this most vital subject, the treatment of the sick poor, alternatively under the Poor Law Act, or under the Health Act or Maternity Act. The Under-Secretary and the Government have been so weak as to substitute "may" for "shall." That cannot be defended by an appeal to democracy. I shrewdly suspect that it is
    2070
    the fear of some of the democrats that has made it "may" for "shall."
    Mr. STEPHEN: I have been very much interested in the discussion on this subject. While I was listening to it, I was reminded of a question I put to the Secretary of State for Scotland to-day. Fortunately or unfortunately for the Secretary, we did not reach it in the list. The question referred to this matter of the assistance that might be given, and I was asking the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of all that was said by the Under-Secretary about the care of the bodies of the children, he, himself, was not prepared to revise the Circular which he issued to the parish councils, restricting parish councils from paying more than 2s a week for the children. Possibly the Committee will scarcely believe the answer I got. That answer was written, and it was in the negative. There has been a lot of talk on this Amendment about the break up of the Poor Law and the possibilities there are in this Clause, and about the wonderful things that are going to happen. I put it to the Committee that there is no reality behind this. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has said that there is a certain amount of importance in whether it is to be "may" or "shall." When one considers the fact that, whether it be "may" or "shall," there is the overriding; authority of the right hon. Gentleman, and that at the present time parish councils under the Poor Law are prepared to pay more, while the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to allow them to pay more than 2s. a week, I say we have an extraordinary condemnation of the position.
    I want to refer to the second paragraph, which relates to the feeding, clothing and treatment of schoolchildren. If the Government, under the Poor Law, are prepared to make a limit of 2s. per week for everything that the local authority may provide, if 2s. a week is all that is allowed to a parish council, I wonder if Members of this Committee think there is any hope of a local authority carrying through anything on a really effective scale for our children. In consequence of those facts, and with the knowledge that there is this overriding authority upon the part of the Secretary of State, I cannot see why the Government should not be pre-

    2071
    pared to accept the alteration from "may" to "shall." The right hon. Gentleman's overriding authority would be exercisable as in the past, and any authority that had generous ideas with regard to provision for its children, would be speedily dropped upon. Seeing that the Government is still holding out as one of the great motive ideas, in connection with the reconstruction of local government in Scotland, apart from the de-rating proposals, the idea of cultivating a sound mind in a sound body in the case of the poor children, I cannot understand why there is all this boggling about "may" and "shall."
    It is a commentary on the Under-Secretary's repetition of mens sana in corpore sano the other night. It does not show that there is any disposition to have regard for the corpus sanum of the poor children at all. I hope that as an addendum to this discussion the right hon. Gentleman will feel that he was influenced by the speech of the Under-Secretary the other night, and I hope that he will have regard to the splendid plea that was put forward. I think it was sufficiently eloquent and cogent to convert any Members behind him who needed conversion with regard to taking very extraordinary steps to provide for the needs of the children. If he has any doubt as to how it might be received by his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure that the Under-Secretary will be able to repeat it for the benefit of the Chancellor or of any other members of the Cabinet. So far as the central authority is concerned it is protecting itself by means of the block grant, and it will simply be a matter for the local authority having the power within its own hands, if it believes that it is worth while and that it can do with without imposing intolerable rating burdens upon its people. Surely the local authority should have the power?
    To my mind everything that common sense can dictate and anything that reason has to say are with us in our contention. One would not feel inclined to labour it, were it not for the extraordinary position that has already been exhibited with regard to the parish councils and what they are allowed to pay out. Now I give an opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman to show
    2072
    that he has regard for the material well-being of the people in his own country. If the parish councils are prepared to act more generously than they are allowed to act under that Circular, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is no longer going to be a stumbling block in the way of these people, who are conversant with the needs of industry, with the rating burden and all the problems affecting their district, and yet are prepared to pay more. So I hope that as a result of this discussion we are going to have something that will bring a certain amount of good cheer into the homes of so many depressed people in the necessitous areas in Scotland. I am sure that all Members of the Committee realise how those homes have been overtaken by the buarden of unemployment for so many months, and in many cases for years, and the in-tolerate suffering that that has placed upon the children in those homes. There will be real satisfaction on all sides if, as a result of this discussion, the Secretary of State were to prove the bona fides of the Government by intimating that he will allow the parish councils to pay more, and that the Government are really making up their minds to go forward with a great scheme in order to improve the physical as well as the mental well-being of the child population of Scotland.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Right through the discussion we have heard, as the great and fundamental reason for this Bill, the quality of its unification. We have been told that the Government are economising by obliterating certain authorities that are now functioning, and by placing their duties in the hands of one central authority. I would have thought that, that being the case, the Secretary of State would have taken this opportunity to have provided unification in administration within the local authority itself. We have in Scotland two separate systems of dealing with the poor. We deal with infectious diseases under the Public Health Acts, and we deal with the sick poor in an entirely different way. Without attempting to elaborate the matter I think I may state this as being probably the main distinction—that the community, as a community, treats infectious disease at its own expense, but, where the poor are treated and those responsible for them

    2073
    can afford to pay, a charge is made for that treatment. I take the case of a person who contracts any infectious disease such as tuberculosis or measles or scarlet fever, or, nowadays, pneumonia— because the number of infectious diseases changes with the changing views of the medical profession of which the Under-Secretary is such a distinguished member. A disease which regarded as non-infectious to-day, may be declared infectious to-morrow. But, taking any one of the well-known and recognised infectious diseases, for the treatment of this disease by the public health authority, to whom these new duties are being transferred, no charge is made either to the person treated or to those responsible for the maintenance of the patient. But in a case of cancer, if a patient is taken from his home and treated in one of the Poor Law hospitals, then the persons responsible—[Interruption.]
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Mr. Deputy-Chairman, will you kindly pay some attention to those schoolboys on the other side?
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not think, Sir, you should trouble. We do not expect the same attention from hon. Members on the other side after they have had dinner. [HON. MEMBERS: "Stale!"] It may be stale, but the dinner has made it fresh. I was saying that, if a patient suffering from cancer, is sent to the Poor Law hospitals in Glasgow, for instance, the people responsible for the maintenance of that patient—say the family of an aged father or the parents of a younger person, if they are in sufficiently affluent circumstances—are held responsible under the existing law for the cost of the treatment of that patient in the Poor Law hospital. It is not because there is any great difference in the hospitals. We have a hospital in Glasgow run by the Poor Law authority which is probably one of the finest in the country, but, if a patient is taken in there, the expenditure on that patient has to be met out of the funds of the family, if I may use that description. We had hopes that, when the Government were unifying the administration, they would have taken the excellent opportunity thus afforded of putting all the sick of Glasgow on a level in this respect—in other words, that we would have had unification in the treatment of
    2074
    the. poor. But there is no attempt to make such provision.
    It may be asked what is the reason for this great distinction. I will try to explain it. In the matter of infectious disease, you are dealing with something which, if not treated by the community and taken out of the way, may injure the health of the rich. A person suffering from tuberculosis may have recourse to the same tramcars as rich people, and the rich people may be infected. The child of a poor family may contract measles, or some similarly infectious disease, and such a child may mix occasionally in the street or in a hall with the children of rich people and thus become a danger to the rich. All these laws are class laws. You have to face that fact. One of my hon. Friends reminds me that small-pox is an outstanding illustration of my point. You have been treating infectious disease, not because you want to treat the poor at the public expense in the interests of the poor and to benefit the poor. You have been treating infectious disease in this way, merely because it is a menace to the rich. We can see right down there the fundamentally class view that prevails in this sort of legislation. You can find it in all these Acts of Parliament.
    When you come to deal with poverty it is quite a different thing. The poverty of a member of a family is only a menace to, is only infectious to the other members of the poor family. The poverty of a family in the East End is not infectious to the family in the West End. It only infects the poor themselves and therefore does not matter. Consequently, the community, as a community, under the law as it stands, does not deal with the sick poor, simply as sick poor. If the sickness from which they suffer is no menace to the health of the rich, then the poor themselves are left to provide for the poor. As I say, we had hoped, when this boasted legislation was being placed on the Statute Book, that the opportunity would have been taken to wipe out these class distinctions. In these days when you are out for peace in industry and the removal of class war, when you want to bring about harmony in the nation, we thought you would have begun here at the firesides of the poor and given practical expression to the sentiments which you express and

    2075
    promote in the things in which you are industrially interested.
    There is another very strong objection to this proposal. It has been pointed out that the words "may" and "shall" differ considerably. Not only do the words differ, but the results which are bound to accrue from the operation of the Measure with the word "may" in it, will be vastly different from the results that must accrue if the word "shall" be inserted. Are you not very likely to have a position such as this between two authorities which are side by side? Take Glasgow and Lanarkshire for example. Glasgow may provide a scheme which will deal with a number of the things indicated here and Lanarkshire may not. Thus you will have one health system in Glasgow and another in Lanarkshire. Is it desirable that there should be the possibility of different counties in Scotland operating under different systems in the treatment of the sick poor? I submit that it should be made an obligation on the local authority to deal with the sick poor, exactly in the way in which it deals with them now, if they are suffering from infectious disease. I put this question to the Lord Advocate. The Government have laid down here how the poor are to be treated and it is said that they may be treated under enactments other than the Poor Law Acts. We may be pardoned for not knowing all about all the Acts of Parliament when we are without books of reference and I think it is not unreasonable to ask the Lord Advocate what are those enactments. I know that one of them will be the Act dealing with child welfare and all that appertains to child welfare. But what are the others?
    I think, before coming to a decision, we should be guided by our legal authorities on the Front Bench, in whose legal wisdom we have the greatest confidence, and who in their treatment of the Opposition are always courteous and clear. I am not asking anything unreasonable when I ask that, if the Government put before us a scheme that says that the sick poor "may" be treated—that is assuming two things, that you get a proper, progressive local authority and that you have at the same time a proper, progressive Secretary of State for Scot-
    2076
    land; you have to back each; it is not a mere single; you must get the two winners at the same time—under enactments other than the Poor Law Acts we should have a little knowledge given to us. It may be a dangerous thing—I hope it will not be dangerous on this occasion— but we ought to know what these other Acts of Parliament are under which the sick poor may be treated outside of the Poor Law and the Act dealing with child welfare. That information will be for the benefit, not merely of this Committee, but of the Scottish people who, I hope, are following these discussions with interest and not without pride. When I get that information, I shall be in a much better position to decide how I should record my vote in this matter.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to reinforce the point which has been put by two or three speakers before me. There is one thing which I cannot understand— and this point was brought out by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), in dealing with the maintenance and treatment of sick persons the Amendment says it "may" be done under certain Acts. Then, in Sub-section (5), you have the position that it "shall" be done, provided that a larger authority gives its consent; and in Subsection (6), when dealing with roads, you there say that it must be done. The right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) said that the local authority must deal with the persons who apply for treatment in regard to infectious diseases, and he asked, quite rightly, why a distinction was drawn between persons suffering from infectious diseases and persons who were suffering from other diseases. I put it to the Secretary of State: Is it not equally a public duty to cure illness, whether it be infectious or not; and is not the work of curing disease not less clamant or needful because a doctor says that one diseases is infectious and another one is not? If it be granted, in case of infectious disease, that it is the right thing to cure that disease free, whatever the case of the individual, then why should we stop there? Here you have the position, in regard to roads, which are the things which the ordinary merchant needs, and society needs, to carry on productive

