Sitting of 29 January 1929

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    COMPANIES (LIQUIDATIONS).
    Mr. PURCELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will furnish a return for each of the three years, to the last convenient date, of the number of public and/or limited liability companies that have gone into liquidation, voluntary or otherwise; the amount of nominal capital and the amount of issued capital in ordinary and preference shares; the amount of debentures and the claims of creditors; the amount paid to creditors on realisation and to the ordinary and preference shareholders and to the debenture holders; and, where possible, give the companies that included in the directorate employés of the companies and the number of such directors?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Particulars of the number of liquidations are included in the annual reports by the Board of Trade on matters within the Companies Acts, of which I am sending the hon. Member the latest copy. The other information asked for is not available, and the preparation of a special return would involve a very large amount of labour and expense which I think would not be justified by the value of the results.

    PETROL PUMPS (REGULATIONS).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the inaccuracy of a certain type of petrol pump; whether he is taking any steps to remedy this state of affairs; and whether he can insist that all petrol
    738
    pumps set up after 1st February should be of a more accurate pattern?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Centra] (Sir H. Jackson) on the subject of the regulation of petrol pumps. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of that reply.

    IRON AND STEEL TRADES.
    Mr. DIXEYasked the Prime Minister (1), what reply has been made to the request of the iron and steel trades to the Government to set up a committee to inquire into the position of these trades;
    (2) whether the Government has yet come to a decision with regard to the reply they propose to give to the iron and steel trade's letter asking for an inquiry?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply to his similar question of Thursday last.
    Mr. DIXEY: Is there any chance of the Government coming to a speedy decision?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman left this matter so severely alone in his speech at Newcastle, in view of the fact that that is a great steel-producing area?

    POLISH BUTTER AND MARGARINE (IMPORTS).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the importation from Poland of large quantities of butter containing from 10 to 35 per cent. of margarine; and whether any steps are being taken to stop the importation of a commodity which it is illegal to sell?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): About 100 tons of Polish "butter" were recently imported at Cotton's Wharf, London. Samples submitted by the Customs to the Government Chemist showed that the goods came within the prohibition of
    "margarine containing more than … 10 per cent. of fat derived from milk."
    The goods had already been detained by the local Medical Officer of Health, who had reason to suspect that they were not butter, as entered and described. The

    739
    three firms of importers concerned had also caused an analysis to be made, and found that the goods were not of the description which had been ordered, and were adulterated. They have now requested that the goods may be re-exported, and this will be allowed. Instructions are being issued for special vigilance to be exercised in respect of any future importations which appear to be of the same character.

    EX-ENEMY DEBTS (BRITISH CLAIMS).
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the President of the Board of Trade the total sum paid by the Exchequer to date on behalf of British nationals in settlement of pre-War debts owing to German and other enemy nationals?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The total amount paid in respect of the debts referred to by the hon. Member is £860,383.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Does any portion of that sum represent the difference between what the British nationals paid to the

    The following STATEMENT shows the Gross Tonnage of Vessels of 100 Tons Gross and upwards belonging to Great Britain and Ireland in 1913, 1920 and 1928, as published by Lloyd's Register of Shipping, distinguishing in 1928 the motor vessels and the steamers fitted for burning oil fuel. The latter particulars are not available in respect of 1913 and 1920.

    —

    1913.

    1920.

    1928.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    Tons.

    Per cent. of total.

    Sailing vessels

    422,293

    219,771

    121,349

    0·6

    Steamers fitted for burning oil fuel.

    18,273,944

    18,110,653

    5,329,350

    26·8

    Steamers not fitted for burning oil fuel.

    12,888,003

    64·9

    Motor vessels

    1,536,048

    7·7

    Total

    18,696,237

    18,330,424

    19,875,350

    100·0

    It should be noted that oil is not always used in steamers fitted for burning oil fuel, as such installations can readily be replaced by coal-burning fittings should coal be the more suitable fuel in the circumstances.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    CONTINENTAL MARKETS (RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any restriction on the use of
    British Government and the amount which has been credited to the German and other nationals by the Tribunal?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not quite sure that I follow the question. Under the Treaty we have to credit to Germany the debts which are agreed to be due, or, in case of dispute, are found by the Tribunal to be due, to their nationals; and, also under the Treaty, we have to make good any bad debts which we cannot recover from our nationals. If a debt is partly bad and parly good, then what the hon. Member says applies.

    BRITISH SHIPPING (STATISTICS).
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the President of the Board of Trade the tonnage of British shipping for 1913, 1920 and 1928, and the proportion of coal-fired, oil-fired and motor-driven vessels in each year?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The answer involves a table of figures and, with the hon. Member's permission, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    British coal in Germany, Spain or other European countries; and whether penalties are imposed upon buyers of British coal in any cases where permission to import has not been obtained?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In Spain, State and municipal services and certain industries are only allowed to use foreign coal up to a specified percentage of their total consumption, the percentage varying with the industry, and for the rest are required to use national coal. There is no direct control over the importation of coal. In Germany the importation of coal is prohibited except under licence, and in Russia there is prohibition of importation. With regard to the last part of the question, penalties are no doubt imposed to ensure the observance of the law.
    Mr. BATEY: Have the Government made any attempt to secure the removal of the restrictions in Spain?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, we have had continual negotiations, and

    Year.

    Number of Persons employed in Coal Mining in Great Britain.

    Output of Saleable Coal.

    Underground.

    Surface.

    Total.

    Tons.

    1913

    …

    …

    …

    …

    890,700

    213,700

    1,104,400

    287,318,000

    1920

    …

    …

    …

    …

    972,800

    253,100

    1,225,900

    229,424,000

    1928*

    …

    …

    …

    …

    749,200

    193,800

    943,000

    237,750,000

    * Provisional and subject to correction.

    LOSSES AND PROFITS.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Secretary for Mines the trading loss in the coal industry in the years 1927 and 1928, and the profit in the years 1923, 1924 and 1925?
    Commodore KING: The trading loss in 1927 was 5¾d. per ton disposable commercially, and it is estimated that in 1928 it was about 1s. per ton. The profit in 1923 was 2s. 2d. per ton; in 1924, 1s. 2d.; and in 1925, 3¼d., after crediting subvention amounting to 1s. 1¼d. per ton, i.e., an actual loss of 10¼d. per ton.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Does it not appear from these figures that the mining industry was much better off before this Government came into office?
    Commodore KING: The hon. Member is probably aware that the highest peak reached in the coal industry was in the
    I think the hon. Member will remember that in the Commercial Treaty special provisions were included for the entry of British coal at a lower rate of duty.

    EMPLOYÉS AND OUTPUT.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give the numbers of men employed underground and on the surface, respectively, in 1913, 1920 and 1928, with the output for each year?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): As the reply involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    year 1923, when a Conservative Government was in office.
    Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and gallant Member himself equally aware that the lowest point reached was during this Government's period of office?

    ROYALTIES.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Secretary for Mines whether there has been any reduction in the amount of mining royalties levied per ton of coal since the termination of the dispute in 1926; and whether he can state the amount for the various minefields?
    Commodore KING: The average royalties per ton in every district except one were lower in the quarter ended September, 1928, than in the last quarter before the 1926 dispute. In the case of South Wales the average reduction is nearly 1d. per ton and in the case of

    743
    Durham over a ½d. per ton. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the royalties paid quarter by quarter and district by district during the first quarter of 1926 and from the 1st January, 1927, to 30th September, 1928.
    Mr. SHINWELL: If the figures indicate that on the average there has been a reduction of a halfpenny per ton on mineral royalties, is that what the hon. and gallant Member regards as an extensive reduction? Is it to be compared at all with the conditions existing in the mining industry?

    Royalties per ton Disposable Commercially in each District and Great Britain in 1926, 1927 and 1928.

    District.

    Quarter ended.

    31st March, 1926.

    31st March, 1927.

    30th June, 1927.

    30th Sept., 1927.

    31st Dec., 1927.

    31st March, 1928.

    30th June, 1928.

    30th Sept., 1928.

    d.

    d.

    d.

    d.

    d.

    d.

    d.

    d

    Scotland

    7·00

    6·81

    6·77

    6·81

    6·75

    6·70

    6·85

    6·95

    Northumberland

    6·62

    6·49

    6·41

    6·35

    6·19

    6·27

    6·36

    6·21

    Durham

    6·63

    6·45

    6·59

    6·41

    6·11

    6·15

    6·00

    6·02

    South Wales and Monmouth*

    9·09

    8·89

    8·96

    9·00

    9·36

    8·79

    8·29

    8·23

    Yorkshire

    4·51

    4·94

    4·96

    4·91

    4·92

    4·87

    4·72

    4·66

    North Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.

    4·36

    4·59

    4·42

    4·40

    4·33

    4·74

    4·41

    South Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Cannock Chase and Warwickshire.

    4·00

    4·33

    4·17

    4·09

    3·79

    4·36

    4·11

    Lancashire, Cheshire and North Staffordshire.

    5·92

    5·78

    6·06

    6·03

    5·85

    6·02

    5·31

    6·90

    Cumberland, North Wales, South Staffordshire, Shropshire, Bristol, Forest of Dean, Somerset and Kent.

    6·39

    6·44

    6·59

    6·44

    6·27

    6·27

    6·28

    6·05

    Great Britain

    6·27

    6·23

    6·38

    6·21

    6·21

    6·07

    6·07

    6·09

    * The South Wales figures for 1927 and 1928, relate to quarters ended one month later than the dates shown.

    Mr. OLIVERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the financial charge imposed on the iron and steel trades by royalty rents on coal, iron ore and lime, and in view of the depression of the industry, the Government have considered, or are considering, the relieving of the industry from this charge?
    Commodore KING: I have never said there was a large reduction. I think it is a substantial reduction of 1d. per ton.
    Mr. PALING: Does this reduction come about automatically, according to the state of the trade, or have royalty owners made these reductions in response to applications made to them?
    Commodore KING: No general reply would cover that question.
    Lord APSLEY: Is it not the fact that there would have been a larger reduction but for the contributions which have been made to the Miners' Welfare Fund?
    Following is the statement;
    Commodore KING: I have been asked asked to reply. The only ways of relieving the mining industries of royalties would be by purchase and cancellation or by confiscation. The Government is not prepared to adopt either of these courses.

    REPARATION COAL.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total quantity of coal delivered by Germany as reparations to France, Belgium and Italy for the quarter ending December, 1928, and the agreed net value?
    Commodore KING: I have been asked to reply. Figures for the quarter ended December, 1928, are not yet available, but according to the German Trade Accounts, the total quantity of coal delivered by Germany as reparations to France (including Algeria), Belgium and Italy in October and November, 1928, was 1,746,344 metric tons, the total declared value of which was £1,880,000 sterling.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give any estimate as to how far this is affecting the coalmining industry in this country?
    Commodore KING: Certainly not without notice.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Does the term "coal" include coke?
    Commodore KING: No, it applies only to coal.

    BRITISH SERVICE OFFICERS, INDIA (FREE PASSAGES).
    Colonel APPLINasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the adverse position of British Service officers in comparison with British officers of the Indian Army in the matter of passages home on furlough; and whether he will consider the possibility of placing them on an equality in the matter of passages home when on leave?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I have been asked to reply. I presume my hon. and gallant Friend refers to British Service officers serving in India. British officers of the Indian Army are granted leave concession passages in recognition of the fact that they serve continuously in India. British Service officers are detailed for a limited tour of duty in India and are granted free passages both ways in respect of that tour in accordance with the general conditions governing their service overseas. They are
    746
    entitled in certain cases to free passages when proceeding home on furlough, and if my hon. and gallant Friend desires I will send him a copy of the rules on this point. But for the reasons stated, there can be no comparison in this matter between officers of the British and Indian Services.
    Colonel APPLIN: Is the Noble Lord aware that officers in the British Service in India include officers who have risen from the ranks or who have very small means, and cannot he grant them the same concession as is given to British officers in the Indian Army?
    Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir, I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend is not seized of the point. They are not serving under the same conditions as British officers of the Indian Army, who spend their whole lives in India. I see no reason to make the change suggested.

  SCOTLAND.

    CROFTS, SKYE (ROAD FENCING).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the Board of Agriculture has given, or approved, a grant for the proper repair and fencing of a road which serves the crofting township of Upper and Lower Breaknish, Skye; that nothing has been done in the matter; and that the crofters have now refused to pay rates or rent until the road is put in the satisfactory condition that the grant from the Board of Agriculture will provide; and whether he will take steps to have the work of repairing the road put in operation at the very earliest opportunity?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): An offer was made some time ago to the Skye District Committee by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland of a grant in aid of the reconstruction of the road referred to, but owing to difficulties arising out of local disagreements among the crofters concerned, the district committee were until recently unable to take action. The offer has, however, been kept open, and I am informed that the district committee have within the last few days decided to accept it.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difference between the two sections of the crofters locally has been removed and that both now agree to the construction of the road?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have not detailed information, but what information I have is that within the last few days it has been decided to accept it.

    ILLEGAL TRAWLING.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the recent depredations of trawlers on the North Coasts of Caithness and Sunderland; and whether this coast-line will in future be more efficiently patrolled?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Complaints as to trawlers working off the North Coast of Scotland have been received recently by the Fishery Board for Scotland and have been investigated, but no definite evidence of illegal trawling has been forthcoming. The matter has received, and will continue to receive, the careful attention of the Board.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman send his inspectors to the places which I have mentioned, where any amount of evidence will be forthcoming?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The fishery cruiser officers have been to the district, and I think all the evidence goes to show that the lights which were observed were the lights of boats which were quite legitimately anchored and which were not engaged in trawling.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: If I can produce evidence that some of these trawlers were within one mile of the shore, will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It is not a matter of whether they were within one mile of the shore or not. If a boat is anchored, and a seine net boat is there for a legitimate purpose, there is no necessity for further inquiry.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

    COAL INDUSTRY.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary for Mines if he is
    748
    aware that since the freight relief on coal for export has been granted there has been practically no reduction in the price of coal on the North-East Coast and that for certain grades of coal there has been an increase of price; and whether he intends to take any steps in the matter?
    Commodore KING: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second part in the negative.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was it not the intention of the Treasury in granting this particular relief to bring down the price of coal? Surely it never was intended that it should be a present to the coalowners?
    Commodore KING: Yes, Sir, it was meant for the benefit of the industry, and if the hon. and gallant Member will look at the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) on 17th December he will see that I dealt with the point.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How does the hon. and gallant Member think it can be of benefit to the industry if the price does not come down, so that the exports can increase?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Does not this dispose entirely of the Government's contention—the fact that a gift of £3,300,000 in this connection will not reduce prices or affect industry?
    Commodore KING: No. As I informed the hon. Member for Spennymoor, it is for the owners to decide whether they will use that benefit for the reduction of prices or for bridging the gap between the costs of production and the selling price.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that they have already decided to use it for increasing their profits?
    Commodore KING: It will be for the benefit of the industry if they cease to make losses.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why was not this made clear to the House when the money was voted in the first instance?
    Commodore KING: I think the House understood it.
    Mr. SHINWELL: When this proposal was first adumbrated, was it the intention of the Government to recoup owners for losses they had sustained and enable them to gain profits?
    Commodore KING: It was done to benefit the industry.
    Mr. SKELTON: Will my hon. and gallant Friend remind the hon. Member of the proportion in which profits are shared between the owners and the workers?

    COASTWISE SHIPPING.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received representations from the Traders' Coordinating Committee on Dock Charges, which committee claims to represent the great producing industries' and organised merchants' opinion of the country, drawing his attention to the serious position that has arisen in regard to the coastal shipping service as a consequence of the anticipation of the derating scheme in the case of the railways; if he is aware that coastal shipping has already been adversely affected and that serious injury will result; and what action he intends to take in the matter?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to questions on this subject by the hon. Members for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) and East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke).
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: As those questions were not reached, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware of the very great losses that are being suffered already by the coastal lines; and, in view of that, will he consider this matter before the Bill finally goes through its stages in this House?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir, I am not aware that there are substantial losses.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: But has not the right hon. Gentleman had those losses sent to him in tabular form by the Chamber of Shipping?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Yes, but those losses do not appear to be substantial.

    SCOTLAND.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Prime Minister whether he has received pro-
    750
    tests against the Local Government (Scotland) Bill from any of the local elected bodies in Scotland; and from how many?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on this subject on 14th and 27th November. Since the last mentioned date I have received representations against the Bill in general from three local authorities and against specific provisions on the Bill from 30.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Since the volume of opinion, as represented in local bodies, is against the Bill, and as the majority of the Scottish Members who took part in the Division voted against it, will the right hon. Gentleman not now consider the advisability of dropping the Bill as it applies to Scotland?
    Mr. SKELTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think Scottish opinion is perhaps better discovered by the fact that neither the Liberal nor the Labour party propose to repeal the Bill if returned to office?
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question and inform the House whether the fact that the volume of opinion in Scotland, represented in local bodies and also in the House, is against the Bill will not influence him in dropping it?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

    TEES VALLEY WATER BOARD.
    Miss WILKINSONasked the Minister of Health whether he will make inquiry into the case of the Tees Valley Water Board; and, in view of the assistance to industry provided by this board and of the fact that 70 per cent. of its product is used for industrial purposes, he will reconsider his present decision to exclude this undertaking from derating?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The question of including public supply undertakings in the hereditaments to which the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act applies was considered when the Bill for that Act was before Parliament, and the Government are not prepared to ask Parliament to reconsider the decision on that question.

  TRANSPORT.

    WEST AUCKLAND BY PASS.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Transport whether, seeing that the work is already partially carried out, he will provide the necessary funds to complete the by-pass road at West Auckland, in Durham, in view of the four facts that every penny hitherto spent on it is otherwise wasted, its abandonment during construction has created great un tidiness, the local unemployment situation is severe, and the existing road is dangerous owing to sharp bends; and whether he can say what is the cause of the present position?
    Colonel ASHLEY: In July last I offered to the Durham County Council a grant at the rate of 50 per cent. towards the cost of land acquisition and fencing; on the 10th of the present month I intimated a grant at the same rate towards the cost of road construction and improvement.
    Mr. PALIN: Was any condition made like that imposed upon other authorities that 50 per cent. of those employed must be imported from another area?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think so, but I will inquire.

    MOTOR ACCIDENTS.
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that motor road accidents have increased by 500 per cent. in the last 10 years; that the primary cause of these accidents is neglect to carry out the recognised rules of the road; and whether he will consider the adoption of some method to distinguish main roads from by-roads for the guidance of motorists and the introduction of legislation to punish those who disobey recognised rules?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have under cor-sideration at the present time the question of the desirability of indicating the relative importance of roads at road junctions. If any legislative provisions to deal with the matter appear to be desirable, I shall avail myself of the first appropriate occasion for introducing them.

    OBSTRUCTIONS (WIRE HAWSERS).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Minister of Transport whether by
    752
    now he has given serious consideration to the danger of wire hawsers being stretched across a main road for the purpose of hauling timber; and whether he will issue regulations to prevent this very dangerous practice?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply. I have had this matter under consideration in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and have suggested to Chief Constables throughout the country that they should take the necessary steps to prevent obstruction of the highway by this dangerous practice.

    RIVER TEES (BRIDGE, MIDDLESBROUGH).
    Miss WILKINSONasked the Minister of Transport what is the position with regard to the projected bridge over the River Tees at Middlesbrough?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I understand that on the 13th December last, at a conference of the public bodies concerned, a resolution was passed recommending the construction of a bridge rather than a tunnel.
    Miss WILKINSON: Is the Ministry of Transport doing anything to expedite this project?
    Colonel ASHLEY: It is for the local authorities to consider this project, and then, if they wish to construct the bridge, to put forward an application to the Ministry.

    ISLE OF WIGHT TUNNEL.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any representations as to the desirability of a tunnel between the Isle of Wight and the mainland?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I received representations on this subject from the Isle of Wight Chamber of Commerce in June, 1927, and I have since received a letter from a resident of the Island. My hon. Friend will, however, realise that the initiation of projects of this kind does not rest with my Department, and no definite application has been put before me by the public bodies who might be in a position to promote the scheme.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Is it necessary that the Government should wait until

    753
    they receive local representations in regard to a question of providing employment for people?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The question deals with a very important matter, and surely it is the duty of the local people to forward schemes.
    Mr. THOMAS: Does the right hon. Gentleman forget that in 1924 there was a definite statement by the present Prime Minister that the Government had a positive remedy for unemployment?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Who are the local people in connection with the Channel Tunnel proposal?
    Mr. SKELTON: Can the Minister of Transport say whether any representations have been made with regard to a closer connection between the Scilly Islands and the mainland of Britain?

    CLYDE AND FORTH CANAL.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared to consider the project of a Clyde and Forth canal; and whether he is prepared to summon a conference of representatives of local authorities, shipping interests, and commercial firms to receive their views upon such an undertaking?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a somewhat similar question addressed to him by the hon. Member for the Maryhill Division of Glasgow (Mr. Couper) on 12th November last.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman not now reconsider the previous replies he has given over the period of the last five years to this question, which embraces the Midlands of Scotland?
    Colonel ASHLEY: No, because the cost would be enormous—£40,000,000 or £50,000,000—and the return exceedingly small.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Would not the return be considerably greater than any that may be received from the Channel Tunnel?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the case that local authorities and commercial interests are perfectly free to promote a Bill to bring about a Forth and Clyde canal?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman also aware that private interests will never promote any organisation unless there is a profit behind it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: These party disputes had better be deferred to a later date.

    UNDERGROUND EXPLOSIONS, LONDON.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the series of gas explosions and burst water mains in London recently, he will cause an inquiry to be instituted as to the effect of modern traffic weights and speed on underground services?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have no information that would lead me to suppose that the occurrences to which my hon. Friend refers were due to the weight and speed of road traffic, and in any case it is neccessary to await the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the series of explosions in Holborn before considering the question of any further inquiry.
    Sir ROBERT THOMAS (for Mr. Hore-Belisha)asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department is looking into the causes of the recent underground explosions in London; and whether any steps are being taken to prevent their recurrence as far as possible?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply. Immediately on the occurrence of the explosion of 20th December, I consulted the other Government Departments concerned and the London County Council and with their concurrence appointed a small commission of experts "to inquire into the circumstances of the series of explosions and fires which occurred on the 20th and 21st December … and to make a report to me thereon, adding any observations or recommendations which they may think right to make with a view to minimising risks to life and property in the future." The Commission met on 22nd December, and has been proceeding actively with its inquiries. It is obviously necessary to wait for its report and recommendations before deciding on future action.

    ELECTRICITY CHARGES (TYNESIDE AREA).
    Mr. ROBERT WILSONasked the Minister of Transport if representations have been made to him by the local authorities in the Tyneside area regarding the high charges made by private electricity supply companies to consumers in their districts; and, if so, will he state what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have noticed statements in the Press to the effect that the question of electricity charges in the district referred to has been under discussion between some of the local authorities and companies concerned, but no representations have been made to me in the matter.
    Mr. BATEY: Does the Minister not propose to take some action seeing that in the middle of the coalfield people are being charged 6id. per unit for lighting purposes?
    Colonel ASHLEY: There is ample machinery for bringing such matters to my notice. If a local authority or 20 consumers in the district bring such a matter to my notice, it is my duty to investigate it.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE (THAMES DITTON).
    Sir PHILIP RICHARDSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the inhabitants of Thames Ditton have had their telephone service transferred from the Kingston to the Emberbrook Exchange at a reduced rental of 5s. per annum but so as to place them outside the five-mile radius, with a consequent reduction in the number of exchanges falling under the penny rate for calls at all hours from 6 to 11 and a largely increased charge for communications with exchanges most generally used by them; and whether he will restore to the inhabitants of this area the privileges they have heretofore enjoyed in the matter of penny calls so that the aggregate of payments made by them during the year may not be increased?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): I am aware of the facts which are correctly stated in the first part of my hon. and gallant
    756
    Friend's question, except that the rental will be reduced by £l per annum and not 5s., and the radius is 10 miles and not five. With this reduction of rental many of the subscribers concerned will benefit, despite the increase in call charges to many London exchanges. These changes, which follow the opening of a new exchange to serve the subscribers in its neighbourhood, are an inevitable consequence of the growth of telephone population in the London telephone area. It is impossible for reasons of administrative efficiency further to enlarge that area and in consequence new exchanges on its borders, but outside the radius, must fall within the provisions of the general tariff for the country.
    Mr. RYE: Does the Postmaster-General consider that it is fair and reasonable to shift an exchange and so put subscribers to great inconvenience?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: It all depends on the progress of development. The London telephone area has developed so rapidly in recent years—it has increased by something like 50 per cent. during the lifetime of this Government— that it is impossible, for administrative reasons, to further enlarge it.
    Mr. RYE: At the present moment, have the subscribers attached to the Kingston exchange the right to continue on that exchange?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As I have already explained, for administrative reasons that is impossible. What has been happening is that those subscribers outside the 10-mile radius have been getting their service at a cheaper rate than other people.

    RAILWAY TRAINS (TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION).
    Mr. LESTRANGE MALONEasked the Minister of Transport, if his Department is aware of the progress made in Germany in the development of telephone communication between railway trains and the telephone service; and whether any experiments are being conducted in this country?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have been asked to reply to this question. I have asked for and received reports from time to time from the German authorities concerning an experimental

    757
    service which is in operation on certain trains running between Berlin and Hamburg for the provision of telephonic communication between passengers in trains and telephone subscribers. Similar experiments conducted in this country have demonstrated the practicability of establishing telephonic communication with moving trains but at present the demand for such communication does not seem likely to be sufficient to justify the expense involved to the railways in the provision of facilities.

    CAPITAL VALUE.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Post master-General at what estimated monetary value his Department stands from the point of view of purchase price of his entire service?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My Noble Friend will recognise that any estimate of price to a hypothetical buyer of the Post Office must be so imaginary as to be valueless. He will, however, find some capital account figures in the commercial accounts to which I would refer him.
    Mr. THOMAS: May we take it that the Prime Minister's reference to the failure of nationalisation is purely hypothetical?
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the policy of the present Government, if returned at the next election, to dispose of the Post Office, or rather to dispose of the rest of it?
    Sir FRANK MEYER: Does this not prove that it is only monopolies that can pay?

    BIRD TELEVISION SYSTEM.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Post master-General whether his Department has at any time suggested to the British Broadcasting Corporation that facilities for experimental transmissions should be afforded to the Baird television system as have been arranged with the fultograph apparatus?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I informed both the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Baird Television Development Company a few months ago that, so far as my Department is concerned, I should be prepared to agree to the use, subject to suitable conditions,
    758
    of one of the corporation's stations for experiments with television apparatus. The corporation decided, after their officers had witnessed a demonstration of the Baird system, that it did not then fulfil the conditions which would justify a trial through one of their stations, although they expressed their readiness to review this decision if and when development justified it. A further demonstration is being arranged, after which the question of using a broadcasting station for television will be reconsidered.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Pensions whether it has been the practice of his Department to furnish appellants to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal with information in regard to the precise disabilities in respect of which their appeals are being considered; whether this practice has always obtained; and, if not, whether in any other case where different procedure applied, and where the appellant disputes that a particular disability was considered by the tribunal, he will, on request, be furnished with a copy of the terms of reference to the tribunal in respect of his case?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The practice of furnishing appellants, as well as the tribunals, with a statement of the evidence in connection with their appeals has not always obtained. My right hon. Friend could not undertake at this date to furnish copies of the précis of evidence in past cases which have been decided by the tribunals.
    Mr. KELLY: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the furnishing of this information in order to give the appellants a chance of knowing what they have to answer?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It is not part of my statutory duty to do that, but it is now always done in order to assist the appellant, as far as possible, in his appeal.
    Mr. KELLY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair that the appellant should not know what is being considered by the tribunal, seeing that upon their decision his pension depends?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: We do supply that information, and we have done so for the last 9 years.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If an appellant asks to be supplied with this information, will the Parliamentary Secretary give an undertaking that it will be supplied?
    Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I cannot undertake that the Ministry will do that; but they will consider in any case whether it is possible.

    FISH (MARKETING).
    Commander WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture if the marketing branch of his Department is devoted only to the marketing of agricultural produce or to the marketing of fish as well?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Has any success been achieved in using the marketing procedure for fish, and will any special steps be taken to deal with a large catch of fish which might be purchased in bulk?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The Marketing Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture deals, of course, primarily with the grading of agricultural produce, and that problem is not so acute in the fishing industry, in the case of which, I believe, there is already a very efficient system of grading. The problem there is rather that of quick distribution, preservation, and proper handling. Those questions are being explored by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I am not sure that the Ministry of Agriculture is the proper Department, but I should be very glad to consider any suggestions that my hon. and gallant Friend might make.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate to what extent and in what direction success has attended his Marketing Committee?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We have started a very extensive scheme of sale and grading under the National Mark, which has been taken up very keenly by various branches of the agricultural industry.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the Minister's reply that a large-scale organisation has been established by the Government for the grading and distribution of agricultural produce?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The question deals with the Marketing Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture.
    Commander WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made by his Department during the years 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928 in encouragement the development of co-operative buying and selling among fishermen?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The Government assists the establishment and encouragement of co-operative buying and selling among fishermen by means of grants from the Development Fund to the Fisheries Organisation Society, on the governing body of which the Ministry is represented. The latest report of the society, referring to the year 1927, states that there is a steady development of the co-operative movement among inshore fishermen. I am sending my hon. Friend figures for the years 1925–1927, extracted from the report. Those for 1928 are not yet available.
    Commander WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend say in what part of the country this is most developed?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice. There is an increase in the number of societies which work under the parent organisation, and the total sales have increased, but I cannot give the distribution throughout the country.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to whether the quantity of fish destroyed for the purpose of maintaining a high price has been reduced or increased since the Ministry have been dealing with the matter?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I do not believe that there is any appreciable amount of fish destroyed, certainly not for the purpose of keeping up a high price. Where fish is landed in a state which makes it unfit for human consumption, it has, of course, to be diverted to other purposes.

    WOLSTANTON MARSH (ROAD).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that certain common land called Wolstanton Marsh is to be reduced in area by the making of a road; whether he has received a petition from 152 of the inhabitants directly affected by this curtailment of the common; whether he is satisfied that the rights of the public are adequately protected; and what he proposes to do about it?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I have received a copy of a petition by 152 residents in the district protesting against the construction of the proposed road. By the Commons Regulation (Wolstanton Marsh) Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1898, the Wolstanton Urban District Council, as conservators of the common, were expressly empowered by Parliament, for the benefit of the neighbourhood, to set out, make and maintain new carriage roads over the common, and the award of regulation made in 1898 under this Act repeated this provision. Whether the proposed road would be for the benefit of the neighbour hood is a matter upon which I have no authority to express any opinion.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to see that additional land is acquired for the public to make up for this curtailment?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I have no powers in that direction; Parliament removed this matter from the discretion of the Minister of Agriculture, and gave the discretion to the local authority.

    IRAQ (CONSCRIPTION).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present position of the Government with regard to proposals for the introduction of conscription into the military services of Iraq?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The attitude of His Majesty's Government on the question of conscription in Iraq was explained in the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Dumbarton (Lieut.-Colonel Thom), on the 23rd April last. There has been no change in this respect.
    Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the public opinion in Iraq, or the opinion of His Majesty's Government, that is in favour of this proposal?
    Mr. AMERY: That point is precisely the one that was fully answered in the reply to which I have referred.

    KENYA (DEFENCE FORCE ORDINANCE).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give any statement or figures as to the operation of the measure for conscription of Europeans in the military services of Kenya?
    Mr. AMERY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 28th January to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock).
    Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many Europeans in Kenya have refused service since the Act was put into operation?
    Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; I gave all the information that I could in the answer to which I have referred the hon. Member.
    Mr. SMITH: It did not give the information for which I am now asking.

  HOUSING.

    SANITARY CERTIFICATES.
    Miss BONDFIELDasked the Minister of Health whether he will intro duce legislation to amend the Housing Act, 1925, so as to place the onus of obtaining a certificate that a house is in proper sanitary condition upon the land lord instead of upon the tenant, so that unless a house is really fit for habitation the 40 per cent. post-War increase of rent will not be payable?
    Sir K. WOOD: The proposal made by the hon. Member would involve an Amendment of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and, while my right hon Friend has a good deal of doubt as to the merits of the particular suggestion, he cannot in any case give any undertaking at this stage regarding further legislation affecting those Acts.

    PULFORD STREET SITE, WESTMINSTER.
    Miss BONDFIELDasked the Minister of Health the result of the Prime Minister's appeal for a sum of £32,000 required for the purchase from the London County Council of the Pulford Street site in Westminster; whether the Pulford Street site committee has appealed to the Ministry for a loan, grant, or special subsidy to carry out the purchase of the site and improvement of the area; whether his attention has been drawn to an estimate officially published by the Westminster City Council more than a year ago that the cost of purchasing this site, erecting the proposed buildings, and so housing about 1,000 people, would represent less than an additional farthing per pound on the Westminster City rates; and whether he has received any recent communication from the Westminster Council as to its now proceeding with the scheme on the usual subsidy terms?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has no information as to the result of the appeal, made by the committee formed for the purchase of the site in question, for subscriptions to enable the purchase to be completed. No application for financial assistance has been made to my Department by the committee. The City Council have not furnished my right hon. Friend with a copy of the estimate referred to; nor have they submitted any proposal for the utilisation of the land for the purpose of a housing scheme.
    Mr. RYE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision of the Westminster City Council not to acquire and build upon this site was arrived at after consultation with their official experts; that this site belongs to a great housing authority, the London County Council; that the London County Council have never considered it necessary to build working-class dwellings upon this site; and, further, that the Westminster City Council has entered into various commitments for the erection of a large number of dwellings at the corner of Ebury Street and Ebury Bridge Road?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving a lot of information. Sir Arthur Holbrook.

