Sitting of 23 January 1929

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

NEW WRITS.
For County of Durham (Bishop Auckland Division), in the room of the Right Honourable Benjamin Charles Spoor, deceased.—[Mr. Thomas Kennedy.]
For County of Northumberland (Wans-beck Division), in the room of George Henry Warne, Esq., deceased.—[Mr. Thomas Kennedy.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported, That, in accordance with Standing Order 79, he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should first be considered, and they had determined that the Bills contained in the following List should originate in the House of Lords, namely:—

  Aire and Calder Navigation.

  Aldershot Gas, Water, and District Lighting.

  Asiatic Steam Navigation Company.

  Beaumont Thomas Estate.

  Birmingham Corporation (General Powers).

  Birmingham Corporation (Rivers Improvement).

  Chatham and District Traction.

  Cheltenham District Traction.

  Corn Exchange Company.

  County of Cornwall.

  Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power.

  Gosport and Fareham Omnibus Services.

  Grimsby Corporation (Dock, etc.).

  Halifax Corporation.

  Haslingden Corporation.

  148

  IIkley Urban District Council.

  Jarrow and South Shields Traction.

  Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation (Victoria Pier).

  Kingston-upon-Hull Extension.

  Lancashire Electric Power.

  London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority.

  London Building Acts (Consolidation).

  London County Council (General Powers).

  London Electric Metropolitan District and City and South London Railway Companies.

  Manchester Corporation.

  Mansfield District Traction.

  Mexborough and Swinton Traction.

  Mount Vernon Hospital.

  Newport (Salop) Urban District Council.

  Oldbury Urban District Council.

  Pacific Cable Board.

  Preston Corporation.

  Rhodes Trust.

  Romford Gas.

  Sheffield Gas (Consolidation).

  South Lancashire Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles, &c).

  Stoke-on-Trent Extension.

  Sutton District Waterworks.

  Tunbridge Wells Corporation.

  Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company.

  Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas.

  Warrington Corporation Water.

  Yorktown (Camberley) and District Gas and Electricity Company.

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords.]
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely: —

  Aire and Calder Navigation.

  Aldershot Gas, Water, and District Lighting.

  Asiatic Steam Navigation Company.

  Beaumont Thomas Estate.

  Birmingham Corporation (Rivers Improvement).

  Chatham and District Traction.

  Cheltenham District Traction.

  Corn Exchange Company.

  County of Cornwall.

  149

  Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power.

  Gosport and Fareham Omnibus Services.

  Grimsby Corporation (Dock, etc.).

  Halifax Corporation.

  Haslingden Corporation Jarrow and South Shields Traction.

  Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation

  (Victoria Pier).

  Kingston-upon-Hull Extension.

  Lancashire Electric Power.

  London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority.

  London Building Acts (Consolidation).

  London County Council (General Powers).

  London Electric Metropolitan District and City and South London Railway Companies.

  Manchester Corporation.

  Mansfield District Traction.

  Mexborough and Swinton Traction.

  Mount Vernon Hospital.

  Newport (Salop) Urban District Council.

  Oldbury Urban District Council.

  Pacific Cable Board.

  Preston Corporation.

  Rhodes Trust. Romford Gas.

  Sheffield Gas (Consolidation).

  South Lancashire Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles, etc.).

  Stoke-on-Trent Extension.

  Sutton District Waterworks.

  Tunbridge Wells Corporation.

  Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company.

  Wandsworth, Wimbledon and Epsom District Gas.

  Warrington Corporation Water.

  Yorktown (Camberley) and District Gas and Electricity Company.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (Standing Orders not 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 Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely: —
  Salford Corporation.
  Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation," presented by Secretary Sir John Gilmour; read the First time, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]
  TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
  Accounts ordered, "relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1929."—[Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  CHINA.

    TARIFF TREATIES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any definite progress has been made in the conversations between Sir Miles Lampson and the Nanking government: and what measure of agreement has been reached?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the reply returned yesterday to the hon. Members for Northampton (Mr. Malone) and Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged. May we take it that the conversations are now at an end and that agreement has been reached on all points?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir Miles Lampson has returned to the North, but of course there may be matters still to be settled between the two Governments.

    NANKING (BRITISH REPRESENTATIVE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the capital of China has now been set up in Nanking instead of in Peking; and, if so, whether it is proposed to station His Majesty's representative at Nanking?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Nanking is the official capital of the Nationalist Government of China; but the transfer of the administration to the new seat of government is not complete. Practical considerations make it impossible for His Majesty's Minister to reside in Nanking, but arrangements are being made for a member of the Legation staff to reside at Shanghai as the Minister's personal representative and to visit Nanking as and when required in order to maintain touch with the National Government.
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Do we understand that His Majesty is not represented at the moment at Nanking, and will not be represented by anyone there in future?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. There is no accommodation for His Majesty's Minister at Nanking. Practical difficulties make his residence there impossible.

    BRITISH FORCES.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, now that a Treaty has been concluded with the Chinese Nationalist Government, he is in a position to state when the remaining units of the Shanghai defence force will be withdrawn from China?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy).
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that at the time when these troops were sent the Government gave a public pledge that, as they were sent to meet a special emergency, as soon as the emergency had passed away all troops would be withdrawn? In view of that fact, ought not all the troops to be withdrawn now?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: We have no desire to keep troops there a day longer than is necessary, but at present the conditions are not such as to admit of the total withdrawal of troops, though their numbers have been steadily reduced.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS (PARAGUAY AND BOLIVIA).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further report to make on the action of the League of Nations in reference to the dispute between Paraguay and Bolivia?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no report to make on this subject, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will find full information respecting the action taken by the Council of the League in the White Paper which was laid on the 16th instant.

    RHINELAND REPARATIONS AND EVACUATION.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make a further statement with regard to reparations and the withdrawal of troops from the Rhineland?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards reparations the hon. Member will have seen in the Press the various announcements which have been made recently relative to the constitution of an international Committee of Experts to submit proposals for the complete and final settlement of the reparation problem. It is expected that this Committee will meet shortly. It is clear that any further statement on this subject is impossible until the Committee has formulated its proposals and these have been studied by the various Governments concerned. With regard to the second part of the question on the subject of the Rhineland, there is at present nothing to add to the statement which I made during the Debate on the Adjournment on the 20th December last.

    UNITED STATES (ARBITRATION TREATY).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement on the negotiations for a renewed arbitration treaty with the United States?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There has been no change in the situation since I spoke on the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to make a statement soon?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say.

    NAVAL DISARMAMENT.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can indicate whether any further steps have been taken towards an understanding for naval disarmament since the abandonment of the recent negotiations between Great Britain and France?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The whole question is still under consideration.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I take it that the First Lord was speaking for the Cabinet in this matter when he stated recently, in a public speech, that nothing was to be gained by any further negotiations?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I have not read the speech of my colleague, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman alludes, but I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the First Lord bore in mind the obligations of Cabinet responsibility.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With reference to the White Paper that was laid before we rose, on the subject of the Geneva Naval Conference, has the right hon. Gentleman paid any attention to the last letter of the United States Government, in which the door is left open for further negotiations?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh, yes, Sir. I have paid a great deal of attention to all parts of the reply of the United States.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is anything to be done?

    EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the Minister of Labour what was the number of people employed at the end of November, 1928, as compared to 1924, and, if the figures are available, as compared with 1913?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): It is estimated
    154
    that at the end of November, 1928, there were approximately 9,847,000 insured persons aged 16 to 64 in employment in Great Britain, as compared with 9,566,000 at the end of November, 1924. In forming this estimate, persons unemployed and persons directly involved in trade disputes have been excluded and allowance has been made for sickness and other non-recorded unemployment, exclusive of temporary holidays. Comparable figures in respect of November, 1913, are not available.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour under what authority his Department questions applicants for benefit about private income other than that for dependants' benefit; if he is aware that at courts of referees persons who are called upon to show that they are genuinely seeking work are fully questioned as to their private incomes although no notice is given to them that this is to be done; and if any penalty is imposed on persons who refuse to answer questions regarding private income of their relatives?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As I told the hon. Member on 19th December last, the authority is contained in the Unemployment Insurance Acts. The right of the Court of Referees to ask such questions was challenged in an appeal to the Umpire, and upheld by him in a decision of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. Claimants cannot be compelled to answer questions, but in order to obtain benefit they must furnish evidence sufficient to establish their claim.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as to what part of the Acts gives him authority to challenge a man's income?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: My Department is bound to see that the qualifications are observed. That follows from the general duty laid upon it by the Act.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the passing of the Act one of the inducements held out to the House and the country was the alleged abolition of the income fest, and

    155
    is the right hon. Gentleman aware that tie income test is still being applied to applicants for benefit?
    Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: No, Sir; I have no knowledge of any inducement of that kind being held out, and at present, in fact, there is no income test of any kind. There are questions put in order to get evidence sufficient to decide whether a person is genuinely seeking work or not.
    Mr. KELLY: In view of this being termed an Insurance Act, would the right hon. Gentleman say what bearing the income of another member of the family has upon the insurance benefit which a person is entitled to receive for contributions paid?
    Sir A. STEEL-NIAITLAND: In certain circumstances it may very well be that the amount of income enjoyed by the rest of the family may or may not influence the zeal of the person in question in the search for work.
    Mr. T. SHAW: Are we to understand that the position of the Minister is that, if there is a certain family income, it is assumed that the person concerned is not seeking work?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, Sir. Not at all, and it is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman to give me the opportunity of answering that question in the negative. It is only one among many circumstances which may be considered material in this connection.
    Mr. SHAW: Will the Minister kindly tell us what bearing the income or financial circumstances of a person may be on the question of whether that person is genuinely seeking employment?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have already answered that question.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand that the incomes of the right hon. Gentleman's friends behind him prevent them from seeking work?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot be responsible for what the hon. Member understands.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: Is it intended to carry on the inquiry as to income after the transitional period?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot say whether the Courts of Referees or the Umpire will put this question after the transitional period is over. So far as the Courts of Referees and the Umpire are concerned, I have no right to interfere with what they consider desirable.
    Mr. CONNOLLY: What would be the purpose of the inquiry then?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The same as now.
    Mr. KELLY: What standard of income is taken as representing that comfortable position which prevents a person seeking work?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Taken by whom?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Taken by the referees.
    Mr. KELLY: And by the umpire.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no right to answer for either the Courts of Referees or the umpire. They have to judge by their own discretion. With, in this case, the support of the whole of the party opposite they were put in a position entirely independent of my Department, and they can take their own decisions.
    Mr. T. KENNEDY: Is the Minister not aware that applicants for benefit are disqualified by his own officials on the ground of income?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to take Parliamentary responsibility for the actions of the Courts of Referees; or are we to understand that the Courts of Referees are outside Parliamentary jurisdiction?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am certanly not going to take Parliamentary responsibility for decisions given by the Courts of Referees or the umpire?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Why?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The independence of the Courts of Referees and the umpire was expressly established with the concurrence, as I have said, of the party opposite, in order that they should not be influenced by my Department. That being so, I cannot accept responsibility for their decisions. They have their own discretion.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour the number of claims to unemployment benefit at the nearest available date this year; the number of claims rejected; and the corresponding figures for last year at the same time?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the answer is in the form of a Table I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:

    Four weeks ended 10th December, 1928.

    Number of fresh and renewal claims made

    768,475

    Number disallowed by Insurance Officers

    60,364

    Number recommended for disallowance by Courts of Re ferees on review after receipt of 78 days' benefit in preceding six months

    5,150

    Four weeks ended 12th December, 1927.

    Number of fresh and renewal claims made

    806,806

    Number disallowed by Insurance Officers

    20,814

    Number recommended for dis allowance by Local Employ ment Committees

    40,654

    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour the number of claims by men and women for unemployment benefit under the transition arrangements for the first two weeks of January, respectively, and the number of claims rejected?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: These figures are obtained for monthly periods and those for the period ending 14th January will be available about 18th February. They are published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette and those for the period ending 10th December will be found on page 23 of the January issue.

    TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he has yet come to any decision regarding the continuation or otherwise of what is known as the transition clauses of the Unemployment Act of 1927; if so, can he state the nature of his decision; and, if not, when he will be in a position to come to a decision?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No change can be made in this matter without
    158
    legislation, and I am not at present in a position to say whether legislation will be proposed.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the Minister answer the last part of the Question? When will he be in a position to make a statement regarding the position, in view of the great anxiety which is felt in many quarters about this matter?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot say at the moment when I shall be able to do so, but it will be in ample time for hon. Members to debate the matter, or to raise it, if they wish.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Minister aware that many local authorities are very anxious about this matter; and is it not possibly one of the factors which they will have to take into account in connection with the de-rating proposals?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, I am not aware of that fact.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this matter is one of tremendous urgency to local authorities and great numbers of comparatively poor people; and will he take steps, as early as possible, to relieve anxiety which exists about it?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have already said that, while I was not able beforehand to give adequate information about the matter, I believed the anxiety was grossly exaggerated. I hope hon. Members opposite will do their best to allay anxiety—as they have no doubt done up to the present.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: With your past record!

    TRAINEES, GLASGOW.
    Mr. STEPHENasked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed young people are receiving training in Glasgow at the present time, and the percentage of those trained previously for whom permanent employment has been found?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply is somewhat long, I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    About 150 young unemployed men between the ages of 19 and 25 are in training at the Springburn Government Instructional Centre which was opened

    159
    in October last. The course is normally one of six months, but as in the case of other centres men may be placed before they complete their training, 17 have already so left and have passed into employment. Forty women between the ages of 18 and 35 are at present attending the Home Training Centre run by the Women's Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment. Since this centre opened over 65 per cent. of the trainees who have completed the course are known to have passed into permanent employment. In regard to young people between the ages of 14 and 18 there are at present 526 boys and 370 girls in attendance at the Juvenile Unemployment Centres in Glasgow. No information is available as to the number or percentage of boys and girls who had previously been attending the centres and have subsequently found permanent employment, but 6,034 boys and girls have passed through the centres since 1st April, 1928, and the majority of those who left did so to take up employment.

    WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he has made any new move towards carrying out the spirit and intention of the Washington Convention of Hours of Labour since his last statement on this subject; and, if so, can he state the nature?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the hon. Member is aware, the policy of the Government in this matter is to secure such revision of this convention as will make possible the effective international regulation of hours of work. Since my last statement in this House the Governing Body has laid down the procedure to be followed in regard to the revision of conventions. In pursuance of that procedure the International Labour Office was instructed to prepare a draft report on the Hours Convention, and this report will be discussed at the next Session of the Governing Body, to be held next March.
    Mr. T. SHAW: Has the Minister ever stated precisely what his objections are; or, when is it his intention to make a statement?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have already in this House stated my objections.

    POOR LAW RELIEF.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Health whether he can give the total number of recipients of Poor Law relief in 1913, and on the last available date?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The total number of persons, all classes, in receipt of Poor Law relief on the 1st January, 1913, was 794,227, and on the latest available date, 5th January, 1929, approximately 1,260,000.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Do those figures include Scotland?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, I could not answer for Scotland.
    Mr. MACLEAN: They are only for England and Wales?

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (LANCASHIRE).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Health the number of women in the Lancashire area who were in receipt of widow's pension in January, 1929, and the number of children in receipt of allowance at the same period?
    Sir K. WOOD: The information asked for is not available as the records of pensioners are not arranged on a territorial basis.

    NURSERY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. KELLYasked the President of the Board of Education the number of nursery schools in Lancashire, and the number in England and Wales?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): There are four nursery schools in Lancashire, and 27 in England and Wales.
    Mr. KELLY: Are there any proposals before the Noble Lord's Department for the opening of a number of additional schools?
    Lord E. PERCY: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. KELLY: How many?
    Lord E. PERCY: I could not say without notice.

    BRITISH ARMY (EMPLOYES).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for War the number of men and women employed at Woolwich Arsenal and the Small Arms Factory, Enfield, in January, 1929; and how many of these are pensionable?
    Mr. PENNY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The number of employés of industrial and non-industrial grades at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, and the various establishments in Woolwich Arsenal is approximately 12,400, of whom 950 are established.
    Mr. KELLY: Is it the intention of the Department to increase the number of pensionable servants?
    Mr. PENNY: I should have notice of that question.

    ALLOTMENTS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Minister of Agriculture how many urban district councils have bought land for allotments under the machinery of the last Allotment Act?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Assuming that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman desires the information to include boroughs as well as urban districts properly so called, the answer is that 82 borough councils and 78 urban district councils purchased 1,954 acres of land for allotments during the years 1925, 1926 and 192V. It is not possible to say what proportion of these purchases was effected before the 7th August, 1925, when the Act referred to came into operation.

    TRAFFIC CONTROL.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any further information to give the House with regard to the proposal to establish traffic police?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Yes, Sir, I hope to call this Conference at once.
    Mr. MORRISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman or his Department propose at the Conference to submit any scheme for the consideration of the Conference?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. As at present advised, the purpose of the Conference will be to ascertain the views of local authorities and whether it is desirable to formulate a scheme.
    Mr. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the proceedings will be public?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Oh, I think not.

    INCOMES (STATISTICS).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of persons in possession of in comes exceeding £2,000 per annum in 1913 and the number on the last available date?
    Captain B0WYER (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. No information is available as to the numbers of incomes in 1913 exceeding. £2,000 but not exceeding £5,000, which was the limit of liability to Super-tax in that year; but the hon. Member will find particulars of incomes exceeding £5,000 for the year 1913 in Table 70 of the 59th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Particulars of the numbers of Super-tax payers for recent years will be found in Table 64 of the 70th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

    ECCLESIASTICAL POWERS (LIMITATION).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he can give an opportunity for discussion of the Motion on Ecclesiastical Powers standing in the name of the right hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and others? —[That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to reaffirm the Resolution of this House passed on 15th December, 1640, namely, that The Clergy of England, convented in any Convention, Synod, or otherwise, have no power

    163
    to make any Constitutions, Canons, or Acts -whatsoever, in matters of Doctrine, Discipline, or otherwise, without common consent of Parliament.]
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir; my right hon. Friend can hold out no hope of facilities being given for the discussion of this Motion.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, in view of the indications that the present Bench of Bishops contemplate issuing for use the Prayer Book recently rejected by this House, it is desirable either to reaffirm the ancient Resolution of this honourable House or to reserve promotion in the (Church of England to those clerks who do not disobey the laws of the land, or resent the control by the State, or disregard the Thirty-nine Articles of Re-ligion to which they swore allegiance at their ordination?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is, I think, going considerably beyond the terms of his question. He asked my right hon. Friend whether he could give an opportunity for the discussion of a certain Resolution on the Paper, and the answer that I have given, on behalf of the Prime Minister, is that there is no hope of any such opportunity, certainly this Session.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: But does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Prime Minister would desire to have reaffirmed by this House the ancient Resolution, as to the supremacy of this House in matters of faith?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If that had been the question which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had addressed to the Prime Minister, I have no doubt my right hon. Friend would have provided a satisfactory answer.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the Home Secretary think that enough mischief has already been done by this House attempting to dominate the Bishops?

    IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can inform
    164
    the House as to whether Messrs. Wigg and Cochrane and other ex-British civil servants in the Irish Free State have now received the compensation to which they have on two occasions been held to be entitled by the Privy Council under Article 10 of the Irish Treaty?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I hope to be able to make a statement at an early date as to the position arising out of the decision of the Judicial Committee in this matter.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Will my right hon. Friend say when I may put a question down again?
    Mr. AMERY: Perhaps if my hon. Friend will put down a question in a fortnight's time, I may be able to answer it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Home Secretary what business the Government propose to take on Friday?
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Local Government Bill, Committee, 8th Allotted Day, and, if there is time, other Orders on the Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 22nd January.]
  [6th ALLOTTED DAY.]
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 68.—(Discontinuance of grants.)
    The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper—in page 54, to leave out from the first word "The" in line 19 to the word "in", in line 20, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "following grants, that is to say:

    (a)The grants payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof into the Local Taxation Account; and

    (b)Such road grants as have heretofore been made as classification grants in respect of roads and bridges classified by the Minis' r of Transport as roads and bridges of Class I or large Class II in London or county boroughs and as grants for the maintenance of unclassified roads in counties

    (which are)"—
    unduly interferes with the structure of the Clause and raises points that can be considered on subsequent Amendments. Therefore, I do. not select it. In regard to the next three—
    (1), in line 19, after the word "grants", to insert the words:
    "other than grants for maternity and child welfare services";
    (2), in line 19, to leave out the words "set out in the Second Schedule to this Act", and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof into the Local Taxation Account"; and
    (3), in line 21, after the word "Grants", to insert the words:
    "except the grants in respect of classified roads"—
    I would suggest, for the convenience of the Committee, that a Debate might be taken on all three. They are all in order, but, if the first were taken alone, I think it would be difficult to confine the discussion within the limits of the special services concerned, but, of course, it would be no prejudice to taking
    172
    separate Divisions. On the other hand, if the Committee preferred, we could have a limited discussion on the first and a longer discussion on the second, but I think probably in practice that would give rise to considerable difficulty.
    Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: We should prefer the general discussion, but the Amendment standing in my name, the second of the three you mentioned, Sir, raises the whole question of principle. That, of course, I take it, would be allowed to be raised on the general discussion?
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
    Mr. GATES: I beg to move in page 54, line 19, after the word "grants", to insert the words:
    "other than grants for maternity and child welfare services."
    This Amendment is to exclude the maternity and child welfare services from being discontinued grants; in other words, to keep them, as at present, on the percentage system instead of bringing them under the block system. There are very good reasons why this should be reconsidered by the Ministry of Health. The actual cost of the maternity and child welfare grant last year was but £1,052,000. The service is a young and growing one and a very important one. The ante-natal work is only just beginning to be considered under the maternity schemes, and as for maternal mortality, that has hardly been considered at all under the maternity and child welfare schemes. The service, as I say, is a growing one, and the expenditure also is a growing one. In the last five years the expenditure has increased by 36 per cent. I need not, I am sure, refer either the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to the importance of the ante-natal work or to the desirability of better treatment of children up to five years of age. That has been well pointed out by the Medical Officer to the Ministry, Sir George Newman, in his latest report, in which he states that 25 per cent. of the young children entering the elementary schools to-day are suffering from some physical defect which could have been prevented had they had better treatment before entering school.
    The service, as I say, is not by any means so fully developed as to secure

    173
    for the children of the country the whole of the benefits which are made possible by the Maternity and Child Welfare Act. Hitherto, 50 per cent. of the expenditure has been borne by the Ministry itself, but under this Bill a block grant will be made to the appropriate local authority, which will itself decide how much of the money shall be spent in maternity and child welfare work, and the question naturally arises, Will the maternity and child welfare services receive an adequate proportion of this block grant to allow for the much-needed expansion in the work, and how far is there security under the Bill to prevent local factors operating to restrict the expenditure and to hinder the progress of this vital work? The Minister, in the wonderful speech in which he presented the Bill, referred to Clause 86 as giving him the fullest and widest powers to deal with cases of this kind, but the Committee will find in this Clause that the power of the Minister is to
    "reduce the grant payable in respect of any year under this Part of this Act to any council by such amount as he thinks just—
    (a) if he is satisfied—

    (i) That the council have failed to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of efficiency in the discharge of their functions relating to public health…and that the health of the inhabitants of the area of the council or some of them has been or is likely to be thereby endangered; or

    (ii) that the expenditure of the council has been excessive and unreasonable, regard being had to the financial resources and other relevant circumstances of the area."

    It seems to me that that is hardly what would be considered a reasonable safeguard to induce a laggard authority to expedite the work of maternity and child welfare, or to increase the amount which was necessary in view of the growth of population or other circumstances of the locality. It hardly seems a safeguard upon which the Committee can rely. All those interested in this matter will be grateful if the Minister can explain how far he considers it a safeguard, or how he can make use of that power to force an unwilling locality to spend more money, and not less, for the benefit of the public health of the young people.
    The block grant under the Bill is to be fixed for a term of years. Originally, the term was five years, but I am glad
    174
    to see on the Paper to-day that the Minister is proposing to alter that, and to suggest that the first period should be three years, the second four years, and the subsequent period five years. I say at once that that is a great improvement, because most of us who are interested in maternity and child welfare felt that a block grant for five years was a very long time, for a great many things might happen in five years. Even three years is a considerable time, for much may happen in three years, and, if there is an increase in the necessities of the neighbourhood, the increase will have to come out of the local rates, and cannot possibly be made up in any other way. That is another serious disadvantage to the successful prosecution of maternity and child welfare services, and must have a discouraging effect upon those who are engaged in the work.
    I would like to deal with another point which has been raised by the Minister and by other speakers, that the continuance of the percentage grant makes for the advantage of the richer boroughs and to the detriment of the poorer or necessitous boroughs. It has been said that at the present time a richer borough spends more because of the percentage grant, and the necessitous borough spends less. I am not prepared to admit that that is true, but, if it be true now, it cannot be true after this Bill comes into operation, because there will be this very large sum of £45,000,000 to be distributed among the boroughs according to their necessity. The Minister himself said in his speech, when he referred to two necessitous boroughs in particular, Merthyr and Tynemouth, that as a result of the distribution of this money, they would, in the final adjustment, in one case be advantaged to the extent of 108d. per person, and in the case of Tynemouth over 210d. per person. If that be so, these necessitous boroughs in future will have no excuse for not supporting and proceeding with maternity and child welfare to the full extent that any of the richer boroughs have done in the past. They will, according to the terms of this Bill, be in such a financial position that they will have every opportunity of proceeding with the work. I therefore suggest that the argument that the percentage system works to the benefit of the richer borough and does not operate to the success of the poor borough will no longer

    175
    have application when the provisions of this Bill are carried out, and the grants of new money and so on are made to the boroughs.
    Another point raised in regard to the percentage system was that it implied a considerable amount of official interference with the local authorities. I have been interested in local government work for many years, and I have never heard anything but praise of the official interference of the officers of the Ministry of Health in connection with work such as maternity and child welfare. On the contrary, the advice of the officials of the Ministry has been a great help to local administrators, and I believe that it has acted as a stimulant to many lagging authorities.
    A further point which I am particularly asked to raise, and which I do so with pleasure, is the question of the voluntary associations. Much of the work of maternity and child welfare is being done, and no doubt will in future be done, by the voluntary associations. They consider themselves very much discouraged by the provisions of this Bill. The country owes a deep debt of gratitude to the large number of men and women who have so splendidly given of their abilities, time and money to form the voluntary associations which have been such an effective help in promoting this work, and helping the local health authorities in every district. I hope that the Minister will be able to give them some crumbs of comfort, so that they will be able to feel that they will have full opportunities for work in the future. Up to now some of them have received grants from their local councils, but not all, and in every case. they have received from the Ministry 50 per cent. of their approved expenditure on maternity and child welfare work. That, of course, passes under the Bill. The Minister has some power, although I do not consider enough power, to see that these associations are recognised by the local authorities, and whatever they receive now they will have to get through the local authorities, and the amount will be calculated, I imagine, on the figures of 1928–29. That may be all right for one year, but in the case of such a growing service it will hardly be the right amount for the third year. One can hardly be surprised that these voluntary associations
    176
    are uncomfortable at the present time. Although they may be doing work which gives satisfaction to the Ministry of Health, many of them feel very doubtful about their own local authorities.
    I would remind the Committee that in my own borough of Kensington we started maternity and child welfare work over 23 years ago, with the help of the then President of the Local Government Board, Mr. John Burns. We had awful figures of infant mortality at that time— there were 140 deaths per 1,000 births. We started this work under a medical officer of health who was in full sympathy with the voluntary side of the work, we got together a band of enthusiastic voluntary workers, and a great deal of good work was done. But that particular medical officer died and was succeeded by one who said that all he cared about was the official worker; he did not, he said, care about "having any truck" with voluntary associations. In those circumstances the voluntary effort naturally died down, and it is only in the last eight or 10 years, under a new medical officer of health with larger and wider views, that the work has again proceeded apace. I am thankful to say that now we have at least seven centres for maternity and child welfare work, and the infant mortality has been reduced by 50 per cent., having fallen from 140 deaths per 1,000 to 70, entirely owing to the efforts of both the official workers and the voluntary associations.
    The Minister can be assured that I and those who have moved me in this matter are not in the least degree inspired by hostility to him, to his Department or to the Bill. There is much in the Bill which we all like. But I would point out that there are many other services which will still be run on the percentage grant system. There are the roads. The roads are very important, but they are not more important than the maternity and child welfare work. The contributions towards the main roads, classified as 1 and 2, and towards the improvement of rural roads, are to be worked out on the percentage system. The London roads are to come under the block system. If the roads can be divided up between the two systems I think it is not too much for us to ask that maternity and child welfare work might -be put on the percentage system instead of on the

    177
    block grants system. Other services, including education and police, have not been altered. Not long ago there was an idea that contributions to expenditure on education might be paid under the block grant system. That was carefully considered by all the education authorities, and I think no one would now be bold enough to suggest that educational expenditure should be dealt with by block grants. Nor, I imagine, would anyone say that the police should be put on the block grant system. I saw the Home Secretary here a moment ago. I do not suppose he would desire to have block grants in respect of the police forces of the country. The cost of the police forces and of education takes up a great deal more money than the public health work of the country.
    In conclusion, I would impress upon the Committee that the exclusion of these maternity and child welfare services from the block grant system is regarded as of very great importance by those who know best about the matter and have been working these services for a number of years. Resolutions in support of my Amendment have been sent to me from all sorts of societies, including the National Council of Women, the Society of Infant Welfare and from the Ragged School Mission. A resolution in support of it has also come to me from a society of which the Minister of Health is himself President—the Society of the Unmarried Mother and her Child. I do not know whether this society had submitted the resolution to their President before I had the honour of receiving it, but I confess that when it came to me I felt there might be some hope that the Minister would be able to deal favourably with the Amendment. I am doubtful whether I have done this Amendment the justice which it deserves, and I hope the Committee will excuse any deficiences on my part.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I need hardly say that my hon. Friends on these benches are fully in agreement with the Amendment which has just been moved by a supporter of the Government. I wish to raise the whole principle which underlies this subject, and to use the maternity and child welfare services as an illustration. I challenge the reversion to the block grant system as being injurious to the develop-
    178
    ment of the social services. Those who have followed the remarkable development which has taken place in recent years in social services administered by local authorities know that the chief factor in promoting that growth has been the percentage grant system. The public health services and the education services have thriven and have grown to their present dimensions because of the stimulus of the percentage grant system. It is quite clear that when any new service is being established, when Parliament is giving new powers to local authorities, those powers will never be exercised adequately unless the expenditure which (he local authority itself bears is assisted in some way or other by the State. In the case of maternity and child welfare service, the Ministry of Health is well aware that we should not have had even the inadequate service we have to-day but for the existence of the percentage grant on the 50–50 basis. I believe that fact is quite undeniable. It is clear that for every new social service you must have the share-and-share principle from the outset if that particular service is to come into effective operation.
    There is another extremely important point which those interested in social services have appreciated, and it is that the percentage grant system has always been a powerful stimulus to the pioneering local authority. Our social services have grown up largely owing to the example set by the pioneering local authority which, armed with the assistance of the percentage grant, and knowing that it has the support of the State behind it, has been prepared to forge ahead of its fellows and set up a standard which other local authorities have followed in the course of time. That is an undoubted truth, and we owe much to, say, the City of Bradford which, under the inspiration of the percentage grant, has made new developments which otherwise would never have been possible.
    In the case of every new development, the sharing of the expenditure on the percentage basis is the most workmanlike method of financing that service. Remember that all these services arise out of the legislation passed by Parliament conferring powers on local authorities. Those powers are conferred, presumably, to be used, and are not intended