    2077
    work, that the Secretary of State for Scotland says that these things "must" be done. He therefore inserts the word "shall," because he wants to see nothing interfering between the ordinary, common carrying on of commercial society; nothing must interfere with the everyday profit-making of ordinary capital. Therefore, the road-work must be done and shall be done; and that is included in this Bill. When, however, it comes to disease, and to the treatment of the ordinary sick poor, in contrast to roads, I recall the earlier discussion in the Committee and the amount of fire that was put into it. In that discussion hon. Members talked about their early youth and about the influences which went to form their outlook. How much we talk about Christian outlook! Yet, when we come to this Committee and ask hon. Members to translate their Christian outlook into their everyday life, and to treat the poor as they should be treated, somehow or another the treatment of the poor stops short of that translation into actual practice. Here, hon. Members are prepared to translate their Christianity into roads but not into human beings. They are prepared to say that roads "must" be treated in this way, but, when it comes to human beings and to sickness, they "may" only be treated in that way. In other words, people may be allowed to die, but the work of carrying on the roads must be continued. That is this Amendment. I ask the Secretary of State why there is this difference in treatment?
    Take the recent outbreak of influenza, which was not infectious. The right hon. Member for Shettleston says that this Amendment is going to make the position of the people much worse. In the recent epidemic in Glasgow it was not uncommon for the general doctors and others to order their patients away, not to Poor Law hospitals but to hospitals under the control of the Poor Law authority, not for infectious disease, but for influenza. Not one of those patients had to pay. The right hon. Member for Shettleston must know that better than I do, because he has one of the largest hospitals in his district—the Belvedere Hospital. It was not uncommon for a patient to be ordered to that hospital for influenza treatement. In an answer which the Secretary of State for Scotland gave me the other day,
    2078
    he rightly claimed a certain pride when he said that the waiting list for hospital accommodation for influenza cases had now been reduced. The previous answer was that the waiting list had beer revised considerably, but the second answer he gave was that it had been entirely abolished. These people have got into hospitals, some controlled by Poor Law and some controlled by civic authorities, and not one of these persons or their relatives was asked to pay. From my reading of this Sub-section, if any person takes influenza, which is not scheduled as infectious, every person in Glasgow who is sent to an institution under the control of this authority will be called upon, or their relatives will be called upon to pay.
    In this Amendment, the Secretary of State is throwing back the hands of progress and doing what even his friends in the Glasgow Town Council have never proposed to do; that is, to compel payment for the treatment of disease of this kind. The result will be that if an epidemic of influenza breaks out—and the Secretary of State says he wants to grapple with such epidemics—in a great number of cases the people affected will not go into an institution, but will remain at home in room and kitchen or single-apartment houses. The greatest curse in Glasgow to-day is debt; no poor person wants to get into debt. I heard the name of a prominent divine mentioned in the earlier part of the Debate; even he admitted in a recent speech that Glasgow's housing conditions are a credit to nobody. During the recent influenza epidemic it was discovered that one of the reasons for the prevalence of the disease—and I do not blame the doctors—was that in many cases the doctors were unable to get payment because the people could not pay for medical assistance. The people would not go into an institution where they could be attended by a doctor.
    This is a much more serious position than the Secretary of State seems to be aware, and he is accepting Amendments of which he does not know the implication. Even where treatment in the institutions is free, we know the difficulty of getting many people to go into them. Let the Secretary of State ask Dr. Clark or any of the other doctors in charge of the health services who know all about that. The proposal of the Secretary of

    2079
    State will be a cause of propagating disease in future years when epidemics of this kind break out. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be courageous enough and big enough not on this occasion merely to repeat his parrot cry of no, but that he will put in place of this Amendment a decent Amendment which will secure to every sick person, without regard to class or creed, the treatment which they require in their hour of need.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the word "may" and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
    I put a question to the Under-Secretary of State as to what would be the application of this particular Amendment to the feeding of school children. I regret that, while he replied to one or two of the points which were put forward, he omitted, I believe quite inadvertently, to reply to that question. So long as the word "may" remains in this Amendment, it will be possible to pauperise every parent who is compelled to apply for assistance in the way of having boots or clothing or food provided for his necessitous children. I ask for a definite pledge to be given that you are not going to extend the taint of pauperism to the feeding and clothing of school children whose parents, because of poverty, are compelled to make application for such food and clothing. The Under-Secretary informed us that this was but the prelude to a new Clause, a Clause that will be more damaging and more destructive of any good intentions that there might have been at the back of the mind of the Government in introducing this Measure. Time and again we have emphasised the fact that our fear is not the wiping away of some of the administrative bodies, but the fear that you will carry the taint of pauperism into so many of your other public services.
    In moving this Amendment to the proposed Amendment, I want it made quite clear that the respective county councils must, in their schemes, see to it that any provision of hoots and clothing or of food for necessitous children shall be kept free of the Poor Law and the taint of pauperism. As there has been so great a desire on the part of the Government to
    2080
    meet the demands of the teachers, in connection with their schemes of reorganisation, I think I can say for the teachers of Scotland that they certainly do not want to see the spirit of pauperism associated with any of our educational administration. I plead for a reply, or rather I think we are entitled to get a quite definite statement from the Government whether they are going to keep this particular service clear of the taint of pauperism.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) has just made an impassioned appeal to me for a reply, and I am quite prepared to respond to the desires of the Committee. Let me say at once that this is no case of fixing any stigma of pauperisation on anybody. Quite the contrary. It may be that the proposals which the Government make do not go quite so far as some hon. Members would desire, nor may these proposals be entirely in accord with the views of some of the hon. Members opposite, but to describe this Clause or any part of it, and particularly the first Sub-section of it, which deals with the particular question of institutional treatment and of sick persons, as embodying the taint of pauperism, is a pure travesty of the facts. Of course, the use of the expression "the break-up of the Poor Law" may be interpreted by one person in. one way and by another person in a different way, but it is quite clear that unless the Government did introduce this Clause, or a Clause of this kind in some form, the circumstances dealing with the treatment of the poor would remain as they are to-day. The fact is that by the introduction of this Clause we are making a definite change and a definite advance. That it should be mandatory is not possible. It is proposed that the authorities shall put up certain schemes, and in them they will show how they propose to deal with these problems. They will not only be enabled to submit any proposal by which they will continue to deal in all its present aspects with Poor Law treatment, but also to produce a scheme by which those sick persons who do not come under the Poor Law, but are in poor circumstances, can be treated, and the authority will have the opportunity of recovering from them such amount as they think desirable.
    Mr. STEWART: The right hon. Gentleman is unconsciously misleading the Committee. In that proposal, the word "shall" is used and yet the right hon. Gentleman says that there is nothing mandatory about it.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: There is nothing mandatory in this. The local authority concerned with these things must be the judges of what they can do, and whether they should do it. We are following very much the same kind of system which has been carried out across the Border in this country; and here I will point out that, while hon. Members may abuse me for following in the wake of England, and asking the Committee to consider a step to bring our system in Scotland more into accord with the system which is being conducted across the Border, we are here conferring an important power upon local authorities. They will produce a scheme showing how they propose to deal with this problem, and, as everybody knows, one of the greatest difficulties which anybody in dealing with this problem has to keep in mind is the relative balance between the position of the voluntary hospitals and the voluntary services, and the services which may be created by the local authorities.
    it is clear that under the proposals of the Government it will be possible for a scheme to be produced which will be investigated by the Department of Health, in which all the circumstances will by taken into consideration. The local authority will be able to produce this scheme after consultation with all the voluntary institutions in the distfict, and, if that scheme be approved, then only will those who are conducting such institutions as the Stobhill institution, which is well-known, be able to take within their walls and deal with cases outside the present system. At the same time, they will, of course, be the judges of how much these individuals are able to contribute, if anything, and whether they can in certain circumstances waive the payment. But I would say to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they would make a very great mistake indeed if they endeavoured, certainly under the present conditions in Scotland, to impose definitely upon a local authority a task of which they have no conception and as to which they are not in a position
    2082
    to judge whether the local authority can reasonably and fairly undertake it. That must be left to local circumstances —to consultation and the framing of schemes.
    I would say that the first Sub-section in this Amendment docs open the way for a complete revision and a break up of the present Poor Law system. The second Sub-section is, of course, merely an arrangement under which, in the large burghs, there stall be established some machinery by which the councils of those large burghs shall be, in addition to being the authority for education, the health authority also; it is essential that we should make some provision for a working arrangement to be arrived at. The last and final Subsection is inserted to deal with the question of main roads which run through the burghs and to secure reciprocity and the avoidance of difficulties in opening those roads for the laying of sewers and cables or other purposes. I submit to the Committee that the Under-Secretary was perfectly justified in using the terms which he did use, and that it is a little ungracious on the part of the hon. Gentlemen who, I know, are genuinely interested in this subject, not to recognise that in making this proposal we are taking a very big step and one which, I hope, will be to the. advantage of the general public and for the improvement of the health of the people.
    Mr. E. BROWN: Having spoken twice in the general Debate, I only wish to say a word in reference to the very vital point raised by the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood). The point is really a legal one. What we are asked to do in this Amendment is to assimilate action which at the present time is being carried out under different codes of law. Some services are carried on under the Poor Law, some under general health legislation and some under particular health Acts. The feeding and clothing of necessitous children, if not the children of people presently drawing Poor Law relief, is to take place under the education code. What we are asked to do is this—in the case where the "may" is not acted on, where no scheme is put forward providing that that service shall take place under some other Act than the Poor Law we shall really be saying that this service shall be rendered under the Poor Law. It is an

    2083
    important point. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite smile, but if this is an important point upon which to vote it also deserves that we should spend a minute or two upon it. If the Lord Advocate, who shakes his head, will apply his mind to this subject, he will find that later on this same problem will arise under the two codes of law dealing with repayment. The Public Health legislation says a local authority "may"
    claim repayment; the Poor Law says they "must," and in another Clause later on in the Bill he will be asked to link up these two, making the Poor Law the governing one. That is a vital point, and I hope the Government will take it into their consideration before the Report stage of the Bill.
    Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 107.