    LIVERPOOL (FOREIGN TILES).
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the use of foreign tiles to roof Liverpool Corporation houses built by direct labour; whether any subsidy was granted in respect of these houses; and whether he will consider, in all cases where subsidy is made, that all material used shall be of British manufacture?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware of the circumstances indicated in the first part of the question. Subsidy is being paid on the houses in question. With regard to the last part of the question, Section 10 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1024, provides that, in approving proposals for the construction of houses, the Minister of Health shall not impose any conditions which would prevent the materials required being purchased in the cheapest market at borne or abroad. The Government have, however, urged local authorities to arrange that all contracts for or incidental to works carried out by them should, in the absence of special circumstances, be placed in this country. My right hon. Friend understands that in the present case the course adopted has resulted in a substantial saving of cost.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the building trade in Liverpool say that this is much more costly than if the tiles had been bought in this country?
    Sir K. WOOD: That does not agree with the information submitted to my Department.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Liverpool Corporation is controlled by a Tory majority?
    Major PRICE: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the difference between the wages paid to those who make tiles in this country and the wages of those who make them in foreign countries?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, I cannot answer that question, but I may say that my right hon. Friend, in every case where it is reasonable, is urging local authorities to use materials of British manufacture.
    Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these tiles

    765
    were used only for the completion of a certain part of the work, and not for a new scheme?

    SUBLETTING, LONDON (CHILDREN).
    Miss WILKINSONasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that an overwhelming proportion of advertisements of rooms to let in London specify no children taken; and whether, in view of the hardship caused to families whose breadwinners must live near their work, he can expedite the building of flats in place of derelict tenement houses in London and in the meantime introduce such legislation as will make it illegal to specify no children as a clause in a contract for the letting of apartments?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend does not consider that the remedy suggested by the hon. Member would be likely to effect its object. The real solution as the hon. Member appears to appreciate, is to increase the amount of available accommodation, and my right hon. Friend understands that the London County Council already have under consideration proposals for the erection of dwellings in London for persons who must reside near their places of employment.
    Miss WILKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the amount of accommodation provided by the County Council is wholly inadequate, and that, in the meantime, the difficulty of women with children is rapidly approaching a scandal in those areas in London where it is absolutely essential for the men to be at work early in the morning?
    Sir K. WOOD: That may or may not be so, but the remedy suggested by the hon. Member would not meet the difficulty.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a plea to people of philanthropic disposition to build houses, like the Peabody Trust, stipulating for children? We have tried it at Plymouth, and it seems to be the only way to get people to take children.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, under the present legislation, when the houses of working people become decontrolled, the landlord frequently takes the opportunity of saying that the houses will not be let to tenants who have children?
    Sir K. WOOD: I do not think it matters whether the houses are decontrolled or not; the same position applies.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that a great many of these houses are owned by working men?
    Miss WILKINSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do nothing, and merely to say that it does not matter?
    Sir K. WOOD: No. The hon. Member has overlooked the last part of my answer, and that is that the London County Council, who have already made great progress in providing fresh housing accommodation in London, which is the real remedy for the difficulty to which the hon. Member refers, are continuing their work, and are particularly engaged in putting forward schemes for what are called the inner areas.

    HAMPSTED.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Health whether as the last Census Return gave the number of persons living in overcrowded conditions of over two to a room in Hampstead as more than 5,000, he will state whether the Hampstead Borough Council has built any houses under either the Chamberlain or Wheatley Acts; what number of houses were built under the Addison Act; whether the medical officer of health has prepared a Return showing cases where families of 10 and 11 persons are living in two rooms; and whether the borough council are now engaged in building any houses to meet the position?
    Sir K. WOOD: The borough council have not built any houses under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924, but under a contributory arrangement made with the London County Council 100 of the houses provided by the county council under the Act of 1924 have been placed at the disposal of the borough council and have been allocated to inhabitants of the borough. The borough council have built 140 houses under the Housing Act of 1919. My right hon. Friend understands that the medical officer of health has prepared a return of the nature referred to for the information of the Housing Committee, who have it under consideration. The borough council are not engaged in building any houses at the present time.
    Mr. KELLY: In view of the conditions, will the right hon. Gentleman use any power which he possesses in order to prevail upon these people to build some houses to meet the situation?
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member knows, as I have already stated, that a return has been made by the medical officer of health and that it is under the consideration of the Housing Committee. I have no doubt that they will consider the report and that they will have due notice of the answer which I have given to-day.

    ALL-ENGLISH BEER AND WHISKEY.
    Mr. HURDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the benefit to barley cultivation in this country from the production of all-English beer and whiskey; and whether he will consider the granting of a preferential excise in order to encourage arable agriculture?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 13th December last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury).
    Mr. HURD: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive a sample of this all-English beer to test its quality?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is this a case of corruption?

    PENNY POSTAGE.
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the inauguration of penny postage in Canada and to the increase in the letter mails to Britain as the result; whether he has considered the impetus to trade which would be given by the reintroduction of penny postage in this country; and whether he proposes to take early action in this direction?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that Canada is restoring the penny post as between herself and all other parts of the Empire, and New Zea-
    768
    land has already restored it, he can hold out any hope that the penny postage will be reinstituted during the present Parliament between Great Britain and the Dominions?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot make any statement at this date. The whole field of revenue is always surveyed before every Budget.

    ESTATE DUTIES (VICTORY BONDS).
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that at the issue of Victory Bonds in 1919 it was stated that these bonds would be accepted at their face value by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in payment of death duties, provided that the bonds had formed part of the estate of the deceased for a period of not less than six months immediately preceding the date of death and, in view of the fact that such bonds, though fulfilling all the conditions laid down, have been refused, he can state under what authority and since when has the new procedure been adopted?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The terms of the prospectus are in all cases fulfilled. Possibly my hon. and gallant Friends refers to the position which arises on the death of a life tenant who has only a part interest in a settled fund. If this is so, I shall be happy to send him a full explanation of the matter.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Income Tax authorities will be prohibited from referring to the new assessments now being made under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, in their assessment for Income Tax purposes?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The valuation lists made for rating purposes are available under statute for the Income Tax authorities. But the rating values (except in the metropolis) are not necessarily taken as fixing the Schedule A valuations, though they no doubt afford useful evidence in determining them. Except in the metropolis the Schedule A valuations are separate and distinct, and made by separate and independent authorities, and no general

    769
    revision of them can be made until Parliament has given specific authority for it. In the meantime the Revenue has no power to apply for an increased valuation, if there has been no alteration of the premises, although it is open to the taxpayer at any time to seek a reduction if he can show that the value of his premises has fallen.
    Mr. BROWN: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a leaflet circulated by the Conservative Party in Devonshire purporting to give a statement by the Financial Secretary in precisely opposite terms?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, and I should think it very unlikely that any such statement has been circulated.
    Mr. BROWN: May I send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly.

    COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY.
    58. The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr.MALONE:
    To ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether negotiations have taken place between His Majesty's Government and the Communications Company; and when he expects to lay further Papers before the House?
    Mr. MALONE: On a point of Order. In putting this question may I ask you, Sir, why this question has been transferred from the Postmaster-General to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and whether all questions in future on this important matter are to be put to the Treasury?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a question for me to decide, but for the Minister to whom the question is put, who will, no doubt, inform the hon. Member to which Department questions on this subject should be addressed.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In answer to the question on the point of Order it has not yet been finally decided which Department is to be answerable to the House on this subject. The Financial Secretary hitherto has been deeply immersed in it, and he is for the time being dealing with it. Unhappily, my hon. Friend is laid up by indisposi-
    770
    tion and, therefore, I, at the end of the chain, come to the task of answering the hon. Member and I have to say that negotiations consequent on the report of the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference are now on foot. I cannot say at present when it will be possible to lay papers.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has yet approved of the two Government directors, one being chairman, for the proposed Communications Company, to which the Government cables and beam wireless systems are to be sold and leased, respectively; if he is in a position to state the names of these gentlemen; and what other directorships, salaried posts, and offices of profit they hold?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government have approved the nomination of Sir Basil Blackett and Lord Clarendon to be the chairman and a director, respectively, of the proposed Communications Company. Sir Basil Blackett is a director of the Bank of England, and Lord Clarendon is chair man of the British Broadcasting Corporation. So far as I am aware, these are the only appointments held by the two gentlemen concerned.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand, then, that the chairmanship and the directorships of the Communications Company are not considered to be what I may call whole time jobs? Is not the matter in its initial stages so important that, however eminent the chairman, he should give his whole time to the work?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think there are great public advantages in Sir Basil Blackett's services being available for the Bank of England, and I cannot think that there will be any difficulty in reconciling the two duties. With regard to Lord Clarendon, of course, it is perfectly well known that the Government propose that he should discharge the two functions.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is Lord Clarendon to retain also the chairmanship of the British Broadcasting Corporation as well as the directorship of this new great company?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.
    Miss WILKINSON: Are these life appointments, are they terminable at the will of the Government of the day, or is there any time specified during which these gentlemen should retain their posts?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sorry the hon. Lady has asked that question because I do not happen to have the information on the subject in my mind. I will ascertain.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any understanding that the chairman, Sir Basil Blackett, will accept no further commercial directorships in other private concerns?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that question has arisen.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is a great danger in the Government encouraging duplication of directorships in individual cases?
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if His Majesty's Government have approved the nomination of Lord Clarendon to the directorate of the Communications Company; if so, upon what terms he has been appointed; and whether it is the intention that he shall also continue as chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation?
    Mr. CHURCHlLL: The answer to the first and last parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the terms of the appointment will no doubt be the subject of arrangement with the company when constituted.
    Mr. WELLOCK: Seeing that the nomination is on the part of the Communications Company, may I ask whether the Communications Company have their eye on the control of the British Broadcasting Corporation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that no such deduction would be legitimate.
    Mr. WELLOCKasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if the Communications Company has yet been formed; and when it is proposed to in form this House of its details?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The company referred to has not yet been actually con-
    772
    stituted but I understand that active preparations are being made with a view to its early formation. The company will no doubt publish details of its constitution in due course.
    Mr. MALONE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the position of of the men at present employed by the Post Office has been duly considered, and will he represent to the Postmaster-General, when these negotiations proceed, that the employés at the Beam stations are not represented on the Post Office Whitley Council?
    Mr. CHURCHILL indicated assent.

    GOVERNMENT PRINTING CONTRACTS.
    Mr. NAYLORasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what precautions are taken, and the nature of the supervision exercised, to secure that printing contracts placed by His Majesty's Stationery Office for execution in London are completely executed in the metropolis; whether cases have ever occurred in which contracting firms with works in both London and the provinces have broken the terms of the contract in this respect; and whether he is satisfied that the present method of Stationery Office supervision of work produced under the terms of such contracts is effective for the purpose?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is provided in the conditions of printing contracts placed by His Majesty's Stationery Office for execution in London that the contractor shall produce the work within suitable premises (the exact address of which must be given in the tender) in London, and that he shall permit the inspection of these premises by the Controller of the Stationery Office or any officer authorised by him at all reasonable times. Two cases have occurred in the last 10 years in which contracting firms with works both in London and in the provinces have broken the terms of the contract in this respect in regard to certain isolated jobs in special circumstances as to which satisfactory explanations were given. The explanations were accepted, but a warning was given that prior permission must be obtained for the transference to provincial premises

    773
    of any work covered by the contract. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. THOMAS: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury what business will be taken on Friday?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): The Local Government Bill, Committee Stage (13th Allotted Day) and, if there is time, other Orders on the Paper.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  SOLICITORS' ACTS CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  "to consolidate the enactments relating to solicitors," presented by Sir William Bull; supported by Mr. Withers, Mr. Morris, Mr. Eye, and Mr. Short; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]
  BLASPHEMY LAYS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  "to amend the Blasphemy Laws," presented by Mr. Lansbury; supported by Mr. Snell, Mr. Thurtle, Dr. Salter, Mr. Dunnico, Mr. Scurr, and Mr. Wallhead; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
  IMPORTATON OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) ACT (1921), AMENDMENT BILL.
  "to amend the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921, presented by Colonel Clifton Brown; supported by Lieut.-Colonel Sir Godfrey Dalrymple-White, Sir Harry Brittain, Viscountess Astor, Dr. Drummond Shiels, Lieut. -Colonel Heneage, Mr. Barr, and Mr. Kingsley Griffith; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday; 12th February, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 25th January.]
  [10TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 86.—(Power to reduce grants.)
    Mr. KELLY: I beg to move, in page 68, line 10, after the word "efficiency," to insert the words "or adequacy."
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. Under this Clause the Minister has power to reduce the grant payable in respect of any year by such amount as he thinks just if he is satisfied that the council have failed to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of efficiency in the discharge of their functions relating to public health. We are asking that in addition to a standard of efficiency there should also be a standard of adequacy. It is possible to have an efficient standard when you are dealing with a small number of people but at the same time it may not be an adequate standard for the discharge of functions relating to public health. It is difficult to put into an Act of Parliament words which will cover everything, but I think it is essential that the words "or adequacy" should go in.
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The insertion of these words will not, I think, really add anything to the effectiveness of the Clause as it stands. It is rather difficult to say what would be a reasonable standard of adequacy. A thing must be adequate or inadequate, and, secondly, although the hon. Member has in mind something which is adequate for a small number of people but not efficient, the word "efficient" must be taken in relation to the people and adequate for the area under consideration. I propose, however, to accept the next Amendment, to
    insert the word "progress," which I think really covers the particular point the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. PALIN: At the risk of being miserable once more I must say that I cannot accept the optimistic observations of the right hon. Gentleman. As a matter of fact, there are a large number of efficient child welfare centres, they are almost models, but they are totally inadequate for the needs of the particular district. The Minister of Health is not prepared to accept any suggestion on the part of the Opposition in order to make this Bill workable. If he was sincere in the speeches he made last week as to his desire to see local authorities stimulated to set on foot these desirable institutions surely he will accept a proposal which will indicate a minimum standard of adequacy for the needs of the district. It is not an impossible or an unreasonable condition. The officers of his Department could, I have no doubt, specify with perfect reasonableness a standard which would be accepted by everybody; possibly a standard on a population basis having regard to the particular character of the area. I should not like to set down a standard for the whole of the country, nor should I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do so, because the needs of various districts are bound to differ owing to different circumstances. With all his sauvity the right hon. Gentleman in his advocacy of this Bill is leaving a bad impression. He will not accept any suggestion from anyone under any circumstances whatever, although they may honestly desire to improve it. The right hon. Gentleman, great man as he is, does not know everything. All the wisdom of all local authorities is not in one small cranium, and for that reason I trust he will cheer up and will realise that somebody else does know something about this subject as well as himself.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 176.

    Division No. 134.]

    AYES.

    [3.49 p.m.

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

    Briant, Frank

    Compton, Joseph

    Ammon, Charles George

    Broad, F. A.

    Connolly, M.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Barr, J.

    Cape, Thomas

    Dennison, R.

    Bellamy, A.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Duncan, C.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Cluse, W. S.

    Dunnico, H.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Lee, F.

    Sullivan, J.

    Gillett, George M.

    Lowth, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

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

    Lunn, William

    Taylor, R. A.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Mackinder, W.

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

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

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

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    March, S.

    Thurtle, Ernest

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

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Murnin, H.

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Viant, S. P.

    Hardie, George D

    Oliver, George Harold

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

    Harris, Percy A.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Hirst, G. H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Westwood, J.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Potts, John S.

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Ritson, J.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Windsor, Walter

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Wright, W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Shinwell, E.

    Kennedy, T.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Paling.

    Lansbury, George

    Stamford, T. W.

    NOES.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Lougher, Lewis

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Drewe, C.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen, Sir Richard Harman

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Applin Colonel R. V. K.

    Ellis, R. G.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Apsley, Lord

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

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

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

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    McLean, Major A.

    Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Astor, Viscountess

    Fielden, E. B.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Atkinson, C.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Balniel, Lord

    Fremantle, Lieut. Colonel Francis E.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col, Anthony

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Gates, Percy

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

    Berry, Sir George

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Bethel, A.

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

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Glyn, Major. R. G. C.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Oakley, T.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt Hon. William

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Brockiebank, C. E. R.

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

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Hanbury, C.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Bullock Captain M.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)

    Burman, J. B.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Cayzer Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Ramsden, E.

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

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Reid, Capt. Cunningham(Warrington)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

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

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Christie, J. A.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

    Sandon, Lord

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Savery, S. S.

    Clayton, G. C.

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

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

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

    Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Long, Major Eric

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

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Looker, Herbert William

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    788

    789

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Tinne, J. A.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Wells, S. R.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

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

    Worthington-Evane, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain

    Bowyer.

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

    Sir LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to move, in page 68, line 10, after the word "efficiency," to insert the words "and progress."
    This Clause is one of the fundamental Clauses of the Bill, and this House ought to strengthen it in any way it can consistently with the general scheme of the Bill. The main principles underlying the Bill are, that in local matters local government authorities should be given the widest possible discretion, and that the Minister of Health as the central authority should be given really effective powers of control. If we add to this Clause the words "and progress" we help the Minister very much in seeing that a reasonable standard of progress, as well as static efficiency, is always maintained.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend will be happy to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. MARDY JONES: Would the Minister have accepted the previous Amendment if it had been moved from the Conservative Benches?
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 68, line 12, after the word "health," to insert the words:
    "services (including services relating to maternity and child welfare, lunacy and mental deficiency and the welfare of the blind)."
    This Amendment arises from the fact that some doubts have been expressed as to whether the words of the Clause, "relating to public health," include the subjects which are specified in the Amendment. I should say that health services such as tuberculosis and venereal disease are included under the term of public health. There is no doubt about that. They come under the Public Health (Tuberculosis) Act, and other matters are dealt with under the Public Health Act. But there was a question as to whether these other services— maternity and child welfare, lunacy,
    790
    mental deficiency and the welfare of the blind—are covered by the word "health." In order to make the matter quite clear, I propose the Amendment.
    4.0.p.m.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as I have handed in a manuscript Amendment, whether tuberculosis is included in the meaning of the words "public health," or whether the insertion of that word would have any effect at all. If not, I need not move my Amendment.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I explained in the course of my remarks that it was covered.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: So that the right hon. Gentleman has the power, as the Bill stands, to exercise any pressure that he wishes to put on a local authority which is not progressive or efficient with regard to tuberculosis?
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, of course, but, surely, the words "public health" in this Clause raise a very large principle, because they give the Minister power to withhold any part of the total general Exchequer contribution in respect of these health services which are not up to standard. That is a very important principle of public policy. The Minister, as I understand, makes no grant under his scheme for public water supply or drainage; yet would it not be possible under the term "public health" to withhold from local authorities parts of grants given for other services on the ground that these particular health services are not up to standard? I do not know whether I am right in reading the words in that way. Of course, everyone would welcome an extension of these public services and a higher standard in them, but if my reading of the term "public health" is accurate, then a very vital principle on which the grant is to be withheld is raised, because the Minister is to have a say in withholding grants given for other purposes, namely, to make up for loss of rates on the one

    791
    hand, and discontinued grants on the other, and to reduce them because any one of the general public health services is not what is called efficient. Surely he ought to face the fact that his system of grants is not a fair system to the local authority. He has no right to say to the local authority, "You shall maintain the standard," unless he is prepared to make a contribution towards the betterment. I would ask him whether my reading of the words "public health" is correct and that the right hon. Gentleman will have the new power, which is not given to any other public Department, to withhold a grant, not because the service for which it is granted is not adequate or efficient, but on the ground that some other service not included in the grant is not adequate or efficient under the terms of this Clause. If my reading is correct it seems an extraordinarily dangerous extension of bureaucratic power, which must be resisted.
    Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the first word "welfare," to insert the words "venereal disease."
    Last evening the right hon. Gentleman indicated a certain line in regard to venereal disease which, while it did not accept the proposition I put before him of compulsion, it did indicate that he was prepared to take some steps to see that local authorities did not lose sight of the important duty of providing for a national propaganda in connection with this work. As I understood him, he based that suggestion upon the fact that under the Bill the grant which is now made to the British Social Hygiene Council, being one of the discontinued grants, would fall into the pool, and that, therefore, that sum of money would form the basis of representations on his part to the local authority, that, inasmuch as the sum, which is at present earmarked for national propaganda, was being put into the pool and distributed amongst local authorities, it was a ground for suggesting to them that they should definitely give a portion, at any rate, of their grant to some society which was carrying on national propaganda. That is very well as put forward, but there is one consideration which I want to bring before the Minister to which, I hope, he will
    792
    give thorough attention. As he knows, within the last two or three years he has altered the system upon which grants were made. Until a few years ago we gave a grant approximating to £10,000 for national propaganda, but that amount he reduced last year to £6,500, on the hypothesis that local authorities would make up the difference by subscriptions to the central body, the body to which this grant was given, in order that national propaganda might properly be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman knows the result of that, but what I want to know is whether, when he is discussing with the lcoal authorities the question as to national propaganda, the amount which he will take into account is the amount of his reduced grant, or the amount which he himself considered was necessary for national propaganda, namely, a sum approximating to £10,000? As I think he will admit, the local authorities were not prepared to give these subscriptions at that time, because they said that inasmuch as the Government are providing—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must confess that I do not quite see how that argument fits in with this Amendment. The effect of the Amendment is to withdraw grants generally, I take it, if the services are not properly conducted. But the hon. and learned Member is now talking about grants to this national council. It seems to me an entirely different matter as to whether the local authority has properly maintained its services.
    Sir W. GREAVESLORD: With all submission, what I am asking is whether, first of all, venereal disease is to be included, and then I am asking, although I may be going a long way about it, how the Minister is going to discuss with the local authorities the adequacy of what they are doing, or, rather how they are going to be judged as to the reasonable standard of efficiency in the discharge of their duties with regard to venereal disease. Therefore, I want to know whether the standard is to be the reduced standard which is based upon the present grant, or the proper standard which would be based, not upon the immediate grant, but upon that grant which the Minister himself acknowledged was the adequate amount to be spent upon the services? It is for that reason that I am putting this pro-

    793
    position to him. If it is to be based upon the reduced grant, my submission is that it would not be sufficient. On the other hand, if he is going to take into consideration that the grant last year was reduced under an optimistic idea that the local authorities would do certain things which they did not, that, of course, may be a totally different position. I want also to ask him whether some consideration will be given to the fact that the matters which have to be dealt with in connection with propaganda, in order to make the venereal disease service efficient, should be known in such reasonable time as to make it possible to pan out that campaign over a period for which this assistance will be given. I put these matters forward, because they certainly do amount to a very serious consideration when one is coming to a conclusion as to whether the suggestion that the Minister made yesterday was, in fact, an adequate way of carrying out what is conceived by everybody to be an exceedingly important matter. If one could be assured upon these matters, one might be able to take a different view with regard to them, but I do put that matter before the Minister as one deserving of his consideration, and as one upon which we should like to have something in the way of assurance.
    The CHAIRMAN: There is some doubt whether I can put this Amendment to the proposed Amendment because it seems to me to be unnecessary. Surely the venereal disease service must be a public health service, and therefore it seems to me that the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is superfluous.
    Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: One would have though that prima facie the other matters which the Minister has included in his Amendment might also be said to be public health services, and there is this very real danger of selection, that if you select some things and leave out others, it discourages, or rather forbids, a particular service being recognised. It may be that the Minister may be able to satisfy us that it is a public health service, recognised in such a way that it is not affected and not endangered by the Amendment he has proposed. If he would satisfy us upon that point, I should certainly be quite willing on consideration of that, to see whether it
    794
    was right to withdraw the Amendment which I have proposed, but, until I am satisfied, I do suggest that one service may be seriously endangered by the selection which the right hon. Gentleman has made in his own Amendment.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the point of Order. In speaking just now, I stated specifically that venereal disease was a case which could be deal with under the Public Health Act. Venereal disease comes under the regulations made under the Public Health Act, and, therefore, there cannot be any possible doubt that it is covered by the words "public health services." Therefore, it appears to me that my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, as you, Mr. Hope, said, is unnecessary. With regard to the other point which my hon. and learned Friend has submitted, it really goes back to the Question we were discussing last night. I suggest that it would be more appropriate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part."
    Miss LAWRENCE: I perfectly under stand that the treatment of tuberculosis is a public health service. What I am not so clear about is whether the dissemination of information and general propaganda can be properly called a public health service.
    The CHAIRMAN: I really think, in view of what the Minister has said, that regulations on this matter will be made under the Public Health Act, that obviously it is covered.
    Sir L. SCOTT: May I address myself to the main Amendment? The object of the Minister's Amendment obviously is to make sure that the phrase "public health" shall not be interpreted in a narrow and restricted sense. His object is to enlarge it, so as to include certain services which are to be brought within the purview of the Clause but which a narrow interpretation might possibly exclude. I call the Minister's attention to-the Amendment standing later on the Paper in my name which has the same object and which, speaking frankly as a lawyer, seems to me to provide a safer form of words than that chosen by the Minister. My Amendment proposes to insert the following:
    For the purpose of paragraph (i) of this section the expression 'functions relating to public health' shall be given a

    795
    wide interpretation so as to include all duties and powers now or hereafter imposed upon or entrusted to the council in connection with the subjects of tuberculosis, mental deficiency, maternity and child welfare, welfare of the blind, the medical inspection and treatment of school children, venereal diseases, and any other subjects whatsoever concerning the physical or mental health of the community."
    Those words would make it quite certain that any subject dealt with under current legislation by a local authority, in connection with any of the health services of the community, whether relating to physical or mental health, would come within the general purview of the supervisory powers given to the Minister in the Clause. The importance of getting a wide definition of this Clause lies in this point. The Clause does not define what the local authority ought to do, or what in its option, it can do in these matters; but it says that whatever a local authority, at any time, shall be called upon to do by Parliament, or enabled to do by Parliament, on these matters the Minister shall have the supervisory powers of Clause 86. That is what we want. We want to make sure that Clause 86 shall be elastic, always being capable of application, whatever circumstances may arise in the future, in connection with the general health services of the community, as far as they are carried on by local authorities. That is why we want to get the definition of the Clause made as wide as possible. There are no dangers in doing so. It does not, of itself, enlarge the powers of the local authority. It merely enables the Minister to be certain of being able to deal under his powers with whatever a local authority may do in this respect from time to time. I do not propose to press the matter if the Minister thinks his wording is sufficient but I earnestly ask him to consider, between now and the Report stage, with his legal advisers, which of the two forms of language is the better; or he might, possibly, take some suggestions out of my Amendment and slightly amplify his own.
    Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I think some of the difficulty felt by members of the Committee arises out of the use of the words "functions relating to public health." The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the Exchange
    796
    Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) arises largely out of a misconception, which, in turn, arises out of these words. The words which the right hon. and learned Member suggests are so wide that they go outside the terms of the Bill. In Clause 86 we are dealing only with the power to reduce grants payable under this part of the Bill. Those are grants in respect of certain health services and certain road services. The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes by the later Amendment mentioned to include in that services which appear on the Vote for the Board of Education such as that relating to the medical inspection of school children.
    Sir L. SCOTT: I do not want to bring anything into the purview of the Bill which is not in it already and is not provided for now; and my Amendment would not have that effect.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. and learned Member will pardon me, but his Amendment refers directly and definitely to the medical inspection and treatment of school children, which has nothing whatever to do with this part of the Bill and for which, as far as grants are concerned, the Minister is not directly responsible, because, as I have said, it appears on the Vote for the Board of Education. I do not think there is any difference of opinion in the Committee about the desirability of having this Clause properly drafted, but I submit that the words "functions relating to public health" are a little vague. The term "public health" is to be clarified by the inclusion of particular services concerning which there is some doubt as to whether they should or should not be termed "public health services." Would it not be possible for the Minister to refer specially—it might need subsequent alteration—to"functions exercised by local authorities under the Public Health Acts," including such and such services?
    The CHAIRMAN: That cannot be done now. Those words have been passed.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I quite realise that but I suggest, in order to remove whatever dubiety exists, that the introduction at a later stage of a direct reference to the Public Health Acts would overcome the difficulty.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: While I feel that there has been dubiety, I do not think there ought to be any now. I think it ought to be clear now what is covered by these words as they stand, with the addition of the further words which it is proposed to insert. I shall be pleased to give a little further consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. Member, to see if it would render even more clearly the intention of the Clause. My impression at the moment is that we have now got it so clear that there cannot be any doubt about it. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) seemed to be under a misapprehension of a different kind. He spoke of the block grant as being given for particular services, but that is not so. It is not earmarked for particular services. It is a new source of revenue given to the local authority, and, in consideration of that new source of revenue, which is believed to be adequate to enable the local authority to provide proper health services, this power is given to the Minister.
    Mr. E. BROWN: Perhaps I framed my remarks badly, but, while I may have used words to that effect, I did not use them in that connotation. That point did not arise in my mind at all. The great distinction between the giants which we are providing these new powers to reduce and the grants presently adminstered is that the grants now administered are for distinct specific services, while this is a block grant covering many different services to make up for loss of rates. But that is not the point which I had in mind. The point which I am dubious about is the interpretation of the words "public health." Does it mean all health services of every kind, whether the Minister gives a contribution inside or outside this grant, or not at all?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes—sanitary services.
    Mr. BROWN: While I am quite in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to improve sanitary services, it seems to me that the powers which he takes to do so are singularly unlike any powers given to any other Department. There are powers given to the Home Office under the Police Acts, and to the Board of Education under certain regulations, but in those cases certain things are
    798
    detailed. The present proposal is unprecedented in local legislation. It gives the right to cut down grants to a local authority, of a general character, in respect of particular services to which the Ministry itself does not make any contribution. It will not help local authorities which may be carrying out maternity and venereal disease services, to have the total Exchequer contribution cut down because some other services, such as sewerage or water supply, are not up to standard. In regard to this power to reduce grants the Minister has to take two things into consideration-first, the standards maintained in other areas whose financial resources and other relevant circumstances are substantially similar, and, second, that the health of the inhabitants of the area or some of them has been or is likely to be in danger. Take two local authorities similar in characteristics and needing financial resources. One, at the moment, has a much higher standard than the other, but the second one, while having the lower standard, is yet judged by the Minister to have an adequate and efficient standard.
    If we apply the new system of grants, the progressive authority may lower its present standard and yet maintain a standard above that which is judged by the Minister to be adequate. There is no safeguard here for the progressive authority. On the other hand, I cannot see that it is any remedy for a lack of progress in regard to water supplies or other health services, outside those which are now on the percentage basis, to give the Minister arbitrary power to reduce the whole Exchequer contribution. This power to reduce grants would include not only the money for grants, but the money in respect of loss of rates. Surely that is an extraordinary power to give to the central authority as against the local authority. I do not want to stand in the way of the Minister getting powers, but I think this phrasing is dangerous in its application to local authorities. Any Minister in the future might have power under this Clause to cut down any part of this general Exchequer contribution.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss this point on this Amendment? Whether the Amendment were carried or not, it would make no difference in relation to the point which the hon. Member is arguing.