    179
    to lie musty and forgotten on the Statute Book. Until every local authority is exerting 100 per cent. of its powers, Parliament has no right to discourage local authorities in their efforts to achieve that position. It is wise economy and certainly wise statesmanship, when Parliament has devoted valuable time to promoting legislation, to use all those powers in order to secure effective administration. Where services have developed for a number of years, it is wrong to do anything which is not going to encourage the further development of such services.
    Every service which is being administered by local authorities to-day is in process of development. Nobody will contend that there is a single social service administered by local authorities to-day from which they are extracting 100 per cent. of its possibilities. Every social service to-day is undergoing development, and that is particularly true of maternity and child welfare. It is equally true of the provisions for the treatment of tuberculosis and the treatment of mental deficiency and venereal diseases. There is not a single health service which has been utilised to the extent which Parliament permits, and any step which under these circumstances would tend to hinder even one local authority from continuing to develop its work must be disastrous to our social services.
    In the case of maternity and child welfare we have to-day—or rather we had on 1st April of last year—847 ante-natal clinics struggling with a mass of work with which they cannot possibly cope effectively. Is there any hon. Member in this House prepared to say that 847 antenatal clinics are sufficient for England and Wales? Nobody can say that. As a matter of fact, there is room for 1,847, and oven more than that, and there will continue to be room for more clinics until the community has been assured that every expectant mother can have the care she needs. The financial Clauses of this Bill destroy the real partnership (between the State and the Government are delivering a felon's blow against that particular service which is not even extracting 10 per cent. of its possibilities, to say nothing of 100 per cent. The same is true of every other health service, which ought to be stimulated and not impeded.
    180
    The real opposition to the development of these services comes from the Treasury. What is the argument which is generally used? It is that the percentage grant system involves increasing expenditure which is uncontrollable and cannot be forecasted accurately. I do not believe it is true to say that expenditure on these services is uncontrollable, and it is not true to say that such expenditure cannot be kept within reasonable limits. It is not difficult to forecast such expenditure. Everybody who has studied local expenditure on our social services from year to year knows that you can within very narrow limits forecast what they are going to spend next year. You will never find that 600 local authorities have suddenly decided to double their expenditure upon maternity and child welfare. You know that you are dealing with a developing service, and you can easily tell how much the expenditure upon it is likely to be.
    It is not true to say that the expenditure is not controlled, because every penny that is paid for these services is in respect of expenditure which has been approved by the State department. The health services are based on a percentage grant system in respect of approved expenditure, and that is the real check of the State upon such expenditure. The State is in a position to say that any particular expenditure is an abuse of existing legislation, and it can decide whether it is unnecessary, or has been diverted into channels which are not as productive as other forms of expenditure. On those grounds, the State can rule out expenditure which it thinks ought not to receive assistance from the Exchequer.
    I do not pretend that the percentage grant system in itself is an ideal system. I do not believe that you can ever find a simple single formula which will settle the financial relations between the State and the local authority. The great advantage of the percentage grant system is that it treats wealthy and poor areas in precisely the same way. If the rich borough of Westminster spends £5,000 on its maternity and child welfare service and the poorer borough of Batter-sea spends the same sum, they both receive from the State a grant of £2,500. Therefore, our experience in the past has shown us that we may

    181
    have to modify the percentage grant system. The Education Grant has been modified in order to bring in other factors to make up the difference which certainly results from the percentage grant system as between the rich and the poor local authorities. I claim that a grant which shares with local authorities under a proportionate system the expenditure on social services -modified, by density of population, or poverty, or the other necessary factors—does realiy approach as closely to the idea! as it is possible to get.
    I have already said that this alteration has not been dictated by consideration for the well-being of these social services; it has been dictated purely on grounds of economy. The spiritual father of this scheme is Sir Eric Geddes. After the War, in the days of the Coalition Government, when millions meant nothing, there came a period when the Government suffered very badly from "cold feet," and when the order of the day was economy; and the Government of the time established an extraordinary committee under Sir Eric Geddes, for the purpose of making suggestions which would promote economy. One of the most important suggestions which that Committee made was this:
    "We consider that the percentage grant should be abandoned in the interests of economy, and be replaced by fixed grants, or grants based on some definite unit."
    That is where the Treasury first got its own way. The percentage grant was to be condemned, not because it was not) assisting social services—indeed, it was doing it too well—but it was to be condemned because it meant the expenditure of Treasury money, and it had to be superseded by something on the lines of the Bill and the Clause now before this Committee.
    The most mysterious contribution, however, to this discussion on the relations between the State and municipal authorities, is the history of the Meston Committer. I know of few more scandalous things than the way in which this Government has deliberately suppressed all the evidence given before that Committee. I wish there were not imposed on me certain restrictions of speech about the origin of that Committee, but the course of its history is a story of the most appalling kind. A draft Report was submitted to the Com-
    182
    mittee, and no meeting has ever been held since. Why? Because the draft Report was drafted in violation of nine-tenths of the evidence that came before the Committee; it was a repudiation of the evidence that the Committee had received. I have said that in the House before, and I ask for a contradiction from the Minister if what I say is not true, that the great bulk of this evidence, including masses of evidence from Government Departments, from local authorities, from bodies representing local authorities, and from prominent publicists, was for the percentage grant and against the block grant.
    We have had no Report from that Committee; we have never had made available to us the evidence which was submitted to it; but, in the face of that evidence, the Government have come forward with a series of proposals which would be reduced to a laughing stock in the country if that evidence were ever to be published, and, as I am reminded, the draft Report that was submitted was so bad that the Committee itself refused to accept it. The Committee, so far as I know, technically exists, but is moribund, and will remain so, for the Government dare not publish the real results of its deliberations. Only two or three years ago the President of the Board of Education tried this kind of principle in dealing with education, and he had one of the most serious times that any Minister has had in recent years. I do not know how he can ever appear in public, certainly before education authorities, without hanging his head in shame. He was beaten. The local authorities realised that, if he had his way and destroyed the percentage grant basis of the Government giants, the whole of their work would go to pieces, and he had to give way. That is the reason why, in this block grant, education is not included. But it does not mean that education is not going to suffer as a consequence.
    We are really back again now to economy. What do the Government's proposals amount. to? In 17 years from now, local authorities are going to be penalised in order that the Treasury may gain. It is going to take them 17 years before they dare reach that point—17 years of transition. They dare not put their scheme fully into operation now,

    183
    because they know what the effect of it would be upon local finance. They know that the effect of the block grant will be to penalise local authorities, to put added burdens upon the ratepayers. Consider what is going to happen next year, and the year after, and the year after that. This year the Government are going to determine their block grant for the ensuing three years on the basis of the expenditure of this year. Any local authority that establishes a new maternity and child welfare centre, or enlarges one, or extends its work in any way which means increased expenditure, will have to bear the whole of the cost. Nobody can deny that. Every new development of maternity and child welfare work which takes place after the grant has been fixed is going to be entirely a local burden, without one single penny from the Minister of Health. Does he suppose that in those circumstances hard-pressed local authorities are going to undertake the developments which many of them would desire to undertake? If they are driven to a choice between higher rates or more service, when higher rates mean bearing the whole additional cost, it will not be surprising if many local authorities, however reluctantly, refuse to raise their rates. The local authorities will not proceed with this work, the new developments will not be undertaken, and that will be to the detriment of the public health of the people of this country.
    4.0 p.m.
    That is how this scheme is bound to work. It is bound to affect injuriously the development of this great health service. It will not do for the Minister to say that he is giving an overriding guarantee of Is. per head. What does that amount to? It amounts to about a 2d. rate. Is it supposed that that is going to recompense local authorities for their loss of rateable value? Is it supposed that it will recompense them for the cost of the necessary health developments for which they will have to pay out of their own pockets? It certainly will not do so, and in the case of every health service in the country to-day that is run by a local authority or by a voluntary organisation, those bodies, many of them doing very valuable pioneer work, are going to be penalised if they desire to be progressive. The block grant, stabilised for a term of years, lumping in services that have nothing to do with one another, is
    184
    bound to hamper the free development of what are really vital services in this country, and, whatever else may be said in favour of this Bill—and there is not much—I would vote against the Bill on the ground of this Clause alone, as being a disservice to the development of health services of all kinds on which the future well-being of our people ultimately depends. Let me quote a few words from Sir George Newman's last report. It is referring especially to maternity and child welfare:
    "Adequate ante-natal provisions, whether provided by doctors or midwives, with the assistance of the municipal clinic or the maternity hospital, is the only sound foundation upon which an effective scheme for a maternity service can be built."
    The right hon. Gentleman deliberately, with his eyes open, is helping to make that foundation itself unsound, is going to destroy the heart of people who have devoted years to the development of these services, and he is going to do it by the instrument of a block grant dictated to him by the Treasury, without any regard whatever to the wider human considerations involved.
    Countess of IVEAGH: I would like to offer a few observations on the Amendment before the Committee, because while the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment mentioned a large number of bodies, chiefly composed of women, who were in favour of this Amendment, I know there is a very great deal of diversity of opinion on this subject among women in this country who are interested in these particular services. At the same time, I admit that there has been apprehension as regards the possible operation of the block grant versus the percentage grant, and this seems to be chiefly based on the assumption that it is easier to induce a local authority to develop a health service if you can offer that local authority something in the nature of a good bargain. Bargains are supposed to appeal more particularly to the feminine mind, but it certainly has been assumed that this species of bargaining acts as a very great incentive in inducing local authorities, who, apparently, do not move at all without it, to take steps to develop their health services. Of course, it only applies to the areas which can afford to take advantage of the bargain offered. There is no

    185
    question of a bargain where there is no ability to pay anything, and I do not think it can be denied that it is the richer areas which have benefited most under percentage grants. I myself cannot see upon what the argument can be based when we realise that areas like Gateshead receive 3d. per head of the population for the development of maternity and child welfare services and Eastbourne receives 9½d
    The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken referred to pioneer local authorities who go forward while others hang back. Why should it be allowed only to the richer local authorities to be pioneer authorities? The poorer areas have not got now the ability to pay, but the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates) was quite on the point when he said that, after this Bill becomes law, these poorer authorities will be in such a financial position that they will have every opportunity of developing these services [AN HON. MEMBER: "By the block rants?"] Block grants mean a fairer incidence of grants from the Exchequer. The suggestion is that particular health services should be exempted from the operation of the block grant. I, myself, cannot see why, if these arguments were germane, they should not apply to all the health services, and not only to maternity and child welfare services. As a matter of fact, mental deficiency, tuberculosis and venereal disease could equally be exemptd from the block grants. The exempting of all health services, of course, would whittle away the whole basis of the Bill, and leave the present inequality between the richer areas and the poorer areas. The real advantage to those of us who are interested in health services comes in another Clause of the Bill. At the present moment, under the percentage grant, all that the Ministry of Health is able to do is to say to those areas which can afford to put up some money, "We will pay half if you will pay the other half," and in those circumstances the richer areas benefit more. Under the Bill a much larger sum of money will be at the disposal of the poorer areas, and under another Clause the Minister will be in a position to say, "You have now more money than you have had up to the present, and it is up to you to provide a reasonable standard of efficiency in dis-
    186
    charging these functions." Anything which could be done to strengthen that Clause, although I hardly think that it needs any strengthening, I am sure the Minister would be ready to do. Provided the Minister of Health has those powers, I cannot see how any apprehensions can arise in relation to the block grants. Poorer areas will have more money to expend.
    The hon. Gentleman told us that the local authorities are very anxious for the advice of the Ministry of Health. I have no doubt that in devising their schemes for the development of health services, that advice will certainly be at their disposal in the future, and under Clause 86 the Ministry will have new and special powers whereby they can assure that those authorities who now have money at disposal for the development of those services shall develop them to the greatest possible extent. I am prepared, and I ask Members who sit with me on this side, to trust the Minister of Health to put that Clause into operation in such a way that we shall have no fear of the development of those services which many of us have so much at heart. This Measure is admittedly a very complicated one, and I think in connection with this Clause, as in connection with every Clause, we all suffer from an inability to see the wood clearly on account of the trees, but I venture to prophesy that those who come after us will recognise this as being the greatest piece of constructive legislation of our generation.
    Mr. HARRIS: When the Noble Lady intervened in this Debate I thought that she was going to be a help towards persuading the Minister, at any rate on this particular Amendment, to make a concession. There has been a remarkable unanimity amongst all those interested in health questions, at any rate in regard to child welfare, that some departure in the principle of the Bill should be made. I am not going to raise the larger issue, but a number of organisations, largely composed of people of Conservative political sympathy, view with great distress the departure from the partnership of the Ministry of Health in this great new work. because this great new pioneer work is still largely of an experimental character, in a state of evolution, the progress of which depends on stimulus

    187
    from some central organisation. I am going to give great credit here to the Ministry of Health. I confirm what the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates) said, that much of the good work done in the country has been done through the direction, advice and assistance of the Ministry and its officials. I know more than one case where the guiding hand of the Ministry of Health has been of tremendous assistance. As I understand it, that direction is to be disturbed, and the future of this great-new work is largely to be left now to local authorities.
    I am very glad the hon. Member for North Kensington particularly referred to voluntary organisations. There can be nothing more unfortunate than to leave the whole work of infant and child welfare entirely to local authorities, particularly at this stage, and these local organisations are afraid—and, I think I can show, rightly afraid—that the result of leaving it entirely to local authorities must be, in the end, to sterilize their effort. I have in view one particular organisation in my own borough. The work is by no means limited to my own district. The services go over a very large part of London not only East of London, but also in other parts, north, south and west, patients come for care and treatment at the most critical time in their lives to this particular institution. It is not unnatural that the local authority in that east-end district, with money strictly limited, rationed as this Bill proposes, will hesitate before giving financial assistance to an institution that does its work all over London instead of limiting it to one particular borough, because it must be remembered that under the scheme of the Bill, the boroughs are only to have a particular amount of money, quite apart from the services. Whether the services expand or not, the money is to come in just the same, and as they are to he rationed under this scheme, naturally they will hesitate to give their limited money to institutions that do work largely outside their own districts. If the Minister really wishes, as I understand he does wish, to encourage voluntary institutions to do this work, he is going the wrong way about it, because, inevitably, under the system of rations, he is bound to force local
    188
    authorities to confine their work to their own particular district, and that will make it impossible for these larger institutions to go on. At any rate, I have received, like most Members of this House have received, letters from a great number of splendid men and women who have given many years of work to this responsible business, who feel that this is the death-blow to all that they have been doing in the last 10, 15 or 20 years.
    It is interesting to remember that the whole of this work really dates from almost the first week of the beginning of the War. It was on 30th July, 1914, that an Estimate, a comparatively small one, I believe, of £12,000, was brought before this House to encourage maternity and child welfare services. Owing to the outbreak of the War this Estimate went through practically without discussion, and, in spite of the War, in spite of all pressure of conflicting interests, once it was started it very rapidly expanded, and from comparatively small figures it jumped up very rapidly, so that in 1918, when the War was over, a Measure passed through Parliament known, of course, as the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, which put the whole organisation on a stable basis. In 1916, there were 650 centres. In 1928, there were 2,684 centres. It is a great mistake to think, as the Noble Lady suggested, that those centres are to be found mostly in the richer areas. On the contrary, at any rate in London, probably there is more activity in the poorer areas, and rightly so, because the need is greater. In Bethnal Green, the poorest borough in London, we have had more activity probably than in any other part of the county. Our infantile mortality rate has gone down so much that we were actually successful in getting the prize for the best work in that direction as compared with the whole country. That is a big burden on poor districts, and we are actually in this Bill abolishing the equalisation fund. You are removing the assistance that comes from the central authority under the percentage grant.
    I do not think that is the right way to help local authorities in poor districts in their struggle to deal with this tremendous problem. Since the inception of the whole system of child welfare the death rate per 1,000 has gone down from 105 to 70. There is still a tremendous

    189
    amount, of work to be done. A number of boroughs in London are very much behind and there are whole districts which are not adequately catered for. If there is anything for which an exception should be made surely it is this new pioneer work of looking after the mother at a critical time in her life when she has to go through such a tremendous strain and stress and experience. I beg the Minister not to try to make the Bill logical. Logic is all very well in some things but when you are dealing with a great social problem like this he would be justified in making an exception.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: I am sure Members on both sides are anxious that nothing should be done to interfere with the development of this service. It is simply because we differ as to the best means of dealing with the subject that the hon. Member has put down his Amendment. I do not agree with it. I am definitely opposed to the percentage grant for this service and in favour of the block grant. We have heard from more than one speaker of the objections to the percentage grant, but I do not think they have been stressed as much as they might have been. Under that system the money is not given according to need but simply according to ability to pay. We also know that percentage grants tend to encourage extravagance amongst local authorities. One can always be extravagant with a service when one has only to pay half the cost. There is also the other very grave objection that a percentage grant necessitates very careful Government control of expenditure. Percentage grants were given in the first place as a stimulus for the development of a service. The essential nature of a stimulant is that it is temporary. If you make it permanent it tends to become a narcotic, and there is a danger of this happening with maternity and child welfare service. The percentage system has been in existence for some time and all local authorities have had the opportunity of taking advantage of it, yet a very large number have not done so. In certain cases, owing to lack of interest in this service, they have not troubled even to start it. In other cases, in wealthy districts, there has perhaps been the fear of an increase in the rates and therefore they have not started. But I think the main cause has been the
    190
    poverty of different districts. They really cannot afford to pay their 50 per cent. quota, and it is on behalf of the poorer authorities that I think we should welcome the action of the Minister in bringing in the block grant.
    I have noticed more than once that there is a tendency in the House and in the country to value the success or otherwise of a service by the amount of money spent upon it and to say that if the expenditure increases by 10, 15 or 20 per cent. the service, of necessity, is improved. But the increased expenditure does not necessarily mean increased efficiency, and the point we have to consider particularly with regard to the block grant system is, will the money be sufficient for the service, and we have the assurance of the Minister on the Second Reading that that is the case. He then told us that the average grant per head for the maternity and child welfare service, eliminating one or two particular towns, was in the region of 5d. By means of the block grant, in certain towns the increased money will come up to 200d. per head of the population or more. No one can legitimately say that these services are going to be starved for want of money. The money will be there under the block grant if the public care to have it. By Clause 86 the Minister is given such power that he can either initiate or see that these services are carried on in an efficient manner. I also think that public opinion, knowing of the new money that will come into the district by means of the block grant, will begin to insist upon local authorities using it for this specific purpose, and that will have a very marked effect. As far as I can see, being a very keen supporter of maternity and child welfare work—[An HON. MEMBER: "It sounds like it!"]. It may sound invidious to remind the hon. Member that I speak from experience. I have initiated and carried on such a service and it is as the result of my experience that I am convinced that the day of the percentage grant for maternity and child welfare services is over.
    The success of a child welfare centre does not necessarily depend upon the money spent on it. Money, of course, is essential for success but what you need in a centre are an enlightened public authority, and, above all, a conscientious, well trained, tactful woman as nurse. If

    191
    you get a thoroughly well trained nurse with an instinctive love for mothers and children, and a medical officer with the same characteristics, you will have a successful maternity and child welfare service irrespective of the money you have to spend, because it is a voluntary service and people will only attend it if they have the fullest confidence in the nurse and the doctor and are received with tact, goodwill and sympathy. You can have two centres in neighbouring towns, one costing two or three times as much as the other and yet not half as successful on account of the personnel. This matter of personnel in welfare service is very much more important than money. As far as I can see, the result of this block grant will be, first of all, an increased number of centres, particularly in necessitous areas, which up to the present have not been able to afford them. We shall also find that we shall have an efficient standard in all the centres. Finally it will act as a stimulus to initiative and efficiency that there is no Government control of expenditure. I am convinced that these services will not suffer in any way by the substitution of block grants for percentage grants. They will benefit by the influence of an increased local autonomy, fortified by an insistent public opinion and by a deliverance from the insidious charm of the stimulating cocktail of percentage grants to the lasting and beneficial effect of the tonic block grants, which will enable enlightened and progressive local authorities to build up this young but very lusty social service.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I am sorry the Noble Lady the Member for Southend (Countess of Iveagh) who spoke has left the House because I shall deal with her speech rather in detail. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies), who has just sat down, has told us that tact and sympathy are a very good substitute for money. If you have tact and sympathy from the nurse flowing out over the locality you can apparently dispense quite easily with a great sum of money. The Noble Lady made very much the same plea. Her speech, indeed, was full of tact and sympathy and it ended by applauding everything the Government is doing to cut down and ruin these services. First of all she said that poorer authori-
    192
    ties will have plenty of money to spend and, secondly, that the Minister would have power to enforce health services. Both those remarks are entirely and completely mistaken. What guarantee is there that local authorities are to get anything extra? They are to have a minimum of a shilling per head of the population over what they have lost in the standard year 1928–29. First of all, what is a shilling per head of the population? We have no detailed figures except as regards the county boroughs. If you look down the county boroughs, there are several who have either exactly a shilling per head of the population or who have their increases made up to one shilling. The amounts they actually get in rate relief are in some cases 1 d. and in some 1½d The best is 2½d. Blackburn will get 2.4d. Here is Bolton. Bolton will get 2.3d. The formula does not in the least, as I have frequently pointed out, correspond with the distinction between rich and poor. The incidence is so capricious that some rich places might gain a great deal and some poor places, under the unrestricted operation of the formula, might lose a great deal. I need not again go over the careful estimates of the accountants as to what would be the effect if the whole of the grant were distributed under the formula. If the whole of the grant were distributed under the formula, the industrial North would lose and the seaside towns would gain. But let us suppose that for the first three years the poorer districts get a penny or twopence off the rates. That is not very much. This has to account for all the losses with regard to the possible rise in rateable value of properties and to account for all the new road work, all the maternity work, tuberculosis work, venereal diseases work, and the rest. That little extra will leave some of the districts worse off if they do anything at all commensurable with regard to their health.
    The Noble Lady seems to be under the impression that Clause 86 gives the Minister power to insist upon the maternity work being undertaken. It does not do so. No Clause asking for a reasonable standard can turn optional services into compulsory services. These services—tuberculosis, venereal disease and others—are optional. The authorities have secured an undertaking from

    193
    the Minister that if any new service is imposed, including the changing of an optional service into a compulsory service, fresh money must be provided. No words said with regard to the maintenance of a reasonable standard of health can undo the expressed action of Parliament which has made venereal disease, maternity benefit and tuberculosis optional services which the councils can, if they like, carry out or leave alone. This is indeed a very badly drafted Clause.
    I come to the question as to whether pound for pound does not encourage local authorities. Here I can leave behind what amateurs in local government have said. I appeal to people who have done work and to experienced officials. We have great, estimable voluntary associations, of which the Council for the Care of the Unmarried Mother and Her Child is one. First of all, as has been said, the whole of the evidence before the Meston Committee was in favour of proportional grants, and, if the Minister desires to know why proportional grants were necessary, I would advise him to ask the Home Secretary what was the evidence given with regard to the police, and whether the Home Secretary would, for a moment, admit a block grant for the police? There is plenty of evidence before the Meston Committee and otherwise—
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to a Committee of which the evidence is not before the House?
    Mr. CRAWFURD: What about the Safeguarding Committee?
    The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Lady is not out of order.
    Miss LAWRENCE: When the police were to be reformed and placed under the control of the Home Office, the essential need was a proportional grant. No Home Secretary in his senses would dispense with a proportional grant for the police paid on efficiency. The reason is that the Government are in earnest in maintaining the efficiency of the police, and they do not very much mind leaving the efficiency of the health services to the local authorities. Each rate is determined for three years. If they desire to put it into their pockets, or use it to relieve the ratepayers, they can do so, but if they
    194
    spend an additional farthing on health work, it will be additional expense, and they will be subjected to what I think is very illusory control under Clause 86.
    I turn from the police. I have here two quotations, one of them from Sir George Newman, who says in his Report for 1927:
    "There can be no doubt that the percentage Exchequer grants-in-aid on health services (Tuberculosis, Maternity and Child Welfare, Welfare of the Blind, Venereal diseases, Mental Deficiency, and the School Medical Services), have been of the highest possible value and incentive during the last 15 years, (a) in getting special medical services into operation, and (b) in guiding their direction. Those two advantages would not necessarily he lost by a system of quinquennial block grants, though some definite adjustments of administration will be necessary to secure them."
    A block grant is quite a different thing from a fixed grant. We are dealing with a fixed grant. A block grant every five years on a programme may be a very good thing indeed and a thing which in the case of education authorities properly administered can be an excellent thing. I quote again from the minutes of evidence taken before the Royal Commission on Local Government. This is the evidence of the Ministry of Health:
    "As is to be expected from the permissive character of the Maternity and Child Welfare Act…the schemes at present being administered differ widely as regards their efficiency and completeness. It has been the policy of the Minister and his predecessors to stimulate local authorities to initiate schemes, and so on."
    There is no power to compel these authorities, and there is no power under this Measure to force what is an optional service on to local authorities.
    "There is no power to compel local authorities, but the Minister has a lever in the form of the grant of 50 per cent. of the approved net expenditure."
    And it goes on to say that
    "it has in practice, achieved a fair minimum of efficiency."
    I come to the extraordinarily unfortunate position of the health grants to voluntary societies. At the present time the Minister can make grants— proportional grants—direct to voluntary societies. Under the Bill, all they are to get is whatever the local authorities may give them by way of a scheme approved by the Ministry. This means that what the local authorities give

    195
    them by means of a scheme will be taken away from the rest of their grant. The Council of the Unmarried Mother and Her Child stressed the point that they are the property and protege of no local authority. Their institution may be in London or in Plymouth or anywhere in the country, but they serve the country as a whole. It is part of then-technique that that should be so, and that these women should be sent far away from their native place in order to ensure the strictest possible privacy. These associations are the proteges of no local authority. They are the children of no local authorities. Some local authorities have already expressed the opinion that it is unfair to give grants which belong really and strictly to their own residents to a national society. That feeling, unreasonable as it may be, is very strongly felt. That Association consisting of experienced and devoted women, women who are doing a much more difficult task even that the local authorities do, have passed a definite resolution condemning the principles of the Bill and asking every woman who has a heart to rally to their defence. These women—most of them are not my friends politically—are good women who are doing one of the most difficult, dis-agreeable and humane pieces of work in the whole world. I will read what they say.
    "This meeting of the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and Her Child views with the most serious apprehension the Government's proposal that the distribution of Exchequer grants to residential homes for unmarried mothers and illegitimate children should he entrusted to local authorities. While acknowledging the support at present given by a few local authorities to such homes, the Council is of opinion that should the new proposals come into effect, the work which has made so much progress in England and Wales since 1918 for the care of unmarried mothers and their children under the sympathetic and practical encouragement of the Ministry of Health and the Treasury must he gravely imperilled. The Council considers that owing to the particularly difficult social problems with which this branch of child welfare is bound up, it must be continued on national and not local lines if its progress is to continue, and therefore urges the Government to keep in the hands of the Minister of Health the allocation of State assistance for such voluntary institutions."
    I have spoken of child welfare. The Noble Lady seemed to think that it was
    196
    reductio ad absurdum to say that you must care for the sufferers from tuberculosis, care for the blind, take over the care of venereal disease, and the care of mental deficiency. We stand for a logical extension of the principle. Those interested in mental deficiency have pointed out that their grants are similar to those for maternity and child welfare. They have pointed out the deplorable state of the child mental deficiency and the adult mental deficients who are not looked after. Anyone who knows about the casual wards knows that mentally deficient casuals are going up and down the roads and from casual ward to casual ward, because no proper steps are taken to deal with their condition. Take the question of venereal disease. So reluctant were local authorities to take up the question that a grant of 50 per cent. was not enough; 75 per cent. had to be given. Do you think that local authorities who have been bribed by such an enormous percentage to undertake this work are going to carry it on when they have to take every additional penny they spend out of the block grants handed over for other purposes? And if the Minister had powers of compulsion! What are powers of compulsion? Unless the authorities are really willing, you cannot get them to do the work. It is desired by every local authority that the percentage grants should continue. Nobody can quote any local authority that is whole-heartedly and completely in favour of the Minister's proposals. Some of them have said that if these concessions were made they would not oppose the proposals. That is the utmost support the Minister has got for his local proposals. With regard to those persons who understand the business and charitable institutions; they are uttering one cry of alarm with regard to social services. When we are told that we must logically extend it to the other services, we say that these new services, so new, so important, so little developed, varying so much from county to county, are the services which of all others needs a proportional grant, and we express, along with the authorities I have quoted, our deep terror and apprehension at the effect of the Government's proposals.
    Sir D. NEWTON: There is, I think, general agreement as to the importance and the need for the development of these

    197
    particular services, and I cannot claim in any way to share the apprehension which appears to be felt on the opposite benches as to their future under a block grant system. The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) referred to the attitude of the local authorities. It may be a matter of some interest to the Committee to know, in view of the hon. Member's observations, that this morning at a meeting of the County Councils' Association reference was made to this question and the Association were unanimously of opinion that the exclusion of the mental deficiency and maternity and child welfare services should not be made from the block grant system. In other words, that important organisation supports the proposal contained in this Bill.
    I do not agree with the hon. Member for East Ham North, or with other hon. Members opposite that this change will be to the detriment of the maternity and child welfare service. On the contrary, I believe that the proposal will tend to stimulate the interest of local authorities in this service. Local authorities will in future be set free from the meticulous and often unnecessary and generally unwelcome supervision and control of Whitehall. That in itself is a very considerable gain. The local authorities will have more liberty of action, and more power of initiative, and I think they will be more likely to experiment and expand their services. The percentage grant system has led to considerable progress but, as has been pointed out on this side of the House, it is the rich boroughs and the rich places which have been able to make that progress most easily. Under the proposed block grant system the poor authorities and those less well blest with this world's goods, will be put on the same plane as their richer neighbours.
    So far as the Government's proposals are concerned, surely it is a reasonable proposition that the local authorities should prepare a carefully considered scheme for the advancement of the services, and surely it is more likely to lead to the advancement of the services if a properly considered scheme is prepared. It will help to direct the service into those quarters where it is most useful and most required. I cannot share the doubts which have been expressed as
    198
    to the willingness of the major local authorities to carry out these services. In the past, local authorities have not been found wanting; they have done their duty. What reason is there to think that they will be less active in doing their duty in the future than they have been in the past. If they do fail to do their duty, the remedy is to be found in Clause 36. That Clause penalises them by a reduction in grant if they fail to carry out their obligations. That will prove a more effective instrument for making local authorities carry out their duties and meeting their obligations than the present inducement of a percentage grant. It will be better, too, for many of the voluntary associations concerned. At the present time, in many eases voluntary organisations interested in maternity homes have to make applications to numerous different boards of guardians for contributions towards the financing of their homes. In future, instead of having to make application in so many quarters, these associations will be able to make application to the major authorities, who are more readily approached and more likely to be sympathetic. It is, therefore, a gain from the point of view of such voluntary organisations. I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment and support the proposal for the block grant, which will operate for the general advancement of the services which we have so much at heart.
    Miss WILKINSON: It is a little difficult to speak quite patiently on this matter when we have to follow people whose own children have every care that money and service can possibly give them. We are dealing with a problem which is very difficult for hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to understand. We are dealing with problems of people who have not the money with which to feed their children properly or to give proper care and attention to their children. In the conditions under which we are living to-day, when whole areas of people are admittedly below the poverty line, the situation is becoming desperate. There is not enough money for proper medical attention and not enough money for nursing, and if we are not to have a C3 population that money must be provided by the local authorities. Hon. Members opposite seem to take it into their heads that the parents are the