    Division No. 186.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

    Albery, Irving James

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

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

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

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Atkinson, C,

    Grant, Sir J. A.

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

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Oakley, T.

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

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

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

    Berry, Sir George

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Bevan, S. J.

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Birchall. Major J. Dearman

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Blundell, F. N.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Phillpson, Mabel

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Harland, A.

    Pilcher, G.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Briggs, J. Harold

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Ramsden, E.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Remer, J. R.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Hills. Major John Waller

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

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

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

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Burman, J. B.

    Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Ropner, Major L.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Ross, R. D.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. sir Aylmer

    Sandon, Lord

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    James, Lieut,-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Savery, S. S.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Skelton. A. N.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

    Couper, J. B.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt Hon. Sir Phll'p

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

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

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

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbrol

    Long, Major Eric

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lougher, Lewis

    Stuart, Crichton-.Lord C.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

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

    Lumley, L. R.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen, S)

    Dixey, A. C.

    MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    MacIntyre, I.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    McLean, Major A.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

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

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Meller, R. J.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Wells, S. R.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

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

    Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    TELLERS KOR THE AYES.—

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Wragg, Herbert

    Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.

    Womersley, W. J.

    NOES.

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

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

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hardle, George D.

    Potts, John S.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Purcell, A. A.

    Barnes, A.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Ritson, J,

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall. St. Ives)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bellamy, A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Scurr, John

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Briant, Frank

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Shinwell, E.

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kennedy, T.

    Smillie. Robert

    Buchanan, G.

    Kirkwood, D-

    Stamford, T. W.

    Charleton, H, C.

    Lansbury, George

    Stephen, Campbell

    Clark, A. B.

    Lawson, John James

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cluse, W. S

    Lee, F.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Compton, Joseph

    Longbottom, A. W.

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

    Connolly, M.

    Lowth, T.

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lunn, William

    Townend, A. E,

    Crawfurd, H. E.

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

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Dennison, R.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Duncan, C.

    Mackinder, W.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Dunnico, H.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Westwood, J.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    MacNeill-Weir L.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Forrest, W.

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

    Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Maxton, James

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Morris, R. H.

    Windsor, Walter

    Gillett, George M.

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

    Wright, W.

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

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Murnin, H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, D. B. (Glamorgan)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Ponlypool)

    Palin, John Henry

    Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

    It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, to put forthwith the Question neces-
    sary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 105.

    Division No. 187.]

    AYES.

    [10.39 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Brocklebank, C. E. R,

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Albery, Irving James

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Alexander sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbre)

    Allen, Sir J, Sandeman

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    Burman, J. B.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K,

    Carver, Major W. H.

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

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

    Cassels, J. D.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Atkinson, C.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N (Ladywood)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Bevan, S. J.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Cooper, A, Duff

    Forrest, W.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Couper, J. B.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Frsmantle, Lt-Col. Francis E.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Long, Major Eric

    Ross, R. D.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lougher, Lewis

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

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

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Salmon, Major I.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Lumley, L. R,

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Grant. Sir J. A.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Sandon, Lord

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    McLean, Major A.

    Savery, S. S.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Macquisten, F. A.

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

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Skelton, A. N.

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

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

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

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Meller, R. J.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Harland, A.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Mitchell. I. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Tinne, J. A.

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

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Hope, sir Harry (Forfar)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Oakley, T.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

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

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Perring, Sir William George

    Wayland, Sir William A.

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

    Phillpson, Mabel

    Wells, S. R.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Pilcher, G.

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

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

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Radford, E. A.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Womersley, W. J.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Ramsden, E.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Remer, J. R.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Rodd. Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Captain Margesson and Mr. Penny.

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

    Ropner, Major L.

    NOES.

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

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

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney a Shetland)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Potts, John S.

    Amnion, Charles George

    Hayday, Arthur

    Purcell, A. A.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Ritson, J.

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bellamy, A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Scurr, John

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

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

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Briant, Frank

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Shinwell, E.

    Bromley, J.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kennedy, T.

    Smillie, Robert

    Buchanan, G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lansbury, George

    Stephen, Campbell

    Clark, A. B.

    Lawson, John James

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lee, F.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lindley. F. W.

    Taylor, R A.

    Compton, Joseph

    Longbottom, A. W.

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

    Connolly, M.

    Lowth, T.

    Tomlinson. R. P.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lunn, William

    Townend, A. E.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

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

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Dennison, R.

    Mackinder, W,

    Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Duncan, C.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Dunnico, H.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Westwood, J.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gardner, J. P,

    Maxton, James

    Whiteley, W.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Morris, R. H.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Gillett, George M

    Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N )

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Murnin, H.

    Wright, W.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Palin, John Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

    Grundy, T. W.

    Paling, W.

    Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A. Barnes.

    Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes before Eleven o'Clock.

EDUCATION.
  DRINKING WATER, SCHOOLS.
  DRINKING WATER, SCHOOLS.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  EXHIBITIONS (LONDON UNIVERSITY).
  EXHIBITIONS (LONDON UNIVERSITY).
SCOTLAND.
  MINERS' BELIEF.
  MINERS' BELIEF.
  ALLOWANCES (CHILDREN).
  ALLOWANCES (CHILDREN).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
ROYAL NAVY.
  WELFARE CONFERENCE.
  WELFARE CONFERENCE.
  SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
  SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (MATTING).
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (MATTING).
  EMPIRE AND FOREIGN TEAS.
  EMPIRE AND FOREIGN TEAS.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  MINES (RE-OPENING).
  MINES (RE-OPENING).
  HORSES, CLAY CROSS COMPANY'S PIT.
  HORSES, CLAY CROSS COMPANY'S PIT.
  EXPORT SUPPLIES, NORTH-EAST COAST
  EXPORT SUPPLIES, NORTH-EAST COAST
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  MILK (ADULTERATION).
  MILK (ADULTERATION).
  CANCER (STATISTICS).
  CANCER (STATISTICS).
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  Noxious GASES, FACTORIES.
  Noxious GASES, FACTORIES.
HOUSING.
  OVERCROWDING, LONDON.
  OVERCROWDING, LONDON.
  SLUM CLEARANCE, ST. MARYLEBONE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE, ST. MARYLEBONE.
  BRITISH BUILDING MATERIALS.
  BRITISH BUILDING MATERIALS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  CASUAL WARDS, BANGOR.
  CASUAL WARDS, BANGOR.
  AGED PERSONS, MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (INSURANCE).
  AGED PERSONS, MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (INSURANCE).
  MESSENGERS, HORSE GUARDS (DUTIES).
  MESSENGERS, HORSE GUARDS (DUTIES).
  UNITED SEKVICES FUND.
  UNITED SEKVICES FUND.
POST OFFICE.
  THEFTS (INVESTIGATION, POLICE CO-OPERATION).
  THEFTS (INVESTIGATION, POLICE CO-OPERATION).
  PENNY POSTAGE.
  PENNY POSTAGE.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  BENEFIT
  BENEFIT
  MINERS, WREXHAM.
  MINERS, WREXHAM.
  SCHEMES, LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  SCHEMES, LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  BETHNAL GREEN.
  BETHNAL GREEN.
  MATCH FACTORIES, ESTONIA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
  MATCH FACTORIES, ESTONIA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (WORKING DAYS LOST).
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (WORKING DAYS LOST).
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, DARLINGTON.
  EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, DARLINGTON.
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF OPENING).
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF OPENING).
  YOUNG PRISONERS, SURREY.
  YOUNG PRISONERS, SURREY.
  NIGHT CLUBS.
  NIGHT CLUBS.
  CRIMINAL LUNATICS.
  CRIMINAL LUNATICS.
  BETTING CONTROL BOARD.
  BETTING CONTROL BOARD.
  MOUNTED BRANCH, LONDON.
  MOUNTED BRANCH, LONDON.
POLICE.
  CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT.
  CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT.
  WOMEN (ENROLMENT).
  WOMEN (ENROLMENT).
  SEA-WALL DAMAGE (RELIEF GRANTS).
  SEA-WALL DAMAGE (RELIEF GRANTS).
  FARM SETTLEMENT ALLOTMENTS, SUTTON BRIDGE.
  FARM SETTLEMENT ALLOTMENTS, SUTTON BRIDGE.
AGRICULTURE.
  MILK (UTILISATION).
  MILK (UTILISATION).
  WEST AFRICA (OFFICIALS, TERMS OF SERVICE).
  WEST AFRICA (OFFICIALS, TERMS OF SERVICE).
  DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).
  DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).
  COLONIAL VETERINARY SERVICE.
  COLONIAL VETERINARY SERVICE.
KENYA.
  WATER BILL.
  WATER BILL.
  INDIAN CIVIL SERVANT (APPOINTMENT).
  INDIAN CIVIL SERVANT (APPOINTMENT).
  IRISH GRANTS COMMITTEE.
  IRISH GRANTS COMMITTEE.
  EX-SERVICE MEN (HOUSING ESTATE, DUNDRUM).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (HOUSING ESTATE, DUNDRUM).
  TRADE UNIONS (CHIEF REGISTRAR'S REPORT).
  TRADE UNIONS (CHIEF REGISTRAR'S REPORT).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CHELTENHAM DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª
MANSFIELD DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
SUTTON DISTRICT WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
ASIATIC STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
CHATHAM AND DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
CORN EXCHANGE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
GOSPORT AND FAREHAM OMNIBUS SERVICES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
JARROW AND SOUTH SHIELDS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
SHEFFIELD GAS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª.