    799
    I suggest that it is a point which would be suitable and appropriate in a general discussion on the Clause, but which cannot be raised on this Amendment. If we are to have a general discussion now, we ought to enter upon it with our eyes open.
    Mr. BROWN: As far as I am concerned, it is a matter of indifference, but I thought I would save time. It seemed to me that we were discussing the question of the definition of the words "public health," and that was the appropriate time to raise the question of whether my reading was correct or not.
    The CHAIRMAN: We were discussing the question of what was included in "public health services," and, while I cannot say that the hon. Member is out of order, at the same time we do not want to discuss the point twice over. Perhaps it would be better if the Minister were to defer his reply on this matter if he wishes to make one, and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) could again raise it on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I understand that no one objects to the addition of the particular words proposed in the Amendment. It is the interpretation of the words before that which is in question.
    Mr. BROWN: I have no intention of making the same point again, and the Minister knows that such is not my usual practice, but I thought this was the appropriate point at which to elucidate the question of whether my reading is the right one or not. While I think the intention of the Minister is the intention of the Committee, and while the right hon. Gentleman's aim is laudable, yet I doubt if it can be achieved under powers of this particular kind.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I wish to point out a further difficulty to the Minister. He has made it quite clear that he includes in the health services which are to be taken under his care under Clause 86, in addition to lunacy and the welfare of the blind and maternity and child welfare services, other services such as venereal disease services, and tuberculosis services. I want to ask how the words "a reasonable standard of efficiency" will apply. I want to know whether anywhere in the Bill the Minister proposes
    800
    to insert a definition or whether in practice this standard is to be exclusively the private judgment of the Minister for the time being. Suppose that in practice—
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: On a point of Order—
    The CHAIRMAN: I think I can anticipate the hon. and gallant Member's point of Order. The point which was being raised refers, I think, to the words "if he is satisfied," and it should come, therefore, on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The question refers to the powers of discretion of the Minister, and those words are passed.
    Sir W. GREAVES-LORD: Is the Minister satisfied that all these matters would not come under a general definition of public health services, because, if they would, I suggest that there is a real danger in singling them out and including them in this way?
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: It seems to me, from my experience of public health work, that there is a possibility of their not coming under public health services, because really to a large extent they come under the heading of "welfare," which is a good deal wider than health.
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: The point that I wish to put is the one put, substantially by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir W. Greaves-Lord). I am still a little unhappy as to the effect of enumeration, and I wonder whether it would not be better to stop at the word "services," excluding the words that follow in the Amendment. I am still doubtful whether, by mean? of the enumeration of these particular services, you might not be excluding other services.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is a question of the Acts under which the various services are carried on. Certain services are carried on under the Public Health Acts, and others are carried on under special Acts, such as the Maternity and Child Welfare Act. The question raised was whether it would not be possible to discriminate between the services carried on under a special Act and those carried on under a Public Health Act, and that is why these words have

    801
    been put in and why I do not think their insertion would have the sort of implication which sometimes is made when we begin to specify particular instances of a large number of things which are included in a general service. I have already promised the hon. Member opposite that I will look into his suggestion, and perhaps that will finally cover the point.
    Sir L. SCOTT: I beg to move in page 68, to leave out from the word "health" in line 12, to the word "or" in line 18.
    I do not expect the Minister will be in a position to accept the Amendment in this form, but I have designedly put it down in this form in order to raise the question of principle involved. Those six lines that I propose to omit in effect put upon the exercise of the Minister's discretion, as granted by the first four lines of the paragraph, two specific conditions, no doubt in order to satisfy anxieties on the part of local authorities, and I understand and sympathise with the motive which led the Minister to put those words in the Clause; but before we let them go as they stand, I think the Committee ought to consider exactly what their scope is by way of limiting the Minister's discretion. The paragraph, after the addition of the words "and progress" in line 10, creates a standard by reference both to efficiency and progress, and, therefore, the word "standards" in line 13 must be standards relating both to efficiency and to progress; and with that in mind let us read the first part of these limitations:
    "regard being had to the standards of efficiency and progress maintained in other areas whose financial resources and other relevant circumstances are substantially similar."
    You have ex hypothesi some other area the local authority of which is wholly backward and wholly inefficient. Unfortunately, that is a possibility that one must face, and as those words stand the authority whose scheme was being considered by the Minister could say, "Authority 'A' does not do any of these things, and the Act says you must have regard to what is done by authorities in a similar position to ourselves. You have no right to ask us to do these
    802
    various things, to carry out these newfangled notions of yours about child welfare, and maternity, and mental defectives, and everything else. We do not think they are necessary. We do not like all this business. "The danger we have to foresee is of these words being used to prevent the Minister acting in cases where he thinks he ought to act, and the same is applicable, from a different angle, in regard to the next condition, in line 15. The Minister must be satisfied, first, that the council have failed to achieve a reasonable standard of efficiency and progress, and, secondly:
    "that the health of the inhabitants of the area —is likely to be thereby endangered."
    The Minister has an Amendment down to add, after the word "health," in line 16, the words "or welfare," so I assume that those words are in. "Endangered" is not a very good word to apply to welfare, and no doubt the Minister on the Report stage will substitute some word that is more appropriate such as "prejudiced." If welfare is defined, as it will be on the definition Clause, Clause 112, if the Minister accepts an Amendment of mine, as including mental welfare, probably that condition is unobjectionable with those additions to it, so that it should read:
    "and that the physical or mental health or welfare of the inhabitants of the area —is likely to be thereby"
    prejudiced. I do not think—
    The CHAIRMAN: To what Amendment is the right hon. and learned Member referring now?
    Sir L. SCOTT: I am referring to an Amendment on the Paper which may be accepted, an Amendment to Clause 112, when we come to it, defining health as including mental as well as physical health, and I am assuming that that will be put in and that we ought to judge the wording of this paragraph on the assumption that that subsequent Amendment is made. Whether it is done or not already is immaterial, but as a matter of fact it is down in my name, and on those alterations which I conceive may be made in lines 15 to 18 when we deal with them, and hereafter when we deal with Clause 112, I see no objection to that second condition; but the first condition still seems to me open to serious comment, and for that reason I have on

    803
    the Paper, as an alternative to the omission of these words, another Amendment, at the top of page 368 of the Order Paper—in line 15, after the word "similar," to insert the words:
    "provided that in the opinion of the Minister they are not unduly backward."
    I do not mind which of the two is done, and I leave it to the Minister to consider between now and the Report stage. I submit very earnestly that the Minister ought to make quite sure that he is not, so to speak, handicapped, that his hands are not tied, by a reference to what other authorities are doing, even although they may be thoroughly backward.
    Sir K. WOOD: I propose to address myself to the Amendment which is now before the Committee, which is to leave out the two conditions set out in this paragraph, or rather the subjects to which the Minister shall have regard. The two matters are, first, the one called the standard, and, secondly, that the health of the inhabitants of the area is likely to be endangered. If this Amendment were carried, it would remove both those matters from the operation of the Clause and would leave the Minister practically untied. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has referred already to the drastic nature of the Clause. It is true that it gives considerable power to the Minister, though, of course, any action that he takes is subject to examination in Parliament, but if you remove both these matters from the Clause, I think in very deed the criticisms of the hon. Member for Leith would have much more weight even than they have now, and it would leave the operation of the Clause practically at the discretion of the Minister of Health for the time being.
    There are different kinds of Ministers of Health. I can conceive of a very different Minister of Health from the present one, and he might have a very different idea as to how he should put this Clause into operation. That, indeed, would be a very difficult matter from the point of view of Parliament, but it would make it still more difficult and uncertain from the point of view of the local authorities. After all, they have to be considered in this matter, and if it is simply to be left as my right hon. Friend
    804
    has suggested by this Amendment, no local authority would know where they stood in the matter. From that point of view, these considerable powers should not be left in the hands of the Minister of Health without any guidance at all. I must resist the Amendment on these grounds, and we can later discuss whether the two matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are sufficient. They are no doubt appropriate to another Amendment on the Paper. The Committee will recognise that there must be some guidance in this matter, and some such conditions as are laid down in the Clause.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The Committee will agree that in giving the Minister such enormous powers as are here proposed, there should be some guidance in the manner in which he should exercise them. If there is to be any guidance, I think that the second principle suggested is probably the better one, namely, that if he takes action he should do it where the health of the people is likely to be endangered. The other condition, that regard should be had
    "to the standards maintained in other areas whose financial resources and other relevant circumstances are substantially similar,"
    is one to which reasonable objection might be taken. If it means that the rich towns are to be compared with rich towns, and poor towns with poor towns, the Minister is setting up a standard which is entirely irrelevant. It may well be that a group of poor towns has a very low standard of efficiency, and that equally poor towns, because of other circumstances, can well attain a much higher standard of efficiency, because efficiency is not entirely a matter of expenditure of money. We might quite well be in a position to impose a high standard of efficiency upon a local authority which we could not impose if we are merely to have regard to the other towns which are in similar financial circumstances.
    What will happen under this Clause? Take a town which does not live up to the standard of other similar towns, whatever they may be—and, after all, we are leaving the Minister to determine that for himself; the Clause simply suggests similar financial resources, but the Minister will determine the standard for himself. Note what happens. A council

    805
    that is not maintaining the standard of the average town in similar circumstances is to have its grant reduced, and it thereby becomes less able to fulfil even that minimum standard. When another town comes along, the Minister measures it against other similar towns, including the town whose efficiency is already impaired by its grant being reduced, and the standard of that second town goes down. In the case of a third town, its public health services are compared by reference to the standard of the other towns in that particular group, including the two towns whose services have already been impaired by the action of the Government, and this kind of method, if it is effectively administered, will not lead to progressive improvement in the public services. It may well lead to their progressive deterioration.
    It may be in many towns that, although the general financial circumstances of the towns as a whole are the same, some authorities are for various reasons in a position to expend more on their health services than other towns with much the same sort of resources, and we are to tie their hands and say that it will be good enough for those towns if they maintain the standard which has been reached by other towns which are as well off or as poorly off. Finally, I would like to ask what "other relevant circumstances" are. I can understand financial resources, but what are "other relevant circumstances. What are the other tests which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to apply when he is going to compare the exercise of health service by one authority with those or other authorities?
    Mr. E. BROWN: This matter is important from two points of view: first, what is the standard from the point of view of the local authorities; and, second, what is the standard from the point of view of the Minister? They are very important, because what the Minister reckons the standard in one town may not suit the circumstances in another. The hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) smiles, but it is important from the point of view of the kind of services in which she is very interested. What is bound to happen with a fixed sum of money is that competition will be set up as
    806
    between successive Ministers and between idealists on local authorities as to which particular kind of public service to be served by the grant shall have priority of treatment. That is one of the greatest dangers of this method of grant as compared with the percentage grant.
    I cannot agree with the Amendment, because there must be some relevant data, but, when we set up standards of this kind, the local authorities ought to have some standard set up in the Bill as to what is meant by "other relevant circumstances" besides finance; otherwise, the competition which I foresee must be inevitable. People who care for tubercular services will press for an undue share, and those who want maternity services will press for an undue share also. One Minister of Health will take one point of view, and another will take another point of view as to what is an adequate service in the sum total of the public health services. The wording of the conditions in the Clause are very vague, but I cannot vote for the Amendment because I think the Clause gives the Minister extraordinary powers which are unprecedented in the history of local government.
    Mr. GERALD HURST: I support the view put forward that this Amendment in its present form is unreasonable and cannot sustain criticism for a moment. The effect of the Amendment would be to deprive the State of the only checks to the extraordinary and unprecedented power given to bureaucracy by this Clause. As an hon. Member has said, the Clause gives the Minister of Health complete dominion in these matters. It is unfortunate that the Clause makes no provision for any appeal from his arbitrary discretion. The only appeal is to Parliament, and that is not a direct appeal at all, for all that happens is that a Report is laid before Parliament, There is no room for any appeal to the Courts, and the effect of the Clause is that, if a Minister takes a fanatical view of the obligations of a local authority, he has the power not only to cut down the grant-to the local authority by a moderate extent, but he can deprive it of the whole block grant without any appeal to a Court of Law. It is therefore most desirable that the standard set up should not be an absolute standard in the discretion of the Minister, but should be a relative standard. Therefore, any

    807
    reasonable safeguard provided in the Clause ought to be cherished and preserved.
    The Committee has been asked what other relevant circumstances there may be besides financial resources. I can suggest one or two. If there be no effective demand for certain types of social services, that will be a relevant circumstance which the local authority ought to be able to set up against any claim by the Minister that it is not discharging its services properly. If the services have not been previously carried on by local authorities and are in a new and experimental stage, that would be a circumstance which the local authority ought to be entitled to rely upon. There is no need to speculate what these circumstances are. It is common justice that local authorities against whom this tremendous sanction is being enforced ought to be able to set up any relevant defence which it thinks should be set up, and there is no need to postulate what all those conceivable defences should be. These two provisions, which the Amendment would delete, are safeguards against the abuse of the enormous powers granted to the Minister. We do not want to see the Minister so enthroned and entrenched that his discretion cannot be challenged in any way at all. The Amendment goes to the roots of the only possible ways in which a local authority can defend itself. All methods of defence ought to be open to a local authority, and it should be for the Minister then to decide whether these defences are ill or well founded.
    Sir L. SCOTT: In view of the discussion that has taken place, I would like to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment if the Minister can assure the Committee that he will think over this question between now and the Report stage—
    The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. and learned Member cannot conditionally withdraw his Amendment. If he wishes to withdraw the Amendment, I must ask the leave of the Committee at once. Does he wish to withdraw?
    Sir L. SCOTT: If you please.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The CHAIRMAN: Does the right hon. and learned Member wish to move any of his following Amendments?
    Sir L. SCOTT: No, I think that they have been sufficiently discussed.
    Amendment made:
    In page 68, line 16, after the word "health," to insert the words "or welfare."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 68, line 19, to leave out paragraph (ii).
    5.0.p.m.
    Paragraph (a) of this Clause sets out two conditions, and I am moving to leave out the second. Under the first part and under Paragraph (b) it will be the duty of the Minister to reduce the grant payable by him in respect of public health services and road services if he can show that any public health services or road services which comes within this part of the Bill, whether they are assisted out of State funds or not, are not being conducted on what he regards as a proper standard of efficiency. That gives him an enormous new power over certain non-grant earning services, a power which no Minister ever had before. Paragraph (ii) is the converse of that. The Minister may reduce the grant payable to a local authority if he is satisfied
    "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."
    This is more far-reaching than the first paragraph, which is confined to the discharge of public health functions. This paragraph deals with any expenditure of the council, so far as I understand it. It is true that he may only reduce the grant payable under this part of the Bill, but he can reduce it in respect of expenditure on any item undertaken by any local authority. This is a very serious state of affairs. The first paragraph increases the powers of the Minister very considerably, but the second paragraph increases them much further. Suppose a local authority is developing its expenditure on education, which has really nothing whatever to do with the Minister; or its expenditure on highways, or on some non-grant earning service. The right hon. Gentleman is able to come along and say: "I think that you have spent too much

    809
    on that; it is true I am not giving any grant in respect of this service, or it may be that such grant as is being paid is being paid through some other State Department," and he is going to put himself in the position where he can reduce the grant for special health services as a sort of protest against what he regards as excessive expenditure on the part of the local authority. It will enable him, to take the case of the £4 minimum wage, presumably to reduce his grant in respect of the health services because a local authority spent too much on the wages of its employés. That clearly would be part of the expenditure of the council which the Minister no doubt would think excessive.
    That is not my only ground of complaint against this part of the Clause. I think it is bad enough that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is going to make himself a judge of the whole expenditure of the local authorities. But the matter is even more important than that. This seems to be an unreasonable interference with the rights of local government bodies. They have been accustomed to the right hon. Gentleman acting in this direction. I have in mind two previous Measures which have reached the Statute Book, for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible, which limited and restricted the freedom of local authorities. It seems to me that, in taking over the functions of the district auditor, which is what this Clause appears to do, he is again interfering in an unreasonable way with the legitimate freedom of local government bodies. I believe that local authorities, subject to the maintenance of proper standards of administration, should have the maximum amount of freedom allowed to them. I am glad that the Minister is going to do something to tone up and improve health services; but I do not think he is called upon to make himself a kind of censor over all municipal expenditure.
    If this control is to be exercised in respect to expenditure for which no grant is given by the State, it seems to be outside his province to interfere with the discretion of local authorities. If it be that their expenditure is illegal, or that it has arisen out of corrupt practices, or bribery or something that is immoral, he would be entitled to take very strong
    810
    action; but where it is a matter arising out of deliberate policy on the part of the local authority, it is not for the Minister to question it as being excessive and unreasonable. We have already been reminded this afternoon that Ministers come and go, and that one may take one view of his duties and another Minister another view. Certainly Ministers would take widely different views as to whether the expenditure of. a council had been reasonable or not. Some Minister would regard as justifiable expenditure which another Minister would not regard in that way. Then there is a difficulty in defining what is reasonable or excessive, and it is not a kind of power that ought to be given to the Minister. We are in many ways putting the screw on the local authorities, insisting upon higher standards, and putting them under greater control. Within limits I do not complain of that, but I do complain that the Minister takes upon himself the power of judging the wisdom of the expenditure of local authorities as a whole.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I thought some other hon. Member of the Committee would wish to develop his views about this particular paragraph of this Clause, especially as a large number of hon. Members have put their names down to the Amendment. As they all seem a little retiring, however, on this occasion, I will step into the breach and justify the insertion of the Clause I do not deny for one moment that the power given to the Minister here is a substantial one, nor that it is a novel one, but the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) has, I think, a little exaggerated the scope of it. I would call attention to the words which are used. The expenditure must have been excessive and unreasonable having regard to the financial resources of the area. The hon. Member, while he criticised the giving of this power to the Minister, did not tell us whether in his view the Minister should have no power to interfere if a local authority were using the money which is given to it by the State in an extravagant way.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I think it is clear that, where this block grant is given in respect to certain services, the Minister is entitled to exercise this control. My point is that he is to exercise these powers outside the services which come within the terms of this Bill.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member had put down an Amendment which conveyed that, we might have discussed that particular point. But I demur to the idea that the block grant is given solely for the purposes of public health services, because the local authority is given the block grant partly in view of the discontinued grants, not all of which are for public health, and partly in view of the rates which the local authorities can use for any purpose. If a local authority chooses to use part of the block grant, not for health services but for education, there is nothing in the scheme of the Government to prevent their doing so, providing they do not let down the health services to a point which the Minister considers is too low. The amount and proportion of the local authority's income not from its own ratepayers but from the State, is going to be very large indeed; it is going to be over 50 per cent. in some cases. Can the Committee face the idea of a local authority using this money, paid by the taxpayers and not by the ratepayers, in such a way as to waste that money, to lower its credit, and to help to bring the whole administration of that area nearly to beggary? It is quite unthinkable that that would be allowed, and you must have some power to say that their expenditure is excessive and unreasonable. I shall not occupy my present office for ever; but I am not thinking of myself. I do not want the Minister to be unduly influential, or to hold a dominating power over local government. But in the last resort Parliament and the Minister must bear the responsibility for good government anywhere in the country, whether it be local government or not, and therefore you cannot divest the Minister of his responsibility in this matter. The words I have put down here are words which, after a great deal of consideration, seem to me to be best adapted for the purpose I have in mind. I did not close my mind to Amendments, and if there had been any Amendments to these words which would have had the effect of modifying them or altering them, I certainly would have given them careful consideration, but if the only alternative be to take them out altogether, then I think that would leave us in such a position as the Committee would not feel justified in sanctioning.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I think the Committee will agree that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman has justified those of us who waited for him to speak. I had put down on my notes this question: "Is there any precedent for enabling a Minister or a central department to withhold grant from a local authority merely because the local authority's own expenditure appears to the official at the centre to be excessive and unreasonable?" That is the issue. I raised it on the previous Sub-section in a much more difficult place; now I am on much easier ground. The fact is that the block grant here meets its Waterloo. The Minister is up against defeat. He is Napoleon, and he has met his Waterloo.
    Mr. LANSBURY: A pinchbeck Napoleon!
    Mr. BROWN: He has chosen to say that he would introduce an entirely new principle of giving grants over some 20 per cent. of the total field of local and national grant expenditure. Having done that, he now realises that the old system had these two advantages, that it was simple, and that the money paid under it went to the precise services for which it was allocated. He has produced his new system, and he is up against this problem, that under the consolidated grant he cannot control local authorities in the spending of that grant. The: local authorities can choose how they will allocate the money and need not allocate it to the particular health services which have been receiving it, under the present system. In this dilemma he now proposes to exercise control not only over money provided for those services, but over the whole field of the expenditure of local authorities. If it appears to him or to his successors that, having regard to the rates per head, I suppose, too much money is being spent on any service, he can reduce to any amount the sum which is due to that local authority under the block grant, or, as it appears to me under the first pare of the Clause, he can even wipe out the whole grant, though I agree there would have to be a very strong case to justify the Minister going that far. But the point which seems to me to be unprecedented is that the Minister, under cover of his new block grant, now seeks to interfere with local authorities in the expenditure of money which is entirely their own, which is

    813
    raised by the ratepayers and controlled by the elected representatives of the ratepayers. If any particular Minister takes objection to the services on which it is spent he can say: "I will cut down the proportion, or I will take away altogether, your general Exchequer contribution." That seems to me to be so novel a procedure that I have doubted whether he could do it, and that is why I wrote down the question as to whether there was any precedent for it. I do not believe there is.
    This question raises the whole issue of the system of grants. At the moment the State's subvention is safeguarded in two directions. First, it is limited in amount, so as to leave a large measure of responsibility with the local authority, and, secondly, there is a limitation in administration so that the central Exchequer should retain some measure of control. I would not blame the Minister if he were seeking to maintain control over his own services, to make sure that money was not being wasted upon his own services, but he is now seeking to get power—
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member must not speak about the Minister's own services as if the Minister were merely Minister for the health services. He is the Minister for local government.
    Mr. BROWN: When I am speaking of his own services I am speaking only of the services towards which the State pays the subvention, In the case of the majority of public health services the State pays 50 per cent. The point is that the Minister is now taking power to interfere with services to which the State gives no grant. Under the wording of this Clause it appears to me that if a Minister thinks a particular authority has, in the exercise of its own judgment as to what is best for the needs of its area, spent too much money then, whether he is providing any part of that money or not, he has the extraordinary power of being able to limit the general Exchequer contribution to that authority. That is so far-reaching a power that the Committee ought not to consent to it without the most severe criticism and the closest investigation.
    I cannot think that the Minister, when he thought of making these block grants on an arbitrary system, according to a
    814
    formula, foresaw that the local authorities could take the moneys which hitherto have been given for certain specific services and apply them to services for which they were not originally given. That is the nemesis of his system. Although the old system of percentage grants had its difficulties, it had these three advantages. First, the moneys provided did go to the services to which they were allocated. Secondly, the system was much more simple than this one; and in financial matters I say that it is not enough that justice should be done, but the people must understand that justice is being done. Thirdly, the percentage grant system only gave the Minister power over the services towards which the Treasury made a contribution. This is a very dangerous Sub-section; indeed, I think the whole Clause is dangerous. When the Minister asks us on the Opposition side what alternative we have, he knows quite well that we should prefer the alternative of the percentage grant. He knows, also, that he is in this dilemma, that in order to make sure that the moneys provided do go to the appropriate health services he must take some extraordinary power of this kind over the whole field. As I said before, the next fight this nation and this House will have to undertake will be a fight to control the bureaucracy, both in its growth in size and its growth in power, which menace democratic government in this country.
    Captain MACMILLAN: Although the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has made an eloquent speech, I cannot say that he has convinced me of the gross iniquity of this particular Sub-section. If he thought the Minister met his Waterloo in this Clause, I am afraid the hon. Member's highest ambition was to play the part of Louis XVIII, because his speech was an eloquent defence of the ancien regime; everything under the present system is as good as it can be, all changes are for the worse and we are committed to radical and revolutionary changes of which we ought to be ashamed. Having studied this Clause with very great care from many points of view, I have come to the conclusion that the Minister has had to do two things. He has to use it for the purpose of keeping up a sufficiently high standard of public services on the part of local authorities and seeing that they do not fall below

    815
    a certain level; and if power is given to the Minister to insist upon the maintenance of certain standards, it is only a reasonable corollary that he should have power to object to gross and unreasonable extravagance. We cannot have it both ways. Either we must trust local government altogether, or else those of us who are interested in the question of public health and have been asking that the Minister should be able to exercise power over local authorities in that matter must also agree, logically, that he ought to have power to curb extravagance. I think that on the whole we prefer the great advantage which has been gained by strengthening this Clause so as to give the Minister the power to see that local authorities maintain these services; and we on this side of the Committee are accordingly prepared to accept the corollary, the natural and logical corollary, that he should have power to prevent any unreasonable or excessive expenditure.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain MacMillan) really meets our point in this matter. Already the Committee have unanimously safeguarded these services. The Minister has all the power which he can require in order to keep local administration up to the mark in the matter of public health and the services mentioned in the preceding part of the Clause. This last part has nothing at all to do with the efficiency of the work in which most of us are interested. The Sub-section which we are now discussing does not refer to that at all. The Minister is here introducing new powers, which he has not attempted to justify from the point of view of keeping local councils up to the standard of efficiency. He and the hon. and gallant Member have talked of gross extravagance, but there is a great difference of opinion as to what is extravagance in local administration. It seems only the other day that people were objecting to money being expended by local authorities on baths and washhouses, on public libraries, and other amenities of life for the people in poor districts. In my view, the major objection to this Sub-section is that the right hon. Gentleman takes power to decide what a local authority shall do with what is practically their own money. Owing to
    816
    the ridiculous manner in which the Government have dealt with finance in the Bill, they have muddled up with the block grant money which by no stretch of imagination can be called State money.
    It may be that it is for the convenience of the State to reduce the rateable value of an area and to relieve certain people in that area of the burden of having to pay rates, but the House has acknowledged that in that case it is also the duty of the State to make up that loss of revenue to the area. We would have preferred that this money should have been kept out of the pool altogether, but as it) is now in the pool and is part of the block grant, we object to the Minister having the power to decide that a town council, say, is grossly extravagant because it has spent that part of the block grant which represents the money paid to it to make up for the loss of rates in extending social services which Ministers like those now sitting opposite may hold to be grossly extravagant services. We deny altogether the right of any Minister—for my part I deny altogether the right of the present Ministers—to have this power added to their already tremendous powers. At the present moment they have enormous powers over local authorities in regard to local expenditure. If a local authority grossly abuses its powers it can be taken to the Courts by the auditor. The power of the district auditor is greater and more far-reaching to-day owing to the legislation of the Minister of Health than it has been at any previous time in the history of local government. The auditor has now power to settle questions of policy, whereas previously he only had the power to deal with questions affecting the right expenditure of money under certain Acts of Parliament.
    Owing to the very wide powers which have been given to the district auditor, he can now determine questions of policy. The auditor has enormous powers under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, but even without those. powers the Minister of Health has all the power he needs, through the district auditor, to deal with extravagance, and he has also power to deal with anything in the nature of corruption. What is going to happen now is what has happened during the whole period of the administration of the Minister of Health. All those who

    817
    disagree with the right hon. Gentleman as to his methods of administration, or as to how public money shall be spent, are considered by the right hon. Gentleman to be people unworthy of being local government administrators. It is always a question of policy when these matters are decided. The Minister of Health is asking in this Clause that he shall be given an additional power to take away grants. Already the right hon. Gentleman has tremendous powers over the local authorities because he can withhold his sanction of loans. Nearly all the distress in the country would have been very much alleviated if the Minister of Health had not treated local authorities in the very harsh manner that he has treated them, especially outside London, by withholding his sanction to certain expenditure by way of loan.
    It all comes down to a question of the judgment of the Minister of Health against the judgment of local councillors and others. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor anyone else in that position can possibly be divested of his own particular outlook. They bring into their judgment what they consider is their particular point of view, and principles which they think ought to govern national and local affairs. I say that they have no right to do that over the heads of the ratepayers who elect councils to do certain work and who provide the money. It is not good enough for the Minister of Health to try to evade this issue by saying that he must safeguard the money provided by Parliament. I think we all agree that the money actually provided by Parliament for public services should be safeguarded, and it is safeguarded in the earlier part of this Clause. What we are now objecting to is the claim of the Minister of Health to say to local authorities how they shall spend their own money. The electors who elect the members of town councils are the same people who elect members of Parliament, and it is only right that we should consider that they exercise as right a judgment in electing a council as they do when they elect members of the House of Commons.
    It is because we believe that local authorities should have the right to spend their own money without interference from the right hon. Gentleman that we
    818
    ask the Committee to reject this paragraph of the Clause. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that we ought to take certain action because be was not always sure who would be sitting on the Government Benches, but I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that we cannot legislate for the future. I look upon the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary as two of the most reactionary persons that have ever occupied those positions. Ever since the Minister of Health has been in the office which he now holds he has never lost an opportunity of doing his best to thwart the work of local authorities whose political opinion he does not agree with. The Minister of Health is very courageous and bold when dealing with some weak local authority, and he has devoted nearly the whole of his time while in office to an endeavour to crush the growing power of Labour majorities up and down the country. It is quite certain that if this paragraph of the Clause is carried, and if the Minister of Health or anyone like him occupies the position of Minister of Health in years to come, this paragraph would confer a power by which the Minister could cripple and hinder Socialists and Labour men who might desire to extend social services in directions to which the present Minister of Health objects, and he would be able to prevent them from carrying out their policy. For these reasons, I hope the Committee will reject the paragraph.
    Mr. ATKINSON: In the particular case which we are now discussing I do not see any alternative to that which is put forward in the Clause. It is claimed that this paragraph is an interference with reasonable expenditure, and also an interference with the rights of local authorities. I do not concede the right of a local authority to indulge in excessive and unreasonable expenditure. I do not agree that this Clause interferes with the legitimate freedom of local authorities, and I am quite convinced that there must be in this Bill some power to interfere with local authorities if their expenditure is excessive and unreasonable. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has suggested that this control of local expenditure ought to be left to the auditor, but that would be merely conferring autocratic powers on the auditor.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. and learned Member not aware that these powers are already vested in the auditor?
    Mr. ATKINSON: They are not the powers conferred under this paragraph, because those powers have not yet come into existence. If you give these powers to the auditor you are merely transferring autocratic powers from one person to another. Of course, the auditor has only the facts of his own district before him, while the Minister has an opportunity of taking a much broader view. The Minister of Health has a bird's eye view of the expenditure of the whole country, and he is much better able to compare the expenditure of one district with another. In these circumstances, I should have thought that the Minister of Health would be in a much better position to arrive at a just decision than the auditor.
    Another objection which has been raised is that we are giving the Minister power to interfere with expenditure towards which no grant is to be made. As I understand this Bill there is no service of any kind to which the Crown does not contribute. Once we get the derating of industry, that is something which will affect the whole system of local government, and it is really a grant in aid of all the services of the local authority. I want to raise a point with regard to increased expenditure, and I wish to ask whether it will affect in any way the proportion to which districts may be entitled in subsequent years when the appropriation comes to be considered. I understand that the actual expenditure may affect the amount allotted to the district in subsequent appropriations. If that be so, then excessive expenditure in a district would be entitled to more than it would otherwise have been entitled to if it had been more economical.
    Mr. GILLETT: The arguments which have been adduced by hon. Members opposite in regard to the money which is to be granted seem to have overlooked one important fact, and it is that the Government are proposing to take away £24,000,000 over which the local bodies have had entire control in the past. The Government claim that they have the right to have a voice in regard to the way that money is to be expended, and consequently in this Clause they are giving such power to the present Minister
    820
    of Health and those who may follow in that office in the matter of the control of local expenditure. I am not sure that, as the years go by, hon. Members will not regret this Clause even more than hon. Members on this side. They accept the fact that powers are being given to the Minister, forgetful that Ministers change. Ministers may sit on that bench whose views are the exact opposite of those of its present occupants, and who may begin to interfere in local government in a way which hon. Members opposite may dislike excessively. To take an extreme case, it would be interesting to see a Socialist Minister who thought that the entertainments and banquets of the Corporation of the City of London were excessive, and informed them, as it would be quite possible for him to do under this Clause, that he proposed to limit the grant that the City of London would get under some Clause of this Measure. It is quite evident that such a thing is not what the right hon. Gentleman is intending or thinking of in this Clause. What he is thinking of, of course, is the question of the expenditure of Poplar.
    The real question before the Committee is this, that we ought to allow the local body to govern itself, and to make up our minds whether we are satisfied to let it govern itself, even if in many respects it is going to govern itself, as we think, badly. Some of us may think that, in the case of what I may call Conservative local bodies who have inefficient health services, it would be better to have some dictator to sting them up, while hon. Members opposite think it would be well to have some dictator to stop Labour activities. The one section thinks that there should be a Mussolini, while the other wants a Lenin; but I am not sure that it would not be far wiser for this Committee to leave both of these foreign ideas out of their minds, and stick to the old English idea of leaving the local bodies to govern themselves. If I may take another illustration, the danger to local government is this. We all recognise that there are sure to be expansions of local government, and if those expansions take place, it is quite likely that to the official world they will seem at first to be foolish.
    I would ask the Committee to throw their minds back, as many can, including the Parliamentary Secretary, to those

    821
    early days of the London County Council when Lord Rosebery and those who worked with him initiated a number of new things. One of the things that they initiated was what is now a recognised principle of all local bodies, namely, the payment of trade union rates of wages; but in those days this was looked upon as quite a revolutionary proceeding, and was objected to in many quarters. The large expenditure which was incurred in London on what we to-day regard as improvements would in those days have been considered to be excessive. If a reactionary Minister at the Ministry of Health or, as it was then, the Local Government Board, had had these powers, he would have been able, to a large extent, to stop that work, which Members on all sides to-day recognise as beneficial, and which the Conservative majority of the London County Council are continuing. That seems to me to be the danger of Clauses of this kind. If there are to be developments, mistakes are sure to be made. No people are perfect, and those who undertake developments will make mistakes, but I believe it would be far wiser if this Committee left to the local bodies the powers they have had in the past, without thinking that, simply because a certain amount of money is granted to them, they must be put under control.
    If these grants were percentage grants, there would be a good deal to be said for the Clause, but they are fixed on other grounds, and, broadly speaking, are not percentage grants. The advantage to the local authority of economising still remains, because extravagance on their part simply means that they are going to spend their ratepayers' money, and not the money represented by these grants. If, on the other hand, they economise, the result will be that their rates will not be increased. The way in which the grant is made to the local authority is not dependent upon its expenditure, but upon population and a number of other factors. Supposing that the authority is extravagant, the extra money will have to be raised in the ordinary way from the ratepayers; its grant is not increased because of its extravagance. If, on the other hand, it is economical, the grant remains the same, but there is economy in the rates. Under the Government's scheme, the extravagance is thrown upon the ratepayers, and we must look to the
    822
    ratepayers to exercise the powers that they have at the elections. If they are not satisfied, and consider that their authority is extravagant, they can settle the question by using the power that is in their hands when an election comes. It will be far wiser for this Committee to leave the local government of this country on the old lines, and allow the local bodies to go on as they have in the past.
    Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: There seem to be two misconceptions in the minds of those hon. Members who have spoken from the Opposition benches. One is their very unusual and curious idea of what is meant by the word "control." I have listened to the Debate on this Amendment, and all the Opposition Members seem to have agreed that some degree of control is reasonable and desirable, but their conception of control is that it consists in being able to admit more and more speed to the engine. The idea that control also involves applying the brake seems to be anathema to them—
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am not sure that the hon. Member has been here all the time, but we have already carried paragraph (i), which does put on the brake if the council are. not doing their duty.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: The objections raised by the hon, Member and by others of his colleagues seem to indicate that their idea is that control really only means being able to open the throttle valve; the idea that control also embraces control by the brake seems to be anathema to Members of the Opposition. The other curious misconception is this. Anyone who has had no experience of local government in this country would think, after listening to the speeches of the Opposition that the local authorities are in a perpetual state of guerilla warfare with the Ministry of Health. I have taken an active part in the work of local government for a number of years, and during that period I have come into contact with Ministers of Health of all parties, including the Labour Minister of Health; and I think I am right in saying that never yet have we had to complain of any interference of any kind whatsoever. Whenever I have come into contact with the Department at any point of local administration.