    199
    proper people to provide all that is needful; quite so, if they have the money with which to do it, but, under the conditions that exist to-day, the statisics tell their own tale. We cannot get away from the fact that the deaths of mothers in childbirth is the one cause of death, with the exception of cancer, which has not considerably decreased in the last 23 years. We have to remember that this is not a disease from which women die; it is the natural function of motherhood, and it is a function in which very few mothers ought to lose their lives; but they do lose their lives in increasing numbers because of the conditions of poverty in the necessitous areas. Therefore, I suggest that what this Committee ought to be doing to-day is not to see in what way this service can be standardised, but in what way it is possible to increase the money, the care and the attention necessary for it.
    It is less easy to speak with patience on this subject when a doctor who really knows the conditions—I regret that he is not here—because he is the representative in this House of an area with a very high infant mortality—he represents one of the South Lancashire Divisions—takes up the attitude which he does, and when a lady who is herself a millionairess and has never known what it was to lack anything that she happened to need—I regret that she is not here—should take up the attitude which she does on this question. We are faced with this tremendous problem, which is not only a problem of the child as a child but a problem of the whole future life of the child. As Sir George Newman has repeatedly said, it is in the first few years of life that so many of the evils of the future are laid up. If the Minister of Health really cared about the economy of which he talks so much, he would be thinking of the future of the medical service, and of the necessity of giving these children a start in life. The hon. Member for Southend (Countess of Iveagh) is now present. May I repeat what I have said in her absence, that it ill behoves a lady who is herself a millionairess, and who has had for her children every care that can be given to them, to oppose the extension, or what is practically in effect opposition to the extension, in every possible way of maternity and child welfare services.
    Countess of IVEAGH indicated dissent.
    Miss WILKINSON: The Noble Lady shakes her head. I am not going to argue to prove it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] One can state a proposition, and then leave one's opponents to disprove what one has stated. That does not seem to be an illogical procedure.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not be just as illogical to say that because you are not a mother you have no right to talk about children?
    Miss WILKINSON: One expects that type of cheap sneer.
    HON. MEMBERS: What about your sneer about the millionairess?
    The CHAIRMAN: We are getting rather far from the question of the block grant.
    Miss WILKINSON: We are, surely, dealing with a matter which is, or ought to be, a matter of knowledge for every single person who is here. The remark of the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) might be used against every man who happens to be sitting in this House.
    Mr. ERSKINE: They are fathers.
    Miss WILKINSON: They do not, therefore, look after their children; I wish they did.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Do not they? I do.
    Miss WILKINSON: The argument of the hon. Member for the Sutton Division would seem to be that because one is not married, whether one is a man or a woman, one cannot deal with a matter of this kind. One might as well say that one does not understand anything about the solar system because one does not happen to be a scientist.
    Viscountess ASTOR: One does not have to be poor to have a heart. Women who have money are just as much interested in infant welfare in this country as any other people.
    Mr. PALING: You are more interested in keeping your money.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Oh, rats!
    The CHAIRMAN: We are getting far away from the subject before the Committee.
    5.0 p.m.
    Miss WILKINSON: I do not want it to be thought that I have ever suggested that all women who have money have no hearts. Some of the wealthiest women in this country have been connected with the council whose Resolution was read out by the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) and who are opposing the Government's proposal in this connection. I merely suggested that this is a matter which vitally concerns the necessitous areas and which vitally concerns very poor people who have not the money to get the necessities of life for their children. The facts are shown in the statistics of the last 25 years in the stationary number of deaths from maternal mortality in childbirth, while there has been a decrease of deaths from all other diseases or causes. Let me come again to the necessitous areas, because it is with them that I am concerned more than anything else. Those who are supporting this Clause and who are referring to Clause 86 as giving the Minister power to deal with those authorities which are not doing this work properly, forget the strain that is going to be put on local authorities when this Bill comes into operation, especially those areas which may be called necessitous areas. Let me refer to the conditions in the area I represent, where they have the beginnings of an excellent maternity and child welfare service. If you are going to relieve the whole of the works of three-quarters of their rates, it means, if these services are to be expanding, that in the future these enormous works will only pay 3d. in the £ towards their development. When you have a block grant system, stabilised on the 1928–1929 expenditure, it means that, if an authority is doing its best to expand this service, which is bound to be in its infancy at the moment, and wants to show a similar expansion in the next five years, three-quarters of the extra expenditure will have to be found by the cottage population and shopkeepers of Middles-brough. The works which are to be derated to the extent of 75 per cent. will not share in that increased expenditure.
    If the maternity and child welfare service was the only service affected it would not be so serious because the town council would be able to find the money, but when in an area already overcrowded
    202
    every other service is going to be similarly hit it means that the extra expenditure, some of which would have been contributed by the works, will have to be found by the working people and shopkeepers of Middlesbrough. It is going to be a perfectly appalling problem; and the difficulty is that the maternity and child welfare service tends to be overlooked because it is such a small service. If everybody, every local authority, were really keen on the development of this service, I do not suppose it would matter very much because we could get the money, but the Minister of Health and his Department know that while certain authorities have done wonderful work there are others who have not troubled much about it. These people, whose grants are to be standardised on what they are spending at present, are the very people who ought to be encouraged to spend more. At present the encouragement is for local authorities to standardise their expenditure at what it is at present; and then Clause 86 cannot come into operation. If they are standardised at their present small expenditure the Minister of Health, from what we have seen of him, is not likely to press them to spend more under present conditions.
    We have to realise also that a number of voluntary societies are doing excellent work in regard to maternity and child welfare. The good they have done cannot be measured; you have many women who are doing good voluntary service and excellent work. Many of them get no encouragement from local authorities at all and have to depend on the grants made by the Ministry. Here, again, grants in the future will be fixed on the amount received in 1928–29 and any increase in expenditure will have to be borne by the local authority. There again, instead of getting encouragement, you are getting standardisation. This is what I want to press most strongly upon hon. Members opposite, many of whom are as keen on this subject as hon. Members on this side. It depends entirely on the spirit in the local authority. If this was a service which had got into more or less good routine lines there would not be very much to be said about it; but it is so largely experimental. In dealing with children there is a very great deal which at present is only in the experimental stage, and when you are dealing with a service which is

    203
    in an experimental stage it is surely not the time for standardisation. If, instead of the spirit of standardisation, you had the spirit of expansion you would get an entirely different spirit behind the development of the maternity and child welfare service.
    The Minister of Health has provided that the extension of the road services must be left on the percentage basis. If that is true of that service it is infinitely truer of a matter which concerns the lives and welfare of children. It is difficult for any of us here to realise the appalling difficulties of a child in a slum street in a town. There is a lack of sunshine, a lack of privacy, a lack of quiet, and a lack of rest; and when we go round and talk to the mothers of these children we wonder how some of them ever grow up at all. We desire to bring to all these mothers the very best that medical service and medical science can offer. We ask that everything possible should be given to the development of this service. Yesterday we gave £650,000 rebate to the liquor traffic and tobacconists. Here you have £1,000,000 out of £45,000,000, a ludicrous amount at which to standardise the expenditure on this service. I want to plead for the maternity and child welfare service. I know it is possible to argue that under a block grant system certain authorities may be gingered up, but the Minister of Health has only to refer to the opposition which the President of the Board of Education encountered when he tried to do the same thing in education. Education is a highly-organised vested interest, so to speak, and it was able to resist the block grant system. Here you have a new system which is not organised. There are only groups of women who realise the importance of the service, with groups of medical men, and I appeal to the Minister, whose post bag I know must have been heavy with a tremendous number of appeals and resolutions, to accede to the request of those who are interested in this work and see whether it is not possible to remove the maternity and child welfare service out of the block grant system.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Many of us feel, with some Members of the Opposition, that we are not entirely satisfied with some of the health services being left under the block grant system, and we
    204
    are anxious that the Minister should reassure us on one or two points. Under Clause 83, I think the voluntary associations are all right; they art; in a good position. In fact, I think their position is stronger than it has ever been before. As the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) pointed out, the Minister of Health has no authority now to force maternity and child welfare centres on any locality, but with the increased grant for health services I think he may be able to bring them into line. What I am worried about is the extension of health services under the block grant. These health services have not grown because of popular demand. Indeed, they have grown in spite of general apathy, because they have been inspired by the central authority working mainly through voluntary associations in local authorities. The lead has generally come from the central body, and we feel that they are now going to be left entirely to the local authority. Every hon. Member knows, and no one better than the Minister of Health, how difficult it is, even with the percentage grant, to make some local authorities do what the central authority want them to do. If the maternity and child welfare service were older than it is, I should not worry about the block grant, but with all due respect to local authorities, the inspiration in vital matters, like housing, slum clearances, and health services, has generally come from the central authority. Very seldom do local authorities move unless they are prodded by the Minister of Health.
    I hope the Minister of Health will make it quite clear how health services are going to expand under the block grant; and I should also like to know what he is going to do about new services. If a local authority wants to start a completely new service, how is that to be done? If it is left to the local authority, with a block grant, we know how difficult it will be. Nobody understands the difficulties better than the Minister of Health, and I am sure he would be the last person to discourage voluntary organisations throughout the country. At the present the voluntary associations dealing with maternity and child welfare do not understand the position and are nervous about the expansion of the work. I do not like to say anything about men

    205
    in this connection. This is mostly women's work, and, while men in some local areas have taken an interest in the matter, the pressure has mostly come from the women. It has been a tremendous uphill fight; and I am sure the Minister does not want to do anything which will discourage voluntary societies. There is a real nervousness among the societies.
    I wish to ask the Minister a question regarding Clause 86. You have an authority like that at Manchester. It is doing very well and you cannot say it is inadequate. But still it might do much better. How is the Minister going to make it possible for that work to expand under his block grant? How can it be as easy to secure expansion under the block grant as under the percentage grant? We find expansion difficult now under the percentage grant, and we do not want to make things more difficult under the block grant. I realise that the Minister has difficulties. He has to deal with the backward areas which have plenty of money and yet are failing to do their duty. That is one. of the real problems. On the Second Reading of the Bill I pointed out that the county councils were now doing less than half of what they could do under the percentage grant. How is. the Minister going to make them do more under the block grant? It is not a case of the poorer areas; it is a case of areas which can well afford to have this service and have not got it.
    I am sure that the hon. Lady opposite, in referring to the Member for Southend (Countess of Iveagh), did not mean it when she referred to some of us, because we happen to be well to do, not being interested in children. I know that that was just a slip and did not resent her attitude at all. I have found that when it is a question of these services all classes of the community are interested. We have the tremendous problem of the children between one and four years of age. That problem has not been faced by the country yet. Does the Committee realise that 82,000 children under 14 years of age died last year, and that 23,000 died when between one and four years of age? We who are interested in child welfare want to be assured that we can go on as well under the block grant as under the percentage grant. We wish to be fair in the matter. I cannot follow the mind of any hon. Member who thinks that be-
    206
    cause political opponents bring in a thing it is necessarily bad. I have heard condemnation of this Bill simply because the Minister of Health has brought it in. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) said that the Bill was bad from start to finish. I hope that when the hon. Member has the chance of bringing in a Bill which will try to deal in a statesmanlike way with a great social problem, we on this side will not get up and condemn it and say that, simply because it has been brought in by the other side, there is nothing good in it. That is a poor spirit to show.
    We have a colossal problem to face and it calls for the goodwill of all sections of the Committee. I say quite frankly that if I thought for one moment that the Minister of Health was economising on the children of this country, I should be the first to denounce him. I do not believe that such is the case. But I do ask him to clear up the point I have put to him. If he does not do so, some of us reserve the right, on the Report stage, to move an Amendment for excluding the health services from the block grant. I hope that we shall not have to do that, but we would do it. The Minister has to convince some of us, and he has above all to convince the voluntary workers throughout the country who have given their lives to this task. It is not a popular work, as the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) has said. It is work in which we have to meet tremendous apathy, and when it comes to the case of the local authorities we have to fight many vested interests which belong not to one class of the community but to all classes. If it had not been that the Minister of Health took up the question of housing some of the local authorities would never have made a move in that matter. The same remark applies to slum clearance. We are not willing to give up the percentage grant until we are assured that the health work is not to suffer, and we shall be grateful to the Minister if he can clear up the point.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): We have now been discussing this subject for two hours, and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I took the opportunity of making one or two observations upon the various views that have been

    207
    put forward. Surely, it there be any subject in this Bill which ought to be outside all ordinary party controversies, it is this particular subject. In spite of any casual and perhaps unpremeditated observations that may have fallen from hon. Members on the other side, I do not think for one moment that they really believe that there is any difference of opinion between Members on one side or the other as to the value, as to the importance, as to the desirability of an expansion of our maternity and child welfare services, the results of which have been so remarkable and of which I think every one of us feels proud. Only to-day we have seen published in the newspapers the results of the Registrar-General's review of the figures of last year. We find that the infant mortality rate last year came down to 65 per 1,000, which is four per 1,000 lower than the previous best record in this country. So that, whilst it would be no doubt wrong to say that the whole of the tremendous improvement that has taken place in that rate is due to the maternity and child welfare service, yet I do not think anyone would have any doubt that the service has materially contributed to it.
    If that be so, why should we not argue this question out on that assumption, that: all of us want the same thing and that really all we need to discuss is, what is the best way of getting it? Why should the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) import the question of the Meston Committee, which was appointed by another Government and of which this Government has no cognisance at all because it has never reported? Why should he say that the real motive for introducing a system of block grants instead of percentage grants for the maternity and child welfare services is one of pure economy? Take the figures that the hon. Member quoted. They demonstrate the absurdity of his statement. What is this country spending yearly? £833,000,000. Out of that how much are we spending on maternity and child welfare? £1,000,000. Double it; make it £10,000,000. It still is only a trifling fraction of the total expenditure of the country. It is not conceivable, therefore, that the Treasury should seek to impose on the Ministry of Health a change of policy which, according to the suggestion made, is one that is likely to
    208
    injure a service in which the Minister of Health takes the greatest interest and in respect of which the greatest tribute has been paid to the Ministry in this Debate. It is inconceivable that the Treasury-should seek to impose a change of policy on the Ministry of Health in respect of a service on which it can only gain a few hundred thousand pounds. No. Do not let us bring such obvious absurdities into our Debate. Let us seriously consider what are the arguments for and against the introduction of a change of system with regard to this particular service.
    The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that he did not wish to confine his objections to the maternity and child welfare service: he wished only to take that as an illustration. Let me say again that I hope we shall not get into the sort of attitude about block grants and percentage grants that people take up about Protection and Free Trade. Do not let us be too abstract and theoretical about these matters. You may very well find that one system is best for one kind of service and another system best for another service. I myself take that attitude. I am disposed to judge the question of block grants or percentage grants on their merits as applied to particular services. Take housing, for instance. I am not attempting to interfere with the percentage grant in housing, because I do not think a change would be an improvement. One Member opposite, I think it was the hon. Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence), said that we were leaving the police on a percentage grant basis, and she inferred from that that we cared move for the police than for mothers and children. That is a very unfair assumption. Obviously the control of the police is to some extent still centralised, and there is a very clear distinction, therefore, between the case of the police and the case of a health service.
    We are really now considering the maternity and child welfare service. An hon. Gentleman opposite said that whatever the case might be for treating the maternity and child welfare service differently from other services, any argument which could be adduced in favour of that could be adduced with a great deal stronger effect on behalf of the mental deficiency service. It has been said that this maternity and child welfare

    209
    service is not popular. It is quite evident that the mental deficiency service is far more unpopular. It means a much greater responsibility on the part of local authorities, and there is a very much wider field that has to be covered than in the case of maternity and child welfare. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for Southend (Countess of Iveagh) that you could not possibly stop at the maternity and child welfare service, but would have to go on from one service to another, and it is very difficult to see where you could draw the line. But I am not going to put my arguments on the score that if you once open this door you cannot close it again. In my view it is in the best interests of the maternity and child welfare service that we should change the present system.
    Why do I say that? It is a curious fact which must have struck other hon. Members as well as myself, that when, as one would have supposed, the whole argument of those who oppose any change would be that the present system is so perfect that you cannot improve it, that it has worked so well that it would be a crime to interfere with it— whereas that ought to have been their argument, on the contrary they are arguing just the opposite. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that the present system approached as nearly to the ideal as it was possible to reach. What was the next thing he said? He said there was no service to-day that had been developed to the extent to which Parliament intended it ought to be developed. He took as a particular example maternity and child welfare services; and he said that there were only 847 ante-natal clinics in the whole of the country and that there ought to be 1847, or perhaps very many more. I quite agree with him. But, surely, that is a curious illustration of a most perfect and ideal system. I really cannot understand how the minds of hon. Members opposite work. They seem to think that the fact that the present system is not giving us the service that we ought to have, the fact that it has resulted in, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne says, not a single service being developed in the way that Parliament intended, is an argument for the present system.
    210
    I cannot understand how even the most illogical mind could come to such a conclusion. It is a conclusion which I cannot accept, and it is precisely for that reason that I do not think there is any question of any warmth of feeling in this matter. It is, perhaps, the difference in the way in which our minds work. This is a question which we must take into account in considering whether we are running a serious risk in changing the system under which we are working to-day and I assure the Committee quite fully and quite calmly that at the Ministry of Health, where I am not looking at one particular locality, but where I have to consider the reports that come in from all localities, I do not find the present system satisfactory. I do not find that, where local authorities are indifferent or, let us say, niggardly, that the offer of pound for pound is sufficient to make them "willing" as the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) put it. It does not make them willing. That is just the trouble. On the contrary, many of them remain unwilling, and, when they are unwilling, I have no power, nor has anyone in my office any power to put compulsion upon them. As the hon. Member for East Ham North quite truly said, the present services are optional and not compulsory. Therefore, if an authority says either that they cannot afford to do any more, or that they do not choose to do any more and that they are going to spend the money on something else, then, under the present system, the Minister of Health has no power whatever to force them to take any other course. I ask the Committee not to allow that particular point to leave its mind for a moment.
    That is really the key and the kernel of the whole situation. That is why it is impossible to get along faster than we do under the present system. We were told by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), from his experience in London, that there are whole districts which are not adequately cared for at all. That is under the present percentage system, and that is exactly the difficulty with which we are faced. After all, there is at present an enormous difference in the financial resources and position of various localities throughout the country. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne him-

    211
    self recognised that it was very unfair that two places, each spending the same amount, but one poor and the other rich, only received the same amount of money from the Exchequer. The hon. Member recognised that fact, but that is under the very system which he said approached as closely to the ideal as it was possible to conceive. Yet he admitted that it had the fatal defect that the district which is poorest—and we may be quite sure that the poorest district is the one with the greatest need—is the one which gets least from the Exchequer.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to what I said. He will find that to be so, if he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT in the morning. I referred to the percentage grants, as modified by those other factors to which I alluded.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member. I certainly do not want to make an unfair point. I, therefore, leave that point entirely, as far as the hon. Member personally is concerned. But my argument is not affected. The hon. Member was arguing in favour of the percentage system. I am pointing out where I think the percentage system fails. Some figures were quoted by the hon. Member for Southend. I would like to quote one or two other figures to show how the present system works. These are figures relating to four towns which are certainly poor relatively and which, certainly. do need maternity and child welfare services very badly. I am comparing them with four other towns which are comparatively well off. I want to show what is the difference in the assistance which they now get from the Exchequer. The figures which I propose to give are figures of the grants per child under five years and they are the figures for the year 1926–27. Here are the four towns: Gateshead, 2Vd. per child under five: Dudley. 21d.; Tynemouth, 36d.: Merthyr Tydvil, 43d. No one will say that these towns are not poor and that they are not just those towns where there ought to be very good services. Here are the others: Manchester, 128d. This I may again remind the Committee is per child and there is therefore no question of population. Liverpool, 107d.; Leeds, 140d.; Eastbourne, 200d.
    212
    How can you defend distribution of that kind? How can you say that that is likely to encourage the institution of adequate maternity and child welfare services in those poor districts? The worse off the districts are, the less they get. I say that is not an ideal system. It is really begging the question to say that we are opposing the extension of maternity and child welfare services if we advocate this change of system. The whole question is what is going to make for extension, or what is going to encourage the extension of the maternity and child welfare service. What do the Government propose? In the first place they are going to give the funds. Remember that the amount of money required per head to give an adequate maternity and child welfare service is very little. It is trifling when compared with such things as education and roads. The rate for such services add shillings in the pound, but in this case the amount is only about 5d. per head, taking an average over the country as the service is to-day. Even double it; make it 10d., and then remember that many towns and many counties under our scheme are going to gain three, ten and twenty times that amount and even more. Two hon. Members opposite spoke as though all the gain that was going to come to the counties and county boroughs was a shilling per head. I do not suppose they meant it. They must know quite well what are the circumstances in connection with the shilling per head. That is a guarantee, and the guarantee only comes into operation in quite a small number of cases.
    In the vast majority of eases there is no need for the guarantee because the gain under the scheme is going to be much more than a shilling per head. I could not allow that point to go, because what was said might be misunderstood by some who had not that complete knowledge of the scheme possessed by those who used those words. That shilling per head is actually only a guarantee to those few places which are not going to gain a great deal more. Therefore, the position is that under this scheme it will not be possible, in future, for a local maternity and child welfare authority to say: "We cannot afford to have a proper service" because they are going

    213
    to have sufficient money under the scheme to enable them to give sufficient services.
    Miss LAWRENCE: How much of this money is going to these services?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That will be for the local authority to determine. I must make one point at a time, and the point I was making at that moment was that there would be enough money. That cannot be denied. If the local authorities spend the money in the right way is another point. I have shown that, as things stand now, if a local authority chooses to spend the money which it has got on something else and not upon maternity and child welfare services, I have no power to say to that local authority: "You must bring your service up to the proper standard." Once I have given them sufficient funds to enable them to do it, without imposing, as one might say, an undue rate upon their ratepayers, I am given also, by this Bill, power to say to them: "Now, then, I am going to demand that you provide an adequate service." An hon. Member opposite has said that nothing in Clause 86 can convert optional into compulsory services. Of course that is perfectly true. I cannot force local authorities to give adequate maternity and child welfare services. But if I had a lever before, in being able to offer them something on condition that they spend a little themselves, I would have a much more powerful lever under this proposal, for I could take away from them that which they had got and there is no limit to the amount of their grant which I could take from them.
    That power is subject, no doubt, to the presentation of a report to Parliament, and Parliament might not agree, but we are not concerned for the moment with the question of the exercise of the Minister's powers. What I am saying is that the Minister will have a lever which he never had before and, quite probably, instead of having to put that lever actually into operation he will only have to whisper into the ear of the local authority "Clause 86," and I think it will be unnecessary for him to go to extremities, because no local authority is going to resist a reasonable demand for adequate services of this character, and no local authority is going to risk the
    214
    loss of a grant which will, in future, form a large and, in some cases, a very large part of its whole income. I said when moving the Second Reading of this Bill that I was quite willing to consider any Amendments which hon. Members put forward which might seem justified with a view to strengthening further the powers of the Minister. As my object, and I believe the object of everybody else, is to ensure adequate health services not only in the best and most progressive areas but everywhere throughout the country, I have myself examined the provisions of the Bill over and over again in the light of the various criticisms and suggestions which have been made.
    Of course, I recognise that, as has been said by various hon. Members, there has been a considerable amount of apprehension in the minds of people in the country who were not actuated in any way by partisan motives, but who were genuinely interested in work in which many of them had been engaged, but who feared lest they should in some way be prejudiced by a drastic alteration of this kind. I think some of these bodies who passed resolutions have been a little hasty. They have passed those resolutions on some account which perhaps has been given to them, but they have not heard the other side. People who come to hasty resolutions of that kind have one disconcerting habit; they do not, if one may use an American colloquialism, "stay put." When somebody else comes along and puts the other side, they very often change their first view, and, in fact, that has happened in a number of cases; and it is not true to say that all these associations which are particularly concerned with women's work in one form or another have taken up an attitude of relentless hostility to this change. Many of them at first sight thought this was something which was going perhaps to injure their work, but when they understood better what it was, some of them have changed their minds; and only recently, in my own town, there was a meeting of the branch of the National Council of Women where this subject was debated, with the result that only four, out of a considerable number of people there, voted for the continuation of the present system. That was because an informed view of the differences between the two systems and of

    215
    the provisions in the Bill was put before the meeting.
    I want to say that I attach great importance to the work that is done in this connection by the voluntary associations. I have the greatest admiration for their work. I have always been in favour of the association between voluntary workers and municipal workers in social matters. I am certain that these voluntary associations bring into the common pool something which no municipal organisation can supply—something personal. After all, these are people who are doing the work, not because they are paid to do it, not because it is their livelihood, but because they are really themselves definitely and personally interested in it. I am quite certain that anything which would destroy a partnership of that kind would be very unfortunate and very wrong, and, therefore, I am very anxious that the voluntary associations should be assured that their interests have been properly looked after in this Bill. Under Clause 83 the Minister himself is brought in to see that their interests are properly looked after.
    The hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green spoke about the work of a voluntary association in London which he thought might be prejudiced, because, as he said, it did work for the whole of London, and individual Metropolitan boroughs might not care to contribute to an association which was not specifically connected with their particular area. I do not think he can have read the Clause, for, if he had, he would have seen that it provides that the Minister himself has got to make a scheme for London, after consultation, under which it is to be stated how much the London County Council and how much the borough councils are to contribute to any particular voluntary association; and, therefore, the interests of that voluntary association are amply protected in that particular Clause.
    So, too, with the associations in the country. Do not let them suppose for a moment that what they call the guiding hand of the Ministry is going to be withdrawn. The inspections of this work by the officers of the Ministry will still continue, though in a different form than in the past. The Minister, by
    216
    his officers, will be kept in the closest touch with the work that they are doing; and although it is true that those institutions and associations which have in the past received a grant direct from the Ministry will now have to take that grant from the local authority, yet I think it will be seen that, since the Minister's approval to the scheme, under which the contributions of the local authorities to the associations are fixed, has to be obtained, it is in the power of the Minister to look after the interests of these voluntary associations in the future just as he has been able to do it in the past.
    Captain O'CONNOR: In the case of an association which, though it has its headquarters in London, operates in different parts of the country, such, for instance, as the one relating to unmarried mothers, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he has sufficient powers to protect their interests?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. The institutions of that particular society, which now get direct grants from the Ministry, are serving, although they may be centralised in some respects, in particular localities and areas, and any schemes which may be approved by the Minister will secure that they get at least as much, as they are getting now from the Ministry of Health, from the various local authorities which will be called in to support them in the future. I was going on to say that there was one point which has been put to me, which I thought did require some further attention, and it was this: It was said to me, "It is all very well for the Minister to say that at the beginning of a quinquennium or of a fixed grant period, as we shall now call it, be may make a scheme which is perfectly satisfactory in the conditions that then exist, but supposing that in the course of a fixed period some voluntary association desires to extend its services, or some new body of people wish to form a new voluntary association, and supposing they go to the local authority and ask them for assistance, and the local authority say No, our scheme has been approved, and you must wait until the end of the grant period before we make any alteration, what then? Is not this body going to be rendered helpless for the rest of the fixed period?" It seemed to me that that was a point which ought to be met, which

    217
    had some real substance in it, and some hon. Members may perhaps have noticed that I have put down on the Paper a new Clause to deal with this question, under which it will be possible for Such. a voluntary association to make a representation to the Minister, and that, on receipt of that representation, the Minister will have power, after consultation with the local authority, to call for the scheme which has already been approved and to alter it in such way as he thinks fit. I think that ought to meet the particular point that, whilst schemes that might be approved at the beginning of a fixed period may be adequate in themselves and for the time, yet there is no sufficient room for expansion in the Bill.
    Viscountess ASTOR: That, really, is the second Amendment that I have got down on the Paper.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is one other point dealt with in that Amendment on which I was going to speak, and that is the case of new services. That, of course, is a different point. There, there is no question of discontinued grants, because by hypothesis these are services which do not now exist, but if Parliament should impose on local authorities a new service which is going to mean new-expenditure on the part of the local authorities, clearly it would be only just that Parliament should make, some provision for an additional contribution from the Exchequer towards the cost of that service. I did not originally put a Clause to that effect in the Bill, because I thought the thing was so self-evident, that it was quite clear that Parliament could not impose upon an authority new expenditure of this kind without helping them to find new resources, but in deference to the desire of some associations of local authorities, with whom I have been discussing these matters, I have now put down a Clause, which hon. Members again will find on the Paper, which declares the intention of Parliament that such provision should be made in the future in the case of such new services.
    There are one or two other Amendments, which I do not think I ought to discuss at this stage, but they are Amendments to Clause 86 and other Clauses, all of which have in view the strengthening of the powers of the Minister and
    218
    the additional security of the voluntary associations which are now engaged in this work. I ask the Committee to consider the points that I have put before them; I ask them to consider whether the present situation of the health services under the conditions of the percentage system are so satisfactory that we can be content to go on in the future as we have been doing in the past; I ask them to remember that there is not a single hon. Member who has supported the Amendment who has not, in the course of his speech, pointed out the deficiencies of our present system; and I say, in those circumstances, seeing that those deficiencies are to a considerable extent, at any rate, to be traced to the actual operation of this percentage system, that there is a good case for a change. My final word is this: After all, the whole system, the whole of the changes which are produced by this Bill, will have to be reviewed before many years are over, and there will be an opportunity then for people to compare the working of the old system with that of the new, and in these circumstances surely it is wise to accept the provision in the Bill as it stands.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. PALIN: I am very disappointed to hear the speech of the Minister. After an experience of administration of infant and maternity welfare schemes from their inception, I think that the percentage grant has been the finest lever that progressively-minded people could use in order to get them established, and although the Minister may say that he is not influenced in the slightest degree by a desire for economy in changing the system of grants, I cannot divest my mind of the fact that all along, since municipalities started to spend money on the percentage grant; system, all the reactionary bodies, such as ratepayers' associations, chambers of trade, and so on, who are opposed to this new development, have been demanding the abolition of the percentage grant system. It may be true, as the Minister says, that in the main there may be possibly a larger sum of money at the disposal of some authorities for this purpose if they choose so to use it, but having regard to the fact that infant and maternity care centres have been established in the teeth of a very fierce opposition on the part of those who ought to have supported them, I have

    219
    some doubts, because these pioneering associations have not been established, as the Noble Lady suggested, at Eastbourne and places like that, but in industrial centres, where the evils of the child labour system have existed, where people have been made millionaires out of the blood and sinew of little children. It is in such places that these child welfare centres have become necessary. To-day, instead of those sights of twisted limbs and blinded children, due to their mothers having had to go to work in the mill, we can see the dawn of a better day, and then comes the blighting influence of the Minister of Health to change the whole system by which this work has been made possible. This is essentially a national service, and the nation is proposing under this Clause to evade its just share of the responsibility for the work. People of good-will who really want to see a healthy nation will come to the conclusion that the Minister's speech was a brilliant debating effort, but that it was no good from the point of view of developing the cause for which he claims to stand. I feel that this Clause is a breach of faith with those authorities who have, on the promise of the percentage grant, established these beneficent institutions, because the whole weight of the expenditure does not come upon the local rates in the first year. It is very often an increasing burden. Such cities as I represent are faced with a possible reduction in income, because I am satisfied that even on the Minister's showing places like Newcastle-on-Tyne and Bradford are not likely to receive an increase in the amount that will be available, although Gateshead may benefit, and it well needs it. I am just afraid that, having regard to the fact that this Bill is going to leave these large municipalities with heavy burdens of debt, which the Minister has not adequately dealt with, and that there will be a tendency to meet these obligations, there will not be the money available for those schemes which the Minister expects.
    I am satisfied that, as a measure of economy, the money spent on infant and maternity welfare centres is the wisest expenditure that any municipality can make. We already see evidence of it, particularly in regard to blindness in children. I was very gratified to find
    220
    that a school for blind children in the locality where I live had to be closed because there were not sufficient scholars to keep the school fully employed, and that the beneficent work of the infant centre had reduced the number of blind children who required a specialised form of instruction. Therefore, by spending money on infant welfare, we are able to save money in the provision of instruction for blind children, to say nothing of the alleviation of unnecessary sufferings. Illustrations of that character could be multiplied, and I am satisfied that the same thing would apply in that other costly form of service, mental deficiency centres. I sincerely trust that, even at this late hour, better counsels will prevail. I do not question the Minister's interest in this matter. He does know, and he has the light, but the curse of it is that he is sinning against the light. He has seen all, and he knows all that I could tell him and a great deal more. He has seen houses thrust up against the mill, and I have been with him when he saw them and said that it was a bad system. But, unfortunately, he is cutting away the advantages we have gained, and is discouraging the people engaged in this work. Then millionaires' wives get up here in the way they have done to-day, and I trust that it will have a reaction upon all those who support this Clause.
    Mr. JAMES HUDSON: The Committee should remember that this Amendment was introduced by Conservative Members, and that during the Debate some of the Conservative Members have expressed their doubts of the results of the proposal which the Minister is pushing through. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has said that she will want further guarantees and explanations as to how the block grant is to produce the result which she says she wants, before she can feel satisfied about the Measure that the Government are pushing through. I do not know what she or other Conservative Members who were responsible for this Amendment think about the Minister's speech, but I feel that while he has made good debating points, he has left no guarantee with the Committee that he will be able to produce that steady progressive development which has assisted, as he

    221
    admitted, to produce a reduced death rate among infants of so low a figure as 65. That result has been obtained, not by the sort of system that he is now instituting; it is a result to a considerable extent of the efforts that have been made by local authorities, inspired and pressed forward by the system that has operated so far.
    Attention has been drawn more than once in this Debate to the fact that the Chief Medical Officer, Sir George Newman, has pointed out that there are in the elementary schools, 25 per cent. of the children who are suffering from ailments which, if they had been dealt with before they came to school, would not have existed at all. Yet when they come to school, and we have to begin to deal with the question of their physical efficiency, we are apparently content to operate on the basis of percentage grants. The Minister has said that he thought we ought to treat this question as one to be applied in different ways in different services. He is willing, he says, to judge upon the merits of the question regarding each service. I take it that, as a member of the Government, he has already judged that it is right to apply the system of percentage grants when dealing with the health of the children over five years of age. It is true that the Minister of Education made an attempt some time ago to get rid of the process of percentage grants in the educational system, but by the pressure that came from the House and from organisations in the country, and because, I hope, the Government saw the light, they dropped that proposal and returned to the old method of paying percentage grants for the health of children over five years of age.
    Will the Minister, or any Member on that side of the Committee, say, judging on the merits of the question, why you should alter that process when you come to deal with the question of maternal welfare? Will the Minister say why, having adopted the percentage grant system in the educational system, the Government have departed from it in this case? The Minister tried to make us believe that it was absurd to suggest that the Treasury had had any real influence in bringing about this result, and that it was in the interest of the economy pressure that the Treasury had done it.
    222
    May I remind the Minister, although he does not seem in the least concerned with the arguments which we are putting before him, that it was Treasury pressure that caused him to save as low a sum as £12,000 on the milt of the babies? He would go a long way under Treasury pressure for a much smaller sum than the hundreds of thousands of pounds involved in this proposal. During the time the Minister has been in his post the Treasury has been engaged in pressing him and his Department into doing a good many things which I am sure he would not have done, having the interest of the health of the nation at heart. The Economy Bill in regard to health insurance was a case in which he yielded to Treasury pressure, and although he dismisses our contention that the Treasury has pressed him in this matter, it seems to me that, when we remember the other instances in which he has yielded, the case is very strong against him.
    The action that the Government are taking will do exactly the opposite to what the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) said it would. His point seemed to be that you could effect under the block grant system such a change that with sympathetic and tactful persons like nurses and voluntary workers, you would be able to do all that you wanted to do. Would hon. Gentlemen be prepared to allow their women folk, in those great crises in their lives, to be dependent on the sympathy and tact of nurses, when skilled medical attention was most required? I speak the more feelingly about this matter because in Huddersfield, under the influence of the medical officer of health, recent experiments have been made about which I hope the Ministry of Health know something. The town of Huddersfield was divided by the local authority into three areas. In one of those areas, instead of leaving the care of mothers and children to sympathetic and tactful voluntary persons and nurses, an arrangement was made for a monthly visit before birth and after birth by a skilled medical man. Medical assistants were especially appointed for the job. In the third of the town where this experiment has been tried, the death rate was reduced some 10 or 11 per 1,000 during the short period in which it has been in operation. The Huddersfield Town