PRIVATE BILLS (CONSOLIDATION).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, the Motion standing on the Paper in my name is for the appointment of your Lordships' half of the Joint Committee on Private Bills which have for their object the consolidation of previous Private Acts. Your Lordships will notice that the names submitted are the names of the six Peers who are already undertaking this burden as regards Public Bills, and I think we are fortunate in being able to count on the help of the same noble Lords for this purpose. There are two Private Bills coming under the description of the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as a Joint Committee, to consider all Private Bills for the exclusive purpose of consolidating the provisions of existing Private Acts of Parliament:
That the following Lords be named of the Committee—

E. Lucan,

E. Iddesleigh,

L. Sandhurst,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. AskWith,

L. Warrington of Clyffe.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them there-with, and to request them to appoint six members of that, House to be joined with the said Committee.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, when this Bill was under discussion on the last occasion your Lordships thought fit to insert an Amendment upon the Motion of my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill which he frankly told us had been drafted by, or at any rate under the influence of, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, who had taken part in the Committee stage. That Amendment was inserted and we were very unlucky on that day in that we did not have the honour of the presence of the noble and learned Lord, no doubt for the very best possible reasons. Accordingly we had to take the recommendation of this Amendment—I say it with all respect—at second hand, when we should naturally have preferred to have it from the author of the Amendment himself. I do not desire to dwell upon that point further than to congratulate your Lordships upon the fact that this evening we have the noble and learned Lord with us, and he will be able to tell us what he thinks of the Bill as it now stands, improved no doubt by the Amendment which he drafted.
The Government have been placed in a great difficulty in respect of this Bill from the very beginning. We were unwilling to volunteer opposition to this Bill, partly because it was in the charge of the noble Lord who is a great personal and political friend of most of us who sit on this side of the House, and partly because the main object of the Bill was to prevent the odious sin of cruelty. From the very beginning, however, the Government were aware that the Bill, though conceived with the very best intentions, was unworkable, and my noble friend Lord Desborough, who was representing the Home Office at that time, explained to your Lordships how much the Government sympathised with the object of the Bill but how convinced they were from the information at their dis-
872
posal that the Bill would not work. My noble friend Lord Banbury was not convinced. He proceeded with his Bill and certain Amendments were introduced into it during its several stages, some of them being to the advantage of the Bill—namely, those to which I have already referred—while others I think made some of the clauses towards the end of the Bill as it now stands even more unworkable than they were.
We have now upon the Motion for the Third Reading to take the Bill as it stands as a whole. Speaking on behalf of the Government I am afraid I cannot pretend that the Bill as it stands is likely to be an effective piece of legislation. On the question of whether it is workable or not, I shall have a word to say in a moment, but I should like, if I may, to dwell briefly upon the question whether it is going to be an effective piece of legislation. It is very easy to say that the Bill will not do any harm and that we may as well pass it. Is that really a suitable attitude for your Lordships to adopt? Let me call your Lordships' attention to the fact that even if the Bill is barely workable it will give a vast amount of trouble to a number of servants of the Crown without any result. I refer to the Post Office officials, the postmasters in all the villages and hamlets in the country, and to the police officials whose business it is to see, if they can, that the law is effective. If you present these officials with an unworkable law you are not merely doing nothing, but you are really doing positive harm because you are loading upon the shoulders of these public servants, who are already charged with a very heavy burden, work which they cannot effectively carry out.
If I may say so with respect to your Lordships, let us not be misled by a compassionate feeling for the object of the Bill and the sufferings of these unfortunate dogs into passing legislation which I venture to say we cannot pretend to be effective. I am afraid that as the Bill stands it is undoubtedly ineffective. Its object, of course, is to deprive a man who has been convicted of cruelty to a dog of the right of keeping any dog in the future. He is not to have a licence at all; that is to say, it is in the power of the magistrate, in addition to the penalty which he inflicts, to add that further penalty. Is that penalty a work-

873
able penalty? It has been, of course, pointed out over and over again that anybody can take out a licence and it is not, as Lord Bertie of Thame seems to think, that the person who represents the other will come and say: "I collie on behalf of this person who has been convicted of cruelty to a dog, and I wish to take out a licence in his name." The person who takes out the licence will take it out in his own name, and the dog will quite as effectively belong to the cruel man who employs the man who takes out the licence as if the criminal himself had taken out the licence. It is obvious that that must happen over and over again. A relation or a butler—that is the suggested gentleman, though it need not necessarily be a butler but anybody—any dependent or friend or relative could and would, of course, take out the licence, not in the name of the criminal but in his or her own name, and for all effective purposes the dog would be in the hands of the cruel man just as if he had himself taken out the licence.
It is obvious that the thing could not work effectively, and therefore I venture to say it is ineffective. It is not only ineffective but it is very cumbrous because, in order to try to meet these difficulties which have been put to the House on the various stages of the Bill, my noble friend put in a clause which prescribes that a declaration must be signed by the person who takes out the licence. That clause is as follows:—
"A person applying for a dog licence shall be required to sign a declaration that the licence so applied for is neither directly nor indirectly on behalf of a person whose licence has been revoked or suspended under an order of the court."
So everybody who takes out a licence, even where there has been no cruelty at all, will have to sign this declaration. I forget how many hundreds of thousands of licences are issued every year: I think they run into millions; and in every case the local postmaster will have to have a form and this form will have to be signed by the applicant for a Licence in the terms that I have read from the Bill. It may be said to be a very small thing and in any one case it is very small, but when it is multiplied by the number of licences issued and when you think of all this machinery and the printing of the forms and all the other things which have to be gone through, then one must neces-
874
sarily pause and ask these questions: (1) Is it likely to be effective when it is done? I have already answered that question. (2) Is there such an enormous number of cases of cruelty that cumbrous legislation of this kind is called for? I do not think there is a very large number of cases.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh, yes, I have any number.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My noble friend has not communicated them up to now to the House, and although he may have a certain number, I think it is not extravagant to say that, having regard to the millions of dogs in this country and the hundreds of thousands of people who hold licences for them, the number of cases of cruelty to dogs in Great Britain is very small indeed. I would venture to say that even if my noble friend should produce a score or two of cases amongst the great mass of dogs, considering what the feeling is in England towards animals, and especially towards dogs and horses which stand quite by themselves in British public opinion—I venture to say that the number of cases of cruelty of the kind with which the noble Lord is dealing and which calls for a remedy of this sort, if possible, is very few indeed. I suggest that to apply a very cumbrous remedy of this kind, which incidentally is also a very ineffective one, to a very small number of cases is not good legislation. You are going to throw a duty upon the police throughout the country to try to make the measure work and to try to make inquiries as to whether it is being obeyed and the law enforced, and I say that you are throwing a burden upon servants of the Crown throughout the length and breadth of the country which is not defensible. It is for those reasons that the Government have shrunk all along from giving their support to this Bill, and no doubt the noble and learned Lord will say what he thinks as to its practicability. I would suggest to your Lordships that it is not wise and that it is not really becoming in this House to pass legislation which you know to be ineffective merely because you happen to think it can do no harm or will never get through another place.
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, I must express apology to the House if I caused

875
any embarrassment to anybody by being absent, as I was absent on rather urgent private business, when the Report, stage was taken. I have to admit paternity of the Amendment to the first clause, but I thought that perhaps the presence of the apparent father, Lord Banbury, would have been sufficient. I must also admit that I still have the affection for this first clause that a father is generally supposed to possess. As I understand the object of the Bill it is a very simple one, which I think would appeal to the ordinary man and it is this: that there are and may be such cases of cruelty as to make it reasonable that a bench of justices before whom a man is convicted of cruelty to a dog, may say that that man is not fit to keep a dog at all or is not fit to keep a dog for a particular time. If that can be carried out with any degree of reasonableness, it appears to me that that is quite an effective weapon against cruelty with which to arm the justices.
I cannot help thinking that as far as the first clause is concerned it is a clause which may do some good. I think it is perfectly true, as the noble Marquess has said, that it is a clause which may in some cases be evaded, but that unfortunately applies to a great many laws and I think there must be a considerable residue of cases in which it could not be evaded and in which the power would be a useful power. I should like to point out that it does not necessarily defeat the clause in the Bill for some representative of the person, whether a butler or a brother-in-law, to go and obtain a licence, because the offence created by the Bill, after all, is keeping a dog after such an order has been made. The brother-in-law may hold the licence, but the convicted person is still keeping the dog, and that is the subject matter of the offence and it is a matter in which the bench of magistrates are very competent to discern what is the real truth. My own view—and I have some little experience of the working of a bench of magistrates in a country district—is that there would be no difficulty of administration. The magistrates themselves are very fit to deal with this class of case, they will get assistance from the police, and there is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and members of the society, who are on the look out for cases
876
of cruelty. I think myself that the clause is workable. I do not think it is going to operate in very many cases, but there is a residue of cases in which the powers will be useful and in which the cause of desiring to prevent cruelty to animals could be furthered.
But I am bound to say that I am put in a considerable difficulty by the remainder of the Bill. As I pointed out, on a former occasion, the last two clauses appear to me to have the objection which the noble Marquess has imputed to them. Clause I really provides that no dog licence, even if granted, shall be operative during the period which I may call the period of suspension, and it seems to me with great respect to be unnecessary to go on to provide that such a person shall not apply for a licence or that the person should have to make a declaration that no such order has been made against him. Let us see the position. I do not contemplate—I do not think the noble Lord who promoted the Bill can contemplate—that very many orders are likely to be made in the course of a year. They would probably not amount to a score. We are told that there are about 3,000,000 dog licences issued every year. Surely it is quite unpractical that three million persons should make declarations that they have not had an order of this kind made against them. It involves the altering of the form. It involves that every person who applies for his dog licence, as he does for other licences, shall fill up this declaration. The Government have to see that all the forms are reprinted with this declaration included, or that separate declarations are made, and a great deal of formality is gone through which I venture to think is quite unnecessary and really, from a working point of view, quite unpractical. I am bound to say that as long as these clauses exist the public disadvantages outweigh the public advantage of the first clause. If my noble friend would undertake that elsewhere these clauses shall not be persisted in one would feel a different view about it, but at the present moment as long as these clauses remain in the Bill, I am bound to say that however much I approve of the main feature of the Bill I think it is a Bill which the House should not pass.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the only reason why I moved these