    823
    the point has always been raised from our end, and in nine cases out of 10 it has been a request for the help, experience and guidance of the Ministry on some point in regard to which the local authority was in a difficulty.
    The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has, I believe, been connected with a local authority which has thought fit to conduct a continual warfare with the Ministry of Health, and it seems to be the opinion of many of his colleagues also that that is a normal state of affairs. It is, however, a most unusual state of affairs as between the Ministry of Health and the local authorities. [Interruption.] My experience is that the Minister of Health and the Department have always adopted the attitude that, if a local authority can administer the finances of its district on sound lines, they are not going to interfere with the freedom of action in any respect. If there is to be any control at all, it must be real control, including control of the brake as well as of the throttle, and those members of the Committee who have not had personal experience of local government must not go away with the idea that guerilla warfare is the normal state of affairs between the local authorities and the Ministry of Health.
    Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I have a distinct recollection that, when we first started the proceedings on this Bill, ages ago, when the world was young, a definite pronouncement was made, either by the Minister of Health or by the Parliamentary Secretary, that one of the great advantages of the block grant system was that it was going to increase the autonomy of the local authorities. The present system involved, it was said, officials examining all the details of the expenditure, whereas under the block grant the money would be given and the local authorities could spend it exactly as they pleased. What freedom! How glorious! How splendid! Now we come, in this Clause, to the powder in the jam. It is just as though a father had told his son that at last he might have some money of his own to spend, and had then added that, if he spent it in any way wrongly, all the money could be taken away. That is what is now being said in this Clause.
    824
    The real fact of the matter is that, by the change from the percentage grant to the block grant system, the Minister has lost the control that he legitimately had and could legitimately exercise, and, because he has lost it, he is trying to get it back again by a side-wind. The power that he is now getting, however, is far more capricious and difficult to regulate for the individual Minister who is in control. The Minister is put in a position in which the only control that can be given to him is an absolutely unchecked and autocratic control. Because the system has been changed, he is made a Napoleon or a Mussolini. It must be remembered that there is not only the possibility that different Ministers with different ideas will administer these provisions, but also that there are different principles on which they may be administered. You may criticise expenditure from the point of view of the need of the locality, or from the point of view of the resources of the locality, and, starting on the one basis or on the other, you may arrive at totally different conclusions from exactly the same set of facts.
    It may be said of a given item of expenditure either that it is too little for the needs of the locality or that it is too much for the resources of the locality. It is easier to speak of it is if one were considering the question of some private person. One might say, of a man who had bought himself two pairs of boots, that for his needs he really should have four pairs, or it might be said, from the point of view of his resources, that he could not even afford to have one pair. The course that will be taken depends entirely upon the angle of mind from which one Minister or another approaches the problem. Therefore, it is not for hon. Members opposite or for the Minister to say that the burden lies upon Members on these benches to devise a system of control. The Minister had control before he altered the system. He has control now through the auditor by the power of surcharge, which, although admittedly not the same, is yet sufficient for all reasonable purposes. The impasse in which he has put himself is solely the result of the change to the block grant system, and he himself and those who follow him will be the first to regret it in the days that are to come.
    6.0.p.m.
    Sir K. WOOD: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) for reminding the Committee that the normal relationship of the Ministry of Health to the local authorities of this country is that of co-operation and partnership, and I think it may be said, speaking of local government generally, that our system, which we are now bringing up to date to meet modern conditions, is in many respects the best in the world; while, so far as local administrators are concerned, certainly, taking the great majority of them, they do their work excellently. It is not to deal with the great majority of local authorities that this Clause is suggested; it is to deal with the exceptional cases. The associations of local authorities have at no time, as far as I am aware, made any representations to us against this Clause. One knows the facts and situations with which the House has been confronted from time to time during the last few years and one is bound, as a proper precaution, to have regard to the experiences of local government in isolated cases in three or four parts of the country. The criticism of this Clause has been, to me, unexpected. The hon. Gentleman has taken exception to the fact that these powers are given to the Minister of Health in order that we may be able to maintain a reasonable standard of efficiency and progress, and we are now also dealing with what is really a corollary of it, to deal with those cases where a council has been excessive and unreasonable as far as its expenditure is concerned. The whole burden of the criticism in this House, and of the representations that we have been receiving at the Ministry of Health during the last few-months, was not to do away with the first part of this Clause but to strengthen it, and the whole of the Amendments which have been suggested to-day have been directed to strengthening rather than deleting it. In strengthening the Clause we are meeting the desires and wishes of the great majority of Members and, as far as I am aware, no objection has been expressed by the associations of local authorities. No one to-day has challenged the first part of the Clause, but only the second part, which gives the Minister power to reduce the grant payable where
    826
    "the expeaditure of the council has been excessive and unreasonable, regard being had to the financial resources and other relevant circumstances of the area."
    Anyone would think from what has been said that everything has been normal in the course of the administration of local authorities in the last three or four years. The attention of the House has from time to time been occupied in considering the cases of a few local authorities who have certainly acted unreasonably and in an improper way. One of the Acts that we are repealing is the Hoards of Guardians (Default) Act, which was passed with the assent of the great majority of the House and I believe in accordance with the overwhelming opinion of the country. It was passed to deal with cases which could be gone into under the jurisdiction of the second part of this Clause. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) challenges this matter, because I remember very well, at the time when the Boards of Guardians (Default) Bill was going through the House, Sir Herbert Samuel, speaking with all the authority that he possesses in relation to the Liberal party, said he thoroughly approved of the action that had been taken, and his only criticism was that the Government had not applied it to more places than they had hitherto done. Yet we hove the hon. Member for Leith, as we should expect from him, criticising a power which is certainly much less in many respects than my right hon. Friend possesses under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act. (We are repealing it because we say this is an effective power which we hope will be sufficient. When we brought in that exceptional legislation it was with the hope, which has been fulfilled, that the very fact that the power was in the hands of the Minister, entrusted to him by the. House, would be sufficient to prevent, further maladministration.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Was not one of those reasons that you are doing away with the guardians?
    Sir K. WOOD: When you are transferring the powers of the guardians to the local authorities, the question arises whether that power ought not to continue generally. My point is that the power in this Clause is much less drastic that was contained in the Boards

    827
    of Guardians (Default) Act. My own belief is that the very fact that there is this power in the Bill will prevent that type of conduct concerning which the majority of the House thought it necessary to take exceptional measures. It simply means that the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act will go, except in specified exceptional cases, and, without this provision, if there was this type of person taking part in administration in the larger authorities they would he unchecked. There is a certain measure of power under the audit but it is not sufficient. People could snap their fingers and avoid the consequences of their action. It is in order to have some similar power to that of the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act that this Clause is suggested. That Act undoubtedly has the support of the country and of the great body of men and women who want to see good local government, and who believe there must be an exceptional power of this kind to deal with exceptional oases, of which we have already had experience in this Parliament.
    Miss LAWRENCE: I wish to approach this question from the point of view of the constitution and of administration. The Parliamentary Secretary never can deal with a big question of principle on broad lines. When we are dealing with a matter affecting the ancient rights of local authorities, the position of the guardians, and the position of the Department relative to Parliament and the local authorities, all he can give us is some little chatter about two or three local authorities. I will endeavour to treat the question seriously. To begin with, the Minister of Health pointed out that the need for this was that some local authorities, through the operation of derating, would be left with only 50 per cent. of their revenue. He rather stressed that case too much. There are very few authorities who are so much de-rated, and they are small rural authorities who will have very little more power than parish councils. This sum of £24,000,000 is a very large sum in itself, but it is only about one-seventh of the total rates that are raised. It is not of itself sufficient to do away with the natural incentive to economy. We are proposing something which is little short
    828
    of a revolution in the relations of local and national government. Local government is much older than national government. Towns made levies for local purposes before we had a Parliament at all. Therefore, we are dealing with a very ancient and sacred right of localities. That has been limited in several ways. In the first place, Parliament has laid duties on authorities which are obligatory and can be enforced by punishment in the courts. In the second place, where Parliament gives money, Parliament has the right to demand conditions, and, if they are not fulfilled, to reduce or take away the money. Thirdly, there is the sum that the local authorities themselves raise, and that has never been limited except by the powers of the courts.
    That is where the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman surprised me. He said: What does it matter whether the auditor does it or the Minister?" The auditor cannot do anything whatever unless the courts agree with his-decision, and it is a little surprising to me that a gentleman who belongs to the learned profession of the law should for a moment confuse the position of the Minister with that of the courts. There is all the difference in the world. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member would not wish to maintain that there was no difference between the auditor doing it, and going to the courts and proving his case, and between the Minister doing the same thing, at his own will, and controlled by nobody. Things may be done, and properly done, by the courts of law which are utterly objectionable if they are done" by the Minister, in camera. The courts have the right to inflict penalties, and very formidable penalties, on local councillors who spend unwisely or extravagantly. My objection is that it is now proposed to give to the Minister, improperly, as I think, a power which has never been given to any Minister, a power which is altogether foreign to the head of a Government Department.
    My second point is the question of administration. The Minister may cut down the grant which is given in substitution for rating value, for any expenditure which the local authority may incur out of its own money which he considers excessive. It will not be the Minister who will deal with the matter

    829
    in the first instance, but the officials of the Minister. Let us see how the powers of the bureaucracy are widened by this proposal of the Government. Take the question of the amount of lighting which is proper for a local authority. This House is situated in a district which allows itself a great deal of civic amenity in the way of lighting. Westminster is magnificently lighted. Is it too much or too little? Is it too much compared with the needs of the case? It is certainly a great deal more than many other local authorities have. The people of Westminster have said: "Here we are in the middle of the Empire, and in the middle of London. We will have our streets handsome to look at." Thereupon, they spend money, and the people are pleased.
    The other day, I went to Blackpool and I contemplated the manner in which Blackpool lights its streets. Blackpool in the evening in the season is one blaze of lights. The municipal tramways are clustered with coloured electric lights, transparencies and inscriptions, and they pass up and down the front in brilliant array. More than that, the local authority has fancy cars, in which nobody travels—gondolas, ships with sails of electrie lights, perambulating up and down the front, in charge of a conductor in a handsome uniform. I am told that the hon. Member who represents Blackpool in Parliament (Sir W. de Frece) has the uttermost hold on the affections of his constituency by the fact that he goes, at carnival time, on visits to the Riviera and various French towns and brings back to the municipality new and striking ideas. Who are the people who vote the money for this sort of thing, and why do they do it? The shopkeepers of Blackpool gladly vote the money, on the ground that it brings custom to the town. They say, and they have proved it to themselves that all this splendour of lights and decoration—the Town Hall is aglow with coloured lights, from top to bottom, every night—increases the prosperity and the sales of their town so much that it is an investment worth doing. Who can tell whether it is an idle expense or whether it is good business, but the citizens of Blackpool? They say that it is worth doing. Under this Clause, a patient, industrious official, studying lighting statistics in Whitehall, might say that Blackpool spends 10 or 100
    830
    times as much in proportion to its population on this service as it ought to do. In that case, the Ministry can put the people of Blackpool under the obligation of coming to Whitehall to prove to them—really, they could not prove it to them— or to tell them that, in their view, this is the very best investment and is responsible for bringing the crowds which flock to the town.
    Has anyone ever considered why it is that particular municipal services have progressed? It is not the business of a Government Department to institute new experiments in social work. Their duty is merely to keep up the backward authorities to an agreed level of reforms. They may not say: "It is desirable that this, that or the other experiment should be tried in new work, and we wish you to do it." As a matter of historic fact, nearly every improvement which we have now in local life, has been originally, the creation of some locality with expansive ideas, and has nearly always been disliked by the Government Department Let us go back to the eighties for instances. The School Board of London had very advanced ideas at that time in regard to education. It is a most curious thing to look back to see the expense which the School Board incurred, against the wishes of the Board of Education. For several years in the eighties a quarrel went on between the London School Board and the Board of Education on the question whether an elementary school should be built with school halls or not. I am afraid that had the views of the Board of Education prevailed there would not be any elementary schools in London with school halls. In the same way, instruction in housewifery and in domestic economy had to be pushed through by the London school authority in those days, in the teeth of opposition from the Board of Education.
    There are certain progressive movements which the Ministry of Health do not resist, but which they have no means of initiating. The infant welfare movement came through the initiative of two towns, Huddersfield and Bradford, which chose to spend the money of the ratepayers in an attempt to save the lives of infants. So successful were they in their efforts that the work was taken up and finally became a grant-earning service. No Minister ever suggested to any town that

    831
    they should institute an experimental service. Experiments which are so useful and so helpful in their nature are things which are often disliked by the central authority, and they are things which no central authority may initiate. I come back again to the extraordinary expansion of bureaucracy and to the extension of the power of the Minister, sitting in camera, at Whitehall. Those are bad things. If the ratepayers spend their money wildly and extravagantly there is, first of all, the remedy of the people of the district, who can turn out the wild councillors, and there is also the access to the Courts, who can bankrupt a man by charging the persons responsible with "the full amount of the improper expenditure, who can turn a man out of public life for five years, who can distrain upon him and inflict enormous injury upon him. I think the punishment which the Courts can inflict in this way are too severe. The Court of the Realm is the place to go to with regard to the moot point of how far the electors have the right to spend their own money.
    The expansion of bureaucracy is a very great evil. To carry out the proposals of the Government will mean investigation, officials, and a great expansion of bureaucratic machinery, all of which are bad things as proposed to be carried out in accordance with this Clause. I am not saying anything blameworthy in regard to any individual Minister or any person now occupying or likely to occupy the position of Minister of Health; but I think that Parliament might very well spend some time in considering the relation of the Minister, in camera, to the ordinary subject and ratepayer. This is, confessedly, a stop-gap Measure to fill up what appears to be a hole in the Bill. It is defended by the Parliamentary Secretary in nothing more than chatter about Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty. For these reasons, I think that this is a thoroughly bad Clause and repugnant to the right principles of democracy.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) has brought splendid logic to bear upon some of the points which have been raised by the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson). I want to deal more particu-
    832
    larly with a point made by the Parliamentary Secretary and one of his supporters, the hon. Member for Stockton (Captain Macmillan). Both the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton said that paragraph ii of this Clause was a necessary corollary to paragraph i. They said: "If we have the power in the Ministry of Health to compel additional expenditure, we ought, as a corollary, to have the power to prevent the local authorities from spending too much." I think that is an entirely false view of the circumstances, and I will illustrate it by an analogy presently. First, however, I note that the whole of the money from the national Exchequer is given to cover certain services and that, in consequence, we have a right to say: "If you do not carry out these services, we shall withdraw some of the grant." Members opposite contend that it is a corollary to suggest that if the local authority does certain things in excess, out of its own money, the Minister should have the right to withdraw the money given from the national Exchequer. I cannot see that that follows as a corollary in any way, and when I have given an illustration, I think the point will be clear to hon. Members.
    Let me take the case of a man who makes a housekeeping allowance to his wife, who has also a private income of her own. It is perfectly open to the man to say to his wife: "I give you this housekeeping allowance in order that you may keep the house in good condition. If you do not look after the house, if the service of the house is not rendered, if the food is not there to be eaten, I shall withdraw part of the housekeeping allowance, because you will not be spending the money on the requirements for which I gave you the money." But it does not follow, as a corollary, that if the husband gives to the wife a certain amount of money to spend on the requirements of the house, and if those requirements are fulfilled, he has a right to say to her: "Because I think you have spent your own money extravagantly upon your dress, I am going to withdraw some of the money which I gave to you for housekeeping."
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): That is not an analogous illustration.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In spite of what the Attorney-General says, I submit that my analogy is correct. If the wife has money of her own, and she spends it, the position is precisely similar to the spending of money which the local authority raises from their own rates, while on the other hand the money which the Government gives in the form of grant is precisely similar to the money which the husband gives for the purpose of housekeeping. It is not in the least the case that the Minister has any right to control the extravagance, if it be extravagance, of the local authority out of their own money, provided that the requirements for the services for which the Exchequer grants are given, are fulfilled. If he has the power given in the first part of this Sub-clause he does not need the power given in the second part. Without the power given in the first part of the Sub-clause money granted for certain purposes might be squandered on other purposes, but the fact that he has power to insist that all the things for which the grant is made shall be fulfilled renders it unnecessary for him to have the power proposed in the second part.
    Let me make it perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a party issue at all. There will be a Minister of Health who will take an entirely different view as to what is extravagance, and, as the hon. Member for East Ham North has said, it is not a question of what the Courts may describe as extravagant or unreasonable: it is what the particular Minister of Health considers is unreasonable. Take the question of the payments made by local authorities for services rendered. Certain hon. Members opposite take the view that payment for the services of labourers ought to be at the minimum standard paid to labourers, and if an authority pays a wage in excess of that amount they regard it as extravagant and unreasonable. In a case of that kind the Minister, under this Clause, could say that such a payment was; extravagant and withdraw part of the grant. But there are other people who take other views about what is extravagant. There are some who take the view that it is extravagant to pay highly-placed officials large salaries; that a certain maximum sum is the total amount which should be
    834
    given to a chief clerk or any other official. I am not expressing any opinion on the point. Suppose you had a Minister of Health who took the view that £1,000 a year was the maximum salary any town council should pay to any one of its officers, he has only to say that he is satisfied that the money is being spent extravagantly and demand that the local authority shall not pay more than £1,000 a year to any one of its servants. If they refused to toe the line the Minister could say, "Very well, I shall stop your grant." I want hon. Members opposite to take this point of view into consideration.
    This is not a purely imaginary case. Those who know what is taking place in some local authorities will recognise that it is a perfectly possible situation, and I suggest that it is an entirely false proposition to lay down in this House that a Minister has any right to interfere with what a local authority shall do with its own money. What he has a right to say is that if a grant is given for certain purposes he has a right to see that those services are efficiently managed and brought up to the requisite standard, if necessary. As to what a local authority shall do with its own money, that is a matter for the local authority itself and the ratepayers of the area; and, if necessary, for the Courts of the land; but to suggest that the Minister should have an over-riding power to decide what they shall do with their own money is a preposterous proposal.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I also want to refer to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that paragraph (b) is a necessary corollary of paragraph (a.)While the Minister, apparently, has no right, or has a full right as the case may be, to intimate to boards of guardians what relief they shall provide for the unfortunate applicants who come to them, we have found by experience in the past that while boards of guardians may pay as small a sum as they deem necessary, very frequently totally inadequate, the right hon. Gentleman has lost no opportunity of intimating that he welcomes their refusal in certain cases to give any relief at all. Those who sit on these benches cannot forget the Report of the Ministry of Health last year, in which the Minister of Health welcomes the know-

    835
    ledge that 124 boards of guardians refused to give able-bodied unemployed persons any relief at all. That is the real opinion of the Minister of Health, and, whether he likes the description or not, it is fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman is one of those few people who still think that democracy is a failure in this or any other country. Need I recall the recent legislation introduced by the present Minister of Health, and all for exactly the same purpose. The Guardians Default Act was to over-ride the locally elected representatives. The Audit Act was another instalment to intimidate popularly elected representatives. In this present Bill the elected guardians are dispossessed and replaced by co-opted members. There has been a regular flow of legislation designed for the same purpose, to prevent popularly elected representatives doing their duty to the people.
    Why has it become necessary in recent years to introduce legislation to enable the central department to over-ride the local authority? If elected representatives spend more money on health and other services than the electors consider necessary, they have their remedy at the next election, and no inspection by a central department can give the same control over expenditure as the knowledge that year by year the elected representative has to face the electors. This is not only a reflection on the political opponents of the right hon. Gentleman, but it is also an expression of his knowledge that in many areas, where wages have been extremely low and housing conditions bad, labour representatives, who have sought and secured seats have been anxious to expend the ratepayers' money, part of which is their own, for the purpose of improving these services in their own areas. It is because of the recent additions to local authorities of a large number of the political opponents of the right hon. Gentleman, who know the meaning of bad housing and inadequate health services, that larger sums of money have been spent than hitherto. There is a reference in the Clause to the financial resources of the local authority. May I ask what that means? Does it mean that in depressed industrial areas, where the majority of the population are working people,
    836
    that their health and social services are to be limited because of the industrial depression which exists? If so, it seems to me to be an intolerable situation. The last thing any local authority should be compelled to do, or should be intimidated into doing, is to resort to a policy of economy if it is realised to be unwise economy. What yesterday was believed to be a spendthrift policy is recognised to-day as the wisest finance. There is no reason or fairness in the present Government boasting about having extended the franchise when at the same time they are seeking to take away from the people to whom votes have been given a large portion of the value of the vote, in the case of town councillors, guardians or any other local authority. This is a most undesirable Clause, and every hon. Member on this side of the House will not hesitate to go into the Lobby against it.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I should like to make one remark in answer to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. I think he ought to be the Member for Orkney and Shetland, East Aberdeen, or Yarmouth, because he is an expert in the use of the red herring. He argued that this Clause is necessary because of the extravagance of certain authorities. He knows that that has nothing to do with it at all. In Clause 17 he has already persuaded the Committee to give the Minister powers which will mean that the only guardians who will continue in existence after next year will be those defaulting boards of guardians on which he built his whole case. The Parliamentary Secretary knows perfectly well that the quotation he used from a speech by Sir Herbert Samuel has no relevancy whatever to the case. Our case, and it has been established by the Debate to-day, is that under this Clause the Minister is taking an unprecedented power, which the Parliamentary Secretary suggests ought only to be applied in the case of certain so-called extravagant bodies, which is going to be applied in the case of all local authorities mentioned in the Clause. This is a most dangerous extension of bureaucratic control. It applies not only to grants made by the Treasury but to money levied by local authorities from the rates. It is a most dangerous power, and as far as I am concerned I shall continue to oppose such an extension of bureaucratic control. While I have every

    837
    respect for the expert I object to be governed by the expert, when I have no control over the expert.
    Sir FRANK MEYER: Hon. Members on this side are delighted to see this new enthusiasm for the independence of local authorities on the part of hon. Members opposite, especially when we recollect yesterday that arguments were poured upon us by hon. Members opposite urging that the Minister should be given power to compel local authorities to subscribe to a certain institution whether they desired to do so or not.
    Mr. LANSBURY: What about Members on your own side?
    Sir F. MEYER: Yes, I know that certain hon. Members on this side of the House, misguided as I think, urged the same point but only a few went into the Lobby in support of the proposal.
    Mr. LANSBURY: You were asleep.
    Sir F. MEYER: No, I am not asleep, nor have I been asleep. I have paid as much attention to these Debates as hon. Members opposite. A few Members on this side may have raised the question referred to, but when it came to the Division Lobby all the Members opposite voted in favour of compelling local authorities to contribute to a certain society, even if those authorities preferred to have their own form of propaganda and to pay for it in their own way. Now that there is to be a check on the extravagance of local authorities, Members opposite rise in great indignation on behalf of the independence of local authorities. We should really like to know where they stand. Do they stand for the complete independence of local authorities or for bureaucratic control?
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: The last speaker will realise that there are two ways in which the central authority can be related to the local authorities. When we were arguing yesterday, under the inspiration and encouragement of Members opposite, that in certain circumstances the Minister should take compulsory powers, we urged that those powers should be exercised on backward areas in respect of services which have been proved to be of great value to the nation. What we are saying now is that
    838
    the Minister is being authorised to exercise very large and arbitrary powers to checkmate the activities of local authorities. The main consolation of the Committee is that the Minister himself has apparently, a particularly bad conscience with regard to the paragraph. I do not know what has happened since he made his speech, but we are all hoping that he will give us presently the fruits of his further meditations.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee for helpful suggestions. Since then he has heard a number of speeches which have been to the point and all helpful. He is regarding the local authorities rather as naughty children. He has had such a complicated and difficult experience with about three local authorities, in the last few years, that he is inclined to legislate in respect of chose three abnormalities rather than in relation to the general experience of local authorities throughout the country. No one would object to this particular Clause if it were an attempt to lay down certain central powers for encouraging spending on the part of local authorities. The kind of services now under discussion are services on which there is rather a cheeseparing policy in local expenditure. If the Minister is not prepared to accept any form of words which would seriously curtail the very wide powers that he is claiming, and if he cannot suggest any alternative form of words now, will he at least say that he will reconsider this particular paragraph before the Report stage?
    Mr. KELLY: I wish to support the Amendment. Earlier in the day I moved an Amendment to insert the word "adequacy" in the Clause, and the Minister objected because of the difficulty of setting up a standard by which "adequacy" would be known. What standard is to be set up in order that the Minister may justify what he considers to be "excessive and unreasonable"? If it is difficult to interpret "adequacy" it is much more difficult to interpret "excessive and unreasonable." The curious thing about this paragraph is that it is designed to penalise a locality. It does not say whether the needs of a locality or what is done by a locality warrants a particular expenditure. It says that regard

    839
    should be had to certain things and to the financial resources of the district. Does that mean that, if it can be proved that a particular district is poor because of something having gone wrong with its industry, the Minister will be able to say "You are extravagant and unreasonable if you attempt to have services such as those that are operating in another district"?
    The Clause says that the Minister must take into account "other relevant circumstances." What is meant by that phrase? I call to mind a case which happened some years ago. Some people complained very bitterly because the local authority had spent a few pounds on certain hospital arrangements in order that people might be cured more quickly than had previously been possible. These people thought the expenditure was extravagant. Do the words of this Clause mean that, if we have a Minister with a mind of that kind, he can come down upon the local authority and say "I shall stop the grant which would be payable to you"? What is "excessive and unreasonable" expenditure? I understand that, apart from this Measure, the Minister has powers up to 1935 with regard to certain local authorities. Why is he now taking other powers to deal with those who are not framing their conduct to square with his particular opinions? What is intended by "relevant circumstances"? I have tried hard to picture what may be intended by the words. Do they mean that a particular district cannot have the same attention paid to its lighting or its cleansing or its open spaces, as another district? We know the difficulties that we have had in securing open spaces for the young. Some people have looked upon us as very extravagant and unreasonable in our demands, when we have asked for more and more open spaces for the children. Suppose that some local authority decides on better sanitary arrangements. Do these words mean that the relevant circumstances of that district may be such as not to warrant the expenditure? For the sake of good local government as well as for the sake of the Minister of Health I hope that this particular paragraph will not be pressed.
    Mr. SCURR: When the right hon. Gentleman replied earlier, he rather suggested that if the Amendment had been in different terms, he might have given it consideration. That indicated to me that the Minister had some doubt upon this Clause. I agree in regarding this as one of the most dangerous Clauses of the Bill. It is undoubtedly aimed at the poor authorities which, by reason of their limited financial resources, have greater obligations thrown upon them, for it is in those districts in which the financial resources are limited by reason of low rateable value that the poorest section of the community lives. In such districts there is a demand for services under the public health enactments greater than in the districts where wealthier people live.
    When I look at the Clause I find that when the Minister is anxious to come into contact with a council which is not performing an efficient public service, he is very careful to define the ground of his interference. He says in paragraph (a, i) if
    "the council have failed to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard,"
    7.0.p.m.
    then, where he is merely going to deal with the power of compelling a council to carry out its duties, he will immediately take into consideration a number of circumstances, such as financial resources and other relevant matters, which are substantially similar; but here in paragraph (a, ii) all we are told is that
    "the expenditure has been excessive and unreasonable, regard being bad to financial resources and other relevant circumstances of the area."
    There you have at once a difference in the wording. There might not have been such considerable objection to the Clause if we had had there that it would be according to relevant considerations which were substantially similar. It is perfectly wrong to compare areas like West Ham, Merthyr Tydvil, Bedwellty, or Poplar with areas like Westminster or other wealthier areas. I do not suggest it, but, if the council of the City of Westminster were not carrying out their duties properly, and the Minister, under the powers which are given to him, wished to take into consideration similar places before taking any action, it would not be possible to get another place precisely similar to Westminster, which is

    841
    one of our wealthiest areas. When he comes down to Poplar or West Ham or Bedwellty or Merthyr Tydvil he is going to say: "Are we to compare places of similar financial abilities? On the Contrary, I, the Minister of Health, am going to decide that the expenditure is excessive." It is therefore going to be purely his personal opinion as to the expenditure being unreasonable and as to what are the financial resources and other relevant considerations.
    I echo the request put forward by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly). We should like a definition of what these relevant circumstances are and what are questions of financial resources. The Minister, in his reply, indicated Very clearly that, if a body is spending its
    money so that its credit goes down, then that is a question which he has to take into consideration in regard to financial resources. In other words, right through practically every Clause of the Bill, when it is a question of looking after the interests of the very poorest members of the community, the Minister takes care to have powers which will enable him to interfere. I agree with all that has been said in the Debate and that this is one of the most dangerous Clauses in the Bill.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 227; Noes, 118.

    Division No. 135.]

    AYES.

    [7.4 p.m.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

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

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

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

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

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

    Apsley, Lord

    Crookshank,Cpt. H. (Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander P. W.

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Astor, Maj. Mr. John J.(Kent, Dover]

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Atkinson, C.

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

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Dean, Arthur Wellesley

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Balniel, Lord

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Drewe, C.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Ellis, R. G.

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

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

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip

    Bennett, A. J.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Berry, Sir George

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Bethel, A.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Looker, Herbert William

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lougher, Lewis

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

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Brass, Captain W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Gates, Percy

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

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Brockiebank, C. E. R.

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

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    McLean, Major A.

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Burman, J. B.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Malone, Major P. B.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Meyer, Sir Frank

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

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

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

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hammersley, S. S.

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

    Chlicott, Sir Warden

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

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

    Christie, I. A.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Oakley, T.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Perring, Sir William George

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

    Waddington, R.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

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

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Raine, sir Walter

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Ran sden, E.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

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

    Wells, S. R.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

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

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Rye, F. G.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Withers, John James

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

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

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Sandon, Lord

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Savery, S. S.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Tinne, J. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Captain Margesson and Captain

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Bowyer.

    NOES.

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Harris, Percy A.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Baker, Walter

    Hirst, G. H.

    Scurr, John

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Sexton, James

    Barnes, A.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Barr, J.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shinwell, E

    Bellamy, A.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Briant, Frank

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

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromley, J.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Kennedy, T.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Cape, Thomas

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sullivan, J.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lansbury, George

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Taylor, R. A.

    Connolly, M

    Lee, F.

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

    Cove, W. G.

    Lindley, F. W.

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lowth, T.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dennison, R.

    Mackinder, W.

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Duncan, C,

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Townend, A. E.

    Dunnico, H.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Viant, S. P.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

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

    England, Colonel A.

    March, S.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Forrest, W.

    Merrison, H. C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Gardner, J. P.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Murnin, H,

    Westwood, J.

    Gillett, George M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wiggins, William Martin

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

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Greenall, T.

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Groves, T.

    Purcell, A. A.

    Windsor, Walter

    Grundy, T. W.

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Wright, W.

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

    Ritson, J

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.

    Mr. LUMLEY: I beg to move, in page 68, line 26, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(2) It shall be the duty of the Minister to cause inquiry to be made from time to time by his officers concerning the standard of efficiency maintained by local authorities in the discharge of their functions relating to public health and concerning the cost of maintaining such services.
    (3) Where it is represented to the Minister by any three justices of the peace acting
    844
    within a county or county borough or any 12 or more local government electors in a county or county borough that the council of their county or county borough have failed to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of efficiency in the discharge of their functions relating to public health, the Minister shall, if he is of opinion that a prima facie case for an inquiry is disclosed, appoint one or more competent persons to hold an inquiry and if, upon any inquiry being held, it is proved to the satisfaction of these persons that the council have failed to achieve or maintain a reason-

    845
    able standard of efficiency in any of those services, they shall report to him accordingly, and he may, after taking their report into consideration, reduce the grant payable in respect of any year as provided for in Sub-section (1) of this Section."
    This Amendment attempts to introduce some new features into the Clause. I do not expect that the Minister will accept it in its present form, but I move it principally for the purpose of asking him to reconsider, at any rate, the principle which it contains. It expresses a view which is held by quite a number of people outside this House and which has not hitherto been expressed in the Debate on this Clause. We passed Clause 68 last week, and, by so doing, we changed the system by which the health services are assisted by the Exchequer from the percentage grant system to the block grant system. During that Debate fears were freely expressed as to the possible effect of that change on the maternity and child welfare services in particular. For my part, I am glad that those services were included in that change, for I believe it to be true, as the Minister said during the Debate, that by making that change you will provide local authorities not only with sums which will enable them to carry on those services as they are at present carried on, but also with larger sums and an opportunity to apply those larger sums for the development and extension of those services. By Clause 68 the money is provided and placed at the disposal of the local authorities, and what we have to see by this Clause 86 is whether we can make sure that the local authorities will set aside sums adequate to maintain those services in an efficient and progressive manner.
    Let us make quite sure what kind of local authority the Minister would be dealing with, if the penal powers which he is taking under this Clause were exercised. The Minister has, from time to time, in these Debates paid a tribute to the local authorities and their work. I can quite understand that he would deprecate the insertion in this Clause of anything which might cast suspicion on the ability or desire of local authorities to maintain these services. But it is not the local authorities who are interested in and keen to develop these services whom we need consider in connection with this Clause. They will not come into contact with its provisions. The kind
    846
    of local authority which we have to consider in this connection is the kind which is not. interested in these services and is unwilling to develop them It is not easy to be precise as to whether the power which the Minister takes in this Clause will be effective. All we can do is to see what past experience can tell us about it and try to forecast the situation which is likely to arise. There is, I believe, some past experience which can guide us. I think there are still in operation some Regulations made in August, 1918, which give the Minister power to reduce or withhold grants for certain services in connection with mothers and young children. I do not know what has been the effect of that power. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in the 10 years during which that power has been held by the Minister of Health, it has been found effective for dealing with inefficient or insufficient services.
    Then I turn to the kind of situation which may arise in the future under this Clause. Here, it is particularly difficult to be sure of one's ground, but I am struck by this point. The Minister will always be reluctant to make use of this power, and the local authority which is backward in regard to these services will know that he is reluctant to do so. As soon as they realise that, then the value of the power which he holds in reserve will be considerably lessened. The more they realise that he is reluctant to use it, the less are they likely to pay attention to him. That attitude may be strengthened by a further consideration which, on the other hand, will also weaken the attitude of the Minister. They may propose a policy, such as reduction of rates, which they know will be popular locally, and a number of contingencies may arise which will inevitably have the effect of making any Minister slow to use this power. Therefore we have to see if it is not possible to strengthen the hands of the Minister. In the Amendment there are two features. In the first part the Minister is required to make inquiries from time to time through his own officers. It may be said that this proposal is unnecessary because of Clause 108; but Clause 108 only gives permissive power for the Minister to make inquiries about anything which is in the Bill. Under this

    847
    Amendment the Minister must make inquiries about these particular health services.
    The chief point to which I would ask the attention of the Minister is contained in the second part of the Amendment. It may be that the procedure which I have outlined here is cumbrous and is open to serious criticism but it is the principle underlying it to which I ask the Minister to give further consideration. It is intended to strengthen his hands and to reinforce his position by bringing in some outside independent tribunal. If the Minister were in a difficult position with a local authority on a matter of this kind, and if he could come to the House of Commons backed by the influence of an independent tribunal, his position would be tremendously strengthened. What has been said already upon this Clause confirms me in that view. An independent Commission of that kind would also have a restraining effect on what has been described as a possibility, namely, a wild and fanatical Minister. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his consideration to the reinforcement of the position of the Minister under this Clause by bringing in some outside influence such as I have proposed.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am bound to say that I do not think that this Amendment, as drafted, would achieve the purpose described by my hon. Friend in moving it. The first part of the Amendment directs the Minister from time to time to make inquiries. As I think will be appreciated, that is unnecessary, because the Minister cannot really carry out his duties under this Clause unless he makes such inquiries, and the "inquiries" dealt with in Clause 108 are not inquiries of the sort which I have in mind. Those are inquiries of the kind called local inquiries, but the Ministry, of course, always has its inspectors about the different parts of the country. Those inspectors from time to time make reports to me on things which come under their observation, and, as a result of those reports, I am kept fairly in touch with what is going on in local government throughout the country. As regards the second part of the Amendment, I would point out that, although my hon. Friend the Mover does not, I am sure, mean to
    848
    provide that this procedure must be gone through before the Minister can exercise any of his powers under this Clause, yet that would be the effect of the Amendment. It would mean that the Minister would not be able to act, unless he bad representations made to him by three justices of the peace, or by 12 or more electors. I think that would be to limit unduly the powers of the Minister.
    Again, the Amendment would mean that the Minister would have to order an inquiry, and the inquiry is to be held by independent persons who are described here as "competent." There might be different opinions as to competency, and different views from those of the Minister might prevail as to the way in which this Clause should be operated. I think the fact that this rather cumbrous and elaborate procedure would have to be carried through before the powers could be operated would produce on the minds of local authorities exactly that effect which my hon. Friend desires to avoid. The great virtue of this Clause is not in its actual operation, but in the reserve power which it gives. When the Minister talks to a local authority about the state of their public health services, they will know that he has in reserve this power of reducing grants if they are not disposed to bring those services up to what is regarded as a reasonable standard.
    My hon. Friend has asked me, if I cannot accept the Amendment, to consider some other form which will have the effect he desires without encountering any of the disadvantages of the Amendment on the Paper. I am quite ready to consider the possibility of introducing other words with a view to giving the opportunity to outside persons to make representations to the Minister if they choose. But such words would have to make it quite clear that the Minister's power of taking action is not dependent upon receiving such representation, and that he has the power of taking action upon the reports of his own inspectors in the area affected. Such words would, at any rate, do what my hon. Friend desires, namely, give to persons who have some right to be regarded as worthy of consideration the right to make representations and to put their views before the Minister, who would take such views into account. I may say that already anybody can make representations without a Section in an Act of

    849
    Parliament being necessary. They frequently do so, and the Minister can and does take into account representations which are made to him. If it is thought desirable that there should be something of a more formal character on this matter, I am prepared to consider words which would meet my hon. Friend's point without incurring the disadvantages which I see in the Amendment as it appears on the Paper.
    Mr. J. JONES: As this Bill proceeds we begin to discover its meaning. In the beginning it was difficult to understand its object, but that object is now gradually displaying itself. The object is to pay lip-service to those institutions which we have established after long years of historic struggle in local administration, while, at the same time, putting the local authorities in irons. What is this Amendment? It proposes that this right should be given to three justices of the peace. Who in the name of Heaven are they? Who appoints them? What are they, and where do they come from? I come from one of the biggest industrial constituencies in the country, and our bench of magistrates is packed by a crowd of nonentities. But they have to sit in judgment on our local authority which is elected by the people who have to pay. The hon. Member opposite suggests that this proposal is in order to make sure that there will
    be proper control. Is not the Minister himself bad enough? But instead of one Mussolini we are to have three at a time. The whole principle of this Bill is a direct attack on the rights and liberties of the elected representatives of the people. Who is to decide whether we in West Ham are extravagant or not? Who pays the bill? You have disqualified our board of guardians on the theory that they were paying out too much relief, that they were extravagant. We might have given away a little bit more than we ought to have done, but what have you been doing? You—
    It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, 1928, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 124.