    223
    Council, in my judgment, did not act quickly enough; they did not go on at once to apply that system in the other areas of the town; and I am quite certain that as the incentive-has now been taken away, and as the block grant is to rule in the future, it will be very unlikely that that advantageous experiment will he extended.
    Many other towns besides Huddersfield will continue what have been called the tactful, sympathetic but inefficient processes, even though the lives of our wives and our babies are involved. The Minister talked about believing one another's intentions to be good. Of course, our intentions are good, but we know the end of the road which is paved with good intentions. What we want to hear from the Government is how they will be able to give effect to their good intentions through the local authorities; and I suggest that just as they know that in the matter of education they must keep to the percentage grant system, so they also know, if they will admit the truth, that the percentage grant system should have been retained for these services also.
    Lieut.-Colonel GADIE: I wish to support the Amendment. I listened carefully to the speech of the Minister, and in some measure certain doubts were removed, but I would like to ask him to answer the point he put as to what is going to encourage a further development in these services. Compliments have been paid to the Bradford Corporation, and every member who comes from Bradford must be proud of the health services of that city. I shall not adopt the attitude of another Member who comes from Bradford and find fault with other organisations because they happen to be very often against this particular side. I recall that not so many years ago the Bradford Corporation, who had been running a maternity home, closed it. The voluntary associations of the city then took up the work, and I believe they have carried it on efficiently ever since. I am content to believe that the Bradford Corporation and similar authorities will not neglect maternity or child welfare work, whatever may be in this Bill; but there are a tremendous number of voluntary workers in our cities who have rendered magnificent ser-
    224
    vice in this direction, and it would ill become Parliament to do anything which would put back the clock as far as they are concerned.
    The enthusiasm of the people who have engaged in this voluntary work ought to be encouraged at every point. They have done magnificent work. They took up this work before Parliament or the local councils awoke to the fact that it was necessary. What I ask of the Minister this afternoon is that in his reply he should answer the point which he himself put. What encouragement are we going to give to these voluntary associations to carry on and develop the work which they do at the present time? I do not agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) in condemning the whole system. I am just drawing attention to two new social services and pointing out that in the past few years more voluntary help has been received in working them than in (managing any other social services. That being so, we ought to say to these voluntary workers that they will not be hindered but encouraged.
    Mr. COVE: As I understood the Minister's case this afternoon, it rested upon two main principles. He said, in the first place, that the scheme of the Government was better than the percentage grant system because it would provide a larger sum of money for distribution amongst local authorities. He said the Government were now going to give more money for social services than had hitherto come from the National Exchequer. His second point was that in the distribution of the money there would be a levelling-up of inequalities and the necessitous areas would gain under the scheme. I want to say quite definitely that the provisions of this Bill will not realise the statements or fulfil the expectations of the Minister. It is by now definitely clear to all who have studied it that the total sum of money which will accrue to local authorities in ensuing years will be less than would have come to them if the present system had remained in being; and, furthermore, great inequalities will still exist; you will still have the necessitous areas, and this scheme will do nothing to relieve their plight. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary is again looking as though he were the essence of

    225
    wisdom and geniality. Let me remind him of what a paper with which, I understand, Lord Birkenhead has recently become associated had to say when discussing this scheme. The name of the paper is "Britannia" and in it, under the heading of "A mistake in tactics," I find the following:
    "The only mistake made by the Government over this scheme was the lip service paid by their spokesmen to the sacred cause of increased expenditure. It is time to say more openly that the limit of public assistance has been reached. The great merit of the Government Bill is that it will, wherever it is reasonably possible, stabilise expenditure."
    That is the whole purpose and function of the Bill on its financial side.
    Let us examine in detail what is happening. The Government have taken £16,000,000 as the figure for grant and have fixed it for all time, in spite of the fact that this grant was growing. That £16,000,000 would have grown. The Government have also taken £24,000,000, as the income which is now derived from rates, which was also an expanding figure, and have fixed that. Therefore, instead of the £16,000,000 from present grants and the £24,000,000 from the rates being allowed to expand normally, they are now fixed for all time. If we examine these figures I think we shall find there is no money left for expanding services. According to the Government's own returns, in 1926–27 the figures of £16,000,000 stood at £14,000,000. By 1928–29 it had grown to £16,000,000. On the percentage basis it had expanded by £2,000,000, an average of £1,000,000 a year. It has been found, going back into past years, that these grants, totalling £16,000,000, have been expanding at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum If we work out on that basis, the increase over a period of five years, we shall find that the £16,000,000 grows in this way. If the grant system had been allowed to remain as it is, then in 1929–30 that £16,000,000 would have automatically grown to £16,960,000; in 1930–31, to £17,977,600; in 1931–32, to £19,056,000; in 1932–33, to £20,209,000; in 1933–34, to £21,422,000 and in 1934–35, to £22,707,000.
    We see that the present grant would have risen from £16,000,000 to over £22,000,000. What does the Government scheme do? It simply gives £16,000,000 each year. Therefore there will be losses
    226
    varying from £1,977,000 in the first year of its operation to £6,707,000 in 1934–35. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary is now looking into matters. Let me now take the losses on the rates. £24,000,000 is the sum now paid.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. Member cannot possibly deal with the question of rates on this Amendment. That would have to be deferred to a subsequent Amendment. The question of loss on rates does not arise at all under this Amendment.
    Mr. COVE: I understood that we were having a general discussion. I think the Minister's actual words were that the local authorities were going to have more money. It is impossible for me to discuss that statement unless I also take into account the income from rates. May I put it this way—that that rating income has now become grant income, and therefore I may discuss it now because it has become grant income? As I said, here is the sum of £24,000,000. How would that sum have expanded if the present system had not been interfered with? It is not right to call this a block grant, it is a fixed grant—fixed for all time. I hope the Committee will pardon me if I go into this matter in some detail. In 1928–29 it was £24,000,000, and that was the estimate made by the Government. In 1929–30, it would have been £25,260,000; in 1930–31, £26,460,000; and in 1931–32, £27,782,000.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot permit the hon. Member to pursue that line of argument, because he is anticipating another Amendment which comes lower down on the Amendment Paper.
    Miss LAWRENCE: The argument we are using is that the proposal of the Minister of Health will not give much more, but much less money.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into details of that kind on this Amendment, because that is anticipating an Amendment to the next Clause.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know whether you were present, Captain Bourne, at the beginning of this discussion, when it was announced from the Chair that there was to be a general discussion. I have been present during the whole of the discussion, and I think

    227
    it is admitted that the question of the rates and toe amount of the rates has been discussed.
    Miss LAWRENCE: It is a very difficult thing to compare one Chairman with another.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady certainly cannot do that.
    Miss LAWRENCE: Rightly or wrongly, the Minister of Health was allowed to base his whole case on the question which we desire to raise now.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Boss and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), I may say that I was present at the beginning of the Debate and I heard the ruling which was given. The question raised was whether a block grant should or should not be taken, and that question was allowed a very wide discussion, but I cannot allow a wide discussion in reference to the question of the rates. With regard to the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove), I must point out that hon. Members must deal with any question of rates very briefly, because it is anticipating arguments which must arise on the next Clause.
    Mr. COVE: I will try to keep within your ruling, Captain Bourne, and I will leave out one or two years with which I intended to deal, and come to the sum total. I wish to point out that there is a large sum of money lost by the expansion being replaced by fixed grants and by replacing expanding rate income by a fixed rate income. Taking these incomes for a period of five years, if you do not take into account the Road Fund, the authorities throughout the country will lose no less than £22,000,000. Therefore, the Government cannot argue that this scheme, by the provision of a greater national pool, is going to allow the local authorities to spend more money on social services. There is a definite loss of income both from the point of view of grants and rates, and the whole object of the scheme is to stabilise expenditure on social services, thus throwing an increasing burden upon the ratepayers of the country.
    228
    I hope we shall be able to pursue this question further on the next Clause. It has been suggested that the expansion during subsequent periods will rise according to the expenditure of the local authorities, but I would like to point out that there will be no such expansion in the case of individual local authorities. The Minister of Health has claimed that each individual local authority which needs the money as an individual authority will get more money from the Exchequer, but that is not true. It is perfectly true that expenditure may be embarked upon by progressive authorities upon social services of various kinds, but the whole of that increasing expenditure will be thrown more and more on the restricted rateable field. Tie rates are bound to go up under this scheme, and I hope to show, if I have an opportunity of addressing the Committee on the next Clause, that the rates will go up on account of education and on account of other social services. Generally speaking, the whole weight of this scheme will have the effect of killing social services, or those services will be thrown as a burden upon the restricted rateable areas throughout the country.
    Captain O'CONNOR: As my name is associated with another Amendment dealing with this particular subject, perhaps I may be allowed to make one or two remarks in the general discussion of this question. There is no doubt whatever that the maternity and child welfare services are the common interests of everyone who takes an interest in the health services of this country I have always felt that the percentage system is full of dangers and defects, and those defects have been so well pointed out by the Minister of Health that it is not necessary for me to stress them. On the other hand, there is not the smallest doubt that there is a great deal of apprehension on the part of many organisations that the particular work which they carry on may be affected by the change over, although they admit that the change over is a preferable system of grants.
    I endeavoured to give an instance of this kind in the course of an interruption during the speech of the Minister of Health and it was the case of an association with its headquarters in London which interests itself in the question of

    229
    the interests of unmarried mothers throughout the country. Of course, the work of those societies has to be undertaken under conditions of the greatest possible secrecy. The work of this particular organisation was undertaken in an area outside the area of the headquarters which, in this particular case, happened to be in London. Consequently, this is a case in which the local authority concerned might reasonably consider itself aggrieved if it had to pay to an organisation of that kind expenses which in the past have been largely defrayed by a direct grant from the Ministry. I can see no provision in the Bill by which the Minister could make grants directly to an association of that character nor can I see where its funds are to come from.
    I agree with the Minister of Health that the question of the exclusion of maternity and child welfare services from the block grant system, whether that is good or bad, must be considered in relation to the whole of the Bill, and for that reason I must reserve my right to move an Amendment to this Clause on the Report stage. Of course, we cannot say at the present time whether these societies are justified in their apprehensions or not until we have seen the final form assumed by Clause 86, which I consider is the most important Clause of the Bill. As far as voluntary associations are concerned, they appear to be in an excellent position under Clause 83; in fact, they appear to be in a better position than they have ever been in before, because under that Clause the Minister has power to direct how much a local authority shall contribute to voluntary organisations operating in their respective areas.
    As far as backward authorities are concerned, I think their position is likely to be improved. Under Clause 86 there will be power to level up the standard of health services throughout the country. Other organisations do not seem to receive the same encouragement under the Bill as those classes to which I have alluded. In the case of a municipal child welfare centre that is comparatively well run at the present time, there is certainly no stimulus given to it under Clause 86. Probably I should be out of order if I went more closely into that subject. It is in respect of areas in which these new services have already been established,
    230
    though not so well as we should have liked, that there is some ground for apprehension as to what their position will be under this Measure as a whole. I do not believe that any of the constructive Amendments under this Clause can be satisfactorily dealt with until the whole Bill is considered on the Report stage. For my own part, I keep an open mind as to whether in the case of these new services, the importance of which is not denied, it is not worth while stretching a point of principle in order to secure that they shall not suffer from a lack of finance. I think the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will agree with me that the proposal she has in view would not be relevant in face of the proposed alteration of the first period to which the Minister of Health has suggested an Amendment. A very large part of the principle for which we have contended has been conceded in the new Clause which stands in the name of the Government relating to new services.
    Mr. KELLY: It seems to me that all those who have spoken from the Government Benches have proved the case for the retention of the percentage grant, since they have expressed fears again and again as to what would take place if the block grant—or, as it was called by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove), the fixed grant— came into operation. One would imagine, from the speech of the Minister, that someone on this side of the Committee had stated that the percentage grant system was a perfect system under which maternity and child welfare work should be continued. No one on this side made such a statement. What we did say was that the method proposed in this Bill is not a better, but a worse method of operating the system which we claim should be put in operation to a greater extent than it is at the present time, tinder the block grant system which is now proposed, those districts which have not taken up this work as they ought to have done are not going to be encouraged in the way that we have heard suggested during this Debate. An amount of money is to be granted to those districts, but there is to be no allocation of a proportion of that money for the purpose of these welfare centres, and those districts which have not been carrying out this good work up to the present are not going

    231
    to be encouraged, even with the threat of Clause 86 hanging over them. Therefore, in opposing the method of the Bill, and in supporting this Amendment asking that maternity and child welfare work shall not be placed under the block grant system, I believe we are acting in the interests of the women and children of this country.
    With regard to the remarks of the two Noble Ladies who spoke from the other side of the Committee, I was not quite sure where the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) stood on this question, since, while not expressing herself very strongly in favour of the one system or the other, she apparently would be satisfied if the Minister answered certain questions. I could understand to some extent the attitude of the Noble Lady the Member for Southend (Countess of Iveagh), because one can see that they are expecting at Southend to receive considerable help from this Measure as compared with someother parts of the country. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is going to show us how this block grant system is going to help those districts where we are now doing our best with these services—how it is going to help us to extend those services, and how, if we are able to prevail upon many of the districts to extend their services and give greater attention to this work, we are going to get greater assistance under this method of working. The Minister told us that the present method has not given us the best system, and that, therefore, we should change it. It has, however, taken a number of years to bring into the life of this country the centres for carrying out this work which is so essential to the community. I am not going to say a word against those who have been engaged in this voluntary work; I have been associated with many of them, and I know how difficult it has been to bring this work into operation to such an extent as to be of real advantage to the child life of this country.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) referred to the fact that the Government are convinced that the percentage grant method is much better than the block grant method when the child reaches school age. Surely, if it is good enough for that school period, it ought to be of
    232
    advantage during these earlier days. The only argument used by the Minister to defend himself with regard to the percentage grant in the case of the police was that this particular service was centralised, but, if there is one service which should be centralised, seeing that it affects the whole nation rather than a particular district, it is the work of child welfare and the work on behalf of the women of this country. It is suggested that if we succeed in securing the continuance of the percentage grant we shall be tending to extravagance. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies), in his speech this afternoon, indicated the mind of the Government on this question when he said that it did lead to extravagance when the Government were prepared to make a grant of 50 per cent. I do not know that there is the smallest [piece of evidence that would justify such a statement. The hon. Member further stated that there are some people in the House of Commons who judge results by the money that is spent, but I think that that statement again was not justified. On this question of maternity and child welfare, it is not the amount of money that is spent, but the result in the health of the children and the women, and the point that we make to-day is that we are not being given sufficient money under this proposal to enable the work to be done that will give that health both to the children and to the women with whom we are concerned. I trust, therefore, that this Amendment will be pressed to a Division and carried, and that we shall not change to this block grant method, which has not been proved, by any speech that has been made in this Committee, to be of advantage to the children and women of this country.
    Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: After the absolutely devastating reply of the Minister of Health, there is really very little to be said on the general question, but I would like to make one or two comments on the arguments used by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) and, earlier in the Debate, by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood). Hon. Members on the other side of the Committee have been talking a great deal to-day about stabilisation, and they have given the impression, whether intentionally or not, that under

    233
    the Bill, the contribution which is going to be made by the Exchequer to the local authorities, that is to say, the amount of money which local authorities will have to spend, is to be stabilised on the amount that those authorities spend in the year 1928–29. That is perfectly true as far as it goes, but hon. Members have always omitted to remind the Committee that, in connection with the loss of rates, there is going to be a substantial grant of new money amounting to some £7,000,000 a year. The hon. Member for Wellingborough talked about the normal increase in the diecontinued grants—
    Mr. COVE: May I point out that in my calculation, on which I arrived at a final sum of £22,000,000, I took into account the £5,000,000 of new money? I did not have enough time to develop it, but I would like the hon. Member to know that I did take into account the £5,000,000 of new money.
    Mr. HUDSON: If I understood the hon. Member correctly, and I think I shall be within the recollection of the Committee, he said that there was a normal increase every year in the discontinued grants, and that the discontinued grants, which would amount this year to £16,000,000, would, in the ordinary course of events, be increased by 6 per cent. per annum I took down his figures. He said that the grants which are the subject of this Clause would have amounted next year to £16,960,000, in the following year to £17,977,000, and so forth, until at the end of six years they would amount to £22,000,000. His argument was that local authorities, in the normal course of events, would, at the end of six years, have had a total of £22,000,000 more to spend than they would under the present Bill. He based his argument on the assumption that there is a natural and inevitable increase in these discontinued grants, but he has no justification for imagining that what has happened in the past will necessarily continue to happen in the future. [Interruption.] Perhaps, before the hon. Member sneers, he will listen to what I say—
    Mr. COVE: I am not sneering.
    Mr. HUDSON: There is included in the £16,000,000 a definite sum of nearly £5,000,000 which is fixed and does not rise or fall, whereas the only important item which normally rises or falls is the money arising from the Estate Duties, which have been consistently rising since the War. Because, however, they have risen in the years since the War, it does not in the least necessarily follow that they will continue to rise during the next five or six years at the same rate. The hon. Member has, therefore, no possible justification for suggesting that, if things had gone on as they were before, the local authorities would have had more money to spend. Even supposing that he were right, and that, if things had gone on as they were before this alteration, the local authorities would have been £22,000,000 better off at the end of six years, he omitted to tell the Committee that, under the Government's proposal, the local authorities will be better off by six times the annual new money. That annual new money is going to be something like £7,000,000 a year, and, therefore, at the end of six years—the hon. Member need not shake his head—the local authorities in the course of the next six years will have received from the Exchequer £42,000,000 of new money which they would not otherwise have received, and they will, therefore, be better off even under his own calculation.
    Mr. COVE: You have mistaken me altogether.
    Mr. HUDSON: It is that sum of £42,000,000 which is going to provide the margin for increased expenditure. It is, therefore, totally inaccurate for hon. Members opposite to try to make the Committee think that the grants to local authorities are going to be stabilised at the exact figure for 1928–29; they are going to be stabilised, as hon. Members know perfectly well, at the figure for 1928–29 plus the new money.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. CECIL WILSON: The Minister has put forward the argument, as illustrating the difference between the present system and that proposed in the Bill, that he will be able, under the powers given to him by his system, to tell a local authority that they are not spending enough money on a particular service, and that they must spend more money. He

    235
    said he would use his powers to compel them to spend more money in that direction. In order to deal with that argument I will take the grants for Sheffield for the year ending March, 1928, which amounted to £56,000. Of that sum, £37,000 was on account of tuberculosis, and less than £500 for the welfare of the blind. Supposing the Minister tells Sheffield that they are spending too little of his grant on the welfare of the blind, and that they must readjust their figures in order to give more to the blind. The Corporation will then say: "Very well, we will increase our expenditure to meet the demands of the Minister, but we shall have to reduce the amount coming out of the rates at the present time." As the Corporation is spending not £500 on the blind but £6,500, the actual effect upon improving the welfare of the blind will, therefore, be that they will not be any better off than before.
    It seems to me the same argument might be used in regard to the whole of those services. Take the case of maternity and child welfare. The Minister knows what Sheffield is doing in regard to that, because he opened the new centre some months ago. I would point out how disastrous it would be if there were to be a transfer of some of the money we are spending in some directions to other services. Take the case of infantile mortality, which has dropped about 15 per cent. since 1923. During the same period, however, the mortality from puerperal fever and other accidents of childbirth has gone up by 88 per cent., which is a very serious matter. It is perfectly clear that we cannot cut down that grant with any hope of improving matters. In the case of tuberculosis, an attempt might be made to cut down the grant because the death rate has dropped by 18 per cent. since 1921, but the notifications of tuberculosis have gone up during the same period by 40 per cent. When you come to the case of the maternity centres, which have been developed so much in recent years, you find that the number of cases going to the centre has gone up by 238 per cent. in that period. It seems to me that, although it would not happen in the case of an authority like Sheffield, which has been so advanced for a number of years
    236
    in these matters, in the case of other authorities, if they were compelled under the powers which the Minister gets to transfer money from one part of his grant to another service, it would not necessarily mean that they were really going to improve their health services. That is a very great danger, and I fear from what I heard in the Minister's speech that there is not going to be any real improvement in the health services of the country through the use of these powers.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: We shall be going into the Lobby soon on this question of principle whether health services in future are to receive the block grant or are to remain under the present system. The Minister did not contribute as much helpful matter as usual this afternoon. His main argument was that the present system was a bad one, and therefore we ought to have a change, and that any sort of change was better than the present system. It is not enough to say that the present system is bad, and then to ask the Committee to take it for granted that what he proposes is better. The Committee would have been more gratified with his speech if he had brought forward evidence to show that this proposed change was for the benefit of the nation. There is such a thing as passing from the frying pan into the fire. I agree that we ought not to let considerations of economy come in. The point is which is the best system for the public health services of the country? Those who are connected with the administration of the public health services are singularly unanimous in having a strong preference for the existing system of percentage grants. The Minister said he had evidence to the contrary, but the only evidence he brought forward was of one meeting, that of the National Women's Council, and he would lead us to infer that that was the only meeting at which the whole truth in regard to this Bill was presented. It has been the King Charles's head of this Debate that the people who are concerned with public health administration prefer the present system.
    I suggest to the Minister that there is a very plain way of showing to the Committee that his main consideration is the-improvement of the public health system of the country, and that is by taking com-

    237
    pulsory powers in this Bill. We admit that 847 ante-natal clinics, which have been inspired to a large extent under the percentage grant system, are a very small number in proportion to the need of the country, and that 684 welfare centres are a very small development in relation to the widespread national need. Why will he not implement Clause 86 of this Bill with compulsory powers? His main argument is that he is going to confer greater benefits upon the towns and cities with the greatest need in the country. There is no guarantee, however, that the money they get will be used for this or that particular service, or for the introduction of services which at the present time are non-existent. Why, then, will he not apply the principle of compulsion and try to get maternity centres, ante-natal clinics, and tuberculosis services really established by compulsion in all places where real need can be established? If he will take up that position, it will make a very great difference.
    The other point I would submit is this. In view of the overwhelming testimony of all concerned with the administration of these services that the percentage grant system is sound and beneficent, why, instead of throwing it overboard, does the right hon. Gentleman not try to work out some method of grafting his block grant system to the existing system, which has been proved to be good? All parties admit the inadequacy of the present system, and also admit that there is something good in it. Is it necessarily the last word in statesmanship to throw overboard what has been proved to be good, and merely to bring in change for its own sake? That is the kind of argument which the Minister applies to Socialists at their worst, that they are so fed up with the present system that they will make any kind of change without consideration. There is a good deal of evidence in favour of maintaining what is good and valuable in the existing system and of trying to graft on to it something which will do what he has been claiming his system will do. If he would do that, the Committee would adopt a different attitude towards this Bill.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: The borough which I have the honour to represent shows even more progress in regard to maternity and child welfare ser-
    238
    vices than Birmingham. For three years we have secured the Astor Shield for the best maternity and child welfare services. We should also have secured the shield this year if we had not given it up to the next best borough on the list, Kettering. My friends in this very excellent work, ladies who give up their own time to this volunteer work, which is having such excellent results for women and children, are very much perturbed at the result which will accrue after the passing of this Bill. I want to know exactly what will happen. No case has been put yet of the example of a small service which has an approved estimate progressing over a number of years. When I say approved, I mean encouraged under the guidance of the Ministry of Health. Suppose that this year you are spending £2,000 on this service, that next year you are going to spend £2,600, and the year after £3,000. In the ordinary course of circumstances, you would get under the percentage grant system £l,000 this year, £l,250 next, and £1,500 the year after. Under the Bill you are going to be fixed at the lowest figure. You will get £l,000 this year, next year and the third year, and the local authority will have to find from their rates an increase of £260 next year and £500 the following year. The Minister will doubtless say that the services are not going to be reduced. He says that there is a provision in the Act to preserve a reasonable standard of efficiency. I hope, when we come to it, he will include the word "adequacy." A microscopie maternity service can at least be efficient, but it is certainly not adequate.
    I have been requested to ask the Minister to give special consideration to residential maternity homes. These are a special branch of maternity service that can be considered quite apart from the rest of it. We have one of these homes in my constituency which deals with unmarried mothers and their babies. The grants for these homes have hitherto been made direct from the Ministry of Health according to the number of girls accommodated in them and quite without any regard to the locality from which they come. It is one of the principles of these homes that girls are exchanged from one part of the country to another, because it is advisable to remove them from bad associations in their own district. That part of the usefulness of their work will

    239
    be impaired, because the suggestion that the local authority will recover the cost from the girls' area will mean that these institutions will only deal with girls actually in the area in which the institutions are situated and that will militate very considerably against their usefulness. They have done very valuable work and they have received very valuable assistance from the Ministry of Health inspectors, who are able to supervise these homes all over the country and compare the work that is being done. This advantage will be lost if the homes are put under the parochial attention of the local authority. This work is extremely unpopular. It is work which un-instructed persons may not see the need for, and if there is a sudden call on the funds of our local authorities, such as an increase of unemployment, this very unpopular and, to many, unknown service will probably suffer.
    I only rose to ask the Minister to give this matter his particular attention, and, if he cannot accede to the general discussion, he might see his way to include these homes in the other exceptions contained in the second Schedule. A very simple Amendment to that Schedule in my name will class these residential maternity homes with the training of midwives and health visitors, who are also exempted from the block grant. I urge the Minister to give the matter his special consideration.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I hope I may be allowed to make two points as an old medical officer of health who has been in close touch with these voluntary associations and in active co-operation with them for 30 years. I am bound to say, when the first general lines of the Bill were announced, I shared the very great anxiety that has been expressed at the abolition of the percentage grant. I will say no more at present than that under certain conditions I am convinced that the Bill as a whole is a very great advance and we have to make the most of it. But there are two points which have not been mentioned. Those on the opposite side especially who have spoken with such warmth on the subject of the ideals that are common to us all, seem to have left out of account the question of the distribution of the grant which is the alternative to the percentage grant which they were advocating. When you
    240
    are contrasting the percentage grant and the block grant it is essential to bear in mind that the Bill introduces into what has been roughly called the block grant the new principle of weighted population.
    We medical officers of health, looking at the thing from the point of view of the health of the people, must recognise that an extraordinarily interesting new factor is introduced into the world of administrative public health. This weighting of the population according to the number of children under five years old, and the number of unemployed, has very great possibilities. It is obvious that there will be a great deal more money in the new Bill, and it is obviously germane to consider how it is going to be distributed in future. Yet we have the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) giving a philippic as if we or the public wanted to be convinced that we want to save maternal life. That is not in the least what he should have done. Representing the party that has made us spend days and weeks in discussing necessitous areas, he should have said, "Here is a Bill which is going for the first time to help to deal with necessitous areas on a new principle." He knows it will be extraordinarily helpful in dealing with really indigent people. But it would not do at all to be lauding the Government for a new principle of helping the necessitous areas, with which the opposite side wish to deal but can never bring forward any constructive proposal.
    The second point is this: Obviously, a good deal depends upon how the local authorities of the future are going to use the powers given them under this Bill. That is a point that must appeal to those of us who have the administration of health measures. Over and over again we have felt that it is almost impossible to get a move on because of the lethargy of many local authorities. Some are keen, more especially those in industrial centres, others are indifferent and some are actually apathetic or hostile. You simply have your 30 or 40 per cent. going to the poll and very little interest is taken in the matter. If you look honestly at the Bill as a whole there is a great opportunity for getting greater interest and responsibility and focusing attention upon local government on business lines. Much will depend, quite

    241
    independent of party, on trying to make use of the Bill to rouse local government. It is a difficult thing. I do not believe there is going to be a revolution but it will give a very large measure of support in that direction and, coupled with the enormous extension of the franchise, when the Bill becomes an Act, then will be the time to press upon new and old electors the great responsibility thrown upon them, and I believe if we can get a large measure of increased interest in local government we may find that we can trust the local authorities to carry out the block grant properly with very great advantage compared with the present system, and in that sense I look forward to the Bill as being the Magna Carta of local government.
    Mr. BROAD: I should like to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman for a few moments to show how this discourages the extension of maternity and child welfare centre work. The poor districts are going to lose not only directly the amount of the Government grant but also a large amount of their rateable value. In my district, to raise £1,000 for maternity and child welfare will cost a penny rate. With that and the Government grant we can spend £2,000. If in the future we want to spend £2,000 we not only have no Government grant but we have to raise the rate on a restricted rateable area, so that to get the same amount of work we shall have to spend three times the amount, and that is going to be a very serious discouragement to poor local authorities, already heavily rated, to extend services which so greatly need extension. That will apply all the way round to optional services. Instead of encouraging it will discourage advance and it will encourage further restriction, if we get a reactionary council in our district. That is why I oppose the application of this system in these services.
    Mr. LANSBURY: It is a matter of great congratulation to us that at last the House of Commons almost unanimously accepts the Socialist principle that care for the health and well being of women and children is a matter for Parliament and for the country generally. We have got away from all the old ideas of individual responsibility and now everyone
    242
    agrees with the Socialist argument, which some of us have grown old and grey in advocating, that the State has a responsibility for the life and well being of the masses.
    lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Disraeli expressed it in 1875.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Whether he said it or not, it is only during the last very few years that the Tory party have given even lip service to the doctrine that you ascribe to one of your leaders of a generation ago. We are disagreeing to-day as to how we shall administer public money for the preservation of public health. It is a matter of very great regret that the House, instead of devoting the time we are devoting to this and similar Measures, does not tackle the question of why it is necessary that this sort of legislation should be passed, and why it is that masses of women and children are in such a plight that they must be assisted out of it by public effort and public money. It would be much better if we devoted our time to prevention rather than cure, and to getting rid of the causes of the evil rather than tackling the results of the evil.
    I have got up to ask the Committee to remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) has been subjected to a good deal of criticism from speakers opposite, but nobody has met his point, namely, that first of all it is under the percentage grant system that the toll of death has been lessened in this country during the last 10 years. Nobody, I think, can deny that the bulk of the money has been spent in very poor areas. [Interruption.] No one will deny this anyhow, that in those districts where the system of percentage grants has operated, the very poor districts, such as the poorer districts of London and the poorer districts of Leeds, Bradford, Bristol and other towns of a like character, the death-rate among children has been halved. Nobody can deny that in London, in the poorer districts where my Friends have been in control and where we have gone to the Minister of Health and obtained a percentage grant in respect of the expenditure we ourselves could incur, the death-rate of our children has gone down in some cases by more than half.
    I say that, before you scrap a system like that, you ought to give us some

    243
    reasons for doing so. There are reasons in the increase of the preservation of the health of the people, and especially the preservation of the lives of children, for continuing the system which you are now upsetting. It is because-of this fact that the death-rate is so low. I have always tried to give credit to those members of the Coalition Government which was in office immediately after the War for instituting the legislation which has been under discussion this afternoon. Before it was possible to set up these health services under the municipalities, the conditions were very terrible indeed. We were only able to deal with the evil because the various Governments of the day have allowed us to have these percentage grants to carry on the work. There is a great deal of difference of opinion whether under the formula we are to have more money or not; whether under this system we shall get more during the next few years or less. There is one thing that no one can controvert. The money we are going to get will be based on the assumption that conditions are going to remain the same. In the district which I represent, our need has gone up year after year, and, if we are to have any lessening of the amount of money available through the operations of this Bill when it becomes an Act—and we shall have to get the money through the county council—if it means that we shall get less than we are getting now, it will, I am quite confident, result in a rise in the death-rate among our children and the lessening of the social services.
    It is nonsense to think that this question can be dealt with in the poorer areas by private charity. There is no one living in the district in which I live who can give the necessary time and labour to the carrying on of such work. The only charity which carries on work of this kind is that in connection with the fund which, I think, was originally organised by the late Queen Alexandra. Even that charity has to carry on this work very largely in conjunction with ourselves and with the help of public money. Therefore, the least falling off of money and the stopping of our opportunities to develop that work must mean that we shall have an increase in bad health, and, I am certain, an increase in
    244
    the death-rate among children. The real answer to the right hon. Gentleman and his very clever and adroit speech is that the figures of which he is so proud are figures which record the fact that under this system which is being condemned the death-rate among babies has gone down. That fact stands right out.
    There is a further fact which neither the right hon. Gentleman nor anyone on those benches has yet attempted to controvert, and that is that not one farthing of expenditure under the percentage grant can be incurred without the approval and the definite sanction of the Minister and his Department. No one can controvert that fact. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is going to exercise control, but he forgets that he exercises control to-day, and that not a farthing can be spent, not a brick can be laid on a centre, not a nurse can be employed, no salary can be paid, not a dentist can be employed, not an instrument can be bought, without the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman if we want a percentage grant in aid of such expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. It is sheer nonsense for some hon. Members to get up and talk as if the giving of these grants must of necessity mean lavish, extravagant expenditure of money. The right hon. Gentleman controls that money. Actually he is able to lay down conditions under which a mother shall receive a grant of milk or under which a person shall receive dental treatment.
    Why should we be told to-day that this system must be altered? There is only one reason. Whether the right hon. Gentleman means it or not, it is believed that by this system money can be saved. Perhaps you can save money, but you will save it at the expense of the well-being of little children and the mothers of the country. That is the price which you will pay for it. It is because that is so, and because no one has met the points, that under this scheme the lives of children have been saved, the health of mothers has been preserved and that the Government control every halfpenny of expenditure that they grant, that we on this side are going to stand by the system which has brought about these results. If no one else goes into the Lobby in defence of that system, we intend to do so.
    Mr. GATES: After the very sympathetic speech of my right hon. Friend, and subject to a careful perusal of the Amendments which I understand he is proposing to Clause 86, I am quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
    HON. MEMBERS: No.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 206.