877
two offending clauses was that the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, raised the point. The late Lord Cave said that the Report stage was the proper time and opportunity for correcting any Amendments which had been passed in the Committee stage. Surely it was almost the duty of the noble Marquess, if I may say so, to move the deletion of these clauses on Report. No voice was raised against these two clauses in Committee; they went, as it were, by default. Your Lordships had the opportunity on Report of revising the first decision and failed to do so. As I have told your Lordships on many occasions, I am never jealous of my own drafting or of my own ideas of the language used in a Bill. I probably should not have opposed the deletion of the clauses. As it is the noble Marquess waits till now and uses this as a sort of extra stick to defeat the Bill with. If the Bill were now altered in another place I should certainly not think of attempting to oppose that alteration when the Bill returned to this House.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, if in another place the Home Office still think that Clauses 2 and 3 should be left out I should have no objection whatever to their being left out. They were not in the original Bill, they were nut in by my noble friend Lord Bertie of Thame, in order to meet the abjection of the Home Office—an objection which has been raised again by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when he talks about the butler going and taking out a licence which the owner of the dog is prevented from taking out. I do not see that there is very much trouble, when a form is sent you on January 1 to fill up regarding men servants, armorial bearings, carriages, motor cars and dogs, in saying that you are not taking out your licence for somebody who has been prevented from taking out a licence, or in going to a post office and filling up a form which is handed to you across the counter. When one considers the enormous number of forms which Government Departments are always pouring upon you—much to my objection—I do not think that a small form of this sort really matters very much. But, as I say, these clauses were not in the original Bill and I understand that my noble friend would not object
878
if the Home Office in another place were to say that in their opinion these clauses had better be left out and that the Bill would be better without them. I should myself be only too glad to consent.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury said he did not think there were many cases. Only to-day in The Times I read this:—
"At the Kingston County Police Court yesterday, Arthur George Richardson, an omnibus conductor"—
he would not have a butler at least I do not think so—
"described as of Radnor Road, Weybridge, was fined £3 for causing unnecessary suffering to a dog. A policeman stated that the dog was found tied up outside a bungalow next to a dwelling which Richardson had left ten days previously, at Field Common, Walton. The dog, a large lurcher, was starving. Inspector Bowskin, of the R.S.P.C.A., said that the dog, which had since been destroyed, had been exposed to the wind and frost for ten nights. Richardson said that when he left the premises the dog was running about, and he thought a woman in one of the bungalows would look after it. The Chairman (Mr. F. Brown) said the defendant almost deserved to go to prison."
In a case of that sort surely it ought to have been in the power of the magistrates to say: "We shall not allow you either in the next year or the next two years or for any time to have another dog to treat in that way."
That is one case. Here is another one, last Tuesday week:—
"For cruelty to a wire-haired fox terrier, Dorothy Faulconer, a lodging-house keeper, of Cavendish Road, Leeds, was fined £25, with £10 s. costs, and was sent to prison for three months. Mr. R. C. Davies, prosecuting for the R.S.P.C.A., said that an inspector of the society visited the woman's house, and was told by her that she had held up the dog by the tail because it flew at her. She said: You can summon me, and I will pay any fine you like.' An examination of the dog revealed severe and recent scalds and burns. The dog was destroyed.
Faulconer, continued Mr. Davies, was seen holding the dog and a poker, which, he would suggest, was red-hot. She held the dog before a red-hot fire and made it howl in agony. She then let hot water run over it, still holding it by the tail, and left it in an exhausted condition in the sink with the cold water tap running.
The Magistrate said Faulconer appeared to have acted with devilish cruelty."
I have several cases here, but I do not wish to weary the House with them.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury—I know, of course, inadvertently—made a

879
mistake when he informed your Lordships a few days ago, on the Report stage, that this Bill interfered with and altered the existing law. He said that under the existing law a man had to be convicted twice of cruelty before he could be deprived of an animal. My noble friend is mistaken. I have here the Statute, the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, and Section 3 provides:—
"If the owner of any animal shall be guilty of cruelty within the meaning of this Act to the animal, the court, upon his conviction thereof"—
exactly the same words as those in my Bill—
"may, if they think fit, in addition to any other punishment, deprive such person of the ownership of the animal, and may make such order as to the disposal of the animal as they think fit under the circumstances."
Those words are practicaly the same as the words in my Bill. Then there comes this proviso:—
"Provided that no order shall be made under this section, unless it is shown by evidence as to a previous conviction, or as to the character of the owner, or otherwise, that the animal, if left with the owner, is likely to be exposed to further cruelty."
Your Lordships will see, therefore, that all that is necessary is that there should have been a conviction. If there has been a conviction it is then in the option of the magistrates to deprive the owner of the animal, provided that there has been a second conviction or if they do not like his character or otherwise Those are vague words which a noble and learned Lord has told me mean that the magistrates can do anything they like. I thought I would like to read that section to your Lordships because the statement made by the noble Marquess has gone out to the Press and has not been contradicted. Therefore I think it is well that the position should be known.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Marquess in the earlier part of his observations seemed to me rather to have been dealing with the Bill as it was introduced than with the Bill as it is now, because some of them seemed to me hardly to apply to the Bill in its present form. Of course, there is the objection to making these unnecessary declarations by millions of persons, and in that I share entirely the view of the noble and learned Lord who is responsible for the form of Clause 1. After all, declara-
880
tions are required now for very small things. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware, but if you venture to buy a health insurance stamp which extends to 13 weeks instead of to one week, you are expected to make a declaration at the Post Office that you do not intend to use it illegally, which seems rather unnecessary. I dare say your Lordships may not know that it is an offence of which the police are expected to take cognisance for an itinerant hawker to give toys to children in exchange for rags. There are really very small things of which the law now takes cognisance. But I am not saying that I do not entirely agree with the noble Marquess's criticism of the last two clauses of the Bill. I really only rose to suggest to your Lordships that it is not too late by consent of the House to delete those clauses even at this stage. There should, of course, be Notice, but I think—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It cannot be done.
EARL RUSSELL: Not even by consent?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is never done. You can put off the Third Reading if you like.
EARL RUSSELL: It seems to me it would be better, as the general feeling surely is that those clauses make the Bill a less workable measure and are undesirable clauses, that the Bill should leave this House in the state in which it is desired that it should be considered by another place. I only rose to suggest that to your Lordships. Whether it is done by moving the adjournment of the debate and putting down a Motion or otherwise, I must leave to the House.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, would it not be possible, if Third Reading was agreed to, on the Question that the Bill do now pass for me to move to leave out these two clauses?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It has been settled by a long series of precedents, and there is no question about it, that you must give Notice of any Amendment on Third Reading. I might tell your Lordships something that happened in my own experience. I was not responsible, but there was an occa-

881
sion when an Amendment not of very great importance was found to be wanted in a Government Bill and of which Notice had not been given on Third Reading. The then Government made a great piece of work about the practice of your Lordships' House and said that this was obviously a case for an exception. I was opposing the Bill. They appealed to me not to use the power which the Standing Orders, or rather the equivalent of Standing Orders, gave me to prevent it being put in. I was weak, I did not object, and the Amendment was put in. Within twenty minutes the Minister hurried round to me and said: "We have put in the Amendment in the wrong place." It was the last occasion. I will not finish the story as to what happened. I only tell your Lordships that to show how vitally important it is on the last stage of a Bill that no Amendment should be put in without Notice. It is open to the House to adjourn, as the noble Earl has said.
EARL RUSSELL: To adjourn the debate.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether I have the
Resolved in the negative disagreed to accordingly.

LAND DRAINAGE.
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE rose to call attention to the large and steadily increasing area of waterlogged land in England and
882
right to say any more, but this Bill has been put off a great many times, and I should prefer that we finished with it now and allowed the Amendments to be made in another place. If your Lordships think otherwise I should be prepared to move the adjournment of the debate and to give Notice to leave out those two clauses on the adjourned debate. It would be then understood that the Bill would pass without opposition. I should not care to put it off and then find that some other question was suddenly brought up. If it is understood that when those two clauses are left out the Bill will pass without opposition, I shall be glad to move the adjournment of the debate. I gather that silence gives consent and, therefore, my Lords, I shall move that this debate be adjourned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can enter into no bargain.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Then I think we had better go on.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read a third time?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 18; Not Contents, 24.

CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

De La Warr, E.

Atkin, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Russell, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L.

Stanmore, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Charnwood, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran)

Ullswater

Clwyd, L.

Tenterden, L.

Hemphill, L

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Askwith, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Cranworth, L.

Darling, L.

Marlborough, D.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Elibank, V.

Harris, L.

Airlie, E.

Strathspey, L.

Clarendon, E. [Teller.]

Salisbury, L. Bp.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Cranbrook, E.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Onslow, E.

Wharton, L.

Wales resulting from defective arterial drainage, and especially from barriers formed by detritus and sea-silt at the mouths of our rivers and estuaries, with consequent decrease in the productive capacity of the agricultural land of this country, as disclosed by the Report in 1927 of the Royal Commission on the Land Drainage of England and Wales; and to

883
enquire whether the Government propose, by the employment of unemployed miners or otherwise, to take early action to arrest the injury caused thereby, or in any other ways to act upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lord, I have been impelled to put down this Question for your consideration partly because no debate has taken place in either House of Parliament upon this subject since the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission in December, 1927, and certainly no action has been taken ostensibly upon that Report, and partly and mainly because its subject matter so vitally affects the welfare of the agricultural industry and the problem how best to remedy, or at least to mitigate, its present unhappy plight. I may remind your Lordships that this Royal Commission, over which I had the honour to preside, had an extremely strenuous and intensive task, and, contrary to the experience of most Royal Commissions, presented its Report within a period of nine months from its appointment. The terms of reference to the Royal Commission took for granted the serious and urgent need of improved land drainage in the interests of greater and more profitable production, and merely invited us to report upon the state of the drainage law and its administration. We found both the law and its administration to be in a truly chaotic state. We found there were no fewer than 361 different drainage authorities with various powers and with various degrees of energy in exercising those powers, and with no sort of contact or co-operation between them even in the same catchment area, and yet, in spite of the existence of all these authorities, we found that there were many badly drained or waterlogged areas with no drainage authority at all. I happen to live in one of those myself where the land—and very good land it is—is deteriorating seriously, and under the existing law there is no one landowner or farmer who is able to avert the damage which is caused by the negligence of the others.
Our recommendations—I am merely going to summarise the more important of them—included inter alia:—
Firstly, the consolidation and the amendment of the general drainage law of the country.
Secondly, the formation of a Central Drainage Authority for each catchment area—by "catchment area" I mean the area which is drained by the waters of any particular river, sometimes quite improperly described as a watershed—with power for the county council or a county borough council in certain areas to execute minor drainage works.
Thirdly, the rating of uplands as well as lowlands, in varying proportions, as, owing to the modern conditions of life and methods of carrying water underground, the former, that is the uplands, presented to the latter a seriously augmented task of water disposal. I do not want to stress that point at the present time, but it was, of course, the great controversy which arose over the drainage of the Ouse, and, in fact, the most important matter which our Royal Commission had to consider was as to whether the so-called uplanders as well as the lowlanders should bear some reasonable charge in respect of the task of getting rid of the water in their catchment areas.
Fourthly, the abolition of the jurisdiction of all subsidiary drainage authorities over the main channels of the rivers.
Fifthly, the abolition of Commissioners of Sewers and all obsolete or moribund drainage authorities. I may say, in passing, we found there were a great many that could be so described.
Sixthly, the basing of all rating of land for land drainage purposes upon annual value and not upon acreage, which is the normal basis of rating in this country.
To act upon all these recommendations will no doubt take some considerable time, and I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture is engaged now upon some preliminary survey with a view to legislation being embarked upon in the next Parliament, but, in the meantime, the state of the agricultural land of this country is in this respect going from bad to worse, and, as I want to emphasise in this debate, for reasons which only the Government of this, or indeed of any country, can abate effectually. The main purpose of my raising this Question at the present time is in fact to try to emphasise Government obligation in this matter of land drainage as distinct either from the obligation of a public authority