    Division No. 136.]

    AYES.

    [7.30 p.m.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

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

    Dawson, Sir Philip

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

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Burman, J. B.

    Drewe, C.

    Apsley, Lord

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Ellis, R. G.

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

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

    Astor, Viscountess

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

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Atkinson, C.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Fairfax, Captain J.G.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Fermoy, Lord

    Balniel, Lord

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Fielden, E. B.

    Barnett, Major Sir Richard

    Chilcott, Sir Warden

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Christie, J. A.

    Frece, Sir Walter de

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

    Clayton, G. C.

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Bennett, A. J.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Gates, Percy

    Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Berry, Sir George

    Colman, N. C. D.

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

    Bethel, A.

    Conway. Sir W. Martin

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Bevan, S. J.

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N )

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, M.)

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

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Crookshank, Col. C de W. (Berwick)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Crookshank Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    McLean, Major A.

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

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

    Macmillan, Captain H.

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

    Hammersley, S. S.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Malone, Major P. B.

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

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Meyer, Sir Frank.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Headland, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

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

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

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

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

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

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

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

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

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

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Oakley, T.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Hurd, Percy A.

    O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Waddington, R.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Penny, Frederick George

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

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

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

    Perring, Sir William George

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Preston, William

    Wells, S. R.

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Raine, Sir Walter

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

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Ramsden, E.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Rawson, Sir Cooper

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd)

    Loder, J. de V.

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

    Winby, Colonel L. P.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

    Lougher, Lewis

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

    Withers, John James

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vers

    Rye, F. G.

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Herman

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Womersley, W. J.

    Lumley, L. R

    Sandon, Lord

    Wood, Rt. Hon Sir Kingsley

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Savery, S. S.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

    Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Major Sir George Hennessy and

    Captain Margesson.

    NOES.

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

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

    Lowth, T.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Greenall, T.

    Lunn, William

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Mackinder, W.

    Baker, Walter

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

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

    Barnes, A.

    Groves, T.

    March, S.

    Barr, J.

    Grundy, T. W.

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

    Batey, Joseph

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

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Murnin, H.

    Bellamy, A.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hardie, George D.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Briant, Frank

    Harris, Percy A.

    Palin, John Henry

    Broad, F. A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Bromley, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Potts, John S.

    Buchanan, G.

    Hore-Beilsha, Leslie

    Purcell, A. A.

    Cape, Thomas

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Rees, Sir Beddos

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Ritson, J.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

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

    Connolly, M.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall,St.Ives)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Jones, J. J. (Westham, Silvertown)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Dennison, R.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Duncan, C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Scurr, John

    Dunnico, H.

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

    Sexton, James

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    England, Colonel A.

    Lansbury, George

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Forrest, W.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Shinwell, E.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Lee, F.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Gillett, George M.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    852

    853

    Stamford, T. W.

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Townend, A. E.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Sullivan, J.

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

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Windsor, Walter

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

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Wright, W.

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

    Welsh, J. C.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Westwood, J.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Wiggins, William Martin

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.

    Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSES 87 (Application of Exchequer grants, etc.) and 88 (Government property) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 89.—(Power to make regulations.)
  Amendments made:
  In page 70, line 7, after the word "shall," insert the words: "as from the appointed day."
  In page 70, line 16, at the end, insert the words:
  "(3) Regulations made under paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of this Section shall make provision for securing that where proposals for the development of institutional treatment for their area were submitted to the Minister by the council -of any county or county borough at such a date that grants-in-aid of capital expenditure on institutions to be provided there under are payable in accordance with the directions of the Treasury, then, if the' execution of the proposals was delayed by the directions of the Minister and liabilities in connection with the proposals were incurred by the council with the approval of the Minister before the 12th day of November, 1928, and in consequence of the delay the amount of any grants paid or payable to the council for the standard year is less than the amount thereof which would otherwise have been so payable, the amount of the grants paid or payable to the council in respect of that year shall be estimated and certified as if they had been increased by such amount as may be prescribed."
  In page 70, line 17, leave out the word "section," and insert instead thereof the words "Part of this Act"—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  Clauses 90 (Method of apportionment between authorities of expenditure and grants, for purposes of Fourth and Fifth Schedules,) 91 (Power to adjust grants in respect of alteration of authorities or boundaries before 1st April, 1930) and 92 (Provisions as to rates and precepts and compensation for loss of rates during transitory period,) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 93.—(Transfer of property and liabilities of Poor Law authorities.)
  Mr. SIDNEY WEBB: I beg to move, in page 73, line 32, to leave out the word "council," and to insert instead thereof the word "councils."
  I am moving this Amendment to enable the Government to give us an explanation of the Clause. It is a little complicated, and I hope the Committee will bear with me while I endeavour to explain the point. Clause 93 divides properties and liabilities of boards of guardians which have to be transferred to the councils that are to succeed them into two parts, the institutional and the non-institutional properties. The institutional property is denned as being institutions and offices, and also furniture, plant, and fittings in or about the offices, and all that property is to be divided, as it seems, quite equitably among the councils that succeed the boards in proportion to the rateable value of the dissolved unions. That seems all right, but when you come to the non-institutional property there is a difference, and it is proposed that the non-institutional property should not be divided among the councils that succeed the boards of guardians, but should he given to the council of the county or county borough which manages to get the largest proportion of the Poor Law area. That is a very reasonable way of dealing with property if you cannot divide it. If you have, for instance, a statue of some previous chairman or anything of that kind, you cannot cut the statue up, and it is not unreasonable that it should be given to one or other of the councils that succeed the board of guardians. Possibly there is some board of guardians that has a loving cup which it wishes to dispose of, and in that case it seems rather a drastic measure to divide it, and it is just as well that it should be given to one or other of the councils.

  855
  But it seems to me that Sub-section (2, c, ii) is not expressed in clear terms, and therefore we wish to inquire what property it is that the Government are going to dispose of in this arbitrary way. It seems easy to say that non-institutional property is not property connected with any institution, but when you go on to read the remainder of the other Clauses, you find that various kinds of non-institutional property are otherwise disposed of. For instance, there are the overdrafts on loans from current expenditure. That is not institutional property, and that is disposed of otherwise by Clause 94. Then there is parish property, and that is disposed of otherwise by Clause 95. The property and liabilities under the Registration Act are disposed of by Clause 96. Therefore, Clause 93 cannot relate to any of those properties. To what does it relate? As far as I can make out, there are some things to which it does relate. Property acquired by the board of guardians for the purposes of Poor Law relief is not parish property under Clause 95, and it may not be institutional property. That is to say, if the guardians bought a house which is occupied for some other purpose than Poor Law, that does not come within the definition in Clause 95. The property under Clause 95 appears to come within non-institutional property which will pass under paragraph (c, ii) in Clause 93.
  Then there are some other things. Some boards of guardians have property which they hold in trust for a particular purpose, for instance for scholarships or apprenticeships and things of that kind, and, as far as I can make out, that is non-institutional property. It is not covered by the definition of institutional property, and it is not covered by Clauses 94, 95 or 96, and therefore it seems that it is non-institutional property. There may be other forms of property which the boards of guardians have which are not covered, and they will all be swept into the maw of these all-embracing words of paragraph (c, ii), and will not, as I read it, be divided among the councils that take over the unions concerned, but will automatically be given to the council which takes over the largest part of the union. That is quite proper in the case of a statue or a loving-cup, or something that cannot be divided, and I am not sure that it would not apply to the archives
  856
  of the boards of guardians, about which the Government are not sufficiently careful. The board of guardians is now an institution of some antiquity, and not only goes back to 1834, but in many cases to 1700, so that there are over 200 years of archives. To those who look into these archives, as I have done for a good many hours, they are of considerable value and ought to be looked after. I hope that they are non-institutional property, for if they are I have no objection to their passing, in the absence of a better custodian, to the council that absorbs the largest part of the union.
  Therefore, there are some things which are appropriate to this paragraph. I am not quite sure, however, whether the Government are satisfied that the wide words which are used will not cover more properties than they have thought of. I especially call their attention to property which is not parish property and property acquired by the board of guardians for the purposes of poor relief. That has not any connection with an institution, but it will be non-institutional property and will fall under this paragraph. That property of a union which is applicable to the whole of the Poor Law recipients of a union should not pass arbitrarily to one of the councils, namely, the one that happens to take over the larger part of the union. In regard to the trusts, have the Government considered that boards of guardians own a great many trusts? That property in trusts is not institutional property, and is not covered by Clauses 94, 95 or 96, and therefore is non-institutional property. Do the Government really mean to take this property, which is vested in boards of guardians for the benefit of the whole of the poor inhabitants of the union, and arbitrarily give it to the council of the particular county borough which happens to absorb the larger part of the union?
  I think that we are justified in asking these questions when the Bill is so obscurely drafted. As it stands at present, we get one definition in Clause 93 of what non-institutional property is, and then in Clauses 94, 95 and 96, there three separate properties which ought to fall under non-institutional properties but which are deliberately excluded from them. That is not all, because Clause 95 takes out a

  857
  lot of things which would otherwise fall under non-constitutional property, and then makes two exceptions. After having taken them out, prima facie, of Clause 95, it says that they shall not be considered applicable to Clause 95, and brings them back again into non-institutional property. The Government ought not to ask us to pass this Sub-section in such very general terms unless they have very clearly in their minds the class of property to which it applies. Unless they have these classes of property definitely in their minds, they cannot justify the arbitrary robbery of one particular set of people and an arbitrary gift to another set of people.
  I may be all wrong, because when we look at the end of page 73 we see that there are instructions under paragraph (d) as to how the apportionment shall take place, and paragraph (d, i) deliberately relates to the apportionment and adjustment of non-institutional property. But paragraph (c) has said that non-institutional property has all to be given to the one council, so what does paragraph (d,) I mean when it speaks of the apportionment of non-institutional property? Some of the non-institutional property ought to be apportioned, and ought not to be wholly given away as it is in paragraph (c, ii), while some of the non-institutional property ought not to be apportioned. Therefore, there ought to be some words safeguarding it in paragraph (d.).
  Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman has again shown his considerable knowledge of this portion of the Bill, and anyone who has heard him to-night will delight in his vigour and keenness. This is undoubtedly one of those points on which he excels, and I suppose that no one has more experience and interest in matters of this kind than the right hon. Gentleman. This particular part of the Bill deals with the important question of the transfer of property and liabilities, and it divides, for the purposes of the scheme, the property which is to be transferred roughly into two categories —institutional property and non-institutional property. Other categories are set out in the Clause, but for the purposes of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment that is broadly the distinction that is made. As I understand it,
  858
  the right hon. Gentleman does not challenge in any way the division which is being made as regards institutional property. It is gratifying to the Government that the right hon. Gentleman has no criticism to make of that side of the scheme, but he has put certain points with regard to the non-institutional assets and liabilities, and has not devoted himself so much to the Amendment as to putting questions and criticisms of the Government's scheme. He is wise, as he always is in connection with Poor Law matters, in not devoting too much time to his Amendment. He has made criticisms of the Government's proposal, but he has not at all indicated what the terms of the Amendment are or what the result would be if they were carried into operation.
  Mr. WEBB: I must apologise. In effect, the Amendment merely provides for the distribution of the non-institutional property among the counties according to the rateable value in the same way as the institutional property.
  Sir K. WOOD: What does that mean? The right hon. Gentleman seeks to provide that on the appointed day the non-institutional property and liabilities are automatically to vest in the councils of the counties or county boroughs into which the union extends in proportion to the reduced rateable value of the parts of the union in the several areas. That is putting it plainly and briefly. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. Perhaps I had better emphasise briefly and not plainly. The right hon. Gentleman has asked what the various classes of the non-institutional assets and liabilities are and of what they are composed. As regards the non-institutional assets, the first class consists of assets representing the amounts owing to the guardians in respect of the? relief that has been given by them; under a paragraph in this Clause we deal especially with that matter, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman challenges the method. Under our proposal all other non-institutional assets and liabilities will pass to the council of the county or county borough which contains that part of the Poor Law area having the largest reduced rateable value.
  8.0.p.m.
  I want to put this before the Committee in comparing the proposal of the Gov-

  859
  ernment and that of the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously, one of the transfers which will have to be made is the stores in the institutions. There are also superannuation allowances payable to retired officers. If you apply the suggestion of the right hon Gentleman to either of these matters, you will immediately be confronted with very considerable difficulties indeed, and it will be impossible to carry out his suggestion with regard to either of them. It will certainly be very inconvenient. I will put it no higher than that. The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the other side of the proposal of the Government. It is true that the non-institutional assets and liabilities will pass to the council of the county or county borough which contains the largest part of the reduced rateable value of the Poor Law area at the appointed day, but as soon as possible after the appointed day an apportionment will be made between the councils, so that the various liabilities and assets of the several authorities concerned can be ascertained.
  Therefore, so far as the question of trust funds and matters of that kind are concerned, they will come in under this particular Clause and will, of course, be adequately provided for. Really, this method is the best way of dealing with these matters without putting an undue liability on the local authorities. The authorities concerned have given a good deal of time to the examination of these proposals, and they think that by vesting non-institutional assets in the county or county borough in which the main portion of the Union is situate as set out in the Clause the matter will best be dealt with. On the whole, it is the most convenient and fairest way of dealing with what is admittedly a problem. I commend it, at any rate, as being on the whole the fairest and most convenient, and one which will not put upon the ratepayers a large amount of expense such as might be entailed if we followed out any other scheme.
  Mr. WEBB: I can understand what the right hon. Gentleman really means, but he might have said it more simply. The right hon. Gentleman kept saying that this is a way of saving expense to
  860
  the ratepayers. There would be exactly the same calculations and apportionments to be made in the one case as in the other. What I understood, at first, was that there was going to be no apportionment or adjustment. Now, is he or is he not going to rob one for an other, or is he going to make it right by compensation? He says that he is going to save the ratepayers expense by making adjustments. Does he mean that, or does he mean that the adjustment will cost less after than before? I am in doubt. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is saving expense to the ratepayers, and then he tells us that there are going to be adjustments. Which is it?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I can satisfy the right hon. Gentleman with perhaps a very simple answer. Both as regards institutional and non-institutional property there is to be an apportionment. I think that answer the right hon. Gentleman's question categorically. If he refers to the Section with which we are dealing, he will find that it bears out the answer which I have given. May I refer to one other matter to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, namely, compensation with regard to charitable trusts which may be held by boards of guardians. I am not very clear in my own mind what sort of charitable trust the right hon. Gentleman with his experience and knowledge has in mind, but probably he has not overlooked that we have been careful to deal with every species of charitable trust, sometimes held by guardians and constituted under a lawful act. That is dealt with under Clause 16. It is conceivable that there is some class of trust which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind and which has not been dealt with under Clauses 16, 93, or 95. If the right hon. Gentleman from his experience and knowledge will inform me of any class of trust which he has in mind, I will certainly take advantage of his knowledge and see if I can cover every kind of charitable trust. My impression is that they are already covered.
  Mr. WEBB: I refer to the trust property which is referred to on page 78. It is exempted from parish property and falls, therefore, into non-institutional property.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think that is right. If the right hon. Gentleman were to pursue it, he would find that it comes back to the definition of non-institutional property which I think sweeps in everything not otherwise provided for and will be apportioned on the appointed day.
  Mr. WEBB: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Members for Stockport (Mr. Townend) and the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott)—in page 74, line 5, at the end to insert the words:
  "(iii) a payment to the council of any county or county borough into which a Poor Law area extends by the council of any county borough or county into which such Poor Law area extends of such sum as seems equitable in respect of any increase of burden which will properly be thrown on the ratepayers of the area of any such council in meeting the cost incurred in the exercise of the functions transferred to such council by Part I of this Act"—
  I think should come as a new Clause.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. BARKER: I wish to protest, against that part of the Clause which says:
  "In the case of any right of recovery from any person of payments made or expenses incurred by the authority by way of Poor Law relief, to and in the council of the county or county borough in which the the recipient of the relief was resident when the relief was granted."
  At the present time, we have thousands of families in this country practically destitute. They are living upon charity, they have been unemployed for a very long period of time, and the guardians with the power vested in them by another Act of Parliament have granted relief upon condition that this relief is repaid- They are piling up a huge debt against these people, and, when they resume work, they will find themselves overwhelmed and burdened with the responsibilities of that debt. They are in arrears with their rent, and they are in arrears with their rates, and now the guardians have power to pile up further responsibilities upon these people. I say it is inhuman in the very worst degree. If you are going to give relief to poorer
  862
  people, well give it to them, and let that be an end of it. Give relief to poor people and people who are destitute as I have described. There are thousands and tens of thousands of families in that position in this country to-day, and then you ask these people as soon as they resume work to repay the amount of money given to them—
  The CHAIRMAN: As I read these words, there is no right of recovery to anybody. They only say that any liability or any right of recovery which may now exist with the Poor Law authorities shall be transferred to the county authorities. They give no new right of recovery whatever.
  Mr. BARKER: I quite agree, but I am against this right being perpetuated in this way. That is my point, and I do say, having some knowledge of the poverty of our people, that it is inhuman in the very worst degree to give relief to our people and pile up a debt against them so that when work is resumed their hearts are broken because of the great debt that is shouldered upon them. They are not responsible for this debt. They are not responsible for the unemployed; they are not responsible for the financial position of the country. This Bill is perpetuating a principle that has been embodied in legislation by this House, and personally I object to this kind of legislation.

  CLAUSE 94.—(Mitigation of liability of councils for temporary loans raised under 11 & 12 Geo. 5 c. 67.)
  Amendments made:
  In page 75, line 21, after the word "amount," insert the words
  "which, under the foregoing provisions of this section would have been."
  In page 75, leave out from the word "Minister" in line 23, to the word "exceeds" in line 25, and insert instead thereof the words
  "if all of those sums had been on account of loans made by the Minister."—[Sir K. Wood.]
  Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in page 75, line 26, to leave out the words "shilling rate," and to insert instead thereof the words "rate of ninepence in the pound."

  863
  I think I had better say a word about this Amendment, because it deals with a matter of some importance. Hon. Members will notice that the Clause now under consideration deals with the mitigation of the liability of councils for temporary loans. To many Members of the Committee these loans are familiarly known as the Goschen Loans, and I have no doubt they have followed with a good deal of interest the arrangements that have been made to lighten some of the burdens in the particular areas which have had to resort to these loans. Since the proposal of the Minister has appeared on the Paper representations have been made to him on the subject, and in particular by the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Sir L. Forestier-Walker), who was the chairman of an important county council, asking whether there could not be some further mitigation of the liability of certain county councils and county borough councils in respect of the loans which will be transferred to them from the guardians as the result of the proposals in this Bill. The original proposals of my right hon. Friend did undoubtedly give substantial relief to most of the necessitous areas concerned, but representations have been made that in some of the areas most heavily burdened by outstanding debts the repayment charges would still constitute a heavy burden over a long period. These are places where a shilling rate would have to be raised for this repayment under the provisions of paragraph (d) of the Sub-section. The Amendment which I am now moving makes a further concession to some of those areas—to Monmouth, to Merthyr Tydvil and Barrow-in-Furness—where the maximum rate will be reduced from 1s. to 9d. in the £, and the outstanding loans in the areas concerned will be written down further by the equivalent of this reduction.
  I commend to the Committee, in the first place, the original arrangements made by my right hon. Friend, and I think that even the hon. Member who represents Stratford (Mr. Groves) and the hon. Member who represents Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), who I know have given a good deal of consideration to these proposals, will recognise the considerable advance towards mitigating the effect of the transfer and helping still
  864
  further these particular areas, which have undoubtedly suffered severely, for reasons into which we need not go to-night. There would have been considerable mitigation under the original proposals, and the further concessions which my right hon. Friend has made must be regarded, I ought to say, as the limit to which we can go, because, after all, this all comes down to a question of money. I think it will be recognised how very much farther we have gone in the Amendment I am now moving towards meeting the difficulties of those areas, and it is in that spirit and with that object that I commend it to the Commitee. As I see before me hon. Members who, I have no doubt, are willing to champion still further the claims of their areas, and ask for something still further, I do appeal to them to consider what is now put forward, and to have regard to the great reductions which have been made, and also to realise that there does come a stage at which a Government cannot go any further.
  Mr. PALIN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will tell us in plain language, without any trimmings, exactly how we stand with regard to these loans? Am I to understand that in addition to being relieved of the interest on these loans from 1930. no repayment will be involved which would need in these necessitous areas a rate exceeding the rate mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. GROVES: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether all the kind words he has uttered will be applicable to West Ham? In reading the Bill I observe that the West Ham Poor Law Union is in many ways excluded from all privileges, from all these kind words, and, so to speak, put in a corner of its own. Does what the right hon. Gentleman said just now regarding minimising the interest on loans apply to West Ham?
  Mr. CECIL WILSON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question regarding the position in Sheffield, where an arrangement was come to some time ago under which a certain amount of interest has been paid. Is it his intention to take that into consideration, by capitalising the interest already paid?
  Mr. COVE: This is admittedly a very technical and a very difficult question.

  865
  The Bedwellty people incurred liabilities owing to unemployment in that area and had to seek loans from the Gosehen Committee. The proposals of the Government mean, in one respect, the equalisation of the Poor rate, and in the process of equalisation past liabilities incurred owing to unemployment in stricken areas are being transferred to the generality of the county ratepayers. Under the original proposal that would have meant to Monmouthshire a rate of 1s. 3d. or 1s. 6d. in the £, but, as I understand it, under the concession now made by the Government the rate will be 9d. But I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why should the people of Monmouthshire bear a burden for areas which have been particularly stricken by unemployment? Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain why a citizen in the county of Monmouthshire should bear a burden which ought to be transferred to the taxpayers of this country? After all, the Amendment makes only a slight concession, and the Government are insisting that the ratepayers of Monmouthshire should still bear the major portion of the burden. The Parliamentary Secretary has magnified the concessions which the Government have made. In my opinion, this Measure still leaves a great burden on the areas concerned, and particularly those stricken county areas where there is much unemployment.
  The Government have not made any great concession, and what they are now proposing is just a little easement of the position. The fact still remains that Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire will continue to bear their heavy burden of unemployment under the new scheme which does not provide any relief for those necessitous areas. There will still in Monmouthsire and Glamorganshire be rates above 20s. in the £, and yet the Parliamentary Secretary claims that he has made a great concession by saying that, instead of having a rate of Is., we shall have a rate of 9cl. If that is the only help which the Government can give, then they are mistaken in thinking that this Bill will give a fillip to industry, and I am sure we shall not see any decrease in unemployment as a consequence of the passing of this Measure.
  Mr. BARKER: The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the Government are limiting their concession to the
  866
  necessitous areas. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the loans of the Bedwellty Guardians amount to £1,100,000. The loans of Monmouthshire amount to over £2,000,000, and now we are told by the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have reached the limit of their concessions. I submit that the necessitous areas have reached the limit of their power to pay rates, and 50 per cent. of the rates in those localities cannot be collected. I should be very pleased if the Minister would tell us exactly how these areas stand at the present moment. When the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that what is now proposed is the limit to which the Government can go, he must have in mind the various concessions which have been made during the progress of this Bill, and I should be very much obliged to him if he would recapitulate those concessions. I happen to live in one of the areas where the rates are really outrageous at the present time, and they take as much as 5s. a week out of the wages of the people. I should like to know exactly what is, the nature of this concession, and what is the amount of the burden which will be taken off the rates in the Bedwellty area.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not seem to appreciate the point. The liability is taken over by the county, and the question is whether the county which takes over the liability shall be relieved by grants from the central authority. The question of the liability of the area, as opposed to the county, has already been settled.
  Mr. MARDY JONES: Surely hon. Members representing the necessitous areas should be able to raise the point that a relief of 3d. in the £ is a ridiculous amount of relief to offer to those areas.
  The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members may argue this question from the point of view of the county, but not from the point of view of the district.
  Mr. BARKER: I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what will be the amount of relief conferred by this Amendment. As far as I understand the concessions which have been made, they are very inadequate indeed, and they will not by any means satisfy the claims of the necessitous areas. I know the Parliamentary Secretary very well, and I

  867
  can imagine the right hon. Gentleman receiving a deputation and saying that he made this concession in the House of Commons when certain Labour Members were sitting opposite to him, and they raised no objection. I raise an objection, and I say that all those heavy liabilities still remain in the necessitous area.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member does not seem to appreciate my Ruling. The whole question is whether the limit of 9d. in the £ is sufficient from the point of view of the county, because the county has to shoulder the particular liabilities which are taken over from the union. Therefore, no question of the old union area arises on this Amendment.
  Mr. BARKER: This proposal is simply shifting the burden from one portion of the county to another. I should like to know what is the exact position of the county. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us the concessions which have been made in reference to this matter?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not quite sure that the questions which have been put to the Government on this Amendment are strictly relevant, but perhaps they are just sufficiently connected to merit a reply if hon. Members are really anxious to have the information. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to answer these questions in my own way. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that they have a monopoly of speech on this Bill. I cannot answer the questions which have been put unless hon. Members will listen to my reply. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will hear me upon what appears to be a complicated matter, which requires a speaker and a hearer. The first question put was: What is the extent of the benefit that is given? The proposal is that for a period of 15 years there shall be a remission of interest, and that will be represented in cases where the loan is made by persons other than the Minister by a grant equal to the remission of interest. In the case of different authorities the amount which will be the annual cost to the Exchequer will vary according to the loan. Another question put was whether West Ham was included. It is included and the benefit to West Ham and East Ham will be equivalent to a rate reduction of something like 1s. 6d.
  868
  in the £. In East Ham and West Ham the annual cost to the Exchequer of the remission of interest will be nearly £28,000 a year for 15 years.
  One other question was asked, which I think was not really relevant to this Amendment, and which raises, indeed, the old question as to why the local authorities should bear what is really a national burden. That is a very large question, and I apprehend that it would not be in order, on this Amendment, to argue whether necessitous areas should be able to transfer their burden in whole to the national Exchequer Perhaps it would be better to reserve any observations on that question until the Clause as a whole comes before us.
  Mr. GROVES: I would ask the Attorney-General to be good enough to explain, with regard to the position of West Ham, whether the Is. 6d. in the £ that he mentioned applies to the Poor Law union or to the borough of West Ham. Does it mean a rate of Is. 6d. in the £ payable throughout the Poor Law union area?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: What I gave was the estimate of the value of the grant which East Ham and West Ham would receive, and which would be equivalent to a rate reduction of about 1s. 6d. in the £ over the 15 years.
  Mr. GROVES: For the two boroughs together?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes.
  Mr. GROVES: Is it for the union area? The West Ham Poor Law union includes seven parishes altogether. Is the Attorney-General confining it to West Ham and East Ham, or does it apply to the whole of the parishes of the Poor Law union?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am confining my remarks to the county boroughs of East Ham and West Ham.
  Mr. BARKER: Would the Attorney-General give us similar information with regard to Monmouthshire?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Certainly, if I am asked for it and if it is in order that I should give it. Monmouthshire will have a remission of interest which is equivalent to an annual cost to the Exchequer, over the 15 years,

  869
  of £75,400. There will be a reduction of capital amounting to £578,600, and the present value to Monmouthshire of the remission of interest is no less than £384,000.
  Mr. BARKER: How much will it represent in rates?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
  Mr. GROVES: We are always grateful for mercies, small or great; I am grateful, speaking in a representative capacity, for any reduction of rates, even if it be only to the extent of 1d.; but I want the Government to see that they are still leaving the Poor Law union with the huge debt itself to repay over a certain number of years, which debt has been incurred as a result of many local boroughs, including my own, shouldering burdens which were really national burdens. I am sorry that, owing to my having been ill, I have not been here during the last week or two, and, therefore, have not been able to put the ease of West Ham, which I understand is to be circumscribed and put in a sort of pillory of its own. The West Ham Poor Law union is not even going to get the boasted privileges conferred by this Bill.
  I want the right hon. Gentleman to realise, and I want the public to realise, that the West Ham Union is still left in the position of owing a huge debt, which has accumulated as the result of that union addressing itself to problems which obviously were national. We were sent, I think in 1923, to the Gosehen Committee, when Sir Alfred Mond, as he then was, was Minister of Health in the Coalition Government, in order to meet the responsibilities of the Poor Law union area; and I want to emphasise that the remission of this small amount of interest, great as it may appear when the Attorney-General says that it is going to relieve West Ham and East Ham of rates to the extent of Is. 6d. in the £, still leaves us, as the result of our shouldering that national responsibility, in the position that we owe a huge amount of money. Obviously, being a borough of honour, we shall consider, not that it is our moral duty, but that it is our legal obligation to pay that debt, although it was incurred locally for purposes that were really national; and
  870
  the remission of interest is not an adequate way for the Government to approach this great problem as regards its incidence upon our borough.
  Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Gentleman, although he has the best intentions, does not quite appreciate the terms of this Clause, and that he would probably like a brief summary of what exactly the Clause provides. In the first place, it provides that the loans transferred to the counties and county boroughs, in so far as they are owing to the Ministry, shall be repaid without interest over a period of 15 years. The hon. Gentleman will, I know, understand that these loans are being transferred in this way. Secondly, where the loans are owing to a bank, the authorities are to receive a grant equivalent to the 15 years' interest which would have been remitted if the loans had been owing to the Ministry. Thirdly, where the annual charge for repayment will amount to more than the equivalent of a shilling rate as calculated on the reduced rateable value, the amount repaid is to be reduced to the equivalent of a shilling rate.
  Roughly, these are the alterations as regards the loans which are being made in this Clause, and in the Amendment we are still further meeting the position as a result of representations which have been made regarding it. With regard to West Ham and East Ham, the figures which the Attorney-General gave represent the effect of the Bill as a whole; the value of the mitigation to West Ham and East Ham is about 1s. in the £. I do say, as I said at the beginning, that this is a very considerable advance, and, while everyone would like to have more, I suggest that this is an Amendment that hon. Gentlemen who represent those areas, and have waited so long for something to be done for them by successive Governments, will not object to, because it still further brings assistance to these areas. I hope the Committee will now see its way to adopt it.
  Mr. PALIN: With my colleagues, I welcome any concession on behalf of the necessitous areas, and there is no doubt that it will be a very great advantage, but the fact still remains that the whole capital sum will have to be repaid, although by easier instalments than they expect it to be repaid now. Of course the majority have not yet begun to re-

  871
  pay. I should be very surprised to hear that any very substantial amount is being paid either in principal or interest. The whole of this indebtedness, to the extent of some £8,000,000, has been incurred in the relief of the able-bodied unemployed. When the right hon. Gentleman says they have reached the limit of concession, I hope that it is not quite correct, but that the Government are still prepared to receive deputations from the necessitous areas. There is a case to which I do not think the Government have up to now given complete consideration, and that is that much of the indebtedness has been incurred through liabilities that were placed on these authorities by the special circumstances of the War. In my own constituency it is very largely a war problem. People were brought there to make munitions and they have never been taken away again. The Government of the day planked them down and built little wooden huts for them and then left them there practically to starve.
  The CHAIRMAN: I really think this would be much more appropriate on the question of the Clause than on the Amendment. I shall presently put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and these wider questions can be raised on that.
  Mr. GROVES: I want to call attention to the disparity between the statements of the Attorney-General and of the Parliamentary Secretary. The benign manner in which the Attorney-General gave us the figure of 1s. 6d. in the £ for West Ham gives us good heart, if not good courage. When the Parliamentary Secretary gave his explanation he knocked off 50 per cent. We can well imagine when we get it in reality that a further 50 per cent. will be knocked off. [Interruption.] Not 50 per cent., but 33⅓. Being a lawyer, in the 6s. 8d. department, the right hon. Gentleman saw that more readily. May I press for a statement as to which is accurate. May I ask for consideration of this further point? In future I understand this money is to be paid by the county borough of West Ham and the county borough of East Ham. In the past it has been paid by seven parishes. I want to know whether the amount we shall be called upon to pay in future, as two
  872
  separate boroughs, will be equal to the amount previously paid by the seven parishes or whether it will be only equal to the amount previously paid by ourselves, if any, less the deduction because of that either 1s. 6d, or 1s. in the £ less interest?
  Sir K. WOOD: I will give consideration to that point. I should like to study it carefully.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is this another instance of the subtlety of this Bill, which is such that only very subtle minds can understand it?
  Mr. MARDY JONES: I wish to press the Minister to give us definite information as to the real financial value of this concession to Glamorgan. I understand the original proposal was chat the Government gave a guarantee that, when the liabilities of the boards of guardians were transferred to each county, whatever the liability might be, and however large might be the total sum so far as the county authority was concerned, they should not have to suffer more than the equivalent of 1s. in the £ as the result of that burden, and that interest charges were being removed for 15 years. Further, the county authorities are taking over, under the Eating Act, the whole of the rating assessment of hereditaments in the county. The draft valuation lists are now published, and I think the Minister will agree that, generally speaking, there is a substantial increase in the new assessments compared with those now in force. Has he taken into account the financial effect of that on the ratepayers in each of these counties. The assessments in Glamorgan and Monmouth will pan out at a general increase of from 20 to 30 per cent., so that 9d. in the £ in future on a higher assessment will be a much bigger burden. I submit that this concession will hardly meet that difference, so that there is in substance no concession at all. Glamorgan is waiting to know what is the total value to them of the sum that is being given.
  Sir K. WOOD: The latter part of the question asked by the hon. Member does not arise on this Amendment, but I will answer the specific point which arises on the Amendment. The present value of the remission of interest to Glamorgan is £178,700.
  Mr. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman has ignored my question. He has simply answered one part of the point. I want to know, and the county is entitled to know at this stage, what is the total sum by which it is proposed to benefit the county of Glamorgan by this proposal.
  Sir K. WOOD: I have just stated it.
  Mr. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated it. The relief which is being given on interest charges, amounting to £178,000, is all right as far as it goes, but I want, also, to know the whole amount of the reduced burden to the county of a maximum of Is. in the £ and a maximum of 9d. in the £. What is the real value of that to the county in a lump sum?
  Sir K. WOOD: I cannot say at the moment.
  Mr. JONES: Why not?
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman too much on the point of figures, but I do not think that he desires to leave the Committee in the uncertain and anxious state of mind in which it finds itself. If he cannot give us the whole of the details he might at least set our minds at rest with regard to two statements which have been made. Can he say that the figure of 1s. 6d. in the £ is a kind of gross weight that would be levied before the lawyer's fee had been deducted? If he did that, we should know that the figure would lie somewhere between 1s. 6d. and Is., or that it might possibly be Is. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some assurance, either that he is right or that the Attorney-General is right, or that the figure lies somewhere between the two.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. K. GRIFFITH: In considering the Clause one must have sympathy with the object to mitigate the liabilities of the councils in respect of temporary loans, particularly where the burden must be very great, and one cannot but recognise the spirit of concession which has given the additional benefit which is conferred by the last Amendment, but I should like
  874
  to call the attention of the Minister to the fact that the Clause does not meet the case of whole districts, or it does not meet the case of all districts equally. It confers very great benefits on those districts where the outstanding loans at the moment are very heavy, and, therefore, where the remission of interest is likewise heavy. But there are districts which, by strenuous efforts, by imposing sacrifices upon their ratepayers, have been meeting their burdens as they went along.
  I hope that I may be pardoned if I state the case of the borough which I have the honour to represent—the borough of Middlesbrough, to show the position into which they have been put by the events which have happened, and the position in which they are left by this Clause. The amount distributed by the borough in out-door relief to the able-bodied since 1921 is £380,031. That leaves out of account the amount spent in the workhouse in in-door relief, and it also leaves out of account the amount spent upon the aged and infirm. No one who has studied or watched the administration of Poor Law relief will say that it has not been economical in the case of the borough of Middlesbrough. All the out-door relief to the able-bodied unemployed was granted on loan. From the point of view of the Government Front Bench I suppose that is considered a virtue that the relief should have been granted on loan and that steps should have been taken to recover it. I am not giving an opinion upon that point, but it has been regarded from the benches opposite as a method of economy and a praiseworthy way in which to proceed. Borrowings have had to be made in. order to meet that expenditure of £308,000, but since February of 1923 they have not been increased. So steadily out of the rates has the borough been paying off these loans that it will by the 31st March next year have reduced that loan indebtedness of £308,000 to £40,000. That has been done by the efforts of the borough, without outside assistance.
  9.0 p.m.
  In the light of these facts, one has to consider the operation of the Clause on a community which has made such efforts on its own behalf. Paragraph (c) is the part that will apply to us. We shall have made up to us by an annuity an amount equivalent to the interest which

  875
  would have been remitted to us if the loans had been made by the Ministry. The loans have not been made by the Ministry, but by the bank. The annuity which is made to Middlesbrough under the Clause is, I am told by those who have carefully worked out the figures, £820 a year for 15 years. That is all that the borough gets. We may be told that it is a substantial sum to pay, but it would have been enormously greater if we had not made such great efforts. Although the Minister has said that he has reached the limits of concession, and although it would be out of order for me as a private Member to suggest anything which would increase the State burden, I do hope that between now and the Report stage the Minister will consider whether something could not be done to make up to those areas which have not left things to drift but which have tried to meet their burdens out of the rates. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make a concession to them which will make up for the enormous losses which they have suffered. The people of Middlesbrough are heavily burdened now because they have endeavoured to reduce their liabilities out of the rates, and all that they are to get under this Clause is the comparatively small sum of £820 a year. I should have thought that the Minister might consider some kind of review, with the assistance of his skilled officials. of the circumstances of districts in the distressed areas, the circumstances in which they are placed and the burdens which they have to bear, in order that the amount which is paid to them might not, perhaps, be settled in a mechanical manner under this Clause, and which in the case of the district which I represent works out at an unfortunate and miserable sum, considering the amount of burden which has to be borne. Whilst fully recognising the concession that has been made, I hope the Minister will be able further to give some special consideration to those areas which have endeavoured to help themselves.
  Sir EDMUND TURTON: I desire to reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough, (Mr. K. Griffith) and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot see his way, between now and the Report stage, to
  876
  take this question into consideration. The Union of Middlesbrough extends into the North Riding for two-sevenths of its area, and I can bear tribute to the wonderful sacrifices which have been made by the ratepayers of Middlesbrough in the last few years with regard to this matter. I do not desire to draw comparisons between Middlesbrough and other distressed areas who have been obliged to raise money by loans, or who have been obliged to go to a very large expense for the purpose of dealing with unemployment, but I do think that if the right hon. Gentleman would go very carefully into the whole matter he would see what a very large sum has been gained by the fact of Middlesbrough not having gone in for loans on a large scale. Where they have expended the ratepayers' money as they have done to this enormous extent, when we are giving considerations of one kind and another it is only fair that the right hon. Gentleman should take Middlesbrough's case into favourable consideration. In connection with the North Riding Hospital, which provides for people who come from the Middlesbrough Union, it is a matter of favourable comment how very rarely we have to wait for our contributions from Middlesbrough. They are the largest contributors to this institution and it is always a point of honour with them that they should be paid absolutely up to date. In these circumstances I urge the right hon. Gentleman between now and Report stage to see whether something cannot be done in the direction asked for by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough.
  Mr. CECIL WILSON: The Parliamentary Secretary has twitted hon. Members on this side of the House on the fact that they did not do anything in this direction when they were in office. He has conveniently forgot, as many of his colleagues do, that we were in office for only eight months, while they have been in office 48 months. It is just as well to bear this fact in mind when such a comment is made. The position of Sheffield is this. In 1923, that is five years ago, the guardians had to borrow £98,000. In the following year they borrowed £150,000. The next year, £118,000; all these amounts being at 4¾ per cent. They then had to borrow £352,000; then another £365,000, and

  877
  then another £20,000, making a total of £1,103,000. That was all borrowed on account of the relief for able-bodied unemployed. What is going to happen now, as I understand it, is this. The amount of loans outstanding is £1,029,000, and we are to be relieved of the interest on that sum as from the appointed day, but we shall have to repay the whole of the loans borrowed. That is a very serious matter. What it amounts to is this, that we are being relieved by way of interest of an amount of something over a penny rate, whereas we are going to pay for another 15 years an amount equal to a 7d, rate. We feel very strongly that as these loans have been incurred on account of what is a national matter, not because of any local circumstances, that they should be defrayed out of national funds. We have suffered from the time these loans were originally raised, now we are to go on suffering the same burden for another 15 years. It is not dealing with the matter in a proper and just way, but I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to make out that the penny rate he is giving us is really larger than the 7d. rate we shall have to pay.
  Mr. PALIN: I hope the Government will realise that hon. Members on this side are not merely talking for talking's sake, or with the idea of merely opposing the Government's proposal. What we are pleading for now is that before the door is banged and shut against any further consideration of the position of necessitous areas the Government should give more consideration to their special case on the ground that a greater part of the loans now outstanding were incurred on a matter which should be a national responsibility. A great deal of the loans incurred by Tyneside are due to the fact that large numbers of people were dumped in that area during the War. They are there still. How long they are going to remain there I do not know, but they have been a charge on the boards of guardians for a long time. Whilst it is a great concession to be relieved of the interest on these loans, and to have easier repayment of the principal—we are grateful for that— ought we to repay the whole of these loans having regard to special circumstances?
  878
  Let me put it in another way. Ought we to pay a larger charge for the relief of the able-bodied than the average for the country? There is, I think, a special case to be made out. Not only have we suffered from the War, we have suffered from the peace. At the present moment, about 46 per cent. of the shipbuilding employés are out of work, despite the boom which the newspapers tell us is coming to the Tyneside from the large amount of orders which have been given. All these munition workers and shipyard workers have been out of work for 12 months, for two years, and a great many for eight years, and I ask the Committee to consider the state of people who have been out of work for eight years with no hope of employment. When they start work the very valuable hereditaments which would have borne a portion of these burdens will not be available owing to the operation of the de-rating proposals, and, therefore, this burden, which ought not to be on this particular district, which ought to be a national burden, will have to be borne by the small shopkeeper and ordinary householder in the area, who are exhausted not only physically but in every other way as well.
  I do not know what His Royal Highness will find when he visits the coalfields, but I know that in Tyneside there are self-respecting and independent people who would have resented charity or any special consideration from anyone, who have been reduced to a condition which fortunately I have not words to describe. If this district is to recover its prosperity it must not be burdened with this debt at the start. Surely the bright spots which have been described to us time after time, the prosperous places, ought to bear their share of the burden which is coming to Tyneside and other necessitous areas, and thus enable them to get on their feet again. While everyone will be grateful for the concession that has been made, it is just a question whether this ought not to be a national charge, and I trust that the Government will see that the necessitous areas are dealt with on those lines.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I should like to refer again to the case of Sheffield, which illustrates in a representative way the problem involved in this Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe

  879
  (Mr. Cecil Wilson) has made it clear that what the Government propose to do is to remit a rate to the amount of 1d. as their contribution to the Sheffield problem, whereas the City of Sheffield ratepayers are to be saddled for 15 years with a sevenpenny rate. This particular problem is almost exclusively a war-time problem. During the war there were brought into Sheffield about 50,000 people for war work. There was a very rapid expansion in the manufacture of war munitions, and no one can allege that Sheffield stinted in any way its effort to respond to war-time needs. I submit that as the problem is a war problem and therefore a national problem, there is the fullest reason for the Government accepting responsibility for the loan and leaving the local authority with the burden of paying the interest charges for a period of 15 years.
  No one will defend the position that the solution of such a war-time problem should be in terms of seven to one, when the seven has to be borne by the local authority. The position ought to be reversed. I would suggest to the Government two things: first, that the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe regarding an interview with representatives of the authorities should be acceded to; and, secondly, that at the very least the Government should put itself in a position of 50–50 with regard to these loans and the interest on them. That is a very reasonable proposal, and I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate that the Government are not going to close and bang and bolt the door against it.
  Mr. GROVES: I do not suppose that there is much humour about this Bill, but this Clause is certainly slightly humourous, for it uses the words "for the purpose of affording relief to localities." I addressed a few remarks on the Amendment which had special reference to West Ham. I should like to repeat that we in West Ham ought not to be called upon to bear the burden. There was a certain duty facing us and we did it. West Ham itself was not responsible for its poverty. The duty that was before the West Ham Poor Law Union at its time of crisis was a duty which had to be performed to prevent starvation and revolution. We
  880
  had an excessive number of poor people because the War had reduced West Ham's economic position. There was once a time when boats used to leave the docks and go to the Baltic and bring back malt, grain and oil and other goods, but during the War the number of our unemployed grew and so did the problem. We should have been dogs if we had turned our backs on the people who were out of work and without bread. We gave them food and exhausted our local financial resources. Then we went to the Government. I have to laugh when I read what the Minister is prepared to do. Even before this Government took office, during the time of the Coalition Government, the representatives of West, Ham went to the Government and asked if the Government were prepared to shoulder the burdens of the area because those burdens were national burdens. I do not say that they were treated with discourtesy. I remember very well that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) received a deputation led by our local mayor. The right hon. Gentleman's words rang in our ears—he could not accept the responsibility of imposing additional burdens on the national Exchequer. He was prepared, of course, to leave the local ratepayers in the position that they had either to see their fellow-creatures die of starvation or shoulder the financial burden of relieving them. West Ham did the latter.
  We have discussed this local position often, and I am sure that the Minister does not recognise that the debt burden of West Ham is a definite and direct result of his Department's own volition. I am not referring to the present Minister of Health. Whether we were wise or not we were dutiful in West Ham. The Poor Law Union saw that our people were not placed in unnecessary need, and the guardians were charged with extravagance. But the money that was lent us was lent only in order that we could carry out the work that the Minister had not time to do. I hope that the Minister will consider the points put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. R. Smith). it is obviously the duty of the Government to shoulder the burden

  881
  of funding this debt. If it is necessary to impose something on the local authorities, they should be charged only with payment of the interest.
  We condemn the Government for using soft words instead of saying what they are going to do. There is an old saying that "Kind words butter no parsnips," and the kind words of the right hon. Gentleman will not fill the stomachs of the people in our borough. The rates of West Ham for Poor Law purposes have been 10s. in the £, and a large proportion of that has been the result of our having endeavoured to meet the financial responsibilities cast upon us by the negligence of various Governments. You offer us some sort of help and say you will reduce the amount of interest due on loans. We are against this theory of moneylending, and we believe it wrong that the Government should lend local authorities money to do things which they afterwards condemn them for doing. Coming back to the point where our borough went to the right hon. Gentleman for Carnarvon Boroughs, the local authorities were led to go to the Goschen Committee to get money and in the early days they went with the full impression that they were carrying out the work that the country itself could not do throuhg the Imperial Chamber. The position was that the local authorities would in a few years find themselves in a position of having to pay for the work which they carried out.
  In West Ham we may be poor in money, but we are not poor from the point of view of being in need of ideas. The poverty of our borough is responsible for much of the illness. The lack of food is not helping our people in this country to fight the influenza epidemic. When speaking of loans, it must be realised that in spending this money we have done a good deal in the past to prevent many people from falling victims to illness. We have recently issued two circulars, and in order to avoid the ravages of influenza, the medical officer of health has asked the people to be warmly clad and to have good nourishing food. If we do not carry out our work as heretofore, our people will be starved. West Ham is typical of many local authorities who have faced the music and met their obligations. Let the Minister recognise that, just as we have carried out burdens
  882
  which really belong to the country, so it ought to be the pleasure of this Government to face their obligations, knowing that we have been carrying out their work. Let them be generous enough and just enough now to carry out their part of the programme and not leave us to do the work. As we have carried out our part of the bargain, so let the Government carry out theirs.
  Mr. MARDY JONES: I want to know whether the Government will assist South Wales beyond what they have promised. Speaking in this House on 29th November, the Minister of Health said:
  "I say frankly that the situation in South Wales, is, in my opinion, one which can never be dealt with completely and satisfactorily by any scheme of rating reform."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1928; col. 721, Vol. 223.]
  I want a statement from the Minister as to whether he is making any provision to meet what he admits to be the special case of South Wales. This remission of 3d. in the £ is welcome as far as it goes, but I ask the Minister to wipe out the whole liability absolutely, and if he is not going to do so, he will have a hornet's nest about his ears. The local authorities representing four-fifths of the total coalfields of South Wales will not be in a position to meet the current rates burden without an additional 9d. in the £ on loans which they obtained to meet the abnormal Poor Law relief created by abnormal unemployment. South Wales is in no way responsible for the position. which is due to a national cause and should be a national burden. We say without hesitation that the entire cost should be borne by the national Exchequer and not in any way fall on the local rates.
  Unless the Government meet us fully on that point, I can assure them there is trouble ahead for them. They are going to get something in South Wales which they have never had to tackle yet. They have been able to count on putting on the screw and refusing loans and imposing conditions about scales of relief, but the situation is so serious that the local authorities themselves will sooner or later refuse to function your new law, and you will have to come down and function the whole lot yourselves, unless you do something more substantial than this niggardly 3d. in the £.
  Sir K. WOOD: Anyone who has heard the Debate during the last 20 minutes or half an hour must have come to the conclusion that this is an ungrateful world. Here for the first time for many years assistance is being given to those areas up and down the country which have been so heavily pressed and which have asked for assistance so long. Of all parties in the House, the party represented by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) and, indeed, the party opposite ought to be the very last to minimise the value of the undoubted benefits which are offered by the Clause under discussion. I wish I had brought with me the observations of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood). I have often quoted them in the House. It is not the case that the Labour Government was only in office for a short period and therefore could not deal with it. I invite hon. Members first thing to-morrow morning to study the replies given by the Labour Minister to questions put by the predecessor of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Middlesbrough, the late Mr. Trevelyan Thomson—and if any man urged this question of necessitous areas on the House, it was he.
  What was the reply of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne when he occupied the position which I occupy to-night? What was the reply of the then Minister of Labour, who will always be remembered in connection with that office? What was the reply of the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour? They did not say "We have not sufficient time to do anything for the necessitous areas. Our tenure of office is uncertain, and our political life is dependant on the wishes of other parties." No. What the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said in effect was: "I regret that the Labour Government cannot find any solution for the necessitous areas, except the general measure of relief which is afforded by the ordinary methods of assistance in relation to unemployment."
  Mr. GREENWOOD: No.
  Sir K. WOOD: I think that is a very fair summary but I wish I had brought a copy of the speech with me. I will recall to the hon. Members opposite, who spoke in such critical terms to-night,
  884
  another matter of which they may remind their constituents and themselves in this connection. One of the very first things that happened when the Labour Government came into office was the introduction of a deputation by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne). He headed one of the largest deputations even seen in this House and in a Committee Room upstairs they met the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) who was then Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman received this mass meeting upstairs and they discussed the subject of the necessitous areas and the hon. Member for Plaistow said "At last we have a man who is going to help the necessitous areas." But what did the right hon. Gentleman do? We know that the position of the necessitous areas was exactly the same when the right hon. Gentleman entered office, and when he left it.
  Mr. BROAD: And it is twice as bad now.
  Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member will not ride off on that statement. I am now dealing with the criticisms—the carping criticisms as I regard them—of hon. Gentlemen opposite who ought to be the last to criticise in this connection and who are endeavouring to minimise the benefits given in this Clause. They ought to be the last to complain of what they allege to be the smallness of the assistance given to these areas under the Bill, because I hold that they lamentably failed when they were in office. The only serious questions to which I have to address myself in my final observations on this Clause are the questions put by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West and the hon. Baronet the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton). I had the privilege of attending a conference of authorities in Middlesbrough only a few weeks ago. They put to me what was undoubtedly a great difficulty, and I felt a very large amount of sympathy with them. In Middlesbrough they have made considerable efforts, and successful efforts, to deal with the difficult situation which obtains in that part of the area, and they have surmounted it. They put to me what the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West has put to me to-night. They said, in effect, "We

  885
  have made great efforts to overcome our difficulties and we have overcome them, but we are treated just in the same way as other areas who have made no efforts to assist themselves and have done nothing except to criticise and to carp." I will not mention those other areas to-night because I might offend some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken in this Debate if I did so.
  I wish it were possible, in a scheme of this kind, to do something to show some recognition of and gratitude for what has been done in Middlesbrough. But the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West, will be the first to see that it would be most difficult to go back on the appointed day and endeavour to recast our proposals on the basis of a position not in existence at that time. As I told the local authorities, to attempt to do that sort of thing, instead of dealing with the position as it is, would lead to endless difficulty and we would not be able to defend such a proposal, whatever the solution attempted. Everybody recognises the excellent Work which the authorities in Middlesbrough have done, but I am afraid that no reasonable proposition can be arrived at which would deal with their difficulties. I think, however, there are other considerations which will mitigate somewhat the disappointment no doubt felt by my hon. Friend. I was glad to see that when I went to Middlesbrough and told them of the great advantages which, on the whole, they would receive under this Measure, the great benefits which they would receive in connection with the relief of industries, and the considerable relief which their individual ratepayers would enjoy, generally speaking they welcomed this scheme as a considerable contribution to the solution of their difficulties. At any rate, that is the impression with which I came away —namely, that they recognised that this Government was the first to give them real and tangible benefits, and that while other parties talked a lot about what they were going to do, this Government was the first to endeavour to do anything for them.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have heard to-night, not for the first time, of a speech which I made in 1924. I may say that I almost know that speech by heart,
  886
  and, I think, the right hon. Gentleman must know by heart at least that portion of it which he is always quoting. The Parliamentary Secretary during these Debates delights in the opportunity of hitting any head, whether it happens to be the right one or not. When I come into the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman's glance turns to me and immediately he quotes something which I have said, or which I am alleged to have said, in the hope that it will divert discussion from the main question before us. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about sympathy. There are up and down the country now scores of thousands of large posters saying, "Sympathy is not enough; we must have your money."
  The provisions in this Clause, which deals with temporary loans resulting from an economic situation lasting over several years, do not solve the real problem. I have always said, and I repeat to-night, that I do not believe you can find any single, simple formula to deal with the problem of the necessitous areas, but I have always said—and this is a weakness of the Government's scheme—that the major expenditure of local bodies to-day, which has been responsible for the bankruptcy of some of them, is their expenditure in respect of the unemployed and their dependants; and this Clause is an admission of a national responsibility for the unemployed, because in this Clause we are dealing with the Government's scheme for mitigating the burdens which bear upon local authorities for temporary loans. The bulk of those temporary loans—indeed, I suppose, all of them—have arisen because Poor Law guardians, and in a less degree municipal authorities, have been forced to deal with the problem of unemployment, and the fact that in this Clause the Government have been driven to meet in some degree the debts which local authorities have incurred is an admission, and an important admission, of the fact that the State must bear a heavy responsibility in this respect.
  If you take that group of Poor Law areas which met in this House a week ago to-day, most of them Poor Law authorities with Conservative majorities, most of them keenly desirous of protecting the ratepayers and saving the ratepayers' money—I think there were 19 of them—they have an accumulated out-

  887
  standing debt to-day of £8,000,000, the whole of it incurred because of the unemployment situation in their areas; and the Government, having to deal with a variety of questions because of the inevitability of dealing with local government reform once they entered on the perilous path of assisting productive industry, have been driven to do something for these necessitous areas. Their proposal is to mitigate the burden which rests upon these authorities, a burden which has arisen entirely because of the unemployment situation. The case which we have always made from these benches, and which I made from that Box in 1924, was that we cannot deal with necessitous areas as such. The words "as such" have been used from those benches time and time again during the course of the Debates on this Bill. There is no such thing as necessity as such. Necessity arises from some particular cause, and the greatest cause of necessity to-day is unemployment.
  We have always said, we have said since 1909, that unemployment is one of those burdens which ought not to fall upon local authorities at all, and when the Parliamentary Secretary quotes, as he has done innumerable times, what I have said about necessitous areas, he knows that he ought to have quoted the rest of the argument, what has been said not on one occasion but on scores of occasions, namely, that unemployment is a burden which ought not to fall upon the rates. What does the Minister propose to do? He does not propose to lift-the burden of unemployment from the rates at all. Ho is prepared to do a little in order to get this Bill through, with all its iniquitous provisions, in respect of those debts which have accumulated ever since the trade depression began, but whilst he is doing that, he is insisting that local authorities in the future shall bear the total cost of the relief of those unemployed who fall outside the unemployment insurance scheme.
  A little over a year ago we debated in this House an Unemployment Insurance Bill which, on the admission of the Government's own spokesmen—the numbers were a matter for controversy—would render ineligible for benefit a number of unemployed people. They said that something like 30,000 to 40,000
  888
  people would become ineligible for unemployment insurance benefit under their new Act. We did not agree with those figures, but that is not the point. The point is this, that if there is an Unemployment Insurance Act the operation of which puts one more man on the Poor Law, that is a Measure to be condemned. And now the Government's new Measure, so far as unemployment is concerned, amounts to this: They have admitted that in the vast majority of cases, though not in all, the area of the burden is too small, and they are, therefore, prepared in the county areas to extend the burden of unemployment over the whole county. It is true that in certain cases they have limited the area which will have to bear the burden of unemployment—that is so in the case of Liverpool and in the case of certain other areas—but during the course of the Debates on this Bill the Government have, not once but several times, urged in support of their Measure that so far as the county areas were concerned they were broadening the area of the charge. If you can broaden the area of charge, outside the county boroughs, for the maintenance of the unemployed who are not in receipt of unemployment insurance benefit over the whole county of Durham, why did you stop at the Tees, why did you stop at the county?
  The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has extended the area of charge is really an admission of our complete case. There is no line at which you can stop, short of making the people who are unemployed in the necessitous areas a national burden. No-one is going to suggest in this Committee that the people who to-day are unemployed in what are called the necessitous areas are unemployed because of any fault of their own. Nobody is going to suggest, what used to be a cardinal principle of Conservative policy, that people are unemployed because they are vicious, because there is something wrong with them, for to-day everybody knows that large numbers of the best of our workpeople are out of work through no fault of their own and through no fault of individual employers. The problem that has arisen is a problem that is national and international in its origin and scope, and it happens that we have necessitous areas to-day because certain of our industries have been materially affected owing to the economic conditions in the world. One

  889
  could conceive of a state of affairs in which, because of other economic influences, you would have necessitous areas which to-day are prosperous, which would be entirely different from the necessitous areas of to-day. Why should those necessitous areas which become necessitous because of world-wide economic causes be called upon to bear a considerable proportion of the expenditure arising out of the catastrophe?
  To-day what the Government are doing in Durham, Northumberland, Glamorgan, Monmouth and other counties tin South Wales and in counties in the West Riding of Yorkshire, is to spread the burden of the maintenance of the unemployed, who are receiving no assistance from the State, over a wider area. There is no way of dealing with this question short of making these necessitous areas a national responsibility, and as I understand this Clause, it is an admission of that claim. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to rise in his place several times a day—and I have been guilty of it myself during the Debates on this Bill, and I know that hon. Members opposite are tired of hearing me speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]. I am sure that hon. Members are; I am tired of hearing myself speak. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to get up several times a day and make speeches which are intended as General Election speeches, without dealing with the arguments which are brought forward, in the hope that his party will gain electoral benefit out of the Bill. One thing which has struck me more particularly during the last few days is that the Government cares less for the substance of this Bill than for the hopes which they wish to raise in the minds of the electors. The speech which we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary to-night was irrelevant; it was more than irrelevant, it was wearisome in the sense that we have heard it so often. It was not intended to answer the arguments from these Benches, but was intended primarily, indeed I may say wholly, for the purpose of the General Election.
  10.0 p.m.
  The question of the debts which are hanging round the necks of necessitous areas is far too important to be dealt with as the sport of a General Election. Had the Government dealt with this question in the way that they ought to
  890
  have done they would not have dealt with it on the lines of Clause 94, and they would not inevitably have involved the poorer areas in the building up of substantial debts in the immediate future. There is nothing in this Clause, and indeed nothing in the Bill, which will prevent the authorities which are taking over the Poor Law functions from increasing debts in respect of a national catastrophe. As soon as this Bill goes on to the Statute Book, the county of Durham will begin to build up a new debt in respect of the maintenance of those people for whom benefits are not available. The right hon. Gentleman will try to minimise that, and inspire the local authorities who are carrying on Poor Law functions not to give out relief to the able-bodied unemployed; he will do his best to get them to put the lash on these people to seek for jobs which do not exist; he will do his best no doubt, as he has clone already, to get them to reduce their scales of out-relief, but he will not have solved the problem. So long as you get in the great coal and shipbuilding areas a situation which means that sufficient orders are not forthcoming to provide employment for the masses of the people, there will he necessitous areas; and whether you make the Poor Law authorities the county council or the board of guardians, it does not in the least matter, for the problem still remains, and this Clause does nothing more than buy off the local authorities who are to take over the Poor Law functions. When the local authorities take over the functions of the boards of guardians, they have to take over their liabilities, for they have no assets. This Clause does nothing to deal with the real problem. All that it does, and all that it is intended to do, is to make it a little easier for the new authorities to take over Poor Law functions, the right hon. Gentleman knowing perfectly well that in all those stricken areas in England and Wales the first thing that will happen to the new authorities that take over the Poor Law functions is that they will begin to build up a new debt in respect of what everybody knows to-day is a national problem. I have countless reasons why I should be opposed to this Bill and one of them is this. I would

  891
  have accepted much in this Bill if the right hon. Gentleman would have accepted this great principle. My greatest objection to the Bill is that it will still retain as a local charge, whatever the area, the maintenance of people outside the unemployment insurance scheme who ought to have been in, and will refuse to accept their maintenance as a national charge, when it is known to every member of the Committee and to every intelligent man and woman outside the House that unemployment is indeed a national problem, and ought not to be visited on the restricted resources of the local authorities.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: The Parliamentary Secretary made a good propaganda speech, but omitted to deal with the arguments which we have put forward. It was a very good speech, because I felt myself almost bodily transferred to Middlesbrough, and I saw those dear old ladies almost shedding tears as he made his remarkable peroration. I want him to address himself to the arguments that have been put forward from this side. I read paragraph (b) of Clause 94 as an admission that the Government accepts the principle of national responsibility. It says in effect that the Government recognise the local indebtedness to this extent, and I want to argue the case on these grounds. As far as I know, this is the first time in this Bill where there has been a small admission of the principle that the local indebtedness, due mainly to the fact that the local authorities and the local industry have not been able to find work for their able-bodied, is really a national charge and a national responsibility.
  If that be a fair statement of the case —and it seems to me irresistable—I want to repeat the submission I put to the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to Sheffield. It has been pointed out to him that he will leave Sheffield with a capital debt of little more than £1,000,000 to be repaid over the next 15 years, and that the national share of responsibility is admitted by the Government to the extent of a penny rate. That means, in terms of national responsibility, that the Government is saying to Sheffield that they admit a liability in the proportion of one to seven. Taking again the Amendment which the Government are
  892
  putting forward, they do not propose to allow any local authorities to pay over a ninepenny rate. The Government's responsibility, in the light of the experience of Sheffield, which is representative of most of these authorities, shows that it is very largely a war problem, which has been aggravated in the post-war years, and I want to ask the Minister of Health, admitting as he does the principle of war responsibility, whether he will not reconsider the formula of one to seven or one to nine. I submit that a 50–50 percentage in dealing with the accumulations of the last few years would be a reasonable proposition.

  CLAUSE 95.—(Parish property.)
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 78, line 24, at the end, to add the words:
  "In the application of this Section to the County of London references to an urban district shall be construed as references to the City of London and to a metropolitan borough, references to the council of an urban district shall be construed as references to the common council of the City of London and to the council of a metropolitan borough, and references to the general rate of an urban district shall be construed as references to the general rate of the parish to which the property belongs."
  This Amendment applies the Clause to London. The original draft of the Bill dealt with parish property, and it was not noticed that it did not apply to London.
  Mr. RYE: The substance of the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper is the same as the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has now moved. As it covers the whole point, there is no need for me to do anything more than to accept with gratitude the Amendment now made, which does justice to the City of London and to the Metropolitan Borough Council.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 96 (Transfer of property and liabilities under Registration Acts)ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 97.—(Transfer of road property and liabilities.)
  Sir E. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 79, line 33, at the end, to insert the words:
  "Provided also that in any case in which, during the 12 months ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, a district council has failed to expend or to contract to expend for the purposes of such roads in their district a sum less than 95 per cent. of the amount estimated by the district council to be required for such purposes during that period, the difference between the said 95 per cent. of the amount so estimated and the amount actually expended or contracted to be expended during such period shall be deducted from the liabilities referred to in paragraph (d) of this Sub-section, and shall remain a liability to be discharged by the district council."
  I am not at all sure that this Clause will be a workable Clause, but I do not propose to press the Amendment which I have set down. I should take it as a kindness, however, if the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport would give an assurance, first, whether he has power if any district council is in default in dealing with the roads to deal with that district council, and, second, whether, in the event of it becoming necessary for him to use these powers, he will do so.
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I can, of course, give the hon. Baronet the assurance that I have power to withhold the grant, and that, if necessary, I would withhold it from a district council, but I do not anticipate that it will be necessary for me to do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 80, line 7, to leave out the words "A district council shall pay to the county council."
  The object of this and the two following Amendments is to deal with the unexhausted balances of loans. There may be cases in which both districts which are interested are inside the same county, and, in that case, it would be obviously unfair that the unexhausted part of the
  894
  balance should go to the county council. It is to correct that that these Amendments are being proposed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 80, line 8, leave out the words "to the," and insert instead thereof the words "or payable to a."
  In line 18, leave out the words "is unexhausted on the appointed day," and insert instead thereof the words:
  "has not, on the appointed day, been exhausted or applied in or towards the discharge of liabilities transferred to the county council under this Section, or which would have been so transferred if undischarged, shall, in the case of a sum paid or payable to the district council by another district council within the county, be repaid to that council, and in any other case be paid to the county council."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 80, line 32, to leave out the words "it was paid or," and to insert instead thereof the words "the alteration of boundaries or other change took effect and."
  This and the next, Amendment have to be read together, and the effect of them is that the period of 20 years alluded to in the Sub-section is to date from the alteration of the boundaries. The actual change of the burden takes place when the alteration of boundaries takes place, and it is, therefore, proper that the term of 20 years should begin from that date.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made:
  In page 80, leave out from the word "instalments" in line 33, to the word "one-twentieth" in line 34.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

  CLAUSE 98.—(Transfer of quarries, plant, materials, and depots.)
  Mr. LOOKER: I beg to move, in page 81, to leave cut from the word "day" in line 13, to the word "take" in line 14.
  This Clause provides that, where a rural district is in the possession of a quarry for the purpose of carrying out its duties as a road authority, now that these duties are to be taken over by the county council, the county council

  895
  should take over the quarry and plant. The object of this Amendment and of the other Amendments is to extend exactly the same conditions to urban district councils. Various urban district councils have quarries which in the future they may find are unnecessary for the maintenance of the roads which are left to them.
  Colonel ASHLEY: As my name is also down to this Amendment, I need hardly say that I accept it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 81, line 14, after the word "over," insert the words:

  "(a) if desired by the council of any urban district within the county (not being a council who have duly made or are deemed to have duly made a claim to exercise the functions of maintenance and repair county roads within their district) any quarry belonging to the district council in their capacity as highway authority, together with any fixed plant therein; and

  (b) if desired by the council of any rural district within the county."

  In line 26, leave out the word "rural."
  In line 32, after the word "and," insert the words "in the case of a rural district council."—[Mr. Looker.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: This Clause provides that county councils shall take over quarries belonging to local councils, but does this provision apply also in cases where the quarries are not owned by the local councils but where they hold them on lease over a term of years?
  Colonel ASHLEY: That point had not occurred to me. I will look into it before the Report stage.

  CLAUSE 99.—(Transfer of poor Law Officers.)
  Mr. HAYDAY: I beg to move, in page 82, to leave out from the word "who" in line 3, to the word "an" in line 4, and to insert instead thereof the word "is."
  This Amendment is designed to rectify what would be an obvious injustice to
  896
  many Poor Law servants if the Clause went through as it stands at present. The Clause says:
  "Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, any person who having been on the 12th day of November, 1928, an officer of a Poor Law authority is at the appointed day an officer of the same or any other Poor Law authority shall on the appointed day, as respects that office, be transferred as follows."
  That leaves any Poor Law officer appointed since 12th November last totally unprovided for. Another point to which I wish to draw attention concerns the words:
  "As respects that office."
  I take it that means the office held by the Poor Law officer on 12th November. That does not allow for any promotions or any transfers to higher offices which have taken place since 12th November. Appointments of Poor Law officers are constantly being made, particularly at times like the present, when there is considerable distress and epidemics of disease are taking place. Quite a number of additional Poor Law officers may have been appointed since 12th November, and appointments may also have been made in the natural course of filling vacancies since 12th November. Keeping in mind the many thousands of Poor Law officers in the service of local authorities throughout the country we can quite see that there must be a fairly large number who will be left to the tender mercies of any new authorities and that there will not be adequate protection for them in their particular office if they were not in the service before 12th November, 1928. I know of one or two instances where particular Poor Law officers have shown brilliant efficiency, and they have been appointed to vacancies in the highest branch of the service. Those who have shown that extra ability are only to be taken over as respects the offices which they held on the 12th November, 1928.
  I know it may be said that throughout the Bill 12th November is given as the appointed day, but in this Clause the point I am making could be met if my Amendment were accepted because it says "subject to the provisions of this part of this Act." I hope the Minister will accept my Amendment because the Clause as it stands would be unfair and unreasonable and would almost amount to an indecent treatment of valuable officers

  897
  who have been promoted to higher positions since 12th November, or to those new officers who have filled vacancies since the 12th of November. If at the time of the functioning of these new authorities there are any servants under the Poor Law authorities who have been taken into the service since 12th November, I think they should have equal consideration with those who may have been taken into the service on the 10th or 11th November. I raise this point on behalf of the Poor Law officers.
  Sir K. WOOD: This is the first of a series of Clauses dealing with the transfer and compensation of officers. I may say that it is the intention of the Government to treat these officers with perfect fairness. The Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) is one which I am afraid I cannot advise the Committee to accept, and I think on reflection he will not wish to press it. This Clause follows many precedents, and it follows the lines of many schemes connected with commercial and industrial affairs. The Clause we are dealing with provides that if a man is appointed between the 12th day of November, 1928, and the appointed day when the Bill comes into operation, the Clauses relating to compensation do not apply. I do not think that we are treating the Poor Law officers badly by a provision of that kind.
  I also want to correct the hon. Gentleman in regard to his reference to the phrase "as respects that office." That is founded on the precedent of the Eating and Valuation Act, and is simply to meet the contention that might be made that a person holding a Poor Law office and some other office, and being transferred to the county council, might have to be compensated for both offices. What we are laying down perfectly clearly and fairly in this Bill is that he shall, of course, only be compensated in respect of his Poor Law office. I also want to make it clear that the Clause as drawn gives protection to any Poor Law officer who accepts a new Poor Law office in the interval between the introduction of the Bill and the appointed day. He will, of course, be treated on the footing that if during the interval between the intro-
  898
  duction of the Bill and the appointed day he holds another office, he will be compensated on that basis. I think that on all these three points we shall not be doing any injustice, and that it would be unreasonable in such circumstances to ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: Unfortunately, these important Amendments have been reached at a very late hour, and I have only time to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman. The Clause under discussion refers to transfer of officers, but the right hon. Gentleman himself has alluded to compensation. As the Bill is drawn, it appears to be necessary that the officer should be in the service on the 12th November and also at the appointed day, which is the 1st April, 1930, and that if for any reason, in anticipation of this Measure coming into operation, the appointment is determined before the 1st April, 1930, the claim to compensation is lost. Is that the state of affairs, and, if it be the state of affairs, do not the Government recognise that a very serious injustice is involved?
  Sir K. WOOD: You could not, obviously, bring in compensation which would have effect before the operation of the Bill. It is entirely a matter between the officer and the authority.
  Mr. HAYDAY: Is there any protection for the man appointed after the 12th November? He is not given the protection of being transferred to the new authority, apart from any question of compensation.
  Sir K. WOOD: That is simply because he joined with the knowledge of these provisions. The man who has been many years in the service is in an entirely different position.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Is it not the case that, in the normal working of these Poor Law authorities, quite apart from this interval, persons would be appointed in the ordinary way, and, although their number might not be large, ought they not to be protected?
  Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Perhaps I may put a particular case. The matron of the Penistone Workhouse died just after

  899
  Christmas last year. A new appointment was made, and the post was given to a member of her family. The Parliamentary Secretary says that the new appointment will lie outside the terms of the Bill in regard to compensation, but I should like him to deal with this particular case of a deceased officer being succeeded by another member of that officer's family.
  It being half-past Ten of the clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 102.

  Division No. 137.]

  AYES.

  [10.30 p.m.

  Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

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

  Macmillan, Captain H.

  Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

  Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

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

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  Margesson, Captain D.

  Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

  Falle, Sir Bertram G.

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

  Fermoy, Lord

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

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

  Fielden. E. B.

  Meller, R. J.

  Astor, Viscountess

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Atkinson, C.

  Fraser, Captain Ian

  Meyer, Sir Frank

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Frece, Sir Walter de

  Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Welden)

  Balniel, Lord

  Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

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

  Barnett, Major Sir Richard

  Ganzoni, Sir John

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

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Gates, Percy

  Moore, Sir Newton J.

  Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

  Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamliton

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

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

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

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Bennett, A. J.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

  Berry, Sir George

  Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

  Morrison-8ell, Sir Arthur Clive

  Bethel, A.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

  Nuttall, Ellis

  Bevan, S. J.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Oakley, T.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

  Braithwaite, Major A. N.

  Hacking, Douglas H.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Briggs, J. Harold

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt- Hon. William

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Hartington, Marquees of

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Brittain, Sir Harry

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Perring, Sir William George

  Brockiebank, C. E. R.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Broun, Lindsay, Major H.

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

  Henn, Sir Sydney H.

  Power, Sir John Cecil

  Bullock, Captain M.

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Burman, J. B.

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

  Preston, William

  Butler, Sir Geoffrey

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Campbell, E. T.

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

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Carver, Major W. H.

  Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

  Ramsden, E.

  Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Rawson, Sir Cooper

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

  Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

  Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

  Cecil, Rt Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Horlick, Lieut -Colonel J. N.

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

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

  Christie, J. A.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

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

  Clarry, Reginald George

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Clayton, G. C.

  Hurd, Percy A.

  Rye, F. G.

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Hurst, Gerald B.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

  Cohen, Major J. Brunel

  Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

  Iveagh, Countess of

  Sandon, Lord

  Colman, N. C. D.

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

  Savery, S. S.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

  Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie

  Cope, Major Sir William

  Kindereley, Major Guy M.

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

  Couper, J. B.

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

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

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

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

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

  Lamb, J. Q.

  Skelton, A. N.

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

  Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

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

  Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

  Crookshank, Cpt.H.( Lindsay, Gainsbro)

  Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

  Smith Carlngton, Neville W.

  Dalkeith. Earl of

  Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

  Loder, J. de V.

  Sprot, Sir Alexander

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Looker, Herbert William

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

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

  Lougher, Lewis

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

  Dawson, Sir Philip

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Dixey, A. O.

  Luce, Major-Gen. Slr Richard Harman

  Storry-Dans, R.

  Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Lumley, L. R.

  Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

  Drewe, C.

  MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

  Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

  Sunden, Sir Wilfrid

  Ellis, R. G.

  McLean, Major A.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

  Wayland, Sir William A.

  Withers, John James

  Tinne, J. A.

  Wells, S. R.

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

  Womersley, W. J.

  Vaughan Morgan, Col. K. P.

  Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

  Waddingten, R.

  Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

  Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

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

  Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

  Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks,Richm'd)

  Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

  Winby, Colonel L. P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.

  NOES.

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

  Hamilton, Sir R.(Orkney & Shetland)

  Ritson, J.

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hayday, Arthur

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

  Baker, Walter

  Hirst, G. H.

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

  Barnes, A.

  Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

  Saklatvala, Shapurji

  Barr, J.

  Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

  Sexton, James

  Batey, Joseph

  Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

  Shiels, Dr. Drummond

  Bellamy, A.

  Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

  Shinwell, E.

  Bondfield, Margaret

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  John, William (Rhondda, West)

  Sitch, Charles H.

  Briant, Frank

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bromley, J.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Stamford, T. W.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

  Stephen, Campbell

  Buchanan, G.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Strauss, E. A.

  Cape, Thomas

  Kennedy, T.

  Sullivan, J.

  Charleton, H. C.

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

  Sutton, J E.

  Connolly, M.

  Kirkwood, D.

  Taylor, R. A.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lansbury, George

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

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Lee, F.

  Tomlinson, R. P.

  Dennison, R.

  Lindley, F. W.

  Townend, A. E.

  Duncan, C.

  Longbottom, A. W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Dunnico, H.

  Lowth, T.

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

  England, Colonel A.

  Lunn, William

  Wellock, Wilfred

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

  Mackinder, W.

  Welsh, J. C.

  Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Westwood, J.

  Gillett, George M.

  MacNeill-Weir, L.

  Wiggins, William Martin

  Graham, D. M (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

  Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

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

  Mosley, Sir Oswald

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Greenall, T.

  Murnin, H.

  Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

  Oliver, George Harold

  Windsor, Walter

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Palin, John Henry

  Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

  Grundy, T. W.

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

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

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Potts, John S.

  Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

  Paling.

  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  The CHAIRMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given and the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be. concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's sitting.
  Clauses 100 (Transfer of road officers,) 101 (Tenure and distribution of transferred officers,) 102 (Provisions as to Registration Officers,) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 103 —(Compensation to existing officers.)
  Amendments made:
  In page 84, line 24, after the word "authority," insert the words "or committee."
  In line 25, after the word "officer," insert the words "or registrar of marriages."
  In line 27, after the word "authority," insert the words "or committee."
  In line 28, after the word "officer," insert the words "or registrar of marriages."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

  CLAUSE 104.—(Superannuation of transferred Poor Law officers.)
  Amendments made:
  In page 86, line 28, at the beginning insert the words:
  "the second proviso to Section seven."
  In line 30, at the end, insert the words:
  "Where any such officer was, immediately before the appointed day, one of the holders of a joint appointment, then, if after he has attained the age of 50 years or completed 20 years' service he loses his office or employment by reason of the death, resignation, or insanity of the other holder

  903
  thereof and is not re-appointed, he shall, in lieu of being entitled to a return of contributions under Section 10 of the Act of 1922, be entitled to a superannuation allowance under that Act, so, however, that this provision shall not apply where a joint appointment held by a husband and wife is terminated owing to misconduct of one of them,"
  In page 87, line 9, after the word "and," insert the words:
  "for adequately protecting their rights and interests and."
  In line 20, after the word "officers," insert the words "in that service."— [Mr. Chamberlain.]

  CLAUSE 105.—(Superannuation of transferred road officers.)
  Amendment made:
  In page 89, line 29, after the word "aforesaid," insert the words
  "for the provisions of the Act of 1922, and for adequately protecting his rights and interests."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  Clause 106 (Determination of questions as to transferred officers, etc.) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 107.—(Expenses and borrowing.)
  Amendments made:
  In page 91, line 4, after the word "Act," insert the words
  "or by any scheme made thereunder for the provision of hospital accommodation for the treatment of infectious disease."
  In line 14, at the end, insert the words
  "(2) The council of any county or county borough in Wales or Monmouthshire may, with the consent of the Minister, lend to the King Edward the Seventh Welsh National Memorial Association any money required by that association for the purposes of capital expenditure which that association has power to borrow, subject to any conditions which the Minister may impose."
  In line 17, leave out the word "a," and insert instead thereof the words
  "the County of London, under and in accordance with the London County Council (Finance Consolidation) Act, 1912, as amended by any subsequent enactment, and in the case of any other."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

  CLAUSE 108.—(Provisions as to inquiries.)
  Amendments made:
  In page 91, line 33, at the end, insert the words:
  "(3) The Secretary of State may hold inquiries for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to the review by county councils of electoral divisions as if those purposes were purposes of Section 54 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and Sub-section (1) of Section 87 of that Act shall apply accordingly."
  In line 34, after the word "Where," insert the words "the Secretary of State or."
  In line 40, after the first word "the," insert the words "Secretary of State or."
  In line 40, after the second word "the," insert the words, "Secretary of State or."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

  CLAUSE 109.—(Provisions as to orders, schemes and regulations.)
  Amendment made:
  In page 92, line 14, after the word "that," insert the words:

  "(a) any scheme in operation under Part VI of this Act during any fixed grant period may be altered or revoked by a subsequent scheme made at any time before the end of that period; and

  (b)" —[Mr. Chamberlain.]

  CLAUSE 110.—(Transitory provisions and adaptation of enactments.)
  Amendment made:
  In page 92, line 36, after the word "transitional," insert the words "and temporary."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPERANNUATION (DIPLOMATIC SERVICE) BILL
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [14th December],"That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. TINKER rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak. He has already spoken on the Bill.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that when this Bill was last discussed the hon. Member's speech was interrupted by the Adjournment, and that that does not mean that the hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can continue a speech, but I thought that he wished to speak again.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member wants to continue a speech that was interrupted, and I want to ask for a Ruling whether it constitutes a speech or not—quite apart from the question whether the hon. Member wishes to continue or not. If a speech is made and interrupted by the Adjournment, does that constitute a speech, or is it within an hon. Member's right to continue his speech?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member was interrupted in his speech by the Adjournment, then he is entitled to continue it if the debate be resumed.
  Mr. TINKER: I desire to continue my speech and to take objection to this Bill being brought on at this time of night. It has been on the Order Paper ever since the Session started, and I have been wondering when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury intended to take it. I have been to the Vote Office every evening to see if the Bill was there, but it was not. What is the reason for all the secrecy, and why cannot we have a proper debate on it? No one can put forward any reason why it should be brought forward at a time like this when distress is so prevalent and the miners cannot get what they are entitled to. One would not expect the Government to attempt to bring in a Bill in this
  906
  manner. It is said that one reason for it is that injustice has been done to these particular people. How anyone can say that injustice is being done to these people, 44 in number, who are getting on an average a pension of over £1,000 each, and when this Bill means to increase that, I cannot for the life of me understand. Had this been a hard case in which the people concerned were entitled to an increase, no one on this side would have objected, but, in the circumstances, some of us cannot agree to this Bill.
  I ask hon. Members opposite, if they are going to consider the case of a few people in favoured places, do they never consider the lot of many other people who are as fully entitled to pensions as these people? Take the case of the old age pension. It is certainly not adequate and people have to reach the age of 65 before they can receive it. During the Recess I had cases of colliers who have been stopped just under the age of 65—in one case at the age of 64— and there are no pensions for them. That man had served the State just as well as any of these people, and when I appealed to the colliery manager he said, "I have no need for men of that age." I do not blame the colliery owners but I blame the state of society which gives to one class pensions such as are proposed in the Bill, and prevents other deserving people from getting any adequate pensions at all. It is not fair that at a time like this, we should give to one class and withhold from others the rights to which they are entitled.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): May I appeal to hon. Members to let us have this Bill tonight. The hon. Member who has just sat down said that we had not given sufficient discussion to this Bill, but we have already had four Debates on it. We have spent a good many hours on it already, and hon. Gentlemen opposite have had full opportunity of offering their views and have done so. There is a complete misapprehension in regard to this Bill. We are not going to increase pensions at all.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Where does the increased charge on the Exchequer come from?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is an increased charge of about 4 per cent., and that 4 per cent. is founded on an estimate which was sent to the Treasury by the Foreign Office. I think we probably erred on the side of too large increases of these pensions. We put in 4 per cent which is a very small figure indeed. I think probably it is nearer 3 per cent. than 4 per cent.; but I can assure hon. Members that the result of the Bill is not to increase pensions. All we are doing is to lower pensions and we are giving a lump sum benefit, so as to place the Diplomatic Service on exactly the same basis as the whole of the rest of the Civil Service. I beg of hon. Members to let us have the Bill tonight. All the Debates up to now have been conducted on a misapprehension as to the nature of the Bill. We are not asking hon. Members to vote an increase of pensions at all. As a matter of fact in the past we have paid a large maximum pension for 15 years service. In the future, the maximum pension will not be obtainable until the diplomat has actually served 45 years. We are so arranging the pensions that pensions are going to be now in force for the years of service.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I have listened with amazement to the right hon. Gentleman.
  908
  I am asked to accept statements from him which are not in the Bill at all. We are always told here that in discussing Measures of this kind, we are not discussing statements by Ministers but only what appears in black and white in the Bill. With all due respect, the right hon. Gentleman must not ask us to believe that it is 45 years because the Bill says 10 years and 15 years.
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Not for the maximum.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: It may be 45 years, but the Bill says 15 years.
  It being Eleven o'Cloch, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  SUPERANNUATION (DIPLOMATIC SERVICE) BILL

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House doth now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell]
    Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (BENEFIT DISALLOWED).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (BENEFIT DISALLOWED).
  BRITISH ARMY (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).
  BRITISH ARMY (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).
  CHINA (BRITISH TROOPS).
  CHINA (BRITISH TROOPS).
COAL INDUSTRY.
  OUTPUT AND EXPORT.
  OUTPUT AND EXPORT.
  CLOSED PITS (MAIN COLLIERY COMPANY, NEATH).
  CLOSED PITS (MAIN COLLIERY COMPANY, NEATH).
  AUTOMATIC STAMP MACHINES, RAILWAY STATIONS.
  AUTOMATIC STAMP MACHINES, RAILWAY STATIONS.
SCOTLAND.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, GLASGOW (TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, GLASGOW (TWO-SHIFT SYSTEM).
  NECESSITOUS CHILDREN, GLASGOW.
  NECESSITOUS CHILDREN, GLASGOW.
  OUTDOOR RELIEF.
  OUTDOOR RELIEF.
  IMPURE MILK.
  IMPURE MILK.
  NEW EXCHANGE BUILDING, GLASGOW.
  NEW EXCHANGE BUILDING, GLASGOW.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND BATING.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND BATING.
  MUTTON CARCASES (IMPORTS, LONDON).
  MUTTON CARCASES (IMPORTS, LONDON).
  CROSS-CHANNEL PASSENGER STEAMERS.
  CROSS-CHANNEL PASSENGER STEAMERS.
  BIRTH CONTROL.
  BIRTH CONTROL.
  MANUFACTURED GOODS (DUTIES).
  MANUFACTURED GOODS (DUTIES).
TRANSPORT.
  TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, PICCADILLY.
  TRAFFIC REGULATIONS, PICCADILLY.
  STEAM-DRIVEN ROAD VEHICLES.
  STEAM-DRIVEN ROAD VEHICLES.
  MOTOR VEHICLE LICENCES.
  MOTOR VEHICLE LICENCES.
  INDIA (DEFENCE EXPENDITURE).
  INDIA (DEFENCE EXPENDITURE).
AGRICULTURE.
  EDUCATION AND RESEARCH.
  EDUCATION AND RESEARCH.
  ESTATE DUTY.
  ESTATE DUTY.
  WAR CLAIMS, EGYPTIAN NATIONALS.
  WAR CLAIMS, EGYPTIAN NATIONALS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCFLLOR on the Woolsack.

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD CUSHENDUN): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Government Annuities Acts, 1829 to 1888, and the enactments amending those Acts, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Cushendun.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

ROAD VEHICLES REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House resolves itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Cecil Chelwood.)
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, on the Motion which my noble friend has just moved I should like first of all to thank him for having been so good as to postpone it to suit my convenience. I think your Lordships are familiar with the history of this Bill, which was introduced by my noble friend. It obtained a Second Reading and its further stages were postponed until such time as we could obtain from the Royal Commission which is at present sitting on these very matters, an intimation as to whether it would be possible for them to bring forward an Interim Report. As your Lordships will remember, I think the suggestion was that if an Interim Report during the next few months was not forthcoming, then it might be necessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The
802
Minister of Transport communicated with the Chairman of the Royal Commission as to the possibility of an Interim Report, and he received from the Chairman, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, an undertaking that an Interim Report would be forthcoming on the subject of this very Bill in the course of the coming summer.
I feel that no one could in any circumstances quarrel with the noble Viscount for having introduced his Bill. We are all entirely in agreement with the principle on which it was founded, and we are fully aware of the daily toll of death and injury which are the unfortunate concomitants of motor traffic in this country, and, as a matter of fact, throughout the world. It is true that the accidents which occur owing to this cause, even making an allowance for the enormous extension of motor traffic, are such as to cause all of us feelings of alarm and anxiety, and, naturally, any Government. Would be wanting in their duty if they did not support any measure or do everything in their power to mitigate this terrible number of accidents. But I would venture to put before your Lordships the fact that the Government feel it is quite impossible within the time at our disposal to bring in satisfactory legislation, or legislation which can do anything towards mitigating the accidents which are now unfortunately of everyday occurrence. Your Lordships are fully aware that any motor legislation is very highly controversial and your Lordships will remember the debate that we had in this House on the Second Reading. While everyone supported the principle underlying the Bill of the noble Viscount, and while everyone fully sympathised with the reason which he told us led him to bring forward the Bill, still there was hardly one clause which was not attacked from one side of the House or the other, which really showed your Lordships that the Bill was of so highly controversial a character that it could be quite impossible, whatever Committee was set up, to reduce it to an uncontroversial measure, which is the only measure which could possibly hope to pass through the House of Commons.
The Government may be right or they may be wrong. I can assure your Lordships we are only too anxious to do everything in our power to support the

803
principle but, having very carefully considered this measure, we believe that because the legislation is of so highly controversial a character it is quite impossible to hold out any hope that such a Bill could possibly pass through Parliament and be brought into active operation this Session. Therefore I would venture to suggest that we should wait for the Interim Report which the Chairman of the Royal Commission has undertaken shall be forthcoming; but I can assure your Lordships that if my noble friend or those who are associated with him feel that by this measure being referred to a Select Committee, or in any other way, anything could be done to mitigate those evils with which the Bill is purporting to deal, then the Government certainly will not stand in his way. As I have said, we are at one in the principle which he put forward so eloquently on the Second Reading, that no stone should be left unturned to do whatever lies in the power of everyone of us to mitigate the evils which are unfortunately accompanying this vastly increasing motor traffic throughout the country.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL, who had given Notice to move, that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, said: My Lords, I understood from the speech of the noble Marquess [Lord Salisbury] on the Second Reading that the Government took rather a clear view that this Bill could not well go any further and I was a little surprised when I saw that the noble Viscount had put it down for Committee. I thereupon addressed myself to the Bill and endeavoured to draw Amendments to make it a workable and a reasonable Bill, but when I came to look at the clauses I found that they were so conceived as to appear to me almost impossible of useful amendment. I was driven merely to putting down Amendments to leave them out. Having gone through that process it then seemed to me that that would not be of very great assistance, because of the sympathy which has been expressed, and which I think is universal, with the object the noble Viscount had in view.
I thereupon put down a Motion which I am now going to move, that the Bill he referred to a Select Committee, because it did seem to me that an inquiry with evidence into the various difficult
804
points would go a very long way to clear up the situation, and, although I suppose we all agree that legislation is clearly impossible this Session, still it would be a useful precedent for future legislation by giving information upon which such legislation could be based. I ventured to say on Second Reading, and I think it is worth repeating now, that so far as reckless driving and serious accidents are concerned it is not so much legislation that is wanted as action under the existing law taken by the police. I believe that existing powers are sufficient if properly enforced in regard to dangerous driving at corners, dangerous driving at cross roads and things of that kind, instead of high speed on deserted moorlands. If attention were directed to the real dangers believe present legislation would be sufficient to deal with nearly all these matters of which there is complaint.
But the Bill makes other suggestions and I cannot help feeling that a good many of these suggestions are serious mistakes. Several of them, such as the "hump," or is it the crevasse? outside a village, seemed to me to be impracticable and to stand no real chance of acceptance even by the general public who are not motorists, but I do think that the Bill should be examined and I cannot help feeling that it could more easily be examined by a Select Committee than by a Committee of the Whole House. There are many matters of detail. There is the question of compulsory insurance, one that is very dear to my heart because I believe I was the first to introduce it to your Lordships. That involves questions of very great difficulty, as I have come to realise since I first took up the subject. There I think evidence before a Select Committee would be very useful as to whether it would be possible to impose compulsory insurance on every motorist, and, if so, by what method it should be done. For all these reasons it seems to me that discussion in Committee of the Whole House, if it were a proper and useful discussion, would take up a great deal of your Lordships' time and would in many cases lead to debate without an adequate knowledge of the facts. It is because I think that evidence is required on a great many of these points that I do not think we can go very much further.
I also said on Second Reading that it is really the fault of the Government that the noble Viscount introduced this Bill. The Roads Bill has been before the public for a great many years now and the Government, with their large majority in another place, should have taken the opportunity of dealing with this controversial subject while they had time. The Roads Bill, or some similar Bill, should have been passed two years ago. Then these matters could have been dealt with. The Government have only themselves to thank if they find a certain public irritation now at the growing list of fatalities and an opinion that something at any rate ought to be done to deal with the situation. I cannot help thinking that an Inquiry by a Select Committee is as good a step as can be taken at this stage. The Report of that Committee and the evidence before it will, at any rate, show what the facts are and what useful direction legislation can take.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That") and insert ("the Bill be referred to a Select Committee").—(Earl Russell.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am quite sure the House must feel considerable difficulty in this matter. There are really three courses before us—to agree to the suggestion of the Government and await the Report of the Royal Commission; to discuss the matter upon the floor of this House; and, as is suggested by the noble Earl who has just sat down, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. On the last occasion when the matter was before your Lordships' House, the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, speaking on behalf of the Government, stated very clearly their opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn altogether. That view he certainly expressed with a good deal of emphasis. Then, after some little time, the debate was replied to by the noble Viscount who originally introduced the Bill, upon which there was a most disorderly discussion led by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who proceeded to make a speech after the debate had been replied to by the second speech of the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount then made a third speech and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House
806
made two speeches without even having the excuse of being himself the mover of any Resolution.
Following upon this very disorderly proceeding the noble Marquess yielded to the fraternal pressure exercised upon him from below the gangway and he gave way almost completely. He then said that it would be a very good thing if, instead of adopting the original position that had been expressed by the noble Marquess [Lord Londonderry] the representative of the Government, we adopted an entirely different course and referred the Bill to the Royal Commission or, failing that, to a Select Committee. Now we hear from the noble Marquess who once more represents His Majesty's Government that he agrees with the principles of the Bill. He was remarkably successful in concealing that agreement when the Bill—
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I venture to dissent from the noble Earl.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: He was remarkably successful in disguising his sympathy with the Bill when it came up for discussion in your Lordships' House on the last occasion. I am sure that those of your Lordships who heard him and who have had the opportunity, as I have had in the course of the afternoon, of once more reading his speech, will have been very much surprised at the expressions of sympathy to which he has given vent this afternoon. It is very difficult for us to know what we are to do. His Majesty's Government have expressed an opinion this afternoon, but they expressed an opinion the last time the Bill was before your Lordships. In the course of the debate they entirely changed the advice which they offered to your Lordships, and, as they will probably do so again this afternoon, I really do not know what advice I can offer.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, this Bill stands in a rather unusual position. The Government are expressing a deep affection for its principles and they desire it to be so dealt with that we shall certainly hear no more of it in this House. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, thinks that the right way to deal with it is to refer it to a Select Committee, where evidence may be obtained and experts heard as to matters

807
which in substance are the common experience of our daily life. I venture to ask your Lordships to say that there is nothing whatever in this Bill that is beyond the competence of this House, sitting in full Committee, to consider and determine. A mere glance at the character of the Amendments that are down for consideration this afternoon will be sufficient to satisfy you of that fact. I fail to see why this House, sitting in Committee, should attempt to escape from its responsibility. If this were a Bill dealing with the setting up of some intricate electrical establishment, I can well believe that people might say that its subject was a little too subtle for the ordinary man and that we required the assistance of trained people. But in this particular matter I must say that I should rather resent the interference of an expert.
Let me give an illustration of my meaning. On the last occasion I pointed out that, owing to the blinding character of lights used on motor cars at night, a man had killed a passenger upon the road, being, as the magistrate accepted that he was, so completely dazzled by the light that he could not see and, though he was proceeding at as slow a pace as possible, this terrible consequence ensued. Since that debate two more such accidents have happened and two more people have been killed in exactly the same circumstances. It was, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who said that the question of these lights was one upon which the experts were in controversy. I do not want an expert to tell me that, when I am blinded by a dazzling light, I can in truth see perfectly well, or that, when I can see reasonably well if the lights are veiled, I am in truth blind. I want to trust my own senses in this matter, and I resent entirely the idea that matters of that kind, which affect the daily safety of people walking about the roads and on which the common experience of each one of us is well able to judge, should be referred to a Select Committee and be the subject of a conflict of evidence.
I sincerely hope that this House is going to undertake the business of going through the Amendments upon the Paper and deciding whether or not they should be incorporated in the Bill. If
808
the Government really loves the Bill as truly as it seems to do, the Amendments will not do it any harm. They are all very reasonable. I do not know about the first of the Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but take, for example, the first Amendment that we have to consider. It is in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, and it is to insert in subsection (2) of Clause 1, after the word "physically," the word "ocularly." We have not to determine whether that is really a word in the English language or not. That might be the proper subject matter for an expert. We have to assume that it is a proper word and to put it in if we like it or, if not, leave it out. The whole of the rest of this first series of Amendments is of the same character. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, wants to leave out the clause that qualifies people for holding licences. If he is right on that point, let it be left out. Why should we not decide whether people are to be qualified or not?
My first Amendment deals with excessive speed. It has nothing whatever to do with experts. My next Amendment deals with a matter which I respectfully submit that this House in full Committee, and this House alone, ought to deal with. It is this. As the Bill was originally drawn the proposal was that there should be referred to the Ministry of Transport the power of making rules, and that those rules should be the governing rules the breach of which should constitute a criminal offence. I protest utterly against any such arrangement. I do not want now to elaborate the arguments that I hope to use when the Amendment comes before us, but I do say that the matter is one of the very highest Constitutional consequence, and it certainly is not a matter that ought to be sent to a Select Committee for the hearing of goodness only knows what evidence for the purpose of instructing us that it is not the Houses of Parliament but somebody in Whitehall who has to make our laws. As for the rest of my Amendments, I desire to strengthen the punishment for some offences and to provide that men who are under the influence of drugs may be equally responsible as men who are under the influence of drink. I also suggest something which I have no doubt the noble Viscount omitted through an oversight, a little

809
Provision about noise. The Bill has been before you, and that, roughly speaking, is the character of the Amendments.
If it is desired to get this Bill shut out of sight so that nobody will hear any more about its discussion, by all means refer it to a Select Committee. You will not hear any more about it then. If you desire that this matter should be ended once for all, let the Royal Commission report, as they will do, when another Government has come into office, and everything that has been done will be entirely lost. If, on the other hand, you desire to do that which I honestly desire, and which I believe the noble Viscount desires, if you want to say that this House is prepared to consider, and to give its best attention to considering, the means by which foot-passengers and people who use the roads can be safeguarded against the people who ought to know better and who are frequently not only selfish but criminally negligent in the charge of motor cars, then the proper course to take is to retain this Bill before this House and to discuss the Amendments that are down for your consideration this afternoon. I sincerely hope that you will do so.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I feel myself in a position of some little difficulty. I am fundamentally and overwhelmingly convinced of the necessity for something being done in this matter. I have tried my best to follow the newspapers since the matter was before the House on the last occasion, and I see no diminution of the On the contrary, the accidents go on continually, like a perpetually running sore in the body politic. I observe that judges have been commenting on the condition of affairs. I think it was Mr. Justice Roche, in charging the Grand Jury, I believe in Berkshire, who said that there were twice as many cases as there had been on a previous occasion; and he pointed out that in his judgment these cases were due to recklessness and carelessness. I saw only in to-day's news-paper a report by a medical officer of health that the infirmaries and hospitals are crowded out with cases of accidents arising from motor vehicles. I am sure your Lordships realise what tremendous hardship that is on the whole population. They are kept out of hospitals and not able to obtain the assistance in
810
Ordinary diseases which otherwise they would be able to obtain, because the beds at these hospitals are often full to over-flowing with motor accident cases. That is a very serious matter indeed, and requires to be urgently dealt with, and I agree with what was said on the Front Treasury Bench that the very urgency of the matter makes it most important that we should not do anything which could do no good and might do harm.
If I could be convinced that there was some method of inquiry into some of these technical matters—because with great respect to Lord Buckmaster, to whom I am very grateful for what he has said in the discussions on this Bill, I think there are some technical matters which might be suitable for discussion by a Select Committee; compulsory insurance is one of them, and there are others—if I could be quite sure that there was some method of inquiry which could be set up immediately and would report in the next two or three months, at the outside at that you could deal with the measure, so far as your Lordships' House is concerned, before the Dissolution of Parliament, then I should see very little objection to such an inquiry. My noble friend Lord Russell will forgive me if IL say that I was not terribly encouraged by his speech because I understood him to say there was not a single provision which really ought to be adopted—
EARL RUSSELL: As it stood.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: —and therefore he was in favour of a Select Committee. It gave me a kind of awful feeling that possibly that was because he thought it was the best way of getting rid of the Bill altogether. I am very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord Londonderry for his speech, but I cannot think that an Interim Report of this Commission is likely to be of much value.
EARL RUSSELL: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I observe that since the debate last December, this Commission has had two meetings in January. The first was taken up with the discussion of the Channel tunnel, and the second with the desirability of the nationalisation of the railways. I cannot think that that Com-

811
mission, with that kind of atmosphere about it, is likely to make a very useful practical Report upon matters of detail connected with this particular Bill, and I do not think there is any prospect at all of their reporting this side of the General Election, or at any rate until just this side. So far as I am concerned, I am quite ready to accept the Motion to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, provided it is understood that this Select Committee is to report in time for your Lordships to deal with the matter in March or April. Unless that can be a perfectly genuine understanding, from all parts of this House, then I agree with Lord Buckmaster that it will be much better to proceed to discuss this matter on the floor of this House.
It really depends which is the best way to get the best Bill we can get through the House. I think there is a case for the discussion in detail, before the Select Committee, of some of these provisions, but I think also there are many of them which could be well discussed on the floor of this House. Therefore, if it is the best way to get on with the Bill, I personally am prepared to accept a Select Committee, but otherwise I would ask your Lordships to keep it on the floor of the House. As to that I am in great difficulty, because I am not sufficiently acquainted with procedure to say how certain we may be that a Select Committee would report within that time. Therefore, I think it is better that I should receive guidance from those who are better able to judge than I am.
Then there is another matter to which I would like to refer. Earl Russell said, with a great deal of truth, that there were many parts of this Bill which could be put into force by administrative action. Those are not his exact words, but it comes to much the same thing. I agree with him. There are several provisions which it would be very satisfactory if they formed part of the Statute Law, but which could be dealt with administratively. There is no doubt that through the instrumentality of the Road Board a good deal could be done to standardise and make more effective road signs, and the provision requiring the magistrates to suspend licences, I should have thought, might be dealt with by circular from the Home Office. Whatever happens to this Bill, whether we take the
812
consideration now, or adjourn it for a week, to see whether we can arrive at a definite understanding about the Select Committee, or whatever other course is taken, I beg my noble friends on the Treasury Bench to inquire very carefully how much further it is possible to proceed by administrative action alone. The matter is so serious and urgent that anything which can be done ought to be done, and I am not really certain that the Home Office or the Ministry of Transport have exhausted their powers in the matter. I should like further to be instructed as to the prospects of the Bill if it is referred to a Select Committee, before expressing any decided opinion of my own.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, so far as the last observation of my noble friend is concerned, I will, of course, undertake that the Home Office shall consider whether any administrative steps are possible. I can give that assurance at once. I am a little diffident in addressing your Lordships, because I appear to have got into such trouble with the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, on the last occasion, that I feel somewhat nervous, like a man treading on thin ice, in venturing to address your Lordships on what, in my judgment, is the better course to pursue. I think the noble Earl is under a misunderstanding. No doubt the mover of a Motion is the only member of the House who is entitled, except in Committee, to speak twice, but that does not preclude other noble Lords who have not already spoken from speaking after he has spoken a second time. There I think the noble Earl, for once, has erred from the strict path of Parliamentary order. As regards the other conversations which ensued at the end of the discussion on the last occasion, in one sense, no doubt, they were disorderly, but arrangements between those responsible for business on this Bench and noble Lords in charge of Motions have to be adjusted in a conversational manner, and it is always permitted to the Leader of the House to say a word or two in order to clear the ground and to indicate to the House the path which might properly be pursued.
Leaving that small matter on one side, I would like to address myself to the actual position. When we discussed this Bill on the last occasion those in charge

813
of the measure, my noble friend and those who support him, made a great impression on your Lordships. I think we were all satisfied that the facts which they brought forward did indicate a mischief of such a character that a remedy was called for, and as soon as was practically possible. But it also appeared in the course of the debate that there was a very great difference of opinion among noble Lords as to what should be the precise details of the clauses. Some noble Lords criticised the clauses more than others, but I do not think there was a single member of your Lordships' House, except my noble friend himself, who approved of the Bill as it stands, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, although he was a very warm supporter of the principle of the Bill, was a most effective critic of many of its details.
In those circumstances I thought in the interests of the public, in the interests of your Lordships' House and may I say in the interests of the Government itself? it was most important that we should not ask your Lordships to come to a decision upon the Bill without a more detailed method of inquiry than was possible on the floor of this House. I say so on behalf of the Government as well as on behalf of the public, because really we who sit on this Bench do require a certain amount of investigation before we can be quite certain ourselves what course is likely to be most effective. And therefore I made the suggestion that further proceedings on the Bill should not be continued without some form of inquiry. I pointed out to your Lordships that there was a Royal Commission sitting, that that Royal Commission was dealing with the very subject—among others—of the Bill, and that it seemed a more reasonable and straightforward course to leave the Royal Commission itself to report, and to act accordingly, and, if an Interim report were possible, that seemed the easiest plan.
Well, inquiry was made, and it was found that an Interim Report is possible, and the Chairman has promised it. But I must admit—and I admit with the greatest frankness—that it will not be immediate—not till perhaps June or July of this year. In those circumstances I recognise that a difficult situation has arisen, and it was because we foresaw the possibility of that difficulty that I
814
Suggested as an alternative that the Bill might be referred to a Select Committee, and I understood when those proceedings ended on that afternoon that it was accepted generally speaking by the House that one or other of the two courses should be followed. We stand exactly in the same position now as we did then. I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord that we should be acting wisely in continuing to discuss this Bill on the floor of the House. I admit that, if it were possible that legislation could take place this Session, there might be something to be said for it, but of course it is agreed on all hands that that is out of the question. There is no reason why it should not pass through your Lordships' House but it could never get through another place. It is very controversial, besides which I need not remind the House that the mind of the House of Commons is directed to other legislation of capital interest and importance, and it is impossible to find time for anything else except the necessary financial business of the year.
So that, those things being so, some kind of inquiry seems to be indicated. The noble Earl opposite has moved that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee and my noble friend asks what the prospects are of the Select Committee. I can only speak in that matter as a member of the House. Once the matter is referred to the Select Committee, the Government have no control over it whatever: it is a matter which is entirely in the hands of the House. Supposing your Lordships saw fit to agree to a Select Committee, the noble Earl and my noble friend, the noble Viscount, would be principally responsible for seeing that the members of the Committee were named, and no doubt they would be good enough to confer perhaps with us on the subject: but they would be principally responsible for seeing that the names are put before your Lordships, and there is no reason in the world why the Committee should not sit within the next few days, and carry its business through. That will be entirely in the hands of those who become members of the Committee and of the Chairman, and I have no doubt the noble Earl, the noble Viscount, and ourselves will see, so far as we can, if that be so, that members of the Committee should be put on who might be

815
trusted to push forward the business with whatever despatch was possible. Of course, we cannot enter into any promise either as members of the Government or as members of the House, for it depends upon the course of the inquiry. That is quite evident.
Those facts being so, for my part I shall not resist the Amendment of the noble Earl to refer the matter to a Select Committee, if he proceeds with it. I believe that some sort of inquiry is necessary. I think it unfortunate, I repeat, that there should be two inquiries going on at the same time on the same subject; but, in as much as my noble friend below the gangway prefers a Report which will be made in say six weeks to a Report which will not be ready until July, the Government will not resist the proposal for the Select Committee. One thing we are most anxious about—namely, that there should not be the least impression, either here or elsewhere, that the Government are indifferent to the importance of this subject, or think if a trifling matter that this terrible toll of death and injury should take place without any legislative steps being taken to correct it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to: Order for the House to be put into Committee discharged, and Bill referred to a Select Committee.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMEND- MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion for the House to resolve itself into Committee. The Motion was made by Lord Banbury of Southam on December 6 last, and the debate was then, and again on January 22, adjourned.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, when this Bill was before your Lordships on December 6 I am afraid the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, were very critical of the conduct of the Government in reference to it. Indeed, I think the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, reproved my noble friend Lord Desborough in rather vigorous language for the attitude which we were adopting. I am perfectly certain that the noble Earl did not intend to direct his invective against my noble friend Lord Desborough. Per-
816
sonally, I should think there was no member of your Lordships' House who was so universally popular as my noble friend.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: His conduct of the business is always the subject of my admiration for the way in which he gets around difficult corners without showing any sign of dismay. But the real object of the noble Earl's invective was, I suppose, the Home Office, who had instructed my noble friend. The noble Earl assents; I knew that was so. I desired to say those few words in order to prevent a misunderstanding.
With reference to this Bill, it is perfectly true, as the noble Earl opposite said, that the Government are unable to defend it. We are not responsible for it and we are quite unable to defend it. Indeed, I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Desborough successfully showed upon the previous occasion that the Bill was unworkable. What we did was to advise my noble friend Lord Banbury to confer with my right hon. friend and his advisers at the Home Office to see whether anything could be done. I understand that my noble friend Lord Banbury has been to the Home Office twice since then but has entirely failed to convince the Home Office that the Bill is workable. On the contrary, I think, if anything, it is found to be mere unworkable than it was thought to be before. Therefore, we are placed in a rather difficult position. My noble friend Lord Banbury is proceeding with his Motion this afternoon and it is, of course, for us to say what line we shall adopt. There are, I know, certain Amendments upon the Paper and it would not be respectful to suggest to your Lordships that the matter should be removed from the cognisance of the House until those Amendments have been considered: but I think it is only right to tell the House that, as far as I am able to gather from the advice tendered to me, these Amendments will not convince the Home Office that the Bill is workable, even if they are agreed to by the House. There is nothing in them which will alter the opinion which has been formed.
If my noble friend wishes to proceed with the Bill so far as the present stage

817
is concerned, I have nothing to say. No doubt, the Amendments will be agreed to or rejected. I do not think the Government will take any part in their discussion because we do not think that they will make any substantial difference in the workable character of the Bill. But when that process has been completed your Lordships will have to consider the Bill upon Third Reading, and I think it is only right to say that unless between now and the Third Reading my noble friend Lord Banbury, is able to convince the Home Office that his Bill is workable, the Government cannot support the Bill on the Third Reading. That is impossible. He says that he has an understanding with the Home Office that the Bill was not to be opposed. Lot me be frank with the House. No understanding, whatever it may be, is sufficient to make it the duty of the Leader of the House to advise your Lordships to pass a Bill which he knows to be unworkable. Therefore, if my noble friend proceeds, and the Bill cannot be made workable between now and the Third Reading, he must not complain if the Bill is thrown out on that stage.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess one thing. He has said that unless the noble Lord satisfies the Home Office that this Bill is desirable the Government cannot support it. Under whose directions are members of your Lordships' House to satisfy Government Departments of the value of their Bills? Surely, that of all things—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will forgive me; I ought to have said, of course, if the noble Lord satisfies your Lordships' House that it is workable. But so far as the Government are concerned it is important that he should satisfy the Home Office.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That is another matter altogether. It is not the same thing, and although that might be what the noble Marquess ought to have said it is obviously the thing that he did not say, and it raises a question which I think is of great consequence. It is not the first time in the course of Bills through your Lordships' House that our arguments have been met, not by reasoned and calculated discussion on the
818
other side, but by the statement that what we were saying did not meet with the approval of some Government Department or another. That has not happened once; it has happened to me on many occasions. I have found, and I am afraid it is the growing experience of members of this House, that what has to be faced is not public debate on the floor of this House, but something that you cannot get at which is represented by the opinion of some office in Whitehall. I hope I do not attach too much importance to this matter, but to me it is of the utmost value. The arguments and contentions of responsible Ministers of the Crown are things to which everybody must listen, and I have no doubt, in forming their judgments, they will get information from the Government Departments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I agree, and I do not object to that. But I object strongly that, a Bill here should have its opposition entirely engineered not by the considered opinion of the Government but by some Department which regards its interests as affected by the Bill or which, it may he, is sorry that it has not introduced the Bill itself. I cannot help thinking that the unintentional lapse of the noble Marquess discloses exactly that state of things, which I regard as full of very grave danger.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Marquess has referred to me, and as I took some action on this Bill last time I propose to say a word of explanation. On the last occasion I thought it proper to ask your Lordships not to let this Bill go further because it seemed to me that the noble Lord in charge of it was, if I might say really flouting the House. He was putting it down for Committee without any suggested Amendments to meet the difficulties that had been raised. I understand that the noble Lord not only has placed Amendments on the Paper but has done everything he can in consultation with the Home Office to try to come to some agreement and to make this Bill work.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Hear, hear.
EARL RUSSELL: If your Lordships are agreed, as I rather thought was the case, that the object which the Bill has in view is a desirable one—that is to say that a cruel man should not be allowed to keep a dog, and we are all agreed that that is a desirable object—does it not become the duty of the Government Department to assist the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to place on the Paper such Amendments as will make it workable? I can only say, so far as I am concerned, that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill seems to me to have done what he could and I shall not further oppose him.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the Home Office have given their best attention to trying to make this Bill workable or not?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I should not have ventured to intervene if the noble Marquess had not referred to me. I think it is only right to make it clear that in any criticism which was made by me upon the last occasion there was no personal criticism of the action of the noble Lord, Lord Desborough. I know he was, like several noble Lords on the Bench opposite, merely representing the views of the Department, and I hope he will allow me to assure him that my criticisms were directed entirely against the Home Office and not against himself personally. With regard to this Bill, the point of criticism—not an unfair one, I think—was, that while this Bill had been introduced, His Majesty's Government were unable to help it or to give it support, and that they were unable to suggest Amendments which then might seem to be desirable, in order to make the Bill an effective piece of legislation. Yet your Lordships' House was encouraged to go on and to proceed further with the Bill. It seemed to me that, if the Home Office were unable to suggest any Amendments, it is a considerable waste of time on the part of your Lordships' House to go on considering the Bill. I am glad to think in this matter that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and I myself are in agreement. That was really the point of my criticism. I am glad to learn, from what we have heard in this discussion, that the Home Office have now altered their position, and that
820
They have been able to suggest Amendments which might make the Bill a possible Bill. If that is so one is sure that members in all parts of the House will do their best to see the Bill pass into law. I only wish to emphasise in conclusion what I have already said, that my-criticisms were not directed against the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, personally, but merely against the Office he represented.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I wish the Home Office could see their way to make the Bill workable, but that cannot be done on these lines.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I think it is absolutely necessary that your Lordships should have an opportunity of expressing your opinion upon whether the Amendments are good or bad. With regard to the Home Office I think I have seen representatives of that Office certainly twice, if not three times. I offered to consider any Amendments the Home Office might suggest, unless, of course, they were wrecking Amendments, and the reply given me by the Under-Secretary was: "Oh, you want us to draw your Bill." I said "Oh, no, I don't; and if you are afraid, or do not wish to introduce any Amendments in your own name, give me the Amendments and I will put them down in my name." The Home Office would not do that, but they gave me an undertaking, which I have in writing, that while they could not support the Bill, they would not officially oppose it. Two objections, and two only, were made to me when I was at the Home Office, by the Under-Secretary and the officials. One was that a man might be ordered by the magistrates not to take out a licence, but he might get his wife or his servant to take one out. I said: "Possibly that might be so if his wife would obey him, which did not at all follow, or if he had a servant, which, considering the people affected by this Bill, would be very unlikely." The other objection was that it might cause some trouble to the Post Office. An Amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Danesfort will do away with that, and there will be no trouble at all to the Post Office. In those circumstances, without wishing to make a speech now upon the Amendments, I trust the House will allow the Bill to go into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power of court to prevent person convicted of cruelty to a dog from obtaining a licence.
1. The Protection of Animals Act, 1911, shall be and is hereby amended as follows:—
After the proviso in section three of the said Act this further enactment shall be inserted:
"Further, if the owner of any dog shall be guilty of cruelty to that animal within the meaning of this Act, the court upon the owner's conviction thereof, may, if they think fit, in addition to any other punishment, direct that such owner shall not thereafter for such time as they may direct, be granted any licence for keeping a dog or dogs, and a direction so given shall be effectual to prevent such person so convicted from holding such licence."
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to leave out the first "direct" and insert "order." The noble Lord said: I have a number of Amendments on the Paper in order to meet the objection put forward by the Home Office on the previous occasion that the Bill was not workable, and perhaps it will be for the convenience of your Lordships, as all these Amendments are more or less dependent upon each other and hang together, if I tell your Lordships very shortly, in moving my first Amendment, what the effect of the Amendments would be if they are carried. Before I do that perhaps I might be allowed to thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, for the general approval which they have given to the object of the Bill. I believe there is no one in your Lordships' House who would not desire, if it can be done, to prevent a man or woman who has been convicted of cruelty to a dog from holding a licence to keep a dog for such period as the magistrate may order.
The general object of my Amendments is this. I propose that when a man is convicted of cruelty to a dog it shall be open to the magistrate not only to fine in the usual way, or imprison, as the case may be, but to order that for such limited period as the magistrate thinks proper the man shall not be allowed to have a licence for a dog. In the Bill
822
as drafted there is no prohibition on a man so convicted from applying for a licence, and, therefore, one of the first of my Amendments is that the magistrate, when he has convicted a person, may order that person not to apply for a dog licence for a fixed period, and, following upon that, I propose that if that person, in violation of that order of the Court, does apply for a licence and happens to get it, then the licence shall be void and the person shall be liable to be proceeded against in respect of the dog for which he has a licence as if he had no licence at all and fined. I am not going to argue the merits of those Amendments until I come to each particular Amendment, but I thought it convenient to your Lordships to indicate in a general way what the Amendments are.
Before I formally move the first Amendment I should like to say to your Lordships that cases of cruelty to dogs are not only, as I gather from the reports of cases, increasing in numbers, but they are also increasing in brutality, and some amendment of the existing law is necessary, I venture to think, in order to deter persons from committing these atrocious acts of cruelty, or being in a position to do so if they are so inclined. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with a long list of these convictions, but there are two which I happened to see in the newspapers to which I think it is worth while referring. As lately as January 8, a woman was brought before the Leeds Stipendiary Magistrate for what the Magistrate, after hearing the evidence, called "atrocious cruelty." She had so injured the dog that it had to be destroyed, and the Magistrate thought it so bad a case that he sent her to prison for three months and inflicted a fine of £25, with ten guineas costs in addition. Would any one say that a person so convicted of such an act was a proper person to be allowed to apply for a licence for a dog?
One other case I will refer to, and that is a case which wets heard only yesterday, and is reported in to-day's Times. It is a case which occurred at Lancaster, where a man was sentenced to a month's imprisonment for atrocious cruelty, and the nature of the cruelty was that he attached a string round a dog's neck, fastened a stone to the string, and threw the unfortunate animal into a frozen

823
quarry, where the wretched dog remained for fourteen hours before it was discovered, and then it was taken out in a paralysed and almost dead condition. The penalty inflicted for that was, as I said, one month's imprisonment. Could any one say that a man so convicted should be allowed, for some time at any rate, to take out a dog licence? I have mentioned these cases in order to show the necessity for strengthening the law.
Having said so much I will move the Amendment standing in my name. It is really almost a drafting Amendment. The Bill as it stands reads:—
"Further, if the owner of any dog shall be guilty of cruelty to that animal…the Court, upon the owner's conviction thereof, may…direct that such owner shall not thereafter for such time as they may direct, be granted any licence for keeping a dog or dogs."
I propose instead of the first "direct" to insert the word "order". I think "order" would be more suitable and it would fall in with other Amendments which I propose to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("direct") and insert ("order").—(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD PARMOOR: I agree with what the noble Lord opposite has said that this is a drafting Amendment as it stands, and I think the word "order" is a much better word than "direct" because we know what "order" means coming from a. Court or a magistrate. I want to say one further word. Personally I am very strongly of opinion that a Bill of this kind should be passed, as I think there is brutality in many cases in the treatment of dogs. It has never occurred to me that there is any great difficulty as regards the administration of the Bill. I agree that in matters of this kind the decision or the authority of the Home Office has to be very carefully considered, and I also agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has said, that we are not governed in matters of that kind by the decision of the Home Office. At the same time, unless the Government feel that the direction of the Home Office has been carried too far in the way of stopping such a Bill, a Bill cannot go far without Government assent. Therefore, the person we really want to convert is the noble Marquess who leads the House.
824
I do not know whether he has thoroughly considered the framework of the Bill. It is extremely simple. If a man has been convicted of brutal treatment of a dog the Court can direct that he shall not have a licence in future. If he attempts to take out a licence in those circumstances he really is in the position of an unlicensed person so far as a dog licence is concerned. It appears to me that that is a very simple provision and a very effective one. If dogs have been brutally treated I think the only way to stop it in future is to prevent a person guilty of that offence being able to take out a licence to keep dogs. There is no difficulty about that. The Court makes an order. What is the difficulty of the Home Office? I have never been able to realise it. The order of the Court is that a dog licence cannot be taken out. If a person who, by the order of the Court, is not entitled to take out a dog licence takes one out, he is to be treated as though he had no licence. It is the simplest thing possible. The matter would then go, I presume, again before the proper Court and the person would be punished as one who had not taken out a licence and therefore was without a licence so far as a dog was concerned. It strikes me as an extremely simple clause, and I hope that in some form or another the Bill may be passed and the. Home Office may be satisfied.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I shall be very pleased to accept the Amendment of my noble friend. It is an improvement on the Bill. I may add that in the case which my noble friend refers to as occurring on January 8, the people who reported the case, and who gave evidence, were two girl servants employed by the woman herself, so in that case it would be quite certain the servants would not help her to take out another licence.
LORD ATKIN: Might I add one word on the legal position? Perhaps the noble Lord representing the Home Office would be good enough to deal with the possibility of making this Bill workable Bill, because I am quite sure we all of us desire if possible to carry out the object of the Bill, which is to make it more uncomfortable for people who are cruel to dogs, and to try to prevent the possibility of their being cruel in the future. That is the sole object of the Bill. I can

825
quite appreciate the difficulty which the Department felt, and probably feels, in respect of a Bill which gives power to the magistrates to order that no licence shall be granted to a person in the future. For my part I do not see how that order is going to be carried out, because we all know what a dog licence is. The Post Office officials do not know anything about the holders of dog licences. You go in the office and buy a dog licence as you go in and buy stamps. It seems to me a somewhat remarkable position that a Court should order that the Post Office should not grant a licence to a person who has been convicted.
On the other hand, it seems a perfectly reasonable proposal that a person who has been convicted of cruelty to a dog should for a specified period be deemed to be incapable of holding a dog licence, upon the same principle that a person who has been found to be incapable of managing a motor car properly is deprived of his licence for a particular period. Should not the provision which the noble Lord who brings forward this Bill desires to make be of this nature, that the magistrates may order that a person convicted of cruelty to a dog should not for a specified period be capable of holding a dog licence? That is all that is required. That does not interfere in the least with the administration of dog licences. If the man then took out a dog licence for the future, so much the better for the revenue. He would pay his 7s. 6d. and nobody would be any the worse except the man himself. If it were provided that a person convicted should not be capable of holding a dog licence such a provision would have the effect of applying to the existing licence. Oddly enough, in the terms of the present proposal, although a, man is prevented from applying for a new licence, his current licence apparently would continue for a period of six or nine months or, possibly, eleven months. That seems to me very unworkable. All you really require is that the justices may in such a case order that a person shall be incapable of holding a licence for a certain period and then to make a simple provision that any licence held by the person during that period should be null and void to all intents and purposes—not that he should be incapable of taking one out but that any licence held by him, whether an existing licence or a new licence, shall
826
be null and void for all purposes. You then achieve the desired result and at the present moment I cannot see what administrative objection there is to such a proposal. I agree that it might be evaded, perhaps in a great many cases, but there must be some cases in which it would not be evaded and it seems to me to strengthen the law as to cruelty and, at any rate, to do no harm.
LORD DANESFORT: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his valuable suggestions. I have endeavoured to incorporate both of them in this Bill. By one of the Amendments that I have put upon the Paper I propose to say that the Court may order a man convicted of cruelty not to apply for a licence within such time as may be directed, and I go on to suggest that, if he does so apply and obtains a licence by some subterfuge, the licence shall be null and void. That is exactly what the noble and learned Lord suggests, and I am very much obliged to him for, as it were, anticipating me and confirming me in the validity of that suggestion. The next Amendment that I have to move deals with the question of ordering a man not to apply for a licence. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that, if he wishes to incorporate his suggestion, he should do so by moving the insertion of additional words after "dog or dogs" I have already moved my Amendment to substitute the word "order" for the word "direct."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT: As a matter of form, I ought to move a drafting Amendment to line 16 in the same sense as that which has been agreed to. I am sorry that I have not put it upon the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("direct") and insert ("order").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, after the second "direct," to insert "apply for or." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of substance. The effect, if it were inserted, would be that, when a man has been convicted, the Court in addition to other punishments may order, if they think fit, that he shall not apply for a licence. Your Lordships will see that this is suggested in view of the further Amendment that I shall propose

827
to the effect that, if he does apply for and obtain a licence, the licence shall be void and he shall be liable to a fine. This proposal seems to me to follow from the general scheme of the Bill, and I do not think that I need use any arguments to support it. I can only say that the Bill must obviously be more workable with these Amendments. It is very unlikely indeed that a man who has been convicted of cruelty and has been ordered by a competent Court not to apply for a licence, will do so in direct violation of that order, knowing that, if he obtained a licence, it would be void and he would be liable to a fine. I venture to submit to your Lordships, therefore, that this Amendment, together with those that follow would be a valuable addition to the Bill, that they would make it a really workable Bill, and that this provision would be a deterrent against a man trying to get a licence for which he ought not to apply.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, after ("direct") insert ("apply for or").—(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD ATKIN: I am sorry that I was not able to convince my noble friend Lord Danesfort of the value of the proposal that I made.
LORD DANESFORT: May I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? I entirely accepted his proposal as a very valuable one.
LORD ATKIN: Unfortunately I was not able to make it clear. The noble Lord will notice that his prohibition applies only to new licences. He will see that these persons may not apply for or be granted a licence. That does not apply to the existing licence that has been taken out, which a man may hold and have the right to hold for another eleven or twelve months. I think, also, that there is an administrative objection to making an order that a person may not be granted a licence by the Excise authority and the Post Office. It seems much simpler not to make that provision, but merely to say that such person, for such a time as shall be mentioned in the order, shall be incapable of holding a dog licence. That is all that is required.
LORD DANESFORT: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. One knows his great authority in these matters, and if he would kindly move an Amendment in the sense that he has
828
suggested I should be quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment in his favour.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I shall have much pleasure in accepting the noble and learned Lord's suggestion. I did not quite catch the whole of it, but I gather that what he wishes to do is to say that, when a man is convicted by the magistrate of cruelty, the magistrate may say that for such time as he may direct the man shall not be capable of holding a licence. Is that it?
LORD ATKIN: I cannot help thinking that this point will have to be considered and brought up again. I have not formulated a definite Amendment upon this proposal, but it can be brought up on Report. I think we should probably require a provision that the magistrate should have power to direct that the existing licence should be given up. I am really not in a position to "vet" this Bill myself, but I think it could be made quite workable by a few very simple proposals of that kind.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Let me suggest that the noble and learned Lord should bring up an Amendment upon Report. There will have to be a Report stage. So far as I understand the noble and learned Lord's suggestion, I shall be pleased to accept it.
LORD PARMOOR: If I understand the noble and learned Lord's suggestion, it is an extremely simple one. A person is convicted of cruelty to a dog. It is suggested that the right procedure is that the existing licence should no longer be applicable and that no new licence should be applied for within some specified time which the magistrate may lay down. This is very much the same as the procedure regarding motor licences. I think it is very simple and that there will be no administrative difficulty. If the noble and learned Lord will agree to put down an Amendment on Report, that would really be the most convenient course.
LORD DANESFORT: Perhaps the most convenient course, in view of the Amendments that I have later on the Paper, would be for the House to accept my Amendment and for the noble and learned Lord to bring up his Amendment on Report. I need hardly say that we shall be very glad to consider it, but I shall be very glad if the House will

829
accept this Amendment, subject to a further Amendment on Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to omit all words after "dogs." The noble Lord said: The words that I propose to omit do not seem to me to be very apt and they will, no doubt, be met by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord at a later stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out from ("dogs") to the end of the clause.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to insert the following new clause:—
"If the person against whom such order is made applies for or obtains a licence for keeping a dog in breach of such order the licence so obtained shall be null and void, and such person shall on conviction for such breach be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, and proceedings may be taken against him on the ground of keeping a dog without a licence."
The noble Lord said: In moving this new clause I wish to say the same as I said on the previous Amendment, that it is open to the noble and learned Lord to bring up an Amendment upon Report. The new clause provides that if a person against whom an order is made applies for or obtains a licence in breach of such order, the licence so obtained shall be null and void—in that I think the noble and learned Lord and I are agreed—and such person shall on conviction for such breach be liable to a penalty, and proceedings may be taken against him on the ground of keeping a dog without a licence. That would be the net result of a licence being void. He would have a dog and have no licence, and would be liable to proceedings for keeping a dog without a licence.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Danesfort.)
LORD ATKIN: I think this new clause certainly wants considerable revision. Again, it does not apply to existing licences but only to a new licence, and in terms it seeks to provide that if a person against whom such order is made applies for a licence in breach of such order proceedings may be taken against him on the ground of keeping a dog without a licence. I do not follow the connection between the two at all, but nevertheless I think the clause can be amended on Report.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:—
"A person applying for a dog licence shall be required to sign a declaration that the licence so applied for is neither directly nor indirectly on behalf of a person whose licence has been revoked or suspended under an order of the Court."
The noble Viscount said: The chief objection to this Bill, as I understood from Lord Desborough, was that it would be easy for any person who wanted to keep a dog to take out a licence in somebody else's name, and that it would not be very easy to detect it. He ended his speech, however, by saying that the Government could not offer any hope of being able to give" the Bill in its present form any great facilities in the future," but that if Amendments could be introduced to make it feasible they would gladly see such a measure passed. I have attempted to fill the gap, and I ventured, until I heard the noble Marquess say that all the Amendments were unworkable, to hope that I had succeeded. I do tot know whether the noble Marquess is going to give good grounds for saying that, but otherwise I must press my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert the following new clause:—
"A person found guilty of making a false declaration under the preceding clause shall, upon summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds."
The noble Viscount said: This is simply the penalty clause, and more or less follows the other. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

LAW OF PROPERTY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.

Preamble
The Earl Howe—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Proceedings of Thursday last with respect to, ordered to be vacated.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:

Birmingham Corporation (General Powers).

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

UTTOXETER ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1928.
  BRIGHTON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.

    GRAVESEND ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    TUNBRIDGE WELLS ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    LINLITHGOW AND FALKIRK DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    LYTHAM SAINT ANNE'S ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1928.
    NORTH WEST MIDLANDS ELECTRICITY DISTRICT ORDER, 1928.
    Report from the Special Orders Committee, that no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.