    Division No. 108.]

    AYES.

    [7.41 p.m.

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

    Hamilton. Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St Ives)

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Amnion, Charles George

    Hayes, John Henry

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhempton, Bilston)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Scurr, John

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sexton, James

    Batey, Joseph

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Shinwell, E.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bellamy, A.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Ben (Bermendsey, Rotherhithe)

    Briant, Frank

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)

    Broad, F. A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromfield, William

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromley, J.

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

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Lansbury, George

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawrence, Susan

    Strauss, E. A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, John James

    Sullivan, J.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lee, F.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Connolly, M.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lowth, T.

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lunn, William

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

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

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Dennison, R.

    Mackinder, W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Duncan, C.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Edge, Sir William

    MacNeill Weir, L.

    Townend, A. E.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    March, S.

    Viant, S. P.

    England, Colonel A.

    Morris, R. H.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Forrest, W.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

    Williams, David (Swansea, C.)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gillett, George M.

    Palln, John Henry

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)

    Greenall, T.

    Paling, W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Windsor, Walter

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wright, Brig-General W. D.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Potts, John S.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Groves, T.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grundy, T. W.

    Riley, Ben

    Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. A.

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

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

    Barnes.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

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

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C R. I.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

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

    Cope, Major Sir William

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

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

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

    Calne, Gordon Hall

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Astor, Viscountess

    Campbell, E. T.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Carver, Major W. H.

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsay, Galnsbro)

    Balniel, Lord

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

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

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

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

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Bennett, A. J.

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

    Drewe, C.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Berry, Sir George

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Bethel, A.

    Christie, J. A.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Fielden, E. B.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Sandon, Lord

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathead)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Macintyre, Ian

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

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

    McLean, Major A.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

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

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Makins, Brigadler-General E.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Maione, Major P. B.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Manningham-Bulter, Sir Mervyn

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

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Margesson, Capt. D.

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Harland, A.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

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

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

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Oakley, T.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Waddington. R.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Warner, Brigadler-General W. W.

    Hlils, Major John Waller

    Penny, Frederick George

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hilton, Cecil

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Watts, Sir Thomas

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

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Wells, S. R.

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Pilcher, G.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

    Preston, Sir Waiter (Cheltenham)

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Withers, John James

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Ramsden, E.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Womersley, W. J.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Wragg, Herbert

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Ropner, Major L.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Major The Marquess of Titchfield

    Long, Major Eric

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    and Captain Wallace.

    Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 54, line 19, to leave out the words:
    "set out in the Second Schedule to this Act,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words: "payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof into the Local Taxation Account."
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 199; Noes, 126.

    Division No. 109.]

    AYES.

    [7.49 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Colfox, Major William Phillips

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

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

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Cope, Major Sir William

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

    Burton. Colonel H. W.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Campbell, E. T.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Atkinson, C.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cassels, J. D.

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Balniel, Lord

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Barnett. Major Sir Richard

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

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

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Bennett, A. J.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Drewe, C.

    Berry, Sir George

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Bethel, A.

    Christie, J. A.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Fielden, E. B.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Skelton, A. N.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Macintyre, Ian

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    McLean, Major A.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Malone, Major P. B.

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

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Hacking, Douglas H.

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

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

    Harland, A.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Oakley, T.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Waddington, R.

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Penny, Frederick George

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Pitcher, G.

    Wells, S. R.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

    Radford. E. A.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

    Ramsden, E.

    Withers, John James

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

    Ropner, Major L.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Wragg, Herbert

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Salmon, Major I.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Captain Margesson and Captain

    Long, Major Eric

    Sandon, Lord

    Wallace.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    NOES.

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

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Naylor, T. E.

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

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Groves, T.

    Owen, Major G.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Palin, John Henry

    Batey, Joseph

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

    Paling, W.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Bellamy, A

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hardie, George D.

    Potts, John S.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Purcell, A. A.

    Briant, Frank

    Hayes, John Henry

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Riley, Ben

    Bromfield, William

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

    Bromley, J.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

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

    Buchanan, G.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Cape, Thomas

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Charleton, H. C.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Connolly, M.

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Scurr, John

    Cove, W. G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sexton, James

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Kennedy, T.

    Shinwell, E.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

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

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Dennison, R.

    Lansbury, George

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

    Duncan, C.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Edge, Sir William

    Lawson, John James

    Slesser Sir Henry H.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)

    Lee, F.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhiths)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Llvingstone, A. M.

    Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

    England, Colonel A.

    Lowth, T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Lunn, William

    Stamford, T. W.

    Fenby, T. D.

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

    Stephen, Campbell

    Forrest, W.

    Mackinder, W.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Sullivan, J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Gillett, George M.

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

    Taylor, R. A.

    Greenall, T.

    March, S.

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

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Morris, R. H.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    250

    251

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Windsor, Walter

    Tomlison, R. P.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Wright, W.

    Townend, A. E.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. A. Barnes.

    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 120.

    Division No. 110.]

    AYES.

    [7.59 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Forrest, W.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Astor, Viscountess

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Atkinson, C.

    Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Pilcher, G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Goff, sir Park

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Balniel, Lord

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Ramsden, E.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Reid, D. D (County Down)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Bennett, A. J.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Berry, Sir George

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Bethel, A.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Harland, A.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

    Sandon, Lord

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

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

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

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

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

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

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

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

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

    Tasker, R. Inigo

    Clayton, G. C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquees of

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Waddington, R.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    McLean, Major A.

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Macquisten, F A

    Wayland, Sir William A.

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

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Feversham)

    Wells, S. R.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Withers, John James

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Womersley, W. J.

    Drewe, C.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Wafden)

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

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

    Wragg, Herbert

    Ellis, R. G.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    England, Colonel A.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Fielden, E. B.

    Oakley, T.

    Captain Margesson and Captain

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

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

    Wallace.

    NOES.

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

    Hardle, George D.

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

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

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

    Hayes, John Henry

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Barnes, A.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Scurr, John

    Batey, Joseph

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Sexton, James

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Shinwell, E.

    Bellamy, A.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsay, Rotherbithe)

    Briant, Frank

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Smith, Rennle (penistone)

    Broad, F. A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bromfield, William

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromley, J.

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

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Lansbury, George

    Stewart. J. (St. Rollox)

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sullivan, J.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawson, John James

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lee, F.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Connolly, M.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lowth, T.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Crawfurd, H. E.

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

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Dennison, R.

    Mackinder, W.

    Townend, A. E.

    Duncan, C.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Edge, Sir William

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Viant, S. P.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Fenby, T. D.

    March, S.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon J.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Morris, R. H.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gillett, George M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Greenall, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Windsor, Walter

    Groves, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Wright, W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

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

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Riley, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

    CLAUSE 69.—(Payment and apportionment of General Excheqver contributions.)
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, in page 55, line 22, to leave out the words "amounting to", and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "(2) The amount of the General Exchequer Contribution shall be periodically revised; the amount first fixed shall be for a period of three years beginning on the appointed day, the amount fixed on the first revision shall be for a period of four years from the expiration of the first period, the amount fixed on any subsequent revision shall be for a period of five years from the expiration of the previous period, and a period for which the General Exchequer Contribution is so fixed is hereinafter referred to as a 'fixed period.'
    (3) The amount of the General Exchequer Contribution shall be."
    This Amendment, which I am moving on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and the consequential Amendments which follow give effect to the new proposals which have been made
    254
    by the Government after consultation with the association of local authorities and they provide that the first two periods for which the Exchequer contribution will be fixed under this Clause will be periods of three years and four years respectively instead of five years, and for each of these two periods, called under the Bill "grant periods," the grant allocated to each county and county borough, which we call in the Bill "county and county borough apportionment," will be 75 per cent. of the estimated loss on account of rates and grants for the standard year together with their share under the formula of the balance of the general Exchequer contribution for the period. Those two periods will be followed by two periods of five years, and the part of the grant allocated to each county and county borough on the basis of the lose of rates and grants over these two later periods, each of five years, will be 50 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively of the estimated losses on account of rates and grants on what we call the standard year. Another important consequence

    255
    follows the result of this Amendment if it is adopted, and it is this; that the total period for transition to the full working of the formula will be extended from 15 years to 17 years. Thereafter the grant periods will be quinquennial periods, and it is proposed that after 1931 the census should be taken at quinquennial intervals so that the distribution of the grant will be based on census figures instead of on estimates.
    Members of the Committee will remember that one of the criticisms which was put forward by local authorities was that under our previous proposals a good many of the financial results of this Bill might depend upon the population estimates. This proposal to a large extent meets that criticism. The fixed grant periods will be 1930 to 1932, 1933 to 1936, 1937 to 1941 and 1942 to 1946. The next census will be taken in 1931 and, thereafter, if this proposal is adopted the census years will be 1936, 1941 and 1946, and whilst the first revision in 1933 will be based on the estimated population of 1932, the year immediately following the census, hereafter the revision will take place in the year immediately following the census and will be based on the actual census figures. That to a large extent meets the criticism of that particular point. This is the first of the Amendments the Government are moving as the result of the consultations which have taken place with local authorities; and which they have accepted. I therefore move the Amendment as carrying out the proposals which have been made and I commend it to the Committee on that ground.
    The CHAIRMAN: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if the words "amounting to" are struck out, because until they are disposed of the Amendments of the hon. Lady for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) to the proposed Amendment cannot be put.
    Question, "That the words 'amounting to,' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That those words be there inserted."
    Miss LAWRENCE: I just want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question. Sub-section (3) of a later Amendment to Clause 72 says:
    256
    "For the purposes of this Section the standard sum as respects any county shall be the amount of the loss on account of rates and grants of that county."
    Does that mean the loss on account of rates and grant in the year 1928–29 or does it refer to subsequent years?
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has seen the report which has been submitted by an accountant in respect of local authorities in the South Wales and Monmouthshire area. In this report the accountant states that any necessary adjustments will be spread at the rate of one-sixteenth each year over a period of 40 years, and thus the special provision in the Bill for mitigating changes in rate poundage will be extended in all from 15 years to 19 years. So far as the county of Glamorgan is concerned this proposal means that the urban districts of Mountain Ash—Penarth—
    The CHAIRMAN: The only question raised by the Amendment is the period of the various ascertainments. The amounts according to the formula come later. This is only a question of how long the first ascertainment shall last.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I thought I would be in order in putting the question now, hut after your ruling I shall do so later. The point that I wish the Parliamentary Secretary to keep in mind is this—
    The CHAIRMAN: The Parliamentary Secretary would be quite wrong to keep in mind something that was out of order.
    Mr. COVE: As I understand the Amendment the concession of the Treasury to local authorities is a review of the ratio from time to time. Apparently the net result of the concession is that the original quinquennial periods have now become three years, four years, and five years and so on. I cannot imagine that the local authorities were very enthusiastic about this concession. As a matter of fact there are several very important considerations to be borne in mind when discussing the ratio of grant-borne expenditure to that of rate-borne expenditure, and the first of those considerations is this: It is not an individual ratio to an indivdual and particular authority. It is not a guarantee to Authority A and Authority B and Authority C, as separate autho-

    257
    rities, that the ratio of the grant that they now receive to their rate-borne expenditure shall be maintained in future—
    The CHAIRMAN: That question comes later. The only question here is as to how long the first ascertainment shall last and when it shall be revised. It is purely a question of period. The question of substance, as to amounts, does not arise here at all.
    Mr. COVE: I thought it could arise, because it is to be a matter of substance and not a matter of mere make-believe. I want to pursue it a little further, and if I am out of order I hope I shall have an opportunity of dealing with the matter later. It was the aggregate guarantee in the first place which lasted over a period of five years. Now it is an aggregate guarantee which has to be reviewed in three years' and four years' time, and subsequently in periods of five years. Since it is an aggregate guarantee, it does not matter to particular individual authorities how often it is reviewed if the revision has no relation to those individual authorities. If the Ministry wanted to benefit the authorities it would be a question not merely of altering the times during which the ratios would be reviewed, but a question of altering the whole formula. I understand that the object of the Government now is to meet the authorities so far as rate-borne expenditure is concerned. Obviously, whether a matter is reviewed in three years' or four years' or five years' time, if the money that is to be pooled is distributed on a formula that has no relation to expenditure, the review is of no use at all.
    The CHAIRMAN: We have not come to the formula yet. The only question is as to how long the first arrangement shall last.
    Miss LAWRENCE: The Amendment says that the grant shall be revised after certain periods. It is very difficult to understand what precise importance to attach to the words "periodically revised." Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain what they mean?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady is in order in asking for an explanation of the meaning. That is quite a different thing from discussing the whole formula.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I have spent two painful days wondering what we should do. This is really a serious difficulty, and can we have it cleared up?
    The CHAIRMAN: I have had to spend a great deal more than two painful days on the matter. The word "revision" here must apply to the total general Exchequer contribution, and, that being so, I do not think that the formula comes in at all. But as the word "revision" is in the Amendment, I think the hon. Lady is in order in asking what it comprises.
    Sir K. WOOD: I shall be happy to reply, but I was anxious to hear all the observations on the Amendment and to make my speech at the end. I understood that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) had not finished his speech.
    The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) has so far not been in order.
    Sir K. WOOD: He may approach a bit nearer to order later. The answer to one of the questions I was asked is that the year is the standard year, 1928–29. As to the point put by the hon. Member for Wellingborough the Amendment means that at the request of the local authorities, instead of taking the period which was originally fixed, of five years, that is the quinquennial period, we have altered it to a period of three years in the first instance and a period of four years in the second. After that the quinquennial periods follow. That is all that this particular Amendment proposes. What the local authorities said to us was that instead of allowing the new system to go on for a period of five years before revision, we should shorten the period, and in the Amendment that is done.
    Miss WILKINSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that in that case it will be two years longer before the formula comes into operation?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, the full formula, but that, again, is another matter. As far as the local authorities are concerned, as I said in my opening observations, the total period provided for transition to the full working of the formula will be extended from 15 years to 17 years. This observation may be made—that,

    259
    from the point of view of a town like Middlesbrough, where the working of the formula may be desired to come into immediate operation, it means a postponement.
    The CHAIRMAN: What is the formula to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes? Is this in reference to the special Exchequer contribution?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, this is the general Exchequer contribution.
    The CHAIRMAN: The formula which I had in mind was another formula which is dealt with later on.
    Mr. COVE: Am I not, then, in order?
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: And am I not also in order?
    Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps I may be allowed to make one further observation in order that the matter may be made perfectly plain. What I am referring to now is the general Exchequer contribution. What follows from this Amendment is that the period first will be shortened. It also follows as a consequence of this alteration that the full working of the formula is postponed from 15 years to 17 years.
    Miss WILKINSON: Seeing that certain benefits were held out to towns like Middlesbrough and that these benefits can only come in with the full working of the formula, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make any compensation in such cases for the extension of the period?
    Sir K. WOOD: The answer to that question is that Middlesbrough under this scheme already gets very considerable benefits, and one has to consider, in connection with a Bill of this kind, the benefit of the great majority of local authorities in the country. It is true that in Middlesbrough they may have to wait a short period longer before they get the full benefit of the scheme; but, on the other hand, there are the other local authorities who wanted to have this matter spread over the longer period in the way I have indicated. Therefore, in a matter of this kind one has to take into account what will benefit the great majority.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out the word "three," and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
    We have now before us some of the concessions given to the local authorities. The local authorities after desperate struggles, after continual deputations and resolutions passed all over the country, have succeeded in avoiding the full blessings of the formula for another couple of years. That is their first and greatest success; and it is an interesting comment upon what those on whom the shoe is to be fitted think of the shoe. On this matter it is very difficult indeed to keep in order. As I have told you, Sir, I have spent two days in painful study of one word without being quite sure of its meaning. Now, however, light has dawned upon me. I think the word "revision" is almost wholly meaningless, and if I proceed upon that assumption, I think I shall escape being ruled out of order. The first concession to the local authorities has been that the first quinquennium is to be reduced to three years, while the second quinquennium is to be reduced to four years. Then there is a very important and almost unprecedented new Clause, which bears upon the second of these fixed grant periods. We have down on the Paper a promise that before the expiration of the second fixed grant period there shall be an investigation, and that the result of the investigation shall be submitted to Parliament—in fact that the whole thing shall be put into the melting pot before the first seven years are over.
    This Measure is now, confessedly, a provisional and stop-gap Measure. The local authorities have been bought over to desist from their full and active opposition on the ground that the period shall be shortened i that, anyhow, they shall get two years more of grace from the formula, that the little boroughs shall get a lengthened period of grace from the block grant, that the thing shall be "revised"—whatever that means—at the end of three years, and that Parliament itself shall decide the question before seven years are over. That is an exact measure of the welcome given by the local authorities to a scheme which according to the Minister of Health to day, is to give them all so much money

    261
    and make them all so comfortable, that they will be willing and ready to undertake new social services. In all my experience and in all I have ever read of the history of local government, it is the very first time that local authorities have ever objected to a scheme which was to give them more money. It raises in one's mind certain doubts as to whether all those golden promises of the Minister which we heard this afternoon are justified.
    The term of the punishment has been shortened, but the punishment itself remains the same. Of course, it is a very good thing that the prisoner at the bar has got from the judge a shortening of the period of sentence. We are to have a revision sooner than was expected, and I had some faint hopes when I read an Amendment which appears later on the Paper that the new definition of "standard sum" meant a re-allocation on a different basis of the new general Exchequer contribution. That hope has been dashed to the ground. We are still proceeding to calculate the total to be paid in successive years to the local authorities on a basis which more and more every year departs from their actual losses. The general Exchequer contribution for the first year is the amount of the losses in the standard year in rates, and the amount of the losses in the standard year in grants. There is a certain addition, and, it is true, that if all stood still during those three years—if neither rateable value nor expenses increased—the local authorities, on the whole, would be a trifle better off. But the first point I make is that we are now in times which are the reverse of normal, and the effect of the formula may change from year to year, and rateable values may change very steeply indeed. Unemployment creates a great loss of rateable value. If we get back to employment in any particular district, the rateable value will rise, and the amount of losses to local authorities will therefore be very much greater. Some districts may revive very quickly, some may become even more depressed, and the first point I want to make for revision every year is just this, that the conditions of localities may change very greatly indeed.
    The next thing I have to say is that we have a little shortened the period and given an opportunity for revision—that is
    262
    all that we have done—at the end of three years, but the essential vice of this matter remains the same. At the end of the three years the Exchequer grant will be altered according to the Clause. It will be reviewed so as to place the matter on very much more an expenditure basis than at present. This year we know the first general Exchequer contribution. The general Exchequer contribution for the third year under the scheme laid down will be a quarter of the general Exchequer contribution of the first year, plus a quarter of the rate-borne expenditure in the penultimate year. At the end of the three years it will be a quarter of the total rate-borne contribution for the penultimate year, plus one-sixteenth of the total rate-borne contribution of the penultimate year of the first period, plus one-sixteenth of the first Exchequer contribution. Year by year, that is to say, the thing comes more and more upon a purely expenditure basis and less and less relates to the losses of the local authority. That would be in ordinary times a very great evil, where we have nothing to expect but the ordinary, natural, slow growth of rateable property, but it is very little less than a crime now, when some local authorities are stripped of their rateable value from a cause which we all hope may pass away and leave them with a more normal rateable value, and, if for that cause alone, we ought to have yearly revisions of the general Exchequer grant.
    Lower on the Paper we have put down what we consider the proper thing to do, which is to pay the debts arising as and when they arise. What the Minister is still impenitent upon and still intends to do is to pay his debts on a scale proportionate to the income of the creditor, and I am anxious that the fantastic manner in which he estimates the total should be revised by Parliament as soon as possible. I put down an Amendment to show our hope, but it is more than a hope, it is a certainty. This business cannot stand. This business will have to be revised. This business will be almost the first thing which the local authorities will bring to the attention of the new Parliament. It has no support in the country whatever. It is a thing grudgingly acquiesced in by the local authorities as the best they can get. It is a thing towards which they have managed to get the attention of

    263
    Parliament directed at an earlier date than the Minister originally intended, but the local authorities will undoubtedly have very much more power of revision in the next Parliament, and I hope that a year from now, you, Mr. Hope, will be guiding our deliberations on the final Clause of the Bill repealing this legislation. You will have, I venture to prophesy, a far easier task than—
    The CHAIRMAN: Two years would not have elapsed by that time.
    Miss LAWRENCE: That is my point, that with a new Parliament the local authorities will not wait for two years. With a new Parliament, and one of the complexion we anticipate—
    The CHAIRMAN: Under the hon. Lady's Amendment the revision will not take place until after two years have elapsed.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I was saying that this Amendment to the proposed Amendment was put down to express our desires. Our hopes are better than those we have put on the Paper. Our hopes are so strong that I can see, as plainly as I see you now, Mr. Hope, the pleasant vision of you in the future presiding over the—
    The CHAIRMAN: The occupant of the Chair must not be subject to blandishments.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I will drop the subject altogether, but I only desire to say, quite seriously, that we are glad to see that local authorities have so far hammered the scheme out of shape and that we look forward to being able to destroy it and to build up a better one altogether.
    Mr. PALIN: I desire to support the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, because I believe it will make the scheme more commendable to the local authorities who have to work it, and it certainly would be very greatly to the advantage of the Government if they were to accept the shortened period which we propose. It is true, as the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Bird) said the other night, that this Measure is no vote-catcher, and if it is desired really to make it workable and to treat it as a
    264
    serious Measure, the fears of the local authorities would be greatly allayed if they could have a revaluation in the shortest possible period.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS:I do not intend to deal with the formula and the general Exchequer contribution, which, after all, are one and indivisible, but I submit that the Amendment should be accepted for this reason: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that on several occasions during Debates in this House efforts have been made to ascertain from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary what exactly was the position with regard to the West Riding of Yorkshire once the formula began to apply, and in no single instance, so far as I have been able to ascertain, have we received a direct reply. It seems to me that when referring to the question of any general revision, the knowledge that out of 125 authorities in the West Riding area no fewer than 84 would find themselves with increases in rates, offers full justification for demanding, at the earliest possible date, a revision on the basis of the known expenditure of local authorities at that time. It is obvious that in developing districts where the assessable area has been contracted, and where expenditure is increasing, unless revisions are made fairly quickly some authorities already sorely depressed will find themselves more depressed because of the three-year period upon which the Minister insists. While the local authorities might have accepted the compromise of the right hon. Gentleman, that is only because these were the best terms obtainable at the moment; and the Committee ought to insist that in a gigantic scheme like this, which is completely upsetting local finances, there should be revision at the end of two years. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether it is not the fact that once the formula is fully applied, of the West Riding authorities, 125 in number, no less than 84 will find themselves with an increase in rates. If that is the case, merely to extend these periods by two years from 15 years to 17, in no way removes the general danger and we ought to insist upon revision taking place at the earliest possible moment.
    Sir K. WOOD: I do not propose to address myself to the particular calculations in the area specified by the hon.

    265
    Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). As far as I can recollect, they are set forth in the White Paper. If, however, they are not, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address a question to me in the House about it. I am not to be taken as accepting in any way the suggestion which has been made by the hon. Member as to the particular figures in that locality, but I invite him to look at the White Paper, and, if there is not sufficient information, to address a question to me. I propose to address myself to the Amendment to the proposed Amendment which is before the Committee. Two objections can be advanced to the course suggested, one from the point of view of the scheme itself, and another from a practical point of view which I hope will commend itself to the Committee. The first objection is on the merits of inserting two as against three. Two years would obviously be too soon for any revision to be made or any experience to be gained in a matter of this kind. That is why a period of three years has been fixed and not a shorter period.
    The next objection, which is a more practicable one, and which does not go so much into the merits as the first, is that we have come to an agreement in this matter with the local authorities concerned. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have been very pleased that we have been able to come to an agreement with the local authorities. Only a short time ago I was hearing from hon. Members opposite how we ought to pay attention to the request of local authorities, and how they had expert advisers; and I remember how readily Members of the Opposition availed themselves of reports, which were out of date at the time, which were furnished by the expert advisers of local authorities, and how it was urged that we ought to pay attention to them. Here we are this evening with an agreement with the local authorities on this matter, and we ought to be receiving the congratulations of hon. Members opposite on coming to this very happy solution of the matter. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will think it very undesirable on the part of the Government to depart from the agreement that they have arrived at, simply because hon. Members, no doubt with the very best intentions, think that two years ought to be inserted instead
    266
    of three. The Government had better maintain the agreement at which they have arrived, and, however powerful may have been the arguments that have been adduced by hon. Members opposite, we must maintain the very happy solution that has been arrived at between the Government and the local authorities. By that means, we should be meeting the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who in previous discussions have been so anxious to help the local authorities.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman is a solicitor, and he knows that any arrangement or any agreement made under duress is not considered binding on the party that has been coerced into making that agreement. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's hilarity, because he is able to get away with it so confidently with the docile majority that without any discussion will march into the Lobby to support him. He knows that local authorities have accepted this in default of anything better. The Government simply gave them no option but to agree, but happily we are not in that position. We are in the position of being able to make our voices heard for justice in these matters. If this business is not revised within three years, districts like the waterside areas in London will suffer very much. One very big district has lost at least £60,000 of rateable value, and it is on the reduced figure that the amount which the borough concerned will receive will be calculated. In one respect it is quite certain that that business will be rectified during the next year, or probably earlier, because the docks are being reconstructed, and instead of losing money, they will be making a profit within about a year's time.
    Under this de-rating scheme, however, the boroughs in which they are situated will not be able to get any more than one-quarter of the value of the rates they would otherwise be able to obtain. It is exactly the same in regard to other empty property. When that comes into occupation, if it is taken for productive industries, for three years the people occupying those premises will pay only one-quarter of the rates, and the local authorities will not get the benefit of the increase in trade in a higher rateable value. The Government will take no account of it and the Exchequer will give no grant at all. The ratepayers will have been robbed of that amount of rateable

    267
    value, and the income derivable from it during this period of three years. Although this is a matter of great amusement to the right hon. Gentleman, his amusement does not get rid of the bare concrete fact that for three years this kind of district, which needs the money very much, will have to go without it.
    There is the further fact that at the back of the minds of those who framed this scheme is the idea that the needs in these districts are stabilised, and that for three years there will be no new needs arising. Everybody who knows anything about social conditions in industrial centres, whether those centres be prosperous or the reverse, knows of the increasing need for social services, but under this scheme of stabilisation the local authorities who need relief most will be penalised in two ways. In the first place they will lose the value of the new properties coming into rating—or at any rate they will lose three-parts of it; and, in addition, with a lower rateable value, the unhappy people who live in small houses will be rated more heavily because of the increased cost of the social services. I think that is a scandalous thing, especially seeing that we are told that this is a Bill to relieve the necessity of people living in necessitous areas. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his chief face the facts at all. They make speeches of varying degrees of efficiency and ability, but when we confront them with concrete facts they do not answer them. I respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell me now why the East End boroughs of London, as well as other districts, should be penalised in this manner?
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. COVE: I think the right hon. Gentleman said he has come to an agreement with the local authorities, but he has not satisfied this Committee as to the effect of the new concession on the actual moneys to be received by local authorities. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to face up to the issues that are involved and to put one or two specific questions to him. Is it not a fact that at the end of the three-year period the revision of the ratio will be a revision on an aggregate total basis for the whole of the country, and not a revision of each individual authority? I think that is an important question. Is
    268
    it not the fact that at the end of the three years, even under the Government scheme, authorities may find themselves in this position?—I am putting this in a theoretical manner, but it is none the less true. Supposing half the authorities spend £1,000,000 extra during this period, and one half of the authorities save £1,000,000, what increase of money will go into the national pool? In other words, is it not a fact that at the end of the three-year period the money that a progressive authority will have expended out of its rates will be offset by the reduced expenditure of a reactionary authority, and therefore the progressive authority, even with a revision of the ratio at the end of three years, will have spent sums of money out of the rates which will not bring any increased amount into the General Exchequer Contribution Fund? I wish to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether that is so or not, and whether progressive authorities may not therefore find themselves tied to reactionary ones. Is it not a fact that even when the ratio is revised at the end of the period of three years the revision will have no relation at all to the expenditure? [Interruption.] I am trying to put rather difficult points, which I think are quite relevant to this business. If the right hon. Gentleman is getting an answer to them I am glad—if he can get an answer. Is it not a fact that during this period of three years not only will the rate expenditure upon health and other services be taken into account for the revision of the ratio, but that the rate-borne expenditure on education will also be taken into account? I want to know that definitely from the Parliamentary Secretary, and I want to tell him that it is no laughing matter as far as local authorities are concerned. [Interruption.] I am asking whether the rate-borne expenditure on education will be taken into account in the revision of this ratio at the end of three years, and that the grant part of it will be kept out of the account? If that is so, do not these facts arise at the end of the three years or of the four years— that an increase in rate-borne expenditure upon education may attract a greater sum into the general Exchequer fund, but that not one penny of the money that the rate expenditure attracts

    269
    into the fund will go into relief of the education rate, and that the education rate will not be revised at the end of this period of three years?
    I have seen the figures applied to the county of Glamorganshire, if I may give an illustration. It is a case showing how serious a matter this is for education. I have seen the figures for Glamorganshire as worked out by a competent authority for the two years 1926 and 1927. The general county rate went down from 20s. 10d. to 9s. and the education rate went up from 3s. (3d. to 5s. 8d. The police rate, which is a special rate, went up from 9d. to about 1s. 1d. or 1s. lid. Am I not right in saying that in areas like Glamorganshire the education rate is levied as a special rate, and that not one penny from the general Exchequer contribution will go in aid of a special rate, but will go in aid of the general county rate? If that be so, we shall find that education as a service will get no compensation out of the general Exchequer contribution, and that as the money for it will be raised on a restricted rateable area the rates will be driven up in every village throughout this country. The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but these figures have been examined by competent authorities, and he cannot get away from this—that even at the end of three years there is no guarantee that the amount spent in aid of education, even with a restricted rateable area, will receive any consideration whatever. As a matter of fact, I say quite definitely that even for the other services, even as far as the amount from the general Exchequer contribution is concerned, that at the end of the three years no authority can guarantee that it will get one penny more of increased grant, even though it has increased its expenditure out of the rates. This is so for the simple and obvious reason that at the end of three years the money is not distributed on the basis of expenditure, but on what has been called the basis of need. Therefore, the formula at the end of three years has not the remotest connection with any expenditure of the local authority on any services, including education. It is quite clear that progressive authorities will spend money and may attract more money into the general Exchequer contribution fund, and that money will be distributed
    270
    not among the authorities that have spent the money, but among the reactionary authorities in order that they may reduce their rates. That is the effect of the wonderful scheme proposed by the Government. It really means that a stagnation will take place in all our social services, and we shall get angry ratepayers saying: "My rates are going up owing to de-rating" because this proposed revision has no meaning whatever.
    The CHAIRMAN: But surely that would be the same if there was a revision at the end of two years?
    Mr. COVE: That is so, Mr. Chairman, but we put down this Amendment to the proposed Amendment to see if we could get the whole thing revised. These questions are seriously agitating the people who we represent. I could give proof of my statement from the official organs of our education authorities, including the "Schoolmaster," which represents the National Union of Teachers and other bodies, as well as the "Times Educational Supplement," which cannot be accused of bias. I could produce evidence of an official kind representing all sides of education, expressing their deep concern about the future of our education service. Whether the Government proposal means three or five years, it is absolutely worthless, and it means that the rates are going to leap up very considerably next year. There is going to be a great outcry against certain services, and I want to know what relief will come to the ratepayers at the end of three years? Is it going to be real or merely mythical.
    The Government themselves have taken the total figure of £180,000,000, and we have been told that out of that sum £45,000,000 will come out of the General Exchequer Contribution Fund and the ratio is one quarter. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what difference the revision after three years will make to the amount lost by the authorities owing to this Bill? It is well known that the authorities will lose year by year under the quinquennial arrangement, and I want to know how much they will be saved by a revision at the end of three years. I think we ought to have these figures. We ought to know whether our social services are going to

    271
    be crippled by the financial schemes of the Government. I should like to provoke the right hon. Gentleman into giving us some actual figures as to what will happen to the total of the grants to be distributed among the various authorities and what will happen to individual authorities. Let us have these concrete figures, and then we can judge whether there is any substance in the revision at an earlier period than was previously provided for under the Government scheme.
    Sir K. WOOD: I would remind the Committee that we are now simply considering an Amendment to reduce the first period from three to two years. My answer to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) is a perfectly general one, and it is that no alteration is being made with regard to that part of the Bill to which he has referred, and there is no intention of the Government to alter it in any way. We are meeting the wishes of the local authorities by making the period three years, and we are now discussing an Amendment which endeavours to make the period two years. The questions which have been put to me are really not material to this question at all, because the particular side of the Measure which has been criticised by the hon. Member opposite remains exactly as it was before. There may be people outside the House who pay attention to what the hon. Member for Wellingborough has said—
    Mr. STEPHEN: Give us the figures.
    Sir K. WOOD: When the hon. Member for Wellingborough peruses his speech, I do not think that on reflection he will desire to repeat some of the assertions which he has made, because they have been answered time and again by the President of the Board of Education and the Minister of Health. I will simply say that obviously rate-borne expenditure of all kinds, including education, will be taken into account, but the grant in respect of education will be excluded.
    Therefore, the Education Grant will not be affected in any way at all. I ask the hon. Member for Wellingborough, if he wants to advance the interest of education, to give a legitimate and fair account of this Measure so far as education is concerned. As regards the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), he said what a bad thing it would be to have new factories in his district because it would be a hardship if they had to provide new services. I have been associated with London and its administration for many years, and I am sure anyone would be greatly surprised to hear of a new factory being erected within half-a-mile of Poplar.
    The CHAIRMAN: The Committee is now getting rather far from the Amendment under discussion. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might perhaps defer these remarks until this and the following Amendments to the proposed Amendment have been disposed of, when the Rules of Order will not be so tight.
    Sir K. WOOD: I was not anxious further to inflict myself on the Committee, and I am very willing to follow your suggestion and wait until the main Amendment is discussed.
    Mr. CECIL WILSON: In his earlier speech the right hon. Gentleman laid great stress on the fact that the local authorities had been satisfied. The question put by my hon. friend was, however, as to whether they are going to be dealt with on the basis of the aggregate guarantee or on the basis of the original period, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some reply to that question.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is just one of the points which might be raised on the Amendment as a whole.
    Question put, "That the word 'three' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 112.