885
like a county council or the obligations of the actual owners or farmers within an area requiring to be drained.
I am not going to impose upon your Lordships many paragraphs of this Report, but I should like to read four as bearing particularly upon the problem I desire to present to you. Under the heading "Need for Land Drainage"—this, not being really part of the reference to the Royal Commission, was not dealt with at any length—paragraph 53 on page 21 of the Report reads as follows:—
"During the Great War special attention was drawn to the serious need for land drainage in many parts of the country… As the period of the War lengthened and the necessity became apparent of raising from the land of this country as much as possible of the food required for the population, the problem of land drainage emerged as one of great urgency."
Then, in paragraph 54, the Report proceeds:—
"…the desirability of providing for the proper drainage of the agricultural land of this country was fully appreciated long before 1914; the emergency measures necessitated by the War merely focussed general attention upon it. The Select Committee of the House of Lords of 1877—
please note, fifty-two years ago—
'reported that considerable damage was being caused in various parts of England by the prevalence of floods and that such floods had been more frequent and of longer duration than was formerly the case. The Committee considered that if the channels and outfalls of rivers were properly cared for, any water flowing into those rivers from their respective catchment areas might reasonably be expected to be discharged by them in sufficient time to render unlikely any serious damage to agricultural lands by floods."
I want particularly to emphasise the words in that paragraph "if the channels and outfalls of rivers were properly cared for" as being at the root of the drainage problem of this country.
The Report goes on, in paragraph 55, to state:—
"We are cordially in agreement with this view, which unfortunately was not then embodied in any Statute, and we fear that the position with regard to land drainage has steadily become worse since the Report of the Select Committee was presented… With the heavy fall in the prices of agricultural products and the splitting up of estates during the last few years, the serious water-logging of land may lie expected to become even more prevalent, unless adequate steps
886
are taken to ensure that drainage operations, in many cases of an extensive character, are carried out efficiently and economically."
I want to read in addition the two last paragraphs of the Report, but I will not read the whole of them. Paragraph 141 says:—
"…the recommendations which we make are directed…to the prevention of the further deterioration of land which is at present used for agricultural purposes. In the absence of proper drainage land is bound to deteriorate; the land lines cold, germination fails or is delayed and the period of growth is extended. The health of the community suffers and the rateable value of the land affected seriously decreases. It is desirable also to attack the problem of drainage before serious damage has been caused to the land, as long-continued neglect always involves considerable loss and relatively higher ultimate expenditure. We cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that the permanent deterioration through continuous flooding or waterlogging of large areas of land now in use, involves in any country the loss of a valuable national asset."
There, again, I should like your Lordships to note that we lay stress in this Report upon the fact that the land of this country, in whosever hands it is and for whatever purpose it is used productively, is a valuable national asset. The Report goes on:—
"In many continental countries this fact is recognised by the State and a State contribution rendered available by way of augmentation of the fund provided by such local drainage rates as can be imposed without constituting an excessive and inequitable burden on agricultural land. The principle involved can readily be justified in this country …"
The last paragraph I want to read is the last of all in the Report. It says: —
"The arguments in favour of national expenditure upon land drainage are particularly strong as regards the effective clearance of detritus and sea-borne silt at the mouths of the estuaries and larger rivers and the preservation of sea walls and embankments against the excessive and violent encroachments of tidal water. Even more cogent is the claim for such expenditure where the deepening, widening or stabilising of the outfalls of main rivers is involved, particularly those flowing into sandy estuaries. We are, therefore, strongly of the opinion that until the State is prepared to accept due financial obligations with regard to such works as those above indicated very little progress can be made, even under the scheme which we have adumbrated, towards the realisation of the ideal of an efficient system of arterial drainage.'"

887
Now I want quite shortly to refer to the fact that during the last few years two Land Drainage Acts have passed through Parliament.
The last Act, that of 1926, threw the whole burden of land drainage, so far as the county council areas were concerned, upon the county councils themselves and removed it from the shoulders of the Government. Under the former Act of 1918, as well as under the more recent Act of 1926, various drainage schemes have been put in hand by county councils all over the country, as well as by other statutory bodies, but the discontinuance of Government grants towards the cost of county drainage administration some three years ago involved in many counties the discharge of a very useful official known as the county drainage officer and the consequent abandonment of much useful work upon which the more enterprising counties had embarked. In fact, owing to the discontinuance of county land drainage enterprise three years ago, a good deal of expenditure that was previously undertaken by the county councils has been wasted, because the water courses that were then to a large extent cleared have since silted up. Minor sporadic grants were made from the Exchequer a few years ago following the War period for small drainage schemes conducted by county councils for the relief of unemployment, and more recently, largely owing to the difficulties in the coal industry, similar schemes for the employment of unemployed persons, mainly miners, have been put in hand.
I learn from the Ministry of Labour through the medium of the Ministry of Agriculture that there is contemplated a prospective cost of something like £300,000 in the employment of unemployed miners and other unemployed persons upon land drainage schemes, seven of which, I believe, have already been put in hand. I want to submit to your Lordships that much of this money will be wasted unless the problem is tackled, and courageously tackled, at the right end, which is, of course, as the excerpt from the Report that I have read indicates, at the mouths of our rivers and estuaries, where the work must obviously and necessarily be undertaken, not by private individuals nor even by drainage boards, but by the Government or by public authorities at the public ex-
888
pense. In many, if not most, of these rivers there is accumulating a great bank or barrage of mud, sand or silt, composed partly of detritus washed down from the hills and the upper reaches of the catchment area, and partly of sea silt driven up by the force of the tides. This, as in the case of the great Mississippi about two years ago, is not merely raising the bed of the river and the tributary water courses throughout the whole catchment area and compelling the erection and maintenance of river banks above the natural level of the adjoining land, but it is raising the whole water table of the agricultural land throughout the lower reaches of the catchment area, containing normally its most fertile land, with the result that the soils are becoming cold and stagnant, germination is delayed, and there is an ever-increasing growth of rushes, sedges, mare's-tail, mosses and other water-loving plants.
It is no exaggeration to say that, owing to the neglect by Parliament of this problem since the Select Committee of your Lordships' House reported very urgently and seriously upon it over fifty years ago, a good deal of the land throughout this country—and, if I may say so, particularly in Wales—which grew good crops of food and other land produce, is not growing any crops at all to-day. I have in front of me quite an interesting leading article in the Welsh Gazette of January 31 last, adumbrating this debate. It runs as follows:—
"Many acres in the fertile vale of Aeron, which within flying memory produced rich harvests, to-day bear no crops other than rushes. Too much valuable land in the Clarach Valley also is becoming a profitless swamp. Hundreds of acres on the confines of Borth Bog have gone out of cultivation for want of proper drainage"—
I ought perhaps to mention that all this is referring to the County of Cardigan—
"and parts of the valleys of the Teify and Dulas have greatly deteriorated in value as agricultural land through the same cause. These areas, and others like them in the County, could be restored to cultivation by drainage, and measures could be taken to reclaim a wide expanse in the estuary of the Dovey. The problem of unemployed land should concern us as much as the problem of unemployed men, if only because the one has a bearing upon the other."
Apart from those cases where, owing to the lack of efficient drainage, land that formerly produced crops is not produc-

889
ing them to-day, it might quite clearly be demonstrated that a large area of land in this country which used to produce a large output of economic land products is to-day producing a greatly reduced output as a result of the waterlogged and semi-waterlogged condition of the soil.
This fact is reflected in the comparative yields of our chief crops during the last fifty years, as is shown in the official Crop Returns. I do not want to trouble your Lordships with the detailed figures, except to tell you that during the last fifty years the yield per acre of wheat in this country has merely risen from 15.7 cwts per acre to 17.4 cwts per acre, or 5 per cent. as contrasted with France, where there has been a percentage increase of 37; with Germany, where the increase is 46 per cent; and with Belgium and Holland, where the increase has been even more striking. I want particularly to refer to Belgium and Holland, because these are two countries in which most extensive land drainage operations have been carried on, as your Lordships will know, during the last forty or fifty years. In Belgium there has been a percentage increase in the yield of wheat per acre of 75, as compared with our 5 per cent., and in Holland of 61, the variation in Holland being from 13.4 cwts. per acre in the years 1871–4 (more than fifty years ago) to 21.3 cwts. in the years 1925–7. The same thing applies to Denmark and other countries, and it applies also to every ordinary farm crop that is commonly grown in Western European countries. I am not at all sure that it is fair to instance wheat particularly, because, as your Lordships will realise, owing to wheat being found so unproductive a crop in recent years, a large area of land that was not particularly well fitted for wheat production is no longer used for that purpose, and wheat production is to a larger extent restricted to those areas where the land is reasonably good for the purpose.
You find a still better illustration in the case of potatoes, a food crop that is grown in all those countries and in every part of this country. Here I am sorry to have to say that during the last fifty years the average yield per acre has not increased at all in this country, whereas in most other countries the increase in the yield is considerable. I think one
890
may reasonably say that, bearing in mind the greater availability and knowledge of the use of fertilisers during this fifty-year period and the enormous improvement as the result of breeding and selection in the yield capacity of our chief food crops, not to mention the spread of agricultural education, we might reasonably have expected, not that the standard of production or output would be stationary, but that it would have been immensely improved in this country during the last fifty or sixty years. That, in fact, as I have shown your Lordships, is not the case. The two great and growing defects of the land of this country are undoubtedly lack of proper drainage, and acidity, or sourness, or want of lime, and the latter is largely attributable to the former. In every area where you have a large rainfall and a defective drainage system acidity is becoming more and more marked, and the need for lime is becoming ever greater.
Farmers are being repeatedly urged to work out their own salvation. Various remedies are being put forward for improving the present parlous state of the agricultural industry. There is no more hopeful effort in this direction than that which is being made by the publication of economic reports by the Ministry of Agriculture, and I venture to think that the present Minister of Agriculture and his colleague who represents the Department in this House will go down to history as great pioneers of the marketing of agricultural produce in this country. We have in the Press to-day the last of these economic reports, showing how by orderly and organised marketing of wheat and other cereals the farmer ought to be able to obtain much better value for his best samples of these crops. It is all excellent work, but it is not fair to ask the farmers to work out their own salvation, even with such assistance as the Ministry of Agriculture is able to afford, when all the time there is a basic defect in the raw material of their industry, or, if you like, in the factory which produces their output, which only the Government can remedy.
This is the proposition which I desire to submit to your Lordships to-day; that all these patchy, piece-meal, sporadic and isolated attempts to improve drainage conditions, if carried on without first

891
cleansing the channels and outfalls of the rivers, and removing the obstructions at their mouths, are largely wasted labour and uneconomic expenditure, and that if that expenditure is charged partly or mainly to the farmer or landowner it is difficult to justify. It is of no use to patch up an old house or point its masonry, if its foundations are weak and threaten the collapse of the fabric. The foundation of this problem is the choking of the mouths of our main watercourses—our rivers and estuaries—with obstructions which only Government work and Government money can effectively remove. To solve the problem effectively you must begin at the sea and work upwards, dredging and removing accumulated silt as you go, throughout the whole of the catchment area. Thus only can you obtain continuously a free flow and lower the whole water table of the catchment areas of the main river and its tributary streams. What is exactly happening throughout the whole country to-day, to put it quite shortly, is this, that the water table, the level of water in the land throughout the whole country that is in any sense subject to this defect, is slowly rising, with the result that the land, if not actually waterlogged, is getting less capable of effective and adequate productivity, and less able to respond to the lessons of science, and less able to produce the food and other produce out of which the farmer has to make his living. It stands to reason that if you choke up the mouths of our rivers and estuaries you are holding up water which in the result raises the water table in the whole of the catchment areas.
I can illustrate that very well from our own experience in Gloucestershire, where we have been trying for some time to get over this difficulty without assistance of the kind which I am suggesting that the Government ought to give. We are finding the task really impracticable. Only quite recently the river Avon, the Warwickshire Avon, has been tackled by the joint efforts of the Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire County Councils, and they are met with this difficulty. They contemplated a scheme under the Land Drainage Act of 1926, which throws at least part of the cost upon the owners within the affected area. The owners complain with some reason that this charge is being thrown upon them
892
when the real trouble is taking place lower down, where the tributaries join the Avon and the Severn, where there was a great collection of wrack, detritus, silt and rubbish which it was not part of the business of the local drainage authorities to remove.
In conclusion I want to ask whether some of this money which is now available from the public purse, and particularly for the benefit of unemployed persons, cannot be directed to the more effective solution of this problem. I am told through the Ministry of Labour that unemployment benefit has amounted between January 15, 1913, when it was first established, and February 2, 1929, to no less a sum than £370,000,000, of which the Exchequer has contributed out of the taxpayers' pockets £104,700,000. The effect of this "dole" has been in many cases, as I am sure your Lordships will admit, to reduce the inclination and incentive to work on the part of these unemployed persons, and to destroy their self-respect and indeed their physical efficiency. Moreover, it makes many agricultural workers, and no doubt many other low-paid workers in other industries, discontented and less enthusiastic about their work. With 27 s. 6d. for a man and wife, with an extra allowance for each child, it does not require a very large family to bring into the home of the unemployed man more than the minimum wage of an active agricultural worker. That does not put very much premium upon the industry of the agricultural workers in a district where there are a large number of "dole"-supported unemployed, and all the time there is work of real national value which needs doing, and work for which the miners especially are particularly well equipped—the reclamation or drainage of land once fertile and productive, but now growing gorse or bracken or scrub, or which is waterlogged and marshy, full of rushes and no doubt attractive to some sportsmen as being the resort of snipe.
It is often stated that the reclamation of land is not an economic proposition—that the necessary capital expenditure upon it would never yield a fair rate of interest. I venture to suggest that there is no other country in Europe where this view is held. In all others with which I am acquainted, and about which we on the Royal Commission enquired, produc-

893
tive land is regarded as a valuable national asset, and even if expenditure upon its continued productiveness does not yield a fair return upon capital, it is deemed to be justified because it is a valuable national asset. And surely there is no country, in view of our "dole" system, where it is so impossible to justify this contention!
I put down a Motion for Papers. I do not want to embarrass my noble friend by asking him for any returns which he is not in a position to give, but I am going to ask him whether it would be possible to discover—what I have applied for to other sources and been unable to get, and what, I think, only the Government can produce—a return showing what is the estimated average reduction of agricultural output per acre since the year 1900 from any given area, such as that of the Ouse, which is subject to waterlogging. I ask for that return for this reason. We know perfectly well that there is a serious reduction in the productivity of land in these areas, but not even Rothamsted, with all its accumulated knowledge, can give any reliable information on the subject. With the crop returns available to the Ministry, I think it ought to be possible for them to be able to choose any typical waterlogged area, such as those in the Ouse catchment area, and show by comparative figures of, we will say, twenty-five years ago and to-day, what actually is the extent of the reduced productiveness in those areas due to waterlogging. Secondly, I want to ask what land drainage schemes are now in progress and in prospect; thirdly, what amount of unemployed labour is, or will be, employed on such schemes; and, fourthly, what proportion of such labour is normally employed in the coal mines. I beg to move.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I only rise for a few moments in order to say how grateful all of us who are interested in the development of our agricultural land should be to Lord Bledisloe for his work in presiding over the Royal Commission on Land Drainage, and for bringing up the question to-day. We should welcome it all the more, I think, because it shows that he has to a certain extent changed his mind since the issue of that Report. At the end of that Report the Commission does quite
894
definitely say that in its opinion the state of agriculture is such that it is probably undesirable to attempt any very great development for the moment. Now, with the appearance of this Motion, I think we may take it that the noble Lord has changed his mind, and considers that, in view of the circumstances in which the country is placed at the moment, it is now time to go forward on a really progressive policy.
To put the problem very briefly, it is this, that on the one hand we are told by an official Report, the Report of a Royal Commission, that there are very nearly 2,000,000 acres of land in this country which are deteriorating in value, if not actually going out of cultivation, as a result of bad arterial drainage. On the other hand we have hundreds of thousands of men out of work, many of them, particularly miners, peculiarly suited to this kind of work, who are unable to find employment, and who are, in so far as they are being supported at all, being supported very largely at the public expense. The problem, therefore, is this: Have we as a nation, or have we not, sufficient directing intelligence to unite these two problems, and make one contribute to a solution of the other? Actually no scheme for this purpose was put forward by the Royal Commission, but what the Royal Commission did was to lay down a basis of organisation by which a national drainage scheme could be put afoot. The noble Lord has already told your Lordships what the main recommendations of the Commission were—the compulsory setting up of catchment area authorities for every catchment area, the widening of the areas' basis, and the alteration of the basis of rating, so as to make it easier for agriculturists to face the problem.
But really the way in which the whole problem should be dealt with is so obvious that we have to ask ourselves what is the difficulty which is holding us up. The moment we think, we realise that the reason for postponement put forward by the Royal Commission does constitute the real difficulty, that is, that the state of agriculture to-day is such that all of us recognise that it is very doubtful whether it can face any increased burdens at the present moment. Now undoubtedly, if on the present basis of the law we were to proceed with a forward policy in this matter, it would

895
mean a very real hardship on countless owners and occupiers of land. Agriculturists cannot do the job themselves. They also would be unable to pay any charges that were laid on the land if the job were done at the expense of the State, if those charges were based on the actual cost, because we have probably got to face the fact that this matter is not going to be solved on what you may call economically profitable or balance-sheet lines. Moreover, very few local authorities are in a position to put up very much money.
Therefore, we come to this, as the Royal Commission say, that in the main this charge has to be faced by the State, and it can only look for recoupment from the land through charges on the increased value of the land which is caused by this State expenditure. I am assuming for the moment the existing system of land ownership, because we do not want to introduce into this debate any questions of general policy. I am assuming that we are faced with an emergency, and are looking for an emergency way of dealing with the question. Having said that, and having said that the State has to put up the money and has to look for its recoupment, such as it can get, by placing charges on the land to the extent of the increased value introduced into that land, we have then a right to demand, to insist, that the State, or the drainage authorities, should be given compulsory powers to put in hand the work that is needed, and to make these charges on the land. And they should also, as is said in the Report, be given, where necessary, compulsory powers of purchase. It is inconceivable that national work of this importance should be held up, as it can be held up under the existing law, by a comparatively small group of owners who may occupy a key position in a drainage system. We fully admit that property has its rights; it has rights to fair compensation; but we cannot and will not allow it to hold up necessary national developments.
The land of this country is going to waste. The man power of this country is going to waste. We have to keep that central fact in mind in tackling a problem of this character. The noble Earl may say, of course: "You are asking us to start on a very big scheme. You have to remember that we are coming to the
896
end of our tenure of office, and it is not likely that we shall be able to put it into force." The noble Earl is probably right in thinking that the same people will not be sitting on the Treasury Bench for a very long time. At the same time, I would point out to him that he sits there not purely as a Party representative, but as a national representative, and if he is willing to put into operation a scheme which we consider sufficiently drastic we shall have the very greatest pleasure in carrying it to a successful conclusion.
One word on a matter which is not completely relevant to the subject of arterial drainage—the question of the land drains already existing on private owners' lands. To-day I think it is generally recognised, having regard to the price of labour and material, as being out of the question to go in for any extensive system of new land drainage effectively. It would probably cost more than the freehold of a great deal of land at the present moment. So far from actually developing we are going back. Such is the state of agriculture to-day that we are all cutting down every single cost that might be called unproductive, though what particular cost is unproductive and what particular cost is productive it is sometimes very hard to say. But it is undoubted all over the country that the old ditches and old water courses are neglected. During the last century, particularly about half way through that century, a great deal of drainage was done by our ancestors. Those drains had their openings upon these old ditches and water courses. These ditches are getting blocked up steadily year by year. These pipes are becoming silted up and are ceasing to take the water off the land. I speak from experience, because we have been doing this work ourselves and have been astonished to find that what must represent to-day thousands of pounds had been spent on draining the land forty, fifty and sixty years ago.
I want to make this suggestion to the Minister. Would it not be possible for the Ministry to undertake an educational campaign and to make a great appeal to the landowners of the country to do this work this summer, and, if possible, to put forward work that ordinarily they would be rationing out from year to year? Could they not