    Division No. 111.]

    AYES.

    [9.17 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Balniel, Lord

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Brass, Captain W.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

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

    Bennett, A. J.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Astor, viscountess

    Berry, Sir George

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Atkinson, C.

    Bethel, A.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Carver. Major W. H.

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

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Russell, Alexander west (Tynemouth)

    Christie, J. A.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Salmon, Major I.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Clayton, G. C.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Sandon, Lord

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hurst, Gerald B.

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

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

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

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Skelton, A N.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

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

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

    Lamb. J. O.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

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

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lumiey, L. R.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Strealfelid, Captain S. R.

    Dixey, A. C.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Drewe, C.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    England, Colonel A.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Tichfield, Major the Marquess of

    Falie, Sir Bertram G.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Waddington. R.

    Forrest, W.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

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

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Wells, S. R.

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

    Oakley, T.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Son, Sir Park

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Withers, John James

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Penny, Frederick George

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Perring, Sir William George

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Fromo)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Pilcher, G.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Harland, A.

    Radford, E. A.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Ramsden, E.

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

    Margesson.

    NOES.

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

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Fenby, T. D.

    Kennedy, T.

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

    Gardner, J. P.

    Lansbury, George

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lawrence, Susan

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Gillett, George M.

    Lawson, John James

    Barnes, A.

    Greenall, T.

    Lee, F.

    Batey, Joseph

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Grenfell, D. R- (Glamorgan)

    Lowth, T.

    Bellamy, A.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Lunn, William

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Mackinder, W.

    Broad, F. A.

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

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Bromfield, William

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Bromley, J.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

    Buchanan, G.

    Hardle, George D.

    March, S.

    Cape, Thomas

    Hayday, Arthur

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Charleton, H. C.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Owen, Major G.

    Connolly, M.

    Hore-Bellsba, Leslie

    Palin, John Henry

    Cove, W. G.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfleid)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Dennison, R.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Potts, John S.

    Duncan, C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Purceil, A. A.

    Edge, Sir William

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Riley, Ben

    274

    275

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

    Stephen, Campbell

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

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

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Wilkinson, Ellen C,

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Sullivan, J.

    Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Scurr, John

    Sutton, J. E.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Sexton, James

    Taylor, R. A.

    Williams, Dr J. H (Llanelly)

    Shinwell, E.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Smith, Ban (Bermondsey, Rotherh'the)

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Windsor, Walter

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Townend, A. E.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Viant, S. P.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.

    Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, after the word "first," to insert the words, "and on any subsequent."
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 182.

    Division No. 112.]

    AYES.

    [9.27 p.m.

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

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

    Riley, Ben

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

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

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

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Scurr, John

    Barnes, A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sexton. James

    Batey, Joseph

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shinwell, E.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bellamy, A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Briant, Frank

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Bromley, J.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Sullivan, J.

    Cape, Thomas

    Lansbury, George

    Sutton, J. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, John James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lee, F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Connolly, M.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cove, W. G.

    Lowth, T.

    Tomilnson, R. P.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lunn, William

    Townend, A. E.

    Dennison, R.

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

    Viant, S. P.

    Duncan, C.

    Mackinder, W.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Edge, Sir William

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Fenby, T. D.

    March, S.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gillett, George M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

    Owen, Major G.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenall, I.

    Palin, John Henry

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Potts, John S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Mr. Paling and Mr. Hayes.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton le-Spring)

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Astor, Viscountess

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

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Atkinson, C.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Craig. Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Balniel, Lord

    Cassels, J. D.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

    Barnett Major Sir Richard

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Bennett, A. J.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cireneester)

    Berry, Sir George

    Christie, J. A.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Bethel, A.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Dixey, A. C

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Drewe, C.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    England, Colonel A.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

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

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Lumley, L. R.

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

    Falls, Sir Bertram G.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Skelton, A. N.

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    MacDonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Forrest, W.

    Macintyre, I.

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

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Foxcrott, Captain C. T.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

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

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Malone, Major P. B.

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

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

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Streatfelid, Captain S. R.

    Golf, Sir Park

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfred

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Harland, A.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Oakley, T.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Waddington, R.

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonal C. M.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

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

    Perring, Sir William George

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.

    Pitcher, G.

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Radford, E. A.

    Wavland, Sir William A.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Wells, S. R.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Ramsden, E.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Hilton, Cecil

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U

    Withers, John James

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

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Wolmer, Viscount

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

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Womersley, W. J.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Illffe, Sir Edward M.

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

    Wragg, Herbert

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Salmon, Major I.

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Captain Margesson and Mr. Penny.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Sandon, Lord

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

    Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I beg to move, in page 55, line 25, after the word "rates," to insert the words "in each year."
    The Amendment which I now move is the first of a series of Amendments, the object of which is quite clear from the wording. Put shortly the position is this. Many local authorities entertain a fear that the putting into operation of the scheme of this Bill may involve them in very serious consequences, and all those who are acquainted with local government will appreciate that at the present moment local authorities only budget for one year. It is as much, perhaps, as can be expected of them. It is a matter that seriously affects many aspects of public service. Let me use as an illustration the question of expenditure on education. This is perhaps not affected by the Clause, but it is a fair illustration. Those who are
    278
    interested in educational activity have been insisting for some time that local education authorities, instead of preparing a programme for one year, should try to look ahead and visualise what the needs are likely to be in two or three or five years' time. When that scheme is put forward, the objection is naturally taken by the local authorities that it is very difficult for them to do that, because they do not know exactly what their position will be at the end of the period. That difficulty will be enhanced by the provisions of this Bill. Local authorities are very concerned as to what their position will be when this scheme comes into full operation, and these Amendments are designed to put local authorities in a position, at the end of each financial year, to form a better idea as to what their position is and what it is likely to be in the coming year and in future years.
    The Amendment says that the loss of rates which any authority will suffer under the provisions of the Bill shall be

    279
    calculated in each year. That would mean that at the end of each financial year the local authority would have a definite, reliable statement of the losses in the rates which the operations of this Bill had meant to them in the particular year with which they were dealing and, when they have that information, they will naturally be in a much better position to budget for future programmes. There is nothing revolutionary or alarming about it, but it is a matter of great importance and great assistance to those engaged in local government work. The Bill attempts to stabilise, or stereotype, the losses in rates that local authorities are likely to suffer. Some lesson may be derived from similar attempts to put a similar principle into operation. The Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, in effect proceeded upon the same basis. It stereotyped losses that were likely to accrue to local authorities by reason of the relief granted to certain portions of the population under that Act. But experience shows that the population suffered not from the calculated or stereotyped loss that was estimated by those who promoted that Act, but it involved a consequent burden upon the ratepayers amounting to about £5,000,000. If that is true of a comparatively small thing like the Agricultural Bates Act it will probably be emphasised and accentuated to a very large degree by an Act of these proportions. That is a practical illustration which gives support to the fears entertained by local authorities, and as the principle seems to me to be very natural and fair and one likely to be beneficial to local activities, I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I support the Amendment in order to put a point to the Parliamentary Secretary which has not been made very clear previously. There may be an increase in educational expenditure. The total rate-borne expenditure is taken into account in deciding what the Exchequer grant is going to be. Supposing you have an additional expenditure of £2,000,000. It goes into the total rate-borne expenditure, the Exchequer grant is calculated and it would seem that all is well. But education gets nothing from the pool with regard to the additional expenditure.
    280
    The Parliamentary Secretary says it is all right because education is dealt with on a percentage basis and the Exchequer contributes on a fifty-fifty basis. The State pays £1,000,000 but the other £1,000,000 remains, which has to be found by the rating authority, and the rating authority would have a rateable value of only a quarter, so that the local authority would have to find four times the rate for this £1,000,000 of extra expenditure. It is this point that we should like the Minister to appreciate. You would have a general outcry with regard to this tremendous increase of expenditure in connection with education. Consequently, education will be put into a very unfortunate position. This Amendment would provide against this happening. It would mean that the difference with regard to the educational expenditure would be met out of the Exchequer. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will at least deal with the point as to how education is going to be affected in regard to the fact that it does not take anything out of the general fund. and that consequently there will be a large increase of rate, because the rateable value in an area has been reduced by the general derating following the 75 per cent. reduction in respect of hereditaments, and so on. I hope that I have made my point clear to the Minister and that we may now get the figures for which we asked on the last Amendment but did not receive.
    Mr. COVE: I support this Amendment because it has very great importance as far as education is concerned. Now that the Parliamentary Secretary has had a chance of consulting his experts, cannot we have on this Amendment something definite and concrete from the Government? The first thing to which I want to direct attention is Clause 87 of this Bill in relation to this point. It has a very material and direct bearing upon it. Clause 87 provides that all sums received by a county council by way of general or additional Exchequer grant or of proceeds of local taxation licences shall be applicable to general county purposes. That means that all the money coming out of the general Exchequer fund will be paid into the general county purposes fund. This further implies that not one penny that will come from the general

    281
    Exchequer under this scheme will go in compensation for loss of rates on account of education. The whole burden of education will have to be borne by a restricted rateable field, subject to the strict education grant. Therefore, under the scheme of the Government you are going to have large chunks of rateable value taken away from the education rate without any compensation being provided.
    I have some figures here. You cannot discuss this question without figures. [Interruption.] I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tackle this tiling seriously, and not from a mere Conservative partisan point of view. If he will examine it, he will find that this scheme is going to strike a mortal blow at education. Cornwall will lose 24 per cent. through de-rating, Devon 18 per cent., the West Riding of Yorkshire 25 per cent., and Durham 25 per cent. I can give a number of figures. In some cases there will be a loss of 40 per cent. of rateable value owing to de-rating. It means that when this 25 per cent., 30 per cent., or 40 per cent. has gone out of. the rate income of education authorities, not one penny will come back in the form of grant. Let us see what that means further. Supposing that in a particular area the existing rate for education is 3s. in the £ If that authority loses through de-rating 20 per cent. of its rateable value, then, in order to get the same amount of money out of rates from this restricted rateable value, the rate will be raised from 3s. to 3s. 9d. If the present rate is 3s. and the area is de-rated to the extent of 25 per cent. of the rateable value, then the rate will be 4s. in the £ in order to give the authority the same amount of money. In the case of an area de-rated to the extent of 30 per cent., the rate will have to be 4s. 3½d. in order to enable the authority to have the same amount of income. The education authorities will therefore find themselves in a very serious situation.
    I have previously given figures relating to the county of Glamorgan. I will give them again, because they clearly show that we are going to have the old economy stunt raised against education in particular. It is actually possible under this scheme to get a general reduction of the general rate, and at the same time to get an increase of the educa-
    282
    tion rate. Take Glamorganshire. Apply this scheme in 1926–27. What do you find? The county rate, including the equalised rate for Poor Law and highways, was, on that occasion, 10s. 10¼d. In respect of the services chargeable under the general county rate the rate was Is. 10½d., leaving the county rate, under the Government scheme, 9s. Look at the rate levied as a special county rate, in regard to which there is no compensation out of the general Exchequer fund. The rate in 1926–27 was 3s. 10d. Under the Government scheme the rate for elementary education would have meant an increase of 1s. 10d. in the £, making a total rate of 5s. 8d. in the £. It is quite obvious, therefore, that this scheme, which does not provide any compensation for loss of rate, is going to impose a tremendous burden upon the education rate and upon education authorities. Let me give one or two other figures which have been worked out. If the Parliamentary Secretary, instead of winking, would get up and tell us the simple, plain truth about the intentions of the Government, and treat this matter seriously, tell us quite frankly what are the intentions of the Government, I am sure he would have to say that the Government scheme rings the death-knell of Part III education authorities up and down the country; that it will be quite impossible for these Part III authorities, these necessitous areas, to carry on their education services under the scheme of the Government.
    I have some figures in respect of South Wales authorities which have been worked out by a competent authority. In Barry, in 1926–27, there was a rate of 3s. 2½d. for elementary education. The loss through de-rating there is 33 per cent. of the rateable value. In order to get the same amount of money, the education rate would have to be increased from 3s. 2½d to 4s. 10d., an increase of Is. 7½d. This would be necessary to make up the loss due to the de-rating of 33 per cent. of its property. In Mountain Ash, the education rate is 6s. 5d. There, the local authority will lose 35 per cent. of their rateable value through de-rating and the education rate of 6s. 5d. will have to be increased, to make up for the loss on account of de-rating, to the extent of 3s. 6d., making a total education rate, on account of de-rating pure and simple, of 9s. l1d. In Neath, the educa-

    283
    tion rate of 3s. 6d. will become 4s. 4d.; in Rhondda, the education rate of 5e. 6½d. will be increased to 6s. 8d.; in Port Talbot the education rate of 2s. l1d. will be increased to 4s. 1d., and in other places where the education rates are Is. l¼d. and Is. l¾d. they will be increased to 3s. 6d., to make up for the loss of rates through the process of de-rating.
    I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary this question—is it not the deliberate and calculated intention behind all the intricacies of this Bill not only to stabilise expenditure upon the health services but to stabilise expenditure also upon a service which is supposed to be outside the scheme, namely, the service of education? The simple elementary fact of de-rating and the taking out of the rateable value of 75 per cent. on account of industry and 100 per cent. in case of agriculture, makes it impossible for educational progress to be made in this country. Every new development, not new in the sense of being imposed by an Act of Parliament but in the sense of a natural increase in the expenditure of the authority on its existing educational service, will have to be borne on the restricted rateable value and will necessarily, therefore, send up the rates for education in a very marked degree. An authority which now employs, say, 100 teachers if it employs 110 teachers next year on account of the normal expansion of population will have to meet that increased expenditure upon this restricted rateable value, and it will have to be borne entirely, and for ever so far as this scheme is concerned, by the ratepayers in the area. The working men and the small shopkeepers are the people who will have to bear the burden of this expansion of the education service.
    In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department can get to know what the education authorities are thinking, they must know that the education authorities have expressed great anxiety about the whole future of education. Their official organ has given expression to that fear, and a suggestion has been made that a deputation should meet the Minister and discuss the position. I would ask the right hon Gentleman to tell us now whether, if he is not going to give a substitution for the loss
    284
    of rates, he is going to make any adjustment in the education giants. The President of the Board of Education gave a perky and supercilious reply, in his usual style, which satisfied nobody, and the comment by the education authorities and others interested in education have arisen directly out of his reply. They are quite unsatisfied about the whole position. Now, the Minister has a chance to say, on this Amendment. what he is going to do, and I hope that he will seriously face the position in which the local authorities will find themselves, and say whether he cannot give some compensatory grants in place of the tremendous loss that will occur, especially to Part III authorities, on account of de-rating.
    10.0 p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: No one will be more surprised than the hon. Member who moved the Amendment at the subsequent discussion which has arisen. When he moved his Amendment I am sure that he had no idea that in connection with this particular matter there would be produced from the fertile brains of two hon. Members opposite who have followed him, the arguments which they have adduced on the question of education. The hon. Member opposite who has spoken, and who is now, I understand, a distinguished ornament of the Bar, has perhaps not done due credit to that learned profession by studying the Amendment.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken about the Bar. Which bar? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman exactly which bar he means? I do not know which bar he means.
    Sir K. WOOD: I will leave that to the hon. Member. The Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) proposes that in the payment of the general Exchequer contribution, an amount equal to the total loss on account of rates to the counties and county boroughs shall be paid each year. How on this Amendment a question in relation to education can be brought in, I cannot understand. Whatever the position may be in relation to education—the President of the Board of Education has stated the position very fully—that position remains whether the amount payable is paid in accordance

    285
    with the scheme in the Bill or, as the hon. Member for the Welsh University-desires to make it, each year. I propose to address myself to the Amendment and to endeavour to satisfy the Committee that that would be a very undesirable course to adopt.
    The Committee may remember that we discussed this matter to a considerable extent upon the Second Reading of the Bill, and I think the hon. Member, on reflection, will not desire to persist in the Amendment. The Amendment involves a payment from the Exchequer to the local authorities of a certain proportion of their rates every year. Whatever those rates might be the Exchequer would, have to make its contribution, and they would have so far as the Amendment is concerned no means of having any chock with respect to the contribution from the 'Stale. Whatever might be the proper proportion of the rate expenditure involved, the Exchequer would have to send a cheque for the amount to the particular local authority. Such a course would be an impossible one for any Exchequer to admit for a moment. If anything of that kind was to be adopted it could only be made a little more reasonable by giving very wide powers to the Exchequer and the Treasury to cheek the expenditure of the local authorities, and to exercise some control over them which, no doubt, in the long run, would remove, practically altogether, responsibility from the local authorities to the National Exchequer. I think that is a course which no one would desire to press upon the Committee. It is true that, in the first instance, ideas such as these were put forward by certain authorities, but they are not being persisted in to-day by the local authorities.
    The hon. Member said that the local authorities would be in a difficulty as to how they should budget, and he thought that under his suggestion they would be in a much better position to know where they stood year by year. I would remind
    the hon. Member that the local authorities will be able to budget for a particular period. They will know exactly the amount they will receive and also the additional sums they are going to receive from the Exchequer. They will know that they are going to get a definite additional amount, and will be in a much better position in that respect than under the plan proposed by the Amendment. They will be able to survey their requirements for the next three years, a most desirable position for local authorities; they will know approximately the sums of money they will receive and be. able to survey the various services which they may desire to extend. They will be able to map out their programme for the next three years for a particular service. As regards that aspect of the matter, the hon. Member need have no anxiety. Finally, let me say this; that inasmuch as my right hon. Friend has come to an agreement with the Association of Local Authorities on this matter, the hon. Member, I know, will be the last person to desire that it should be torn up or deviated from. In these circumstances, and particularly on account of the undesirable nature of the Amendment from the point of view of the finances and position of local authorities, I suggest that he should not press the matter on the Committee.
    Mr. KELLY: Are we to have no reply to the figures which have been given by my two hon. Friends behind me in regard to the question of education?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is really a matter which should be debated on Clause 87 of the Bill, where we are dealing with Part III authorities. Obviously that is the correct place to deal with them. This is a question as to whether we should pay the loss of rates to local authorities each year or over a period of years.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 125; Noes, 193.

    Division No. 113.]

    AYES.

    [10.9 p.m.

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

    Barnes, A.

    Broad, F. A.

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

    Batey, Joseph

    Bromfield, William

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

    Bellamy, A.

    Bromley, J.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Buchanan, G.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillary)

    Briant, Frank

    Charleton, H. C.

    Cluse, W.S.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Connolly, M.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Scurr, John

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sexton, James

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Kennedy, T.

    Shinwell, E.

    Dennison, R.

    Lansbury, George

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Duncan, C.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Edge, Sir William

    Lawson, John James

    Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lee, F.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Stamford, T. W.

    England, Colonel A.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Stewart, J (St. Rollox)

    Forrest, W.

    Lowth, T.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Lunn, William

    Sullivan, J.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Sutton, J. E.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Gillett, George M.

    Mackinder, W.

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

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

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Greenall, T.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

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

    Townend, A. E.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    March, S.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Morris, R. H.

    Viant, S. P.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, pontypool)

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

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Groves, T.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

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

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Hardle, George D.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Potts, John S.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring]

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Riley, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

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

    Mr. Fenby and Major Owen.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

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

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

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

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hilton, Cecil

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

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

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

    Dlxey, A. C.

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

    Astor, Viscountess

    Drewe, C.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Atkinson, C.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Balniel, Lord

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Iilffe, Sir Edward M.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Ellis, R. G.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Bennett A. J.

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

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

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Bethel, A.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Brocklehank, C. E. R.

    Gadle, Lieut. Colonel Anthony

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Gates, Percy

    Macintyre, Ian

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Carver, Major W. H.

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

    Maitland. A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel-

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Malone, Major P. B.

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

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Cazalet, Captain victor A.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Gulnness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Christie, J. A.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Harland, A.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Clayton, G. C.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

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

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Oakley, T.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

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

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Percy, Lard Eustace (Hastings)

    288

    289

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Titchfield, Major the Marquees of

    Perring, Sir William George

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Sinclair, Col.T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.)

    Waddington, R.

    Pilcher, G.

    Skelton, A. N.

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Raine, Sir Walter

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

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Ramsden, E.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Wells, S. R.

    Rentoul, G. S.

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Stott, Lieut. Colonel W. H.

    Withers, John James

    Ropner, Major L.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Wolmer, Viscount

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

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Tasker, R. Inigo

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Wragg, Herbert

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Sandon, Lord

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Tinne, J. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.

    Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 55, line 25, at the end, to insert the words "calculated in the manner provided in this Section."
    These words, if carried, will be followed by an Amendment which appears at the foot of page 298 of the Order Paper, in page 56, line 29, to leave out paragraph (a,) and to insert instead thereof the words
    "the Minister shall from time to time estimate, as respects each county and county borough, the deficiency which will arise in each half-year by reason of losses on account of rates, and, subject as hereinafter provided, the amount of that deficiency shall be taken to be the difference between the sum which the Minister estimates would have been raised by these rates if this Act had not passed and the sum which the Minister estimates will be so raised under the foregoing provisions of this Act"—
    Then the Amendment goes on to stipulate that that sum, ascertained every half-year, shall be returned to every county and county borough. Our desire was to include all local authorities, and the only reason why the Amendment does not include all local authorities is that the shape of the Clause imposes certain limits of order. The words I have read are taken word by word from the Agricultural Rates Act of 1923, which was passed by a Conservative Government and has worked with smoothness and satisfaction since its inauguration. It is a simple and straightforward plan enough. The Minister of Health has promised to bring his scheme back to Parliament, or rather he has pledged Parliament to reconsider the matter so that all the workings of the blessed formula may be brought to the light of day, and Parliament may again decide on it. For all
    290
    practical purposes the Minister is simply adopting a provisional and stop-gap Measure and, if hon. Members opposite only consider the matter, they will see that, even if they do not look upon our scheme as a permanent settlement, it is a much easier, a much simpler and a more straightforward method of tiding over the period of experiment and inquiry and of seeing how this affects local authorities. It is at any rate a simple and clear proposal. Is the Measure before us simple or clear? I do not wish to repeat myself, but I would point out that the Government proposal in regard to the first three years simply means that every local authority will do very nicely, provided that its expenditure does not rise during that time, and provided that there is no great change in its rateable value. Should these two "ifs" be fulfilled, the local authorities are all right for the first period. But in regard to the next period there is a further complication because we do not know for successive years what the amount of the General Exchequer Contribution will be under the Minister's scheme. That depends upon the general total of rate-borne expenditure in the successive critical years.
    The first point I wish to make is that, depending as it does on the total expenditure, this proposal is extraordinarily unreassuring for each individual county, because the expenditure of many localities must rise above the average expenditure of the whole country. There are some localities whose expenditure, due to no fault of their own, will rise, while, perhaps, the average expenditure over the whole country remains fairly steady. When we come to the later years this

    291
    proposal may have even more fantastic effects. Rateable values may change in some districts very violently according to the course of trade and unemployment, and it will hardly be credited that on the formula part of the scheme, the factor which comes from unemployment is to vary with the general Exchequer contribution—the multiple for the unemployment factor is to depend in a certain proportion upon the proportion which the general Exchequer contribution in further years bears to the general Exchequer contribution in the first year.
    The Parliamentary Secretary smiles, but if he turns to Page 110 of the Bill, to his Fourth Schedule, he will see that the appropriate multiple for the unemployment factor at the end of the seventh year is to be determined by the ratio which the general Exchequer contribution in the fixed grant period in question bears to the part thereof distributed in that fixed grant period under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Act. You have then got to ascertain the ratio which the total amount of the general Exchequer contribution for the purpose of this grant period bears to the part thereof distributed in that fixed grant period under the said paragraph, and then the required number for multiplication is to be a number bearing the same proportion which the ratio ascertained under paragraph (i) of the rule bears to the ratio ascertained under paragraph (ii). The multiple of unemployment figure depends in this fantastic and remote manner on the amount of the general Exchequer contributions, which in their turn depend upon the general annual expenditure of the country. Take a district which is ravaged by unemployment and has a low rateable value. As soon as unemployment disappeared, the rateable value would go up, but under this scheme the unemployment figure depends not merely upon the unemployment figure of the district nor of the country. The weight given to the unemployment figure depends upon a ratio between the first Exchequer contribution and the subse-
    quent annual rateable expenditure; and, to add to the fantastic and dreamlike character of the whole thing, you multiply the rateable value of the district by the multiple of unemployment, multiplied by a figure bearing the same relation to it as the two other figures I have mentioned. My time is short, but in two words, we propose a sensible and reasonable arrangement, which anybody can understand; the Minister proposes a farrago of nonsense, which no one understands.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has devoted a good deal more time to trying to make fun of the proposals of the Government than she has done to recommending her Amendment to the Committee. In the short time at my disposal, I will merely say that she must not assume, because certain phrases of the Bill are unintelligible to her, that they are to others. She said that this Amendment was a simple proposition. So it is. It is a simple proposition to wreck the whole scheme. What does this Amendment do? It takes out of the pool the whole amount of the loss of rates, which would reduce the pool by the sum of £24,000,000 or thereabouts. Of course, therefore, it would make it quite impossible to do what the Government desire to do in their carefully thought-out and carefully balanced scheme, and that is to provide for the distribution of this pool in such a way as to benefit the necessitous areas. There is the further objection to the proposal, which I think must be obvious to the Committee, that it would definitely place upon the Exchequer the necessity of finding a loss of rates the amount of which would depend on the valuation and on the figures which the local authorities returned. That would be impossible without control by the Exchequer, which I am sure the Committee would not sanction. Therefore, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 232.

    Division No. 114.]

    AYES.

    [10.30 p.m.

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

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)

    Barnes, A.

    Broad, F. A.

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

    Batey, Joseph

    Bromfield, William

    Ammon, Charles George

    Bellamy, A.

    Bromley, J.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhamton, Bilston)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Buchanan, G.

    Caps, Thomas

    Kennedy, T.

    Sexton, James

    Charleton, H. C.

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

    Shinwell, E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, George

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Connolly, M.

    Lawson, John James

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Cove, W. G.

    Lee, F.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Dennison, R.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Duncan, C.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Gardner, J. P.

    Lowth, T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lunn, William

    Sullivan, J.

    Gillett, George M.

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

    Sutton, J. E.

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

    Mackinder, W.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Greenall, T.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

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

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    MacNeill-Weir. L.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

    Townend, A. E.

    Groves, T.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Grundy, T. W.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Viant, S. P.

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

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hardle, George D.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams. Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffs)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Riley, Ben

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield).

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

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Allen

    Kelly, W. T.

    Scurr, John

    Parkinson.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Galnsbro)

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

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Albery, Irving James

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

    Dixey, A. C.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Drewe, C.

    Hilton, Cecil

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

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

    Astor, Viscountess

    Edge, Sir William

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Atkinson, C.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

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

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Ellis, R. G.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

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

    England, Colonel A.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Bennett, A. J.

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

    Illffe, Sir Edward M.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Erskine, James Maicolm Monteith

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Bethel, A.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

    Brass, Captain W.

    Falls, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Briant, Frank

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Fenby, T. D.

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Fermoy, Lord

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Fielden, E. B.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

    Forrest, W.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Surney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Cassels, J. D.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Lumley, L. R.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A

    Gates, Percy

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

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Gault, Lieut.-Col, Andrew Hamilton

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

    Macintyre, Ian

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Christle, J. A.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Clayton, G. C.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Gulnness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Collox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Harland, A.

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Morris, R. H.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

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

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    294

    295

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Tinne, J. A.

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Oakley, T.

    Sandon, Lord

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Waddington, R.

    Omao, Sir Charles William C.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Owen, Major G.

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

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Perring, Sir William George

    Smith, Leuis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Pilcher, G.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wells, S. R.

    Radford, E. A.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Ramsden, E.

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

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Reid, Capt. Cunningham(Warrington)

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

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Withers, John James

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Rhys, Hen. C. A. U.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Womersley, W. J

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Ropner, Major L.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wragg, Herbert

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Runchman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.

    It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, 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 Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
    Amendments made:
    In page 55, line 28, leave out the word "quinquennium," and insert instead thereof the words "fixed grant period."
    In line 36, leave out the words "fourth year of the preceding quinquennium," and insert instead thereof the words "penultimate year of the preceding fixed grant period."
    In page 56, line 6, leave out the words "fourth year of that quinquennium," and insert instead thereof the words "penultimate year of that fixed grant period."
    Leave out from the second word "the" in line 11, to the word "in," in line 14, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "penultimate year of the preceding fixed grant period a reference to the last year preceding the said penultimate year."
    In line 20, leave out the words "three quinquennia" and insert instead thereof the words "four fixed grant periods."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Consequential Amendments made.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 118.

    Division No, 115.]

    AYES.

    [10.43 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

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

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Albery, Irving James

    Burney, Lieut. Com. Charles D.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Carver, Major W. H.

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

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Cassels, J. D.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

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

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

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

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

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Astor, Viscountess

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Atkinson, C.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Dlxey, A. C.

    Balniel, Lord

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Drewe, C.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Christie, J. A.

    Edge, Sir William

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

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Bennett, A. J.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Bethel, A.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    England, Colonel A.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Sandon, Lord

    Fielden, E. B.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Forrest, W.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

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

    Foxcrott, Captain C. T.

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

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

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Macdonald. R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Macintyre, Ian

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Macquisten, F. A.

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Gates, Percy

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

    Malone, Major P. B.

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    Manninaharn-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Margesson, Captain D.

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

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Stott, Lieut. -Colonel W. H.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Harland, A.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

    Oakley, T.

    Waddington, R.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Perring, Sir William George

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Hilton, Cecil

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

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

    Radford, E. A.

    Wells, S. R.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Ramsden, E.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Reid, Capt. Cunningham(Warrington)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Withers, John James

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

    Ropner, Major L.

    Wragg, Herbert

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

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

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Salmon, Major I.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.

    NOES.

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

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

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

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Lansoury, George

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

    Gillett, George M.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Ammon, Charles George

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

    Lawson, John James

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Greenall, T.

    Lee, F.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson end Colne)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Barnes, A.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Batey, Joseph

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Lowth, T.

    Bellamy, A.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Lunn, William

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Groves, T.

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

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Mackinder, W.

    Briant, Frank

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

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Bromfield, William

    Hardle, George D.

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

    Bromley, J.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Morris, R. H.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hayes, John Henry

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

    Cape, Thomas

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Owen, Major G.

    Connolly, M.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Palin, John Henry

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Dennison, R.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Potts, John S.

    Duncan, C.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Riley, Ben

    Fenby, T. D.

    Kelly, W. T.

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

    Gardner, J. P.

    Kennedy, T.

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

    298

    299

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Runciman, Rt Hon Walter

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Strauss, E. A.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Scurr, John

    Taylor, R. A.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Sexton, James

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

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Shinwell, E.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Townend, A. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Viant, S. P.

    Paling.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    CLAUSE 70.—(Payments out of Road Fund towards General Exchequer Contribution.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 57, line 17, after the word "shall," insert the words "as from the appointed day."
    In line 19, leave out from the beginning, to the word "in," in line 21.
    In line 25, leave out the words "Local
    Taxation Account an equivalent sum" and insert instead thereof the words:
    "Road Fund in addition to the sums paid into that fund under Sub-section (3) of the said Section two a sum of five hundred and thirty-six thousand nine hundred and fifty-four pounds and eight shillings."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Consequential Amendments made.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 218: Noes, 119.

    Division No. 116.]

    AYES.

    [10.53 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cralg, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

    Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Henderson, Lieut -Col. Sir Vivian

    Albery, Irving James

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

    Heneage, Lieut. Col. Arthur P.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Hilton, Cecil

    Apsley, Lord

    Dixey, A. C.

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

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

    Drewe, C.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Astor, Viscountess

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Atkinson, C.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

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

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Ellis, R. G.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

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

    England, Colonel A.

    Ilifle, Sir Edward M.

    Bennett, A. J.

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

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Erskine, James Maicolm Monteith

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Bethel, A.

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen't)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Brass, Captain W.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Fielden, E. B.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Foxcroft, Captain C. T.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lumley, L. R.

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

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

    Cassels, J. D.

    Gates, Percy

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Gault, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Macintyre, Ian

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

    Macquisten, F. A.

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

    Goff, Sir Park

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Charterls, Brigadier-General J.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Christle, J. A.

    Gulnness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Marqesson, Captain D.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Harland, A.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hartington, Marquess of

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

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Morden, Colonel Walter Grant

    Colman, N. C. D.

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

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Tinne, J. A.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

    Sandon, Lord

    Tryon, Rt. Hon, George Clement

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Yaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Waddington, R.

    Oakley, T.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

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

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Perring, Sir William George

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

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Wells, S. R.

    Radford, E. A.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Ramsden, E.

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

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Roes, Sir Beddoe

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

    Withers, John James

    Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Streatfelid, Captain S. R.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Wragg, Herbert

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Ropner, Major L.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.Colonel E. A.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Major Sir William Cope and Mr.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

    Penny.

    NOES.

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

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

    Riley, Ben

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

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

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

    Hardle, George D.

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

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hayday, Arthur

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Runciman, Rt Hon. Walter

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Barnes, A.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Batey, Joseph.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bellamy, A.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Scurr, John

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Sexton, James

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Shinwell, E.

    Briant, Frank

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bromfield, William

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bromley, J.

    Kennedy, T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Buchanan, G.

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

    Stamford, T. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Lansbury, George

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleston, H. C.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawson, John James

    Strauss, E. A.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lee, F.

    Sullivan, J.

    Connolly, M.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Taylor, R. A.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lowth, T.

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

    Dennison, R.

    Lunn, William

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Duncan, C.

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Edge, Sir William

    Mackinder, W.

    Townend, A. E.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Viant, S. P.

    Fenby, T. D.

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

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gardner, J. P.

    Morris, R. H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon J.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Gillett, George M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams. Dr. J. H. (Llanslly)

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

    Oliver, George Harold

    Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)

    Greenall, T.

    Owen, Major G.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell; D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Paling, W.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Groves, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Mr. Hayes Mr. T. Henderson.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    It being after Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIEMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    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 Five minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  WALWORTH ROAD (BOROUGH) EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE.
  WALWORTH ROAD (BOROUGH) EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSFER OF WORKERS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (TRANSFER OF WORKERS).
  POST OFFICE (LIFE INSURANCE).
  POST OFFICE (LIFE INSURANCE).
  CHINA (GERMAN MILITARY INSTRUCTORS).
  CHINA (GERMAN MILITARY INSTRUCTORS).
  RHINELAND EVACUATION.
  RHINELAND EVACUATION.
  TONGA ISLANDS (EDUCATION).
  TONGA ISLANDS (EDUCATION).
  MUNICIPAL AERODROMES.
  MUNICIPAL AERODROMES.
  WOOLLEN AND WORSTED MANUFACTURES.
  WOOLLEN AND WORSTED MANUFACTURES.
  MENTAL HOSPITALS (EX-SERVICEMEN).
  MENTAL HOSPITALS (EX-SERVICEMEN).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

DERATING PROPOSALS.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR rose to call attention to the proposals on derating in Part V of Command Paper 3220, and to ask what calculations have been made:—

1, Of any probable increase in agricultural prosperity or agricultural employment as the result of derating;

2, Of the extent to which rates constitute a charge on depressed productive industries;

3, Of the probable export of coal at lower preferential rates in favour of foreign producers;

and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the Question which I have put upon the Paper is rather a long one and I do not think I need read it. It was drafted with great care and communicated to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who, I understand, will speak for the Government, in order that he might appreciate exactly what the points are which I desire to raise and what are the matters on which I desire to ask for information. I also gave full information to the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, because a good many of the topics with which I have to deal are really agricultural questions. I regret that this matter could not have been brought forward at an earlier date, but the noble Marquess the Leader of the House knows that at his request my Question and Motion were postponed so that the debate on the constitution of your Lordships' House might be finished before the adjournment for the Recess. I find no fault with that because, so far as the Party to which I belong is concerned, we always desire to meet the noble Marquess in every way we can for the convenience of the House, provided, of course, that no great public interest is sacrificed. That was not the case in this instance.
There are one or two preliminary matters on which I should like to say a few words in order to compress as much as possible the real nature of my criticism. So far as I know no one denies the need of rating reform. That is common ground between all persons who in any way study either the rating question or what I may call the rating system. What I am going to say is that, although the rating system is unsatisfactory, the proposals of the Government show a wrong diagnosis of what the disease really is, with the result that they have produced a quack remedy, which, although of course in some respects it may be supported, will, in the aggregate, do much more to kill and paralyse the patient than it will to recover and refresh him. That is the real nature or backbone of the criticism I want to make this afternoon. I will not trouble your Lordships, and particularly the noble Marquess, who seems to think that by suggesting reiteration he answers us, though I do not think that is quite so, by going again into what I consider the fundamental basis of all rating reform which has been overlooked in this case: that is, to draw a proper distinction between matters of local interest which should be placed upon local expenditure and matters of national interest the expenditure on which should be placed upon the central funds. That will be found in the Report of every Committee and I should have thought that it was substantially common ground.
The first subject mentioned in my Question, which I want to keep distinct from the others, is the derating of agriculture. I think that ought to be considered by itself. In approaching this question, we have to recollect—and I do not think the Government have given due weight to it—that at the present time agricultural land and premises are exempted from 75 per cent. of what would be their ordinary rateable value ascertained according to the accepted principles. The remaining 25 per cent. is all that now remains for remission, and when we consider the possible benefit which agriculture may derive from this proposed scheme it is essential to keep that in mind. We are not considering the remission of the rating of agriculture as a whole. The time for that has gone by. All that is now suggested is derating as regards one quarter, no
748
more, and that derating as regards one quarter implies exemption of agricultural land from all rating liabilities. That is the first point where objection arises. If you exempt agricultural land or any other rateable premises or here-ditaments, you of necessity permanently narrow the source of taxation. That is a necessary result and I do not think there is any Report on the rating system—I do not want to go into them—which does not say that there ought to be no exemptions at all, except such exemptions as now apply to churches and certain schools and places of that kind. It is not necessary for me to dwell upon this point, but if any one wishes to see the argument put in a way which appears to me to be unanswerable, I should advise him to read the evidence given before the Royal Commission by Sir Harry Poland, who, in his day, was the greatest of all experts on rating customs and rating laws.
I do not want to go into the question of finance. I have indicated that to the noble Earl, and I have taken all reference to finance out of the terms of my Question. But I think I may say that I have naturally had regard to the result of this finance so far as I can follow it, because it has been in a state of flux and doubt as regards my own County of Buckingham, which is an agricultural county. Of course, in a county of that kind, exemption of agricultural land means exemption of one of the great sources from which revenue can be obtained in order to meet local liabilities. Therefore I was not astonished to get a message from our County Council pointing out that the ultimate loss to Buckinghamshire would be £43,000. That is easily understood if you appreciate what is meant by exemption of agricultural land in an agricultural county. But I do not want to rely on that because changes are being made, and only the other day a fresh Paper was brought out on what is called Part VI. Therefore I pass away from any figures of that kind. It also has to be recollected that rates are not directly charged at all on the industry of agriculture. Of course various things are a charge in a sense, and rent is a very heavy charge, and rates are also a charge in that sense. But rates are assessed purely on the value of the land or premises themselves, and no account is taken of whether the

749
particular industry, or the particular case, or the particular farmer is prosperous or in difficulties. That is a very important point when we come to deal with the claim put forward by the Minister of Health in this case.
It also, I think, results in this, that a very large proportion—I do not say the whole of it, but a very large proportion—of the ultimate benefit goes to the landlords. I know it is said that the remission of three-quarters of the rates has not up to the present led to the raising of rents. I dare say that this is so, though I doubt if it is universally true. In any case, it is really beside the point, because the owner may get as much benefit from a rate remission which enables his existing rent to be preserved as he could get by raising it. I was interested the other day to read the views of Professor Sidgwick which were given some years ago. He was defending the Bill of 1896, which first gave the remission of one-half the rates, and he said that he realised that it was a remission of which the owners would gain the advantage. He suggested that they were entitled to do so on the rather curious ground that they had never been recompensed for the repeal of the Corn Laws, and, since this had sent their rents down, they were entitled to such consideration as they could get under the measure of 1896. During a tenancy, no doubt, the advantage would go to a tenant, and that is one of the reasons why I am asking the noble Earl if any calculation has been made as to how much of this great remission will go to the owner in the first place. I can only say that in my own district farmers will not take leases, for the very good reason that they are afraid in the present condition of agriculture of being landed in a heavy loss, while, on the other hand, they know that they will not be disturbed, owing to the penalties involved, so long as they care to remain in their holdings. Ultimately, I have no doubt, the benefit of this remission will go to the owner to a very large extent.
Let me put one proposition in this connection. It is very familiar to me from my experience of compensation law. In compensation law, if you want to get the net rental, you have to make a deduction from the net amount equivalent to the rates charged. If, for in-
750
stance, the landlord himself were paying the rate as an occupying owner, his property would be at once enhanced by the amount of the rates remission, multiplied by a proper figure in order to get the fee simple value of his land or whatever it might be desired to ascertain. Even where the land is let the same principle would be involved, though of course its realisation would be discounted during the time when the tenancies were in operation. Let me quote two or three words from the protagonist of this scheme, the Minister of Health. I will ask your Lordships to consider these words very carefully, because in this House we can usually approach a matter about which so many of us know a great deal in a business-like way. I want to suggest that we should approach it in a common-sense way. I am certainly the last person who would desire to say anything that could either promote unnecessary controversy or obscure what are, to my mind, when you really appreciate what rating means, simple issues. The Minister of Health, in supporting these proposals, said that our rating system had been subjecting our agriculture—he spoke also of industry, and I shall refer to that presently—to a slow process of strangulation. Does any person interested in agriculture really believe that this is other than a rhetorical and exaggerated statement?
I should like to give one or two figures, just to show to what extent this notion of the strangulation of agriculture by rates is an entirely false premiss. As I have said, some advantage may be obtained, but looking at it from a wider point of view I say without hesitation, first that the word "strangulation" is a gross exaggeration, and in the second place, that the proposed remedy, if it be applicable at all, will be of no value whatever. I see the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, in his place. I am not very fond of Sunday newspapers, but whilst I was abroad I read a letter of his in the Sunday Times on this very question. I have taken the actual words. He wrote:—
"I have never known the inherent condition of agriculture worse or its ultimate outlook more discouraging."
That is after there has been a remission of three-quarters of the so-called strangulation by rates of agricultural land. If the remission of three quarters has left

751
the inherent condition of agriculture worse and its ultimate outlook more discouraging than Lord Bledisloe has ever known, with all his experience at the Ministry of Agriculture behind him, it is inevitable that this small additional remission of the remaining quarter of the rates upon agricultural land cannot have the effect of relieving agriculture from strangulation. I am much more of an optimist than that. I do not believe in the strangulation of agriculture. I do not go nearly so far as the noble Lord, for I believe that there is a future for agriculture in this country. We are not being strangled, or if we are to any extent—I am talking as a farmer and an agriculturist—it is not due to rating, and the very small remission involving exemption from the final quarter will have little or no effect upon the future of agriculture in this country. That, as we know, is the view of the farmers. I do not know of any practical man who has any other view than that which I am now stating. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, is in the House to-night, because he has great practical knowledge of these matters, which is a great advantage in considering a scheme of this kind.
One of my questions to the Government invites them to give the statistics on which they postulate this strangulation of agriculture. If the noble Earl can give the figures on which that strangulation is postulated, I hope he will also give any calculations that may show that the remission of one quarter of the rates will have any effective value. I should like to give an illustration. When these matters were discussed in 1896, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will know very well that a leading agriculturist in the House of Commons in those days was Mr. Jeffreys, the member for the Basingstoke division of Hampshire. Mr. Jeffreys was very critical regarding the relief given in 1896, and I think he ultimately agreed with Sir William Harcourt that the greatest advantage that he could possibly say that a farmer would get would be that he would have a sovereign in his pocket with which to get a new bonnet for his wife for Christmas. I believe that this is about the extent to which the suggested remedy can possibly go.
Take as an illustration—no doubt a special illustration—the case of poor
752
land. He said, and I think quite rightly, that you must consider the poor lands because in the poorer districts you find more need for assistance than in the richer districts. So he took land about which I know a great deal, and of which he said there was a large amount in his district—namely, the land let at 5s. an acre. He said how ridiculous it was to suggest that land of that kind could be substantially assisted by any readjustment of the rating incidence. Let me apply the same illustration. Land at 5s. per acre is only now rated at 1s. 3d., that is to say, it already has 75 per cent. reduction. That is not the whole story. In my own district the rates are only 5s. in the £, which is rather good, but that reduces the whole benefit which is derived from this rating scheme to between 3d. and 4d. per acre. Even if you take land at 10 s. and go on up the scale, the result is infinitesimal as regards having any real influence upon the future of agriculture in this country.
I am not going into that to-day. I put it to anybody in this House who knows of the difficulties of agriculture, that you must go quite outside this rating question, to far larger considerations, and must introduce some really drastic reforms, if you are to put agriculture on a true footing, such as I wish it could be put on in this country. If you take a 100-acre farm, 3d. or 4d: per acre works out at only between £1 and £2 per year. Is that going to drag agriculture out of strangulation? I do not believe in the strangulation, but the remedy is ridiculous. It is not really discussable to say that you are going to help agriculture in a matter of that kind. I should like to take one other illustration, because it was often taken in the old days and has often been taken since. It is the case of accommodation land, let at £4 per acre. What did the farmers say? They said: "It is a gross injustice to take rating off land of that kind, which can well afford to pay, and not do much more general and generous reforms so far as we farmers are concerned." Therefore, as I have said, if anybody here believes that farming is being strangled by these wicked rates, I want to ask the noble Earl, and also the Minister representing the Ministry of Agriculture, the Earl of Stradbroke, whether they, or any business men in this House, believe for one moment that

753
these proposals are going to produce a change from strangulation to health. I would like the noble Marquess to tell us his inward view on that topic, and I would like any one here who is interested in land and land management to tell us what is his view on that topic. As I have said, in the case of land at 10 s. per acre there is 2s. 6d. left, which is a little more, but it is quite inadequate to have any substantial result.
Another point on which I would like to say a word or two is as to cottages. I suppose that most of us who are interested in land own some cottages. I own between fifty and a hundred—I do not wish to state the exact number—but in order to do what I can to raise the standard I pay the rates and do the repairs, because when I let them out to farmers or others to do the repairs I find that you at once get a less comfortable class of house. Is there the smallest difference whether a cottage is let to an agricultural labourer or to any one else? Not the smallest, and although there may be something in this bogey, it is not a matter which can really affect more than a sovereign or two, one way or the other, this question of agricultural depression.
Then let us take the other point of unemployment. Unemployment is a terrible evil, and indeed the greatest of all evils. Unemployment, so far as it is brought about in agriculture, is chiefly brought about by the transfer of arable land to grass land, and perhaps some of us here will recollect the great sermon of Bishop Latimer applied to that very topic; but it is utterly impossible that these sixpences and shillings should turn back to arable land one acre of what has been converted into grass land. To convert and make good grass land is an expensive process. Let me give an illustration, for it is much better to have facts than mere talk on matters of this kind. A farm of which I know, converted to grass, does not give full occupation to three men. Not long ago it was an arable farm and gave full occupation to nine men. How is this small concession going even to touch the question of unemployment in our agricultural districts? I want to say at once that it would be a terrible reaction if we touched in the least the question of the minimum wage. No one for one moment would wish the
754
Agricultural labourer to go back or to lose the advantages which the minimum wage provision has given him.
There is one other consideration. Let us take agricultural land, which is really the subject matter of these rates, and not agriculture. Can any one say that agricultural land ought to be exempted from contribution to local services? I do not believe any one would say that. Why these agricultural lands, at any rate in the South of England, are nearly all gradually acquiring a building value, and why are they so doing? Of course it is of no use trying to develop them for building purposes without roads, sanitation, and all the other local expenditure necessary for a purpose of this kind, and I wish to say this: I have constantly advocated in your Lordships' House and elsewhere that owners of land in this country should not be submitted to exceptional treatment to their disadvantage. But if, on the other hand, you give them an advantage of this kind, an advantage that enables them to profit by the expenditure of other people, you must expect that those who now want fair treatment will be torpedoed by having brought to their notice what will be the certain effect of this Bill—namely, the increasing of the fee simple value of agricultural land to a very large amount indeed in the aggregate.
There is one other point. You cannot very easily separate rentals and rates. If rates go up, and the land is fairly treated, rentals will have to go down; if rates are diminished, and the land is fairly treated, rentals have a tendency to go up. That surely is a matter which no one would desire to push forward at the present time in our agricultural districts. We do not want to take away the great source of taxation for local expenditure; we want to increase it. The social demands are growing, and ought to grow, and this is not the time when agricultural land, as such, should be exempted from all charges. I should like to give one illustration from the Command Paper to which I have referred, and I particularly ask the attention of the noble Earl to this point, because it has been put to me several times, and I have not been able to find an answer. On page 26 you will see this statement:—
"…it is fair that water should continue to be paid for by the occupiers of de-

755
rated properties on the same basis as other consumers where that is the case at present."
What is the difference between common liability to pay water charges and common liability to pay all the other charges incidental to local taxation?
I entirely agree that the people who incur a liability of this kind, either by subscription or by water rates—it does not matter in the least which, any more than in London it matters whether you are dealing with a water company or with a local authority—ought to continue to bear that liability. What is the difference between that and other matters on which the owners contribute towards local expenditure? Why are they to be let off? They have jointly embarked, with others, upon these local improvements. They are getting the benefit as much as other people are. Why are they not to foot the bill in the same way that others do? Is the cottager to foot it, whilst they are relieved from it? Why is the poor man to pay—I do not say the owner is a rich man, he may be a poor man—but why is any man to pay if the owner, who gets the chief advantage from these local benefits, is, under the terms of this Bill, exempted from all payments in the future?
Therefore I urge that, so far as agriculture is concerned, not only is this Bill promoted on an absurd exaggeration about the strangulation of agriculture, but, in addition, if that were true, it gives no relief worthy of the name. Then, so far as the owner is concerned, I believe that every owner, if left to himself, would be only too eager to contribute his fair share towards local benefits, and certainly would not desire—I do not believe any of your Lordships would—to benefit at the expense of his neighbour. I am not here to-night to suggest what is the proper remedy, but I may say this, because I am a great believer in the future of agriculture: take the views of Professor Orwin of Oxford on land tenure, take the views which we have expressed from this Bench on many of the points in the land programme put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, take what my noble friend Lord De La Warr said the other day about rationalisation, and there is an ample programme for real reform and real change in order to place the broad
756
acres of this country on something like their ancient prosperity and their ancient wealth.
The second point is industry. The effect of our rating system on industries is stated by the Minister of Health in still more drastic language than its effect on agriculture. This is what he says:—
"The effect of the inequitable rating system has actually involved in ruin some of our greatest industries."
I should like to know what is the proof of that. I do not know that any of our greatest industries has been involved in ruin. Particular firms, or particular employers, may be, but I do not believe that any of our greatest industries has been involved in ruin as an industry. I should like to put against that view the view of the Minister of Labour. I must say that I do not think there could be a more depressing person towards hopes of improvement in our industries and agriculture than the present Minister of Health. That would not matter so much were it not that depression, for psychological reasons, often affects the actual matters themselves.
What I am going to quote is taken from the Summary of the Ministry of Labour for 1928, published in the Labour Gazette the other day. The statement from the Ministry of Labour is this—and it is extremely important that these matters should not be exaggerated in order to make a case for these rating proposals:—
"The sudden increase of unemployment which occurred in the second quarter of the year 1928 was not due to a general decline of trade"—
it was not due, you will note, to the ruin of some of our greatest industries—
"but was confined almost entirely to six industries."
He gives those six industries, not one of which has been ruined, though all of them no doubt have suffered from depression. But what reason is there, if they have suffered from depression, to attribute it solely or mainly to rating? I will take mining, because that is the industry he puts first. It is the most depressed industry there is. I do not deny for a moment that it is good to give relief to the mining industry; but that is another matter. Can any one say that the conditions in our mining districts are not to be attributed to much wider

757
causes and conditions than are to be found within this comparatively narrow rating reform? Yet we are told that it is the want of rating reform that has already ruined that industry. I do not want to make this too much a political matter; but the Government have been in power for four years. Rates do not affect ruined industries either one way or the other, as a matter of fact. Why did they not intervene at the proper time, if it was necessary, so as to save the ruin to which they refer?
With regard to the mining industry, I should like to ask the noble Earl one question of a constructive character. I have not given him notice, so he may not be able to answer it. He must know, as this country contributed to the cost of the investigation, that machinery and works for the distillation of coal to obtain petrol have been carried to a very successful result particularly by the Badische Company in Germany. If we are to spend these huge sums that we are talking of, why not expend them in giving a fair opportunity of testing a system of this kind? I can go back to the days when I was at the Privy Council, and since that time a great advance has been made. I only throw that out because it shows, to my mind, not only that this rating reform is of no value in itself but, worse than that, that it diverts attention from matters which might bring real assistance to one of our most distressed industries.
I have stated before, I think, that the industries which are said to be strangled by rating are not rated at all. It makes no difference whether an industry is prosperous or not, rating is on the premises, and on the premises only, in which the business is carried on. One admits, of course, that it does affect an industry, but the industry itself is not rated one farthing. As everyone knows who is interested in rating questions, you carefully eliminate the profit and leave the profit of the industry to the Income Tax, and do not subject that in any way to local taxation at all. As is the case in agriculture, although perhaps more definitely, surely factories and business premises get full benefit from local expenditure. The men they employ get advantages in cottages, lighting, roads, sanitation, parks and all those things which are the real sources of local expenditure.
I want to ask the noble Earl how, in those circumstances, the reduction of rating to a quarter can be justified. We are dealing now, of course, not with de-rating but with classification, and I want to make that clear. Classification means that you classify premises to rating in accordance with the benefits they are likely to receive from local expenditure. It is carried much further and to a more artistic development in Scotland than in this country; but, so far as I have been able to ascertain, I can see no case where the principle of classification has been applied to factories or premises so as to make their charges for local expenditure lower than that of other people.
I do not want to keep your Lordships too long, but there is one other point I should like to make regarding those industries. Is it possible to defend the Government's proposal to give large sums from the Treasury, out of money contributed by other taxpayers, for the benefit of prosperous industries which are paying large dividends to their shareholders? I regard that as an impossible proposition. It is said that it is in accordance with principle. I think the answer to that is that if it is in accordance with principle—which I deny—it undercuts the whole scheme which the Government have brought forward. Just conceive what it means. I do not want to refer particularly to breweries or distilleries, but the aggregate amount involved is said to be something like £8,000,000. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, is not in his place, but he pointed out yesterday that we are in a condition of striving for economy in every direction. Who will justify the wasting of such a sum as a "dole," for that is what it comes to, to people who do not want it? It is a "dole"—
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No; it is rating reform.
LORD PARMOOR: If it is rating reform it results in a "dole." What else does it result in? This rating reform is to apply to industries. I am much obliged to the noble Earl, and I will follow it out. The total amount involved is about £16,000,000 in regard to industry. On principle—I agree with the noble Earl that it has been put in that way—about half of that, about £8,000,000, goes as a "dole" to people who do not

759
want it. What is that but a "dole"? You may call it rating reform or anything else, and under that name you may endow with State funds different varieties of people who do not want money, but it is nevertheless a "dole." It is to be regarded as a "dole," and it will be so regarded by the poorer people of this country. Take one of the mining districts: it is not only the miners, but every householder, every little local shopkeeper experiences the distressful poverty which exists throughout the district. What will they think of the proposal to give £8,000,000 from the national funds in order that rich shareholders may get further dividends? It is an enormous point, and is one which cannot be put aside lightly. It is not a thing of which it can be said that you must do it because of principle. There is no principle whatever involved in it. If there were, it would be an absolutely destructive criticism of the whole project of the Government.
I think that is all I want to say with regard to industry, and all I have now to deal with is the question of railway relief, or rather railway charges. The matter requires a little careful analysis in order to appreciate what is being done. A sum is being practically handed over to the railway companies in order that certain decreases in rates may be applied to traffic over their systems. That is nothing to do with rating reform whatever. It is a mere term to bring the question of rating reform into a transaction of that kind, and I will tell you why if I may. After the War the railway companies, and, I believe, all the local authorities—or practically all of them—agreed as to the fair rates to be paid towards local expenditure by the railway companies. There has never been one single appeal, I am told, on this point since that date. It has never been suggested, I do not think it can be suggested, that railways are paying more than their fair share, being rated on a system which has been in operation since railways commenced and which was thoroughly thrashed out before the Railway Commission. All the railway companies desire that the present system should be maintained. Every one who knows what has happened knows that the rating agreed upon was certainly not unfavourable to the railway companies.
760
As to the question of charges, which is also raised, I would point out that in the old days we had what is called maximum charges, and a very considerable power was vested in the Railway Commissioners. At the present time you have what are called settled rates, which can only be altered to a certain percentage either in reduction or in increase, but at the same time I think it is right to say—I speak here only of what I am told, and I think it is right—that about 90 per cent. of the railway rates now charged are called exceptional rates. But one most important provision is retained, and that is the Royal Commission has power over what is called undue preference, that power being preserved as a safeguard against the railways charging preferential rates as between one trader and another. The equality of charge is the result of a very old system. The common carrier in days gone by, long before railways were heard of, had to make fair and equal charges, and that rule prevails at the present time.
What I understand is done is that undue preference is legalised in order to give a preferential rate for the export of coal. That, I understand, is the effect of what has been done. What does that mean? It means two things. It means first of all that other coal owners are unjustly treated. We know the complaints which have been brought forward from the North Eastern counties. It means, too, that you give a bounty to the export of coal which will no doubt be used to produce commodities in competition with our manufacturers at home. That, in my opinion, is a tremendous step in the wrong direction. I want to ask this question: What are the expectations of increased traffic and what is the amount of coal likely to be exported for foreign works under this preferential scheme? That is an extremely important point. We recollect that in the old days—Mr. Gladstone was an advocate of it—it was suggested there should be a duty on coal because you were exporting the raw material which was part of the wealth of the country. Now you are going to export it, as I understand, in such a way that foreign countries, our competitors, will be assisted. That is the third portion of the scheme of the Government.
I only want to say this in conclusion. I do not believe in the pessimism which

761
talks about the strangulation either of our industries or of our agriculture, and I do not believe it for this reason. I think our workmen are the best in the world, best in skill, best in ability, best in their patient energy, and as long as that is so we shall come back, with patience, to the position we occupied before the War. What we are suffering from now is not this small matter of rating. As M. Theunis said in his Economic World Report at Geneva, great as was the destruction during the period of the War, the losses to industry from the subsequent dislocation were greater by far; and what we had to do was to have patience, and with patience the civilised world might again have the industrial position which it had lost through disorganisation in war time. I beg to move.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, we have just heard one of the most amazing speeches it has ever been my lot to listen to. At the end of it I did not understand what it was that the noble Lord was really endeavouring to argue. I entirely disagree with his peroration. Being engaged in industry may I say that we shall certainly not regain our industrial position by patience: we shall only regain our industrial position by action. We can only get liberty of action by releasing the stranglehold which the rating system has on this country. Adapted as that system may have been to the agricultural conditions at the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign it is entirely useless for our present industrial system. Our conditions have radically and fundamentally altered. The noble Lord seems not to have understood the basic principle on which the Government Bill is based. He elaborated an extraordinary argument that rating had nothing to do with profit. He is quite right; that is exactly the mistake of our present system of rating. Rating to-day is part of your cost, because you have to pay whether you are making a profit or a loss. You are, therefore, adding continually to the losses in your depressed industries, you are adding to the debit side of their balance sheet automatically without any power whatsoever to those who are running industry to relieve themselves of the growing burdens. As the burden grows the industry becomes more and more depressed.
762
I am not in the least surprised at the strong view taken by the Minister of Health on this matter. I had the same picture before me, perhaps in a more intense form, when I was Minister of Health. If the noble Lord had seen the figures presented to me by the leading manufacturers of steel in Sheffield, which showed that we were imposing a burden—I am speaking from recollection—of nearly 10 s. a ton merely by rates, and were asking them to compete in the markets of the world with people who, had no such burdens to bear, he would not be quite so optimistic, and would not suggest sitting down quietly and having patience, and quote the remarks of some gentleman who writes economic books for which I have no use whatsoever. Let me point out this. First of all your rating has been much too confined to begin with. The result is that you get a concentration of the burden not merely in a city but in those parts of a city in which industry is depressed.
Let me take, as an example, the steel industry. As it becomes depressed workmen go out of work. As they go out of work they resort to poor relief. As they go on poor relief the Poor Rate goes up, and the result is that you automatically increase the cost of your steel and, with this continual snowballing, the costs in industry mount higher and higher. You ought in such circumstances to have lower costs in order to compete in the world's markets. That is a system which the noble Lord apparently is perfectly happy and contented with. He suggests that the man who has to conduct industry must be satisfied that he is contributing to public expenditure, although at the same time his works are going into liquidation.
LORD PARMOOR: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I did not suggest anything of the kind. I said that in my view rating reform was absolutely necessary, but that this reform was on the wrong lines, which is a very different thing from what the noble Lord has said.
LORD MELCHETT: The noble Lord did not inform us what his rating reform was.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, I did. I do not know whether the noble Lord was here, but I informed the House what it was, although I said I would not go

763
into details. I said there should be a proper differentiation between national and local expenditure.
LORD MELCHETT: That does not deal with the question of principle at all.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes it does, it goes to the whole basis.
LORD MELCHETT: But it does not deal with the question of principle. A system of rating which automatically adds to the cost of production is one which must be an automatic burden on industry. If you abolished the present system of rating of property and had a municipal income tax as they have in Germany, you would not have this problem in this shape. But you have it now, and it is a very bad and a most disastrous one. The noble Lord spoke about mining. I cannot follow him there. With all his eloquence he draws first a terrible picture of unemployed miners and ruined shopkeepers, and the next moment he carps and cavils at any attempt to do anything whatever for that industry.
Why is that industry so depressed? It is because it has largely lost the export trade. Why has it largely lost the export trade? Because the Polish Government is giving large subsidies to the export trade and because the French Government has made special railway rates arrangements all over the North of France to meet the competition of British coal. What is the use of pretending that the British coal owner or the British miner can go on fighting competition which is backed, not by the coal industries of those countries, but by the whole force of those countries? What is the result? I am chairman of considerable coal companies, and what do we see already happening? I am glad to say we are re-opening pits now which we have had to shut because they were running at a loss. At the present time Cardiff docks are becoming once more full of ships waiting to be filled with South Wales coal. The spectre which has oppressed us of 280,000 men unemployed has not disappeared, but at any rate the position is improving. Is this the moment to come and tell us we must not export coal?
LORD PARMOOR: What I said was that this reform would not produce results.
LORD MELCHETT: But it is producing results to-day. The noble Lord does not seem to know what is happening. He may not be in the coal industry. To my misfortune I am, and I can tell him the results. Derating of coal mines is going to be an advantage and a very serious advantage to the coal industry. It will be an immediate advantage. What I would urge the Government to do is not to wait until next October but to begin earlier because there are such things as tendencies. The noble Lord alternates between two arguments. He first says the remedy is so small that it will make no difference, and on the other hand he says it is unfair to take away large sums from the taxpayer. He cannot have it both ways. If it is so small as to be useless there is no loss to the general body of taxpayers; if large, it must be a relief to industry.
I would like to say a word with regard to the incidental question of the successful turning of coal into petrol. I happen to know more about that subject than most people, and I would say, do not run away with the idea that in Germany that is yet a successful proposition. People are working here on that subject who will successfully solve the problem if it can be solved. But, solvable or not, it will always remain a very small proportion of the coal industry of the country, and will remain a very small matter compared with the much greater question of our mining industry. That derating of our mines will help that depressed industry is certain in the opinion of those competent to speak. There are such things as tendencies. Tendencies are of very great importance. Tendencies towards better times do encourage. It is quite possible that relief given here or there is not the sole or even the main factor. In many cases it will not be the main factor, but it is an assisting factor. You have so much in industry to-day that is just on the balance. Particularly in the colliery industry a matter of 3d. or 6d. a ton makes the difference between loss and profit, and encouragement brings new heart and new life into those who have for years been conducting the industries of this

765
country under difficulties unprecedented in our history. It is not sufficiently recognised how difficult the position has been and there is not sufficient recognition of the efforts that have been made on all sides, both on behalf of the employers and the men, to maintain good industrial conditions. It is only fair and it is only reasonable that they should have held out to them some help of direct and immediate application.
There are many ways in which you can help to solve the problem, but here is one which seems sound in principle, which is relatively easy in carrying out and which will have direct and immediate results. I do not believe myself that the argument about distilleries and breweries, for what it is worth, will cut any ice at all. The noble Lord spoke about a "dole." A "dole" is something you give to people in necessity. How can you give a "dole" to people who are already prosperous? If you differentiate not merely between industry and industry but between particular people in an industry, that in truth would be a "dole." I have been attacked myself in reference to a company of which I happen to be chairman on the ground that we shall get relief we do not want. Is it suggested that there ought to be a new system of pains and penalties for prosperous industries, that bankrupt firms or companies in liquidation are the only people among those conducting industry who are deserving of public recognition and that profit paying is to be a subject of condemnation by the community? If so, that industrial supremacy which was once our pride will never be regained.
It is certainly not bankrupt concerns and concerns in liquidation which are going to restore our industries to their old place in the markets of the world. It would be illogical and most unfair and impossible to differentiate between industry and industry, and it would be still more impossible to differentiate between firm and firm. You must deal with the matter in a broad way. The Government Bill—to which I should give a much better title; I would like to call it the Greater Employment Bill because it is that which will result—is the only measure I have seen in recent times which will automatically lead to greater employment of the working population of this country. I am certain that the
766
more it is understood the more it will receive support.
The noble Lord said a great deal about agriculture. I am a farmer myself. I do not say that I am a prosperous farmer, and I do not say that relief of rates is going to turn my deficit into a profit balance, but I am perfectly certain that the smaller farmer will benefit. The noble Lord spoke of land at 5s. an acre, but the value of agricultural land in this country, fortunately for the landlord, is not 5s. If the noble Lord took it at 30 s. he would arrive at a different result. Surely it is no argument to say on the one hand that because the amount is small depressed industries should not be given that small amount, and on the other hand to say: "Look at what you are taking away and the burden you are putting on other people." It cannot be both.
To-day the tenant farmer has no fears for his security. Another point which I think the noble Lord overlooked is that there has been a very large increase in freehold ownership owing to farmers having bought their farms within recent years and having become their own freeholders. In those cases the relief will be, and must be, a direct relief to those engaged in agriculture. I do not suppose that anybody in this House or out of it would pretend for a moment that the remission of rates is going to re-establish our agricultural industry, but it all helps and, when you are in a position where a little more may enable a man to carry on and a little less may force him to sell out, surely any responsible Government in this country that can do something of this kind for the agricultural industry ought to be prepared to do it. I could not help wondering as the noble Lord was speaking whether his Party is preparing to enter the contest with the cry of "No rating relief for the farmer." Is that going to be the slogan by which they are to be returned to power at the next Election? From my knowledge of farming constituencies—and I represented one for some years and know a great many others—I do not think that he will be asked to make this particular speech again during the Election. I have never found a farmer who would not take something and then ask for something more. To my mind the noble Lord has not been able to present a very convincing

767
case. His arguments seemed to be mutually destructive and he left no very clear impression on my mind of the reasons for his belief that this measure will not help industry. Still less did he show in what way it was going to be detrimental to the best interests of this country.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, after the interesting, able and humorous speech to which we have just listened I should hesitate to participate in the debate but for the fact that the noble Lord opposite was good enough to make reference to an opinion that I expressed recently in one of our leading journals. Incidentally, I should like to say that the noble and learned Lord has almost staggered me with what appears to me to be a somewhat violent change of front since he and I once sat not far from each other on the back benches of the House of Commons. In those days the noble Lord was the greatest authority in another place upon the subject of local taxation, having sat and spoken with great ability on the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, and if I had been asked who was the protagonist for the agricultural community in the matter of the removal of rates I should have put the noble and learned Lord first. I quite admit that he made a distinction between rates levied for what he called national services and those levied for purely local services, but I never heard him suggest that the rates of one kind or another, or rates in the aggregate, were not an unfair burden upon the agricultural industry. I seem to have ringing in my mind a statement of the noble Lord to the effect that what was right in the days of Good Queen Bess was wholly wrong in these days, because in those days land and buildings represented about 90 per cent. of the whole wealth of this country, while in these days they represent only some 15 or 20 per cent.
The noble and learned Lord suggests first of all that the benefit passes ultimately to the landlord. I am one of those who admit, and have always admitted, that in theory, and as a matter of pure economics, there is that possibility, but I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions: (1), whether he can prove that any concession that has recently been made in the matter of agricultural rates has passed into the land-
768
lords' pocket; and (2), whether, bearing in mind that the landowners in this country provide something like two-thirds of the whole equipment of the agricultural factory that is turning out such a miserably small output to-day, it would not be a very salutary thing if some measure of relief were provided, if only indirectly, to those who supply this equipment? The noble and learned Lord quoted an observation of the Minister of Health, which I had not noted, to the effect that agricultural rates were producing a slow process of strangulation. I should like to say candidly that I entirely agree with the Minister of Health. The noble Lord says that I have testified to the fact that agriculture is in such an inherently bad condition that it would be wrong to suggest that any remission of rates would make any difference. But I venture to say that the word "strangulation" suggests a lack of vitality, energy and enterprise, and this has undoubtedly been the effect of rates in the past. I pointed out, in the statement to which the noble and learned Lord referred, that where you have an endless and increasing quantity of food and other land products pouring into this country without any sort of restriction, this industry, which is in a condition of strangulation, finds it almost if not quite impossible to stand up against such unfair competition. That is the position that I adopted, and shall continue to adopt in relation to the agricultural community, whether the rates stand as they are to-day or are removed, as I hold that they ought to be removed, from this oppressed industry.
The noble and learned Lord opposite suggested that rates are not levied upon industry but upon land, and he went on in a later part of his speech to ask why such industries as those concerned with tobacco and brewing and distilling, which are admittedly prosperous, should be relieved from this imposition. The noble and learned Lord cannot have it both ways, and I would suggest that a proper test is whether the removal of this burden upon industry, through the premises upon which industry is carried on and also through its equipment, is likely to improve prosperity and employment within that industry. I venture to say in regard to the industry of

769
agriculture, and also the industry of mining, with both of which I am very closely connected, that one of the first effects will be that there will be a new spirit of enterprise and hope on the part of those who conduct those industries, that more capital will come to be available to be placed confidently in the development of those industries and that more men are likely to be employed in them. The great burden, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, lies in the case of agriculture upon arable land rather than upon grassland. If the process of converting arable into grass is to be checked, surely nothing is more likely to bring about that result than the removal of the burden of rates, which is much more oppressive than it was before the War.
The noble and learned Lord opposite suggests that the burden is a comparatively small one so far as agriculture is concerned. I believe that before the War the average rates on agricultural land amounted to no more than from 2s. 6d. to 4s. in the £. There are many areas to-day upon which the rates upon farmland amount to 10 s. and upwards. In the parish in which I farm—and I farm considerably more than 1,000 acres—I am having to pay to-day 16 s. in the £. Is that a small burden for an industry to bear, especially when, as in the case of agriculture, that burden is laid on the raw material of the industry? I should like to give an illustration to your Lordships of such process of strangulation as the Minister of Health possibly had in his mind. About five years ago I was asked, on behalf of the Central Landowners' Association, to address the South Wales branch of that organisation at Haverfordwest, and I soon realised that the greater part of the land in that district was sadly needing the application of phosphates, preferably in the form of basic slag. I inquired of the members present why, when certain people in that district had set a good example in improving their land by such means, that example had not been followed, and I was told that the sole reason was that when the land had been enhanced in value thereby, the rates had been raised upon the land and the burden had become so serious as actually to deter enterprising farmers from improving their land in a manner which they admitted to be desirable.
770
There your Lordships have an illustration of how the present rating system, based as it is upon the so-called assessable value of agricultural land, has the effect of preventing the improvement of that land and the winning of greater wealth from the land. I do not want to say any more, except this, that so far from holding the view which the noble and learned Lord has expressed I for my part, speaking, as I think I am entitled to do, to some extent, for the industry with which I have been associated for the greater part of my life, say that of the many boons which the present Government have conferred upon the agricultural industry, I regard the derating of agricultural land as far the greatest, and as far more likely to bring about an improved position of the industry, if, and if only, there can be some check upon the appalling amount of land products now being poured into this country, to the almost certain ultimate ruin of that industry. I welcome the derating of agricultural land, and I am certain that the whole agricultural community will form the same view.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has adopted, if I may say so, a somewhat unusual course in raising in this House a question which is really the subject of debate on the Committee stage of a Bill in the House of Commons. However, I think we may be grateful to him for two things at any rate, and they are the two speeches in support of the Bill to which we have just listened, by my noble friends Lord Melchett and Lord Bledisloe. Although we have had the advantage of hearing these speeches, which are, if I may say so, in the nature of Second Reading speeches on the Bill, it would not be quite consistent with our usual practice if I were to follow them at any great length in treating the subject in the same manner. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will confine myself as far as possible to the Questions which the noble Lord has put upon the Paper, and to the one or two definite points which he has raised and upon which he has asked me to enlighten him if I am able to do so.
Upon the Paper there are three specific Questions. The first deals with the question of agriculture, and asks whether any calculations have been

771
made as to any probable increase in agricultural prosperity or agricultural employment as the result of derating. This derating is no new thing. It is a very old subject. Indeed, Lord Bledisloe just now expressed surprise to hear the words which fell from the noble Lord opposite, as he said he had sat with him in the House of Commons, and remembered that at that time the noble Lord was an admitted authority on the question of local taxation. I would venture also to express some surprise at the words which fell from him, because he was a member of the Royal Commission which reported in favour of the Agricultural Rates Act of 1896, and he gloried in that fact, because in the debate in this House on the Agricultural Rates Act, 1923, he said that it was, "to put the matter at its lowest, a debt long overdue to agriculture and to the agricultural industry." He added that he did not regard it in the light of something given to agriculture "but as the settlement of a claim which should have been dealt with long ago." So we had the noble Lord's emphatic support for the principle of derating of agriculture, both in his membership of the Royal Commission and also in his speech on the Bill of 1923.
Really this principle has been accepted by all Parties ever since 1896. Liberal and Labour Governments have been in power but have made no attempt whatever to alter the principle of derating of agriculture, and the reason is that such derating has been regarded by all Parties as equitable. By the Act passed by this Government the relief of rates to agricultural land was extended also to agricultural buildings, and so at the present time both operate to the extent of 75 per cent. By this Bill the relief is to be extended from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent., and so complete what I would venture, in the words of the noble Lord opposite, to call a debt long over due to agriculture. Is it not fitting that such completion of the relief due to agriculture should find a place in an Act of Parliament which is a comprehensive and carefully thought out measure of reform of local government in all its aspects, both financial and administrative? The Bill deals thoroughly and carefully with every point, with the object of bringing local government up to modern standards and modern requirements. I do not think that
772
is the view which the noble Lord opposite took of the Bill. He emphasised the fact that he considered the financial provisions of this Bill as a "dole" and not as a reform in rating.
LORD PARMOOR: An industrial "dole."
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My noble friend Lord Melchett asked whether it was a crime to conduct a business successfully. I do not think that the noble Lord, or anybody else, will say that it is a crime. But even if it be a crime to conduct a business successfully, is it a right and proper thing to inflict upon the person conducting it an unjust and inequitable rating system? Surely the first thing to do is to put your house in order, and bring your taxation system up to date, and that must be the same for every industry.
I come to another point, and that is the estimate of the benefit which may accrue to the individual owner, the individual farmer, or the individual labourer. We heard a great deal from the noble Lord about the great advantages which were going to accrue to the landowner in consequence of the derating of agriculture, although in another part of his speech he said that the amount of relief was negligible. However, he did say that there were great advantages coming to the individual landowner. This principle of the remission of 75 per cent. of agricultural rates has been in operation ever since 1896, that is, for 33 years.
LORD PARMOOR: It was 50 per cent. in 1896, and 75 per cent. in 1923.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The principle, at any rate, has been in operation ever since the Royal Commission recommended it. During that time has there been such a tremendous rise in rents? I am perfectly certain that there has not. If the remission of half, and then of three-quarters, of the rates did not increase rents, why should the remission of the whole increase rents? I think it has been admitted that it has not been the case in the past; why, then, should it be the case in the future? And you will find in the Bill a clause that provides that for the purpose of arbitration the remission of rates shall not be taken into consideration. I come to the question of the individual farms. I think it would be impossible to illustrate by figures the

773
effect which the derating of farms will have generally speaking, because the conditions which obtain all over the country in regard to farms vary so tremendously. It would be impossible, even if you selected a large number of individual cases, to boil them down in such a manner as to give a statistical figure which might be generally satisfactory.
Now I come to the question of unemployment, which was touched upon rather briefly by the noble Lord opposite. If, as we at any rate believe, this measure in regard to agriculture will have a great effect in increasing prosperity, of course employment in agriculture will increase, and increase in the ratio of the prosperity of the industry. But if I cannot give figures illustrating the case generally, I can give certain figures as to the direct relief of rates on agricultural lands and buildings, and that amounts in the whole country to £4,300,000, which certainly is a substantial sum. In addition to that, the agricultural products receive benefits by the relief of rates to the extent of £800,000, and there will be incidental advantages by the reduction of rates on the factories which manufacture cattle foods, which will be derated by the provisions in regard to industry. The noble Lord opposite addressed a question to my noble friend Lord Stradbroke and myself, and I think to the noble Marquess also, as to whether we as individuals regarded this relief as advantageous to ourselves and our own property, and that question has been answered both by my noble friend Lord Melchett and by Lord Bledisloe in the affirmative, and very strongly in the affirmative. I do not know what other noble Lords' experience may be, but I have personally taken the trouble to ascertain how my small property will be affected, and I find that my tenants will certainly benefit not inconsiderably by the additional relief in respect of rates.
I come to the second question on the Paper in which the noble Lord asks me the extent to which the rates constitute a charge on depressed productive industries, and to what extent the proposed rating changes will give relief. I have here a list of trades and estimates of the amount of relief from local rates which they will obtain. There are sixteen industries, and they will be re-
774
lieved of nearly £15,000,000. I could read the list out, but it is very long, and there is a lot of figures, so I would prefer to give a copy to the noble Lord, or to lay the list as a Paper.
EARL RUSSELL: Does it include the breweries?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.
LORD PARMOOR: If you could lay it as a Paper then it would be open to everybody.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Quite so. Take these industries. Coal, it is estimated, is relieved to the extent of £3,100,000; engineering, £2,500,000; metal trades other than iron and steel, shipbuilding and engineering, £1,250,000; cotton spinning and weaving, £1,500,000. Let me first take the coal trade. The local rates vary very considerably between several districts. For instance, they are comparatively high in South Wales, where they amount to 7.17 d. per ton. In Yorkshire they are just over 5d. a ton, and in North Derbyshire and Notts. 3.12 d. a ton. But I will, if I may, place this Paper, which is a long series of figures, with the other and lay it on the Table.
LORD PARMOOR: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl. That is just what I wanted.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is far too long to quote. The local rates paid per annum by the coal trade throughout Great Britain amount to £4,149,900, and the relief which the Bill brings about is £3,112,425, or roughly speaking 3.32 d. per ton of saleable coal raised. Of the whole amount of saleable coal raised not all is commercially disposable. About 14,000,000 tons of coal raised goes hack into the collieries, and is used for working the mines, and another 5,000,000 tons is supplied to miners as free fuel; and so the relief on the coal disposable commercially is higher than the figure I have given, and amounts to just over 3½d.
Next I will deal with iron and steel. The total relief to the iron and steel trade is estimated at £550,000, but that only applies to the rating of the mills and steam furnaces. Taking the cumulative effect of rates on the price of steel one has to consider other factors as

775
well, and I am rather laying stress on this point in regard to iron and steel because, although the cumulative effect of rates applies to practically all trades, it is particularly well illustrated in the case of iron and steel. The total effect on iron and steel of the local rates charged amounts to 4s. per ton of finished steel. Therefore, if the steel-maker were to control the whole of the sources of supply of the materials out of which he makes his steel, he would obtain the full benefit of something like 75 per cent., which would amount to 3s. per ton. In addition to that, there is a further benefit derived from the railway freight rebates on the materials for steel-making which comes to between 2s. and 2s. 3d. a ton of finished steel. Of course, if the steel-maker were to control the whole of his resources he personally would obtain the full benefit of all these reductions, amounting in all to 5s. 3d. per ton. If he does not obtain the full benefit, it will, be distributed among various people, so that in any case the total cost of production on the ton of steel will be reduced by from 5s. to 5s. 3d.
Now I come to cotton. It has not been possible to obtain sufficient figures to generalise to any detailed extent, but the total relief to the cotton trade is estimated at £1,500,000. In three or four instances where it has been possible to make careful calculations, it is found that the relief gives a reduction of between 2¼ to 2½ per cent. on the cost of production. These calculations have been made in regard to white shirting, prints, and grey cloth. In regard to engineering, including ship-building, the relief amounts to between £2,500,000 and £3,000,000, but the engineering trade varies so considerably that it is a little difficult to calculate an average percentage reduction on the cost of production.
I come now to the third part of my noble friend's Question, upon which he did not touch at any great length. The only point he made was that by giving this reduction in regard to coal you are making a present to the foreign consumer who will utilise that coal in the manufacture of goods which will be imported into this country and cheapen British industries. That, I think, is the point he made. That question has been very carefully considered, and it has been
776
found—and I do not think this is controvertible—that the bulk of British coal sent abroad is used for purposes which do not lead to competition with British industries. The largest proportion of such coal is steam-coal for bunkering; substantial quantities are exported for foreign railways, electricity works and gas works, and only a relatively small proportion goes into general industry. Everybody admits, I think, that the export trade in coal is essential, and so it is right and necessary that we should do all in our power to stimulate that trade as much as we can.
The only one other question with which I need trouble your Lordships this evening is the specific point which was put to me by my noble friend in regard to paragraph (47) on page 26 of the Memorandum. He asked me what was the difference in regard to the water rate and other rates. The difference is that the water rate is paid in respect of something which is actually used by the ratepayer, while many of the other services provided by the local authority are not. The point is made clear when it is borne in mind that water is supplied in many cases by private companies. If the payment for water were now still made on rateable value, farmers would escape altogether and factories would pay only a quarter of the rates they now pay for the same service, unless, indeed, they were to obtain it through the meter, as I believe is done by many of them. That is the answer to my noble friend's question regarding paragraph (47).
I do not think I need trouble your Lordships at any further length. I am quite ready to place these two Papers with the figures at the disposal of the noble and learned Lord, and to lay them on the Table. At a later date in the Session we shall have ample opportunity of discussing these very interesting matters when the Bill comes before us. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I will defer any further observations on the noble and learned Lord's remarks until that time.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it is true that there will be an opportunity later in the Session of discussing these proposals, but not, I fear, of discussing them very effectively in this House: that is to say, in the sense that we shall be

777
able to take any very effective action upon them. The objects which the Government have in view, as stated by themselves, are no doubt entirely meritorious and are intended to commend themselves to the electors. Our objection is that they have chosen an entirely wrong method of attaining those objects and that the method of this very complicated Bill—so complicated that after several weeks of study and reading I do not know how many White Papers and Memoranda I cannot now profess to have more than a nodding acquaintance with it—is not the best and the most reasonable way of doing it.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who followed my noble friend, asked whether it was a crime that a manufacturer should be prosperous. I think nobody thinks that or has suggested it. The particular kind of prosperity with which the noble Lord is associated is one, so far as I know, of an entirely beneficent character. It is a case of manufacturing things which are useful to everybody and which give employment to a great many people, and of manufacturing them under the most skilled conditions. It is not even subject to the observation that it is a luxury trade or anything of that sort with which he is connected. That, of course, is all for the benefit of the country. But the noble Lord then went on to talk about injustice being done even to prosperous trades, and he gave an example of a factory whose manufacture was depressed, whose profits were falling and whose rates were rising in consequence of unemployment in the district. That, undoubtedly, is a hardship. But there are other aspects of the matter. There are some of us on this side, and I think I gather from a discussion which took place only a day or two ago some on the other side in another place, who take the view that it is an injustice that public money—money, that is to say, which is taken from our pockets—should be given to people such as successful tobacco companies, successful breweries and successful industries with which the noble Lord who spoke was connected.
We cannot see why these people who are already making good profits should have those profits swollen by money which, in the long run, is taken from our pockets. The general taxpayer has to pay, and in all probability in the local
778
districts the householder will have to pay in the end by means of an increased rate to make up for the derating that has taken place; because, although I gather from the public prints that the Government have for the moment satisfied, or shall I say quieted? the local authorities, there is still a strong feeling on their part that sooner or later the rates of all other people will have to go up to meet the deficiency. The one thing that the Government have been very careful not to pledge themselves to is that they shall suffer no loss by the derating. The Government have been most careful not to pledge themselves to that.
Then the noble Lord, who, I regret, is not now in his place, went on to talk about agriculture. With his universal knowledge he seemed very well informed even upon that subject, and he said that he was not too proud to take a "dole," that this small amount would go some way towards making the difference between success and failure in agriculture and would encourage employment, apparently, to some appreciable extent. I have here a report of a discussion which took place in 1923 on the Agricultural Bates Bill, and I find on that Bill observations were made by a gentleman called Sir Alfred Mond. I believe the same gentleman has spoken here to-night. He has, it is true, changed his Party and changed his name and, apparently, he must have changed his opinions because this is what he said. He was talking about the justification which was required for legislation of this sort, and he said—
"Otherwise, either in the form of rent or increased capital value, you are merely adding the subsidy to the capital value of the agricultural land of the country. That is one reason why I hope this Bill will be opposed with violence and vehemence by all those who object to national money being used in order to enrich one class of the community, a class which, though at present going through bad times, yet has for long had a good time."
The noble Lord [Lord Melchett] would appear to have changed his opinions upon that point, because he now tells your Lordships it is going to be of great advantage to agriculture, and that he has not the slightest objection to taking the "dole." These transformations are interesting.
We have heard a good deal of discussion this afternoon about the effect upon export coal of the advantage which

779
is given by railway rates, and about the reduction of the rating on collieries with the object of increasing the export of coal, a very laudable object no doubt, but if that is your object, why not do it directly by a coal bounty, as other Governments have done? Why not say you will give an export bounty on coal and have done with it? Everybody will then know what the money is being spent upon. There are methods by which the particular hardship, to which Lord Melchett referred, upon the depressed industries in depressed areas, due to people who come upon the rates on account of unemployment, could be removed. There is one very simple method by which that position could be met, a method which, apparently, has never occurred to the Government, which, at any rate, they have not adopted, and that is the method of making unemployment a national charge. If you put the whole cost of unemployment upon the national revenue you would then at once relieve this unfairness as between various districts. But the Government have not done that. They have, in fact, in the remarkable formula of which I believe I have attained a partial understanding, put the population on a very low basis for the unemployment factor.
The reason why we venture to think that these proposals are unwise is that they do not do justice and because such good effect as they have is attained in a roundabout way with many more effects which we think are worse. Whenever you decide to transfer a burden of any kind from one shoulder to another you always have a great deal of difficulty in the readjustment, and in this case primarily, of course, the readjustment would fall upon the local ratepayers. Provision is made that that shall not happen by the various arrangements which are made for distributing the block grants of the so-called new money, and that new money, as far as I can understand, is merely money taken from the Road Fund, which, anyhow, ought to have gone to roads. You are really creating more difficulties than you are solving by this very complicated measure. Apparently, in spite of the good intentions of the Government, neither the local authorities nor the farmers have at once acclaimed the boons which you have been
780
offering them, and you have had a good deal of difficulty in pacifying them piece by piece by constant changes as you have gone along.
When one speaks of the unfairness of the rates upon a factory you have to ask, where, after all, does any injustice arise? The factory benefits by the lighting and by the police and by the upkeep of the roads which are essential to its maintenance, and it is no particular hardship that it should be rated for those things in accordance with its value; but, of course, it is a practical hardship when you have to pay these large rates when you are making no profits. The noble Lord suggested some method by which that might have been adjusted, by which it might have been made fair, but whether you are making profits or not, if you are doing the same amount of trade, if you are making full use of the facilities provided by the local authority in the way of lighting, watching, roads, sewering and so on, there is nothing unfair or unjust in your paying the same amount as other ratepayers, your neighbours, for them. We think, and I believe a great many people think, that the Bill contravenes all those principles, that the Bill which is going to come before us is really creating far more difficulties than it removes, and that it is upsetting the whole of the local finance of the country for very doubtful objects. We do rather deprecate the form of such legislation.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I always listen with the very greatest pleasure to any speech made by the noble Earl who has just spoken. He has told us that he finds it very difficult to understand the Bill. I am sure if he finds it difficult most of us will find it even more difficult, but may I recommend him, if he wants a very short synopsis of the Bill, to read the article in The Nineteenth Century and After by the Minister of Health. I think that there in a very short space he will be able to understand the principles of the Bill.
May I deal with his last point first? He talked about the factories and the rates. Surely there is a great difference between the benefits from the expenditure of rates received by a factory and by an individual? What advantage, for instance, is it for a factory to have education? Free education does not benefit the factories but the people in

781
the factories who get the benefit of that education in their own homes. The same remark applies to various other services which do not benefit factories in the same way that they do the individual. I do not think it can be said that public companies get the same benefits from the rates as the individual.
May I touch upon another point? A good deal has been said both here and in another place about the apparent injustice of including the tobacco companies and the breweries in the benefits of the Bill. I do not myself happen to have any connection with the brewing trade, except that I am connected with a company in America which produces soft drinks. One must remember that breweries have not always been prosperous, and I do not know that at all times the tobacco companies in this country have been prosperous. A company may be prosperous to-day but may not be so fortunate a few years hence, and it does seem to me that it would be rather unfair because a particular company is doing well that you should deprive it of the benefits conferred under the Bill. I would point out, farther, that if these particular concerns become still more prosperous they will be employing more people, and it may be that they will be able to reduce the price of their commodities, which will be a benefit to everybody. I think that the Bill, now that it has been more generally discussed and is better understood, finds much greater favour with the public than some newspapers at one time thought would be the case. We do not see now those absurd criticisms which appeared on the first introduction of the Bill. It is now being recognised as a great measure of help for the industrial community and a great reform, long overdue, in the local government of this country.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I only want to say a few words in reply. In the first instance I want to thank the noble Earl for laying on the table the Papers to which he has referred because they very largely give the information which I wanted and they will be extremely interesting to those who study this question, not from the point of view of making Party capital one way or another, but in order to see what is the real position as regards this so-called Derating Bill.
782
I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate what I am going to say. The Royal Commission was entirely opposed to de-rating, which is the equivalent of exemption. What they were in favour of, and what I have always advocated, is quite a different thing. It is classification, which has been carried much higher in Scotland than in this country. The reason why I supported remissions—they were not exemptions—in favour of agriculture was that they were entirely in accordance with the Scottish principle that agriculture and agricultural land should always be placed in the lowest classification. I believe that in every single case for years—ever since 1840 in Scotland—agriculture has always had the three-fourths remission which I have certainly personally advocated on every occasion. But there is great difference between classification and derating, and I will challenge the noble Earl—I do not do it in any antagonistic way—to find any passage in which I have advocated exemption. He will realise, if he reads the report of the Commission, that while exemption was entirely negatived, classification—I think the distinction is perfectly sound—was advocated. With reference to Lord Bledisloe—I am sorry he is not here now—it is difficult to protect oneself everywhere, but I most distinctly said that my objection to the Bill was on the ground of exemption of land from rating, which to my mind is wholly unjustified and cannot possibly be made good on any ground.
The only other point on which I want to say a word is with reference to Lord Melchett's speech. I am sorry he is not here at the moment. I think there could not have been a greater perversion of my argument than the words which he tried to put into my mouth. I do not think it is a very good way of answering an argument to pervert it first and then suggest the answer to the perverted argument. There could be nothing more inaccurate than to suggest that I think it a crime to carry on business successfully. I cannot imagine a greater perversion of an argument. The question is whether persons who carry on an industry successfully, and are entitled to every consideration, are further entitled to what I call a "dole" from other taxpayers. That is what it comes to. You are taking income Tax with one hand and with the

783
other giving it as a "dole" to the prosperous shareholders. I believe the more it is considered the more it will be found that that is the position which will arise. It is not a Party point. Colonel Gretton, who has an interest in brewery concerns, stated that he objected to being given an advantage of this kind which he did not desire. He would prefer to be left alone. There was a Division on this point in another place. About that I say nothing.
There is one other matter to which the noble Earl referred, and that was that this discussion came on at the same time as the debate in the House of Commons. That happened entirely because, in accordance with the wishes of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, I postponed the Question from an earlier date, when this difficulty would not have arisen.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I should have said the same thing even if the debate had not come on in the House of Commons. My objection was that we were really having a Second Reading
784
debate in this House before discussion on the Bill had finished in another place. That was my point.
LORD PARMOOR: We are taking a discussion on a White Paper which has been issued. If we are to have an effective debate on this subject—a question of the greatest interest to most members of the House—there will never be another opportunity.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): There will be ample opportunity.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think so. I know what these ample opportunities come to in the long run. I hope there will be opportunity to deal with what I may call the local government proposals, which will require thorough analysis. However, I do no wish to carry the matter further now. I thank the noble Earl for the Papers which he has laid. I am satisfied with them, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Corporation of London (Bridge),

Southern Railway,

Southern Railway (Air Transport),

Great Western Railway (Air Transport),

London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport),

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Air Transport),

London and North Eastern Railway,

South Suburban Gas,

Oldbury Urban District Council,

Llanelly Corporation,

Crowborough District Water,

Methodist Church Union,

Birkenhead Corporation Water,

Blackburn Corporation,

Haslingden Corporation,

Preston Corporation,

Smethwick Corporation,

London Building Acts (Consolidation),

Pacific Cable Board,

Rhodes Trust,

Jarrow and South Shields Traction,

Sheffield Gas (Consolidation),

Lancashire Electric Power,

Gosport and Fareham Omnibus Services,

Chatham and District Traction,

Yorktown (Camberley) and District Gas and Electricity Company,

Corn Exchange Company,

Asiatic Steam Navigation Company,

London Electric, Metropolitan, District, and City and South London Railway Companies,

Tyne Improvement,

Aire and Calder Navigation,

786

Grand Junction Company,

Metropolitan Water Board,

Westminster City (Millbank) Improvement,

Winchester Water and Gas,

Great Western Railway,

Metropolitan Railway,

Mount Vernon Hospital,

London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic),

London Electric Railway Companies (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic),

Gas Light and Coke Company,

Grimsby Corporation (Dock, etc.),

Llanfrechfa Upper and Llantarnam Water Board,

Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas,

Romford Gas,

Birmingham Corporation (Rivers Improvement),

Chester Corporation,

County of Cornwall,

Derby Corporation,

Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation (Victoria Pier),

Kingston-upon-Hull Extension,

Lewes Corporation,

London and Home Counties Joint Electricity Authority,

Manchester Corporation,

Nottingham Corporation,

Pontypridd Urban District Council,

Soke and City of Peterborough,

Southampton Corporation,

Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board,

Southport Corporation,

Tunbridge Wells Corporation,

Warrington Corporation Water,

London County, Council (General Powers),

Royal Victoria and other Docks Approaches (Improvement),

London, Midland and Scottish Railway,

Halifax Corporation,

Stoke-on-Trent Extension,

Torquay Extramural Cemetery Company,

787

Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Company,

Barmouth Urban District Council,

Cheltenham District Traction,

Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power,

Leamington and Warwick Traction,

Mansfield District Traction,

South Lancashire Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles, etc.),

Sutton District Waterworks,

Aldershot Gas, Water, and District Lighting,

Hendon Urban District Council,

Mexborough and Swinton Tramways,

Newport (Salop) Urban District Council,

Wandsworth, Wimbledon, and Epsom District Gas,

Edmonton Urban District Council.

And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:
Salford Corporation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.