897
make an appeal, either themselves or through the Central Landowners' Association, or through the Lords-Lieutenant, to all landowners to take on, according to the size of their estates and their demands, one, two, possibly on some large estates a great many more miners during the four or five months that we always hope for in the summer? I suggest that they should represent to the Ministry of Labour that it might be well worth while to pay the fares of such men both to their destination and back. After all, we were prepared to give assistance, some of it in the form of a loan and some in the form of actual grants, towards transferring men to Canada for the harvest. If we are prepared to send men to Canada surely we are prepared to spend money on giving these men work, and work that badly needs doing, in our own countryside. Many will probably stay. There are very few estates in this country that cannot always find work for a really good man.
In many of our counties we know that there is a shortage to-day of really good labour. And, mark you, many of these miners would constitute really first-class labour. They are used to the job, as the noble Lord has told us. They are accustomed to the use of the pick and shovel. Many of them were born in the country. Many of them are not removed more than one generation from life on the countryside. Surely it would be a much more productive way of helping the miners than mere charity. I submit that it would be a small but a very real contribution that we might make to this problem. But of course we come back to the main point raised by the noble Lord in his Question, that unless the Government can help us by opening up the arterial drainage of the country it is very little use anybody attempting to do much for his land because it will only send more water down to the lowlands and make things worse.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF STRADBROKE): My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the Motion referred to the fact that there had been no discussion of the question of land drainage since the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission. I welcome, therefore, this
898
opportunity of saying on behalf of the Government how very highly we appreciate the fine work that was done by that Royal Commission. The noble Lord reminded us that they achieved their work in a very few months and published their Report within a year of their appointment. I doubt not that the speed and expedition with which the work was carried out was due in great measure to the able manner in which the Royal Commission was presided over by my noble friend. I feel also that he must have added greatly to the knowledge he already possessed of the drainage system and the drainage of the land of this country from having held the position of Chairman of that Commission.
The noble Lord made a very interesting speech and covered a great deal of ground. It only remains for me, therefore, to reply to the Question he has placed on the Paper. I am grateful to the noble Earl opposite for his speech and his suggestion regarding the making of recommendations to private owners to employ individual miners or small gangs of miners to work on their estates. I have no doubt this matter has already been considered by a great number of people, but although the work may require to be done, it is not always so easy to find the money to pay for the work. There are also many difficulties in the way of transferring men from one part of the country to the other. Still, one is always grateful for any suggestion made, and I am sure it will receive the attention that it should properly have.
The comparison the noble Lord made with regard to the production of crops in this country as compared with other countries, I confess was not satisfactory. We do not seem to have kept up in the race of trying to produce the most we can from the land, unless it can be said that fifty years ago we were a long way ahead of all these countries and that to-day they are only catching us up. Still we all do feel that there is a general air of depression hanging over agriculture, and so long is that exists I am afraid people will not put forth their best efforts to obtain the best results. But we, on our part, are most anxious to help agriculture in every way we can, and I can assure the noble Lord that the Ministry are working along the lines of the recommendations of the Royal

899
Commission over which he presided. They are, in fact, preparing the ground for that legislation which will be necessary to put into effect those recommendations. The noble Earl opposite [Earl De La Warr] may be assured that whoever goes to the Ministry of Agriculture during the next few years will find that the work is being prepared in order to carry out these recommendations, not with the view of helping any political Party but solely with the object of doing the best we can for the agriculture of this country.
With regard to legislation on the lines of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, they recommended the compulsory creation of catchment area authorities representative of county councils and other bodies within the area. Before we can proceed on those lines it will be necessary to define the catchment areas, and to have them clearly marked on the map, so that it can be known which are the authorities that should be approached and which have the right to express opinions and levy rates for the purpose of drainage of the land. To do this preliminary work requires the employment of a very special staff of experts with technical knowledge, and the lines on which this staff are working are:—(1) delimitation of the watershed of catchment areas; and (2) the demarcation of the boundary line which divides the upper levels from the lower levels for the purpose of distinguishing between the rates to be levied. The Royal Commission name over a hundred catchment areas in this country, and our view is that it is necessary to take a survey of some twenty of the most urgent and the largest areas before anything can be done in the way of legislation. With regard to those areas, in three catchment areas the lines of demarcation both as to the catchment area and as to the division of the upper and lower levels have been completed. Eight other catchment areas have been surveyed and their watersheds determined, and two other areas have been surveyed to mark the dividing line between the upper and the lower levels. To complete the survey of these twenty or so catchment areas will take at least another eighteen months or two years. The Royal Commission recommended that provisionally a line should be set up by the Ministry of Agriculture showing what the level was to be between the
900
lower and the upper levels in order that preparations could be made for the carrying out of legislation, and the Minister of Agriculture has decided that eight feet above flood level is to be the limit of demarcation between the upper and the lower levels for the purpose of rating.
You will see, therefore, that there really has been no avoidable delay, and I think the noble Lord will see that the matter has not been pigeon-holed, but that we have been going along as well as we can to help forward the objects we have in view. In the meantime, the Ministry is well aware that in many parts of the country urgent remedial measures are called for. The noble Lord knows very well—I think he referred to the fact—that Government grants were made available in 1926. Under this programme, 19 schemes have been completed, 35 schemes are in operation, and 10 other schemes have been approved but have not yet been started. The total amount of money available by way of Government grants to these schemes was about £400,000. Among these schemes there is an important one approaching completion which has consolidated the position at the mouth of the river Rother at Rye and has conferred great benefit on the agricultural land. That is a point which I think the noble Lord was specially insistent upon—that the mouths of the rivers should be cleared. Another scheme is in progress at Littlehampton to preserve the mouth of the river Arun, while a third scheme is in contemplation for taking the river Welland out to deep water. At present it discharges on sandbanks and is therefore silting up. There are also two other important schemes in progress within the Ouse drainage area. These two schemes will cost something like £45,000.
Further, the Government have decided to include land drainage among the schemes designed to promote the transference of unemployed labour from depressed mining areas. Last December applications were invited not only from the drainage authorities but also from the county councils who possess powers to carry out small drainage schemes under the Land Drainage Act, 1926. As your Lordships know, such schemes, if they involve a loan, have to be passed on to the Unemployment Grants Committee, and, if they are approved, they

901
are subject to conditions laid down by that Grants Committee. The Government grant consists of 75 per cent. of the loan charges during the first period of loan up to fifteen years, and 37½ per cent. of the loan charges for the second half of the period up to fifteen years. If the scheme involves no loan it comes within the Ministry's conditions, which mean a grant of 50 per cent. towards the net cost, the other 50 per cent. being found by the authority concurrently. It is impossible to say as yet what response is likely to follow this new offer, but it will interest the House to know that at the present time applications have been received in respect of schemes costing round about £650,000. Of these, five schemes, costing £262,975, will be dealt with by the Unemployed Grants Committee and two of the schemes will be dealt with by the Ministry.
The Surrey County Council have decided to carry out an unemployment scheme at a cost of approximately £350,000, half of which is intended to be provided by the Unemployment Grants Committee. This scheme will be part of the Committee's programme for the transference of miners. The scheme has been approved by the Ministry, although it has not yet been started. If this scheme is carried out it will probably involve another scheme for the Thames Valley below the outfall of the river Way which is dealt with by the former scheme. If this scheme matures it will mean the expenditure of another £250,000, which will be partly financed by the State under the Grants Committee's conditions, which will mean a further employment of miners from the depressed areas. The House will therefore see that the Government are really doing a very great deal and are doing all they can at the moment for engaging miners on drainage schemes. But they cannot yet be engaged on the scheme set out in the Royal Commission's Report because, as I have already mentioned, legislation cannot be introduced until the preliminary survey has been made.
In conclusion I may say that the Government are fully alive to the importance of land drainage from the point of view of agriculture, and I think the record of the Government in the last four years shows that considerable progress has been made in the drainage of par-
902
ticular areas. The Government are fully in accordance with the desire of the noble Lord who asked the Question and they are doing all that they can, but, of course, as the noble Earl opposite pointed out, there is an economic side to the question and one has to consider, whether in public or in private life, whether it is right to spend money unless there is the probability of an adequate return. I happen to live on the east coast of England where coast erosion has been the subject of inquiry for a great number of years. There it is beyond the capabilities of private persons to fight against the sea and the expense of doing so would never be warranted by the value of the land that would be saved. Therefore, whether dealing with public funds or private funds, one must bear in mind the economic conditions.
I have tried to show, and I hope I have done so, that the Government are fully alive to the very valuable recommendations of the Royal Commission and are only too anxious to carry them out as expeditiously as they can, especially with a view of giving work now to people who live in the depressed areas and who by these new grants can be moved to different districts. The noble Lord asked me before I came into the House with regard to the estimated increase in agricultural production in certain areas. I am sorry that at the moment I cannot answer that question, but if any figures that would be of service to him can be made available I shall be only too glad to show him those returns. As to the land drainage schemes, I have with me a list of some of the schemes already started and I have given to the House the number of those that are in progress. As to the other question of the amount of unemployed labour that will be employed and the proportion of coal miners that would be employed, I can give no answer because the schemes are not yet all in progress. When they are in progress it will be easy to fin d out what the numbers are. I have tried to answer the noble Lord's questions, and I hope I have done so successfully. I assure him that we fully appreciate the very fine work done by the Royal Commission and we are endeavouring to lay the foundation for carrying out the recommendations made by them.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, in view of the answer which the noble Earl has just given I do not want to press my Motion for Papers, but I would venture to express the hope that the information I asked for in regard to the actual number of unemployed persons who are going to be employed on these schemes and the proportion of them that are coal miners, will be made available for the purposes of the House in the early future. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say that, while I appreciate very greatly the excellent work that the Ministry and its very well equipped officers are doing in this matter, I should most sincerely like to see greater co-operation on the part of the Ministry with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to a reduction
904
in the "dole" to persons who are doing no work to-day and who, in my judgment, might be most usefully employed on this work, to national advantage.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:
Southern Motor Road.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock