Sitting of 5 March 1929

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For Borough of Bath, in the room of Captain Charles Talbot Foxcroft, deceased.—[Sir George Hennessy.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  ROAD TRANSPORT SERVICES.
  The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Paper in the name of the Minister of Transport (Colonel ASHLEY):—
  "That it be an Instruction to all Committees to which Bills containing provisions restricting competition with road transport services provided or to be provided by the promoters, or prejudicing the impartial exercise by a licensing authority or their functions with regard to the issue of licences to ply for hire with omnibuses, have been or may be referred during the present Session, that they do leave out such provisions as aforesaid."
  Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to this Notice of Motion in the name of the Minister of Transport, I have been able to consider it now that it has been put into intelligible English—which yesterday it was not, owing to an error in printing—but I should not like it to be moved to-day until I have considered further the question whether it is really in order as an Instruction or not.
  Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

  Asiatic Steam Navigation Company Bill [Lords].

  Lancashire Electric Power Bill [Lords].

  Bills to be read a Second time.
  Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

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

  Metropolitan Railway Bill.

  Great Western Railway Bill.

  London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill.

  Bills committed.
  Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with)
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

  Imperial Continental Gas Association Bill [Lords].

  Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    PATENT OFFICE.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the total increase in the staff of the Patent Office to date since the 31st of December last; whether any additional staff will be commencing their duties within the next six weeks; and whether he can state, approximately, the average number of applications that a members of the staff deals with in the course of a year;
    (2) approximately, the number of months that an applicant for a patent has to wait after making application before the first official act on is taken in the matter?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As the answer is long, I propose, subject

    173
    to the hon. Member's concurrence, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of the answer given last week, that arrears were accumulating at the rate of 76 per week, has the right hon. Gentleman any ground for hoping that the additional staff will be able in a reasonable time, to reduce to nothing this accumulation of arrears?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If it does not do so entirely, I think there ought to be a further increase of staff. This is a staff which requires special training. I think, however, that there was a very sudden accumulation of applications entirely out of proportion to the ordinary number in a normal year. I am advised that it would be well to see whether it means a large normal increase year by year. I quite agree that the staff ought to be adequate to deal in a reasonable time with the normal number of cases that arise.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that it is important to keep up the classification of inventions, which is a necessary part of Patent Office work?
    Following is the answer:
    The total increase in the staff of the Patent Office between the 1st January and the 28th February, 1929, was 15, of whom eight were assistant examiners and seven were of other grades.
    During the six weeks from 1st March, about 12 additional assistant examiners are expected to commence their duties.
    On the average, each officer of the examining grade deals annually with 63 applications accompanied by complete specifications, 125 applications accompanied by provisional specifications, and 42 complete specifications filed in pursuance of applications originally accompanied by provisional specifications.
    An application for a patent must be accompanied either by a complete specification, or by a provisional specification which may subsequently be followed by a complete specification. In the case of applications accompanied by complete specifications an applicant has, on the average, to wait seven months before the result of the first official action (examination and search) is communicated to him; in the case of applications accompanied
    174
    by provisional specifications the result of official action is usually communicated within a fortnight; in the case of complete specifications filed in pursuance of applications originally accompanied by provisional specifications an applicant has to wait, on the average, about three months before the result of official action (examination and search) is communicated to him.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated amount paid over to the Exchequer for the latest available year as the surplus of income derived from fees for patents, etc., over the expenditure of the Patent Office?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The latest year for which figures are available is 1927, when the surplus, as shown in the Report of the Comptroller-General of the Patent Office, was £112,939.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of the very large sum which this Office is passing to the Exchequer, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that applicants for patents are entitled to a little more consideration and not the delay which has occurred recently?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is a superficial criticism. I do not say it in any offensive way. When one goes into the matter one finds that the surplus arises entirely out of the claims for the renewal of patents which have already been granted. The actual fee which is charged for the consideration of an application for an original patent, I am advised, is inadequate to cover the amount of work done.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is it not a fact that there is a profit made out of this Office, and that applicants are kept waiting for something like nine months? Is not that a thing that needs looking into in the future, as well as consideration of the question how far in the past steps have not been taken to keep the Office up-to-date?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I do not think that is quite a fair criticism. Obviously, the applicant for a patent who is charged a fee which does not actually cover the amount of work done is not being charged too much. I do not think it is necessary, in the interests of the taxpayer, to see that fees for renewals,

    175
    which are paid by owners of successful patents, are exclusively used for reducing below the cost the fees on original patent applications.
    Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the United States the Patent Office is nearly 18 months in arrear?

    WRITING ASSISTANTS (APPOINTMENTS, EDINBURGH).
    Mr. ERNEST BROWNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of writing assistants to be appointed to Departments in Edinburgh from the examination held in October last; the names of the Departments to which they will be assigned; and whether these appointments will be in accordance with his previous announcement?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Two vacancies in Edinburgh, one in the Inland Revenue Department and one in the Post Office, have already been filled by the appointment of candidates successful at the competition for situations as writing assistant, announced in June, and held at Edinburgh in October last. No further vacancies in Edinburgh to be filled from that competition have yet been reported. As regards the last part of the question, I assume that the hon. Member refers to the announcement made in the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) on the 22nd November last. He may rest assured that no appointments of writing assistant will be made which are not in accordance with the terms of that announcement.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    BANKRUPTCIES (FEES).
    Captain GUNSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that in small bankruptcy cases of £150 and less nearly the whole of the estate is swallowed up in fees payable to the Board of Trade, legal expenses, and trustees' remuneration, and that practically nothing is left for division among the creditors; and will he look into the matter with a view to having it remedied by legislation?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The incidence of costs in smaller bankruptcies is undoubtedly heavy, although, generally speaking, not so heavy as is suggested in the question. This matter has received the constant attention of my Department, and many special reductions in the scales of fees have been made for small estates: but the revenue from bankruptcy fees is designed to cover the cost of bankruptcy administration, and any further reduction would involve a deficiency.
    Captain GUNSTON: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to a recent case in which the Thornbury Rural District Council were one of the creditors? Is he aware that in this case an estate of £150 shrank to £2, after the various fees and expenses had been paid?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I cannot say that my attention was called to that particular case, but there are statutory duties put upon the Receiver in Bankruptcy, and they involve in some cases very considerable investigation. As long as Parliament requires those duties to be discharged, they must be paid for.
    Captain GUNSTON: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is not a question whether the fees are in accordance with the scale, but whether the scales are in accordance with county court requirements?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The scales, as I have said in my answer, have been very considerably cut down in the case of solicitors and surveyors and other professional men, and I am advised that they could not be cut any further if competent people are to be employed to do the work.
    Captain GUNSTON: If I supply my right hon. Friend with particulars of a case, will he look into it?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly.

    RESEARCH GRANTS (STEEL).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the President of the Board of Trade what associations of producers or manufacturers, apart from agriculture, receive grants for research work; and whether any grant is made for research work directed to the increased use of British steel instead of foreign timber in many industries?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer is long, my hon and gallant

    177
    Friend will perhaps agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following Research Associations, formed by the industries named, under the auspices of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research for the purposes of co-operative research, are at present in receipt of grants from that Department: photographic; scientific instruments; woollen and worsted; boot and shoe: cotton; linen; rubber; cocoa, chocolate, etc.; non-ferrous metals; refractories; launderers; leather; cutlery; electrical; silk; cast iron; flour millers; foodstuffs; paint and varnish.
    Grants are also made to the National Federation of Iron and Steel Manufacturers for research work on the manufacture and use of metallurgical coke, and to the Lancashire and Cheshire Coal Research Association in connection with the survey of the coal seams in Lancashire and Cheshire.
    As regards the second part of the question, no grant is made by the Department for research work with the specific object mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend.

    IRAQ.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the value of British, German and United States of America exports to Iraq in the years 1926, 1927 and 1928?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I will circulate the reply to this question in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The following statement shows, in so far as figures are at present available, the value of exports to Iraq from the United Kingdom and the United States of America, as recorded in the trade returns of the exporting countries. In both cases the figures include a small proportion of re-exported goods.
    From the United Kingdom:

    1926, £3,004,000.

    1927, £3,822,000.

    1928, £2,742,000.

    From the United States of America:

    1926, $983,000 £202,300).

    1927, $640,000 (£131,600).

    The only relevant data concerning Germany relate to the imports into Iraq in the year ending March, 1927, which (as recorded in the trade returns of Iraq) amounted to 45,00,000 rupees (£337,500), goods in transit through Iraq being included.

    MUNITIONS (EXPORT).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH (for Mr. CECIL WILSON)asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why, in the monthly accounts relating to trade and navigation, no information is given as to the countries to which arms, ammunition and military and naval stores are exported:
    (2), as regards the exports of arms, ammunition and military and naval stores exported in 1926 to the amount of £3,800,916, in 1927 to the amount of £3,847,401, and in 1928 to the amount of £4,709,918, what these consisted of; and to what countries they were exported?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In order to keep the cost of the monthly accounts as low as possible, and to ensure their early publication, only the principal particulars of external trade are included in them. Fuller particulars are published in the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom. Details of the exports referred to, in 1926 and 1927, are shown on pages 452 to 462 of Volume III of the Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom for 1927. The corresponding particulars for 1928 have not yet been compiled.
    Mr. SMITH: In view of the fact that there is general agreement, both in this country and in the League of Nations, as to the desirability of having the fullest possible information with regard to the manufacture of munitions, will not the right hon. Gentleman take steps to assist in giving such information publicity?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: These questions ask, not about publicity regarding the manufacture of munitions, but about the export of munitions, and, if the hon. Gentleman will look at the Annual Statement of Trade he will see that a most exhaustive analysis is given of the exports.
    Mr. SMITH: Is it not the case that the Annual Statement is a year late when

    179
    it is published, while what is really required is immediate publication of the information?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It is quite true that the Annual Statement is somewhat late, but I think it is right to confine the trade accounts, which are published as early as possible in each month, to the most important trade statistics. If these accounts are to be expanded to anything like the scope of the vast volume of the annual trade returns, it must involve delay, and all representations that I have received on the commercial side with regard to the trade accounts emphasise the vital importance of getting them out early.
    Mr. SMITH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that in regard to this particular industry it is very desirable that he should assist in concentrating public opinion on the question?

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.
    Sir WILLIAM WAYLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to investigate the methods employed in this country by American manufacturers of talking picture apparatus; and whether, if he finds the development of the British talking picture industry is being seriously retarded by the action of the American manufacturers, he will be prepared to consider further legislation to prevent the objects of the Cinematograph Films Act from being defeated?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As at present advised I do not think there is any occasion for Government intervention.
    Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some of these films the greater part is taken up by the talking instead of the film matter, and that consequently the producers will get behind that portion of the Films Act which refers to long films?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure that I follow the question. I think the Advisory Committee have considered that on one occasion, and I am told that there has really been no complaint either from exhibitors or producers in this country up to the present time.
    Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the matter to the notice of the Advisory Committee, so that there may be no evasion of the Act in future films?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not the least intention of allowing any evasion of the Act. If the hon. Gentleman can show me that there is any evasion either taking place or contemplated, I shall be very glad to bring that to the notice of the proper authorities, advisory or otherwise.
    Mr. SANDEMAN: Do the talking films come under the same Act?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I would like notice of that question. If a long film is a long film, it comes under the Act.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    RETIRED PAY AND PENSIONS (OFFICERS).
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for War what is the amount of retired pay or pension payable to the various grades of officers from colonels upwards; giving the average amount paid per person in each grade and the number receiving retired pay or pension in each grade for the latest available year?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The hon. Member will find this information on pages 261 and 262 of Amy Estimates, 1929.

    CIVILIAN EMPLOYÉS, GIBRALTAR AND MALTA.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for War the number of civilian employés engaged by the War Department at Gibraltar and Malta in December, 1928?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Excluding men employed on fluctuating work, such as unloading transports and works services, the numbers of War Department civilian employés at Gibraltar and Malta on 1st December, 1928, were approximately 230 at Gibraltar and 330 at Malta.
    Mr. KELLY: Is there any intention of increasing that number?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. The numbers fluctuate somewhat, but

    181
    there is no policy such as the hon. Member indicates.

    BOMBS IN WARFARE (DISEASE GERMS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has information to the effect that bombs or shells carrying disease or plague germs were used by the German forces on the Western Front during the Great War?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir. The War Office has no other information than that contained in the Official History of the War, Volume II, Medical Services, Chapter 17.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, but does not that give negative evidence that any projectiles containing germs were used?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better read Chapter 17.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman not refute this latest war lie which has been raked up?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I really think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better read that chapter.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have read it.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: So have I, and I am not prepared to say "Yes" or "No" to the question.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that Chapter 17 there is no evidence at all that projectiles for carrying germs were used at all?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is true that there is no evidence, but there is a suspicion.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In that case, had we not better lay this war lie once for all?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am very ready to lay any lie at any time, but I cannot do better than refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to Chapter 17, in which the whole case is discussed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

    RATE COLLECTION, GLASGOW (ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of factors in Glasgow who collect rates with rent, the amount of rates collected by them on which 2½ per cent. is payable by the Glasgow Corporation; and the estimated increase that will accrue to them as the result of the Government amendment to the Local Government Bill for Scotland?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The number of factors in Glasgow who collect rates under the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, is approximately 230. The amount of occupiers' rates falling to be collected by owners was in 1927–28 £1,062,582. Under Clause 20 of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, the allowance to owners for the collection of occupiers' assessments would fall to be fixed by the Sheriff within the limits stated in the Clause, I am unable to anticipate what that decision might be.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us what the increase will be, if the Sheriff takes advantage of the amendment which is being proposed?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. It would be quite impossible for me to pre-judge what the Sheriff may decide.

    SMALL INDUSTRIES, SCOTLAND.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that some doubt is felt by assessors in Scotland as to how small productive industries such as blacksmiths' shops, in which none but the proprietor and members of his family are employed, are to be classified under the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928; and whether, with a view to ensuring that such businesses will receive rating relief, he will amplify the directions contained in paragraphs (11) and (14) of the Explanatory Memorandum issued for the information of assessors in Scotland (Stationery Office Publication 49, 9999, 1928)?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have no information to the effect of the first part of the question. As regards the second part, each specific case falls to be decided by the assessor subject to the appeal provided by the Valuation Acts, and I have no power to give an authoritative decision on such matters. I think the Memorandum referred to sufficiently indicates the considerations involved, and I cannot usefully add anything to its terms.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is it not a fact that the memorandum indicates how certain other classes of cases are to be dealt with, but that a considerable amount of doubt has been expressed about this class of cases; and could not some direction be given as to people who are employing in their businesses no labour other than that of their own family?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Each of these cases must be judged on its merits, and it is impossible for me to do so here.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Arising out of the last answer, will it not be possible to have different decisions in different counties?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In every case, the decision of the official can be challenged.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Could not we have a decision in respect of one-man businesses?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: If we are to wait until the decision of the assessor is challenged, does it not open up an interminable vista of litigation which could be avoided by a simple direction being given now in the memorandum?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: There is no reason to alter the present procedure. Each individual can appeal on the merits of the case, and it would be quite impossible for me to express any opinion on the matter.

  SCOTLAND.

    BURSARY SCHEME, ROXBURGH.
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount spent by the Roxburghshire education authority under their bursary scheme in the last financial year; what sum of the amount so spent was for the
    184
    provision of free books to the bursars; and what is the estimate for the present financial year?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The expenditure of the Roxburgh education authority under their bursary scheme in the last financial year was £2,783, including £224 in respect of free books to bursars. The corresponding estimates for the present year are, £2,760 and £194, respectively.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Tory majority on the Roxburghshire education authority refused to give to a member of the authority the information which has now been given to a Member of this House?

    SCHOOLCHILDREN (BOOKS AND STATIONERY).
    Mr. WESTWOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many education authorities make full provision for the supply of books, stationery, etc., free, to the pupils attending schools under their control, giving the names of such authorities?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I regret that the information desired is not available. Steps are being taken to obtain a special return from the education authorities and when the results have been tabulated I will communicate with the hon. Member.

    FAIR RENTS.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what officer in the new Department of Agriculture is responsible for the fixing of first fair rents?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: This responsibility does not rest on an individual officer but on the Department, on consideration of reports submitted by their experts.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: As it is quite clear that it is a responsibility which should rest mainly upon the technical officer, has this technical officer access to the heads of the Department in the same way as he had direct access to the Board when it was in existence?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Under a Departmental organisation, the ultimate responsibility must rest with the Department and not with the individual.

    SMALL HOLDINGS, WEST LOTHIAN.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in

    185
    view of the state of employment in the shale area of West Lothian and the distress arising therefrom, he can arrange to provide suitable land in the district for the provision of small holdings and allotments for unemployed persons?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The Department of Agriculture for Scotland have recently circularised parish councils in the distressed mining areas in West Lothian urging them to consider the provision of allotments as a means of relieving distress. So far as the provision of small holdings is concerned two schemes have already been formed in the district, and others will be considered as opportunity offers, but I would remind the hon. Member that, owing to the need for negotiations, which may be followed by statutory procedure involving hearings, and to the subsequent need for the provision of buildings and equipment, the creation of small holdings cannot offer a speedy remedy for distress from unemployment.
    Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: What chance is there of a revival in the shale industry?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

    HOUSING TRANSACTION, BURNTISLAND.
    Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the town council of Burntisland some time ago acquired three unoccupied cottages situated near the burgh reservoir, which have since been restored and made habitable at the expense of the council in order to be used as stores and as a dwelling-house for a burgh employé that the buildings were practically valueless when acquired; that the town council entered into an arrangement under which their payment for the houses took the form of the erection of a house at Balmule Farm, Fifeshire, for the original owner of the cottages, the approximate value of which is £500, and in respect of which the owner received a subsidy through the Dunfermline district committee; and if he will inquire whether the whole facts relating to this arrangement were within the knowledge of the district committee when the subsidy was paid, and cause inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of this transaction?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am informed that an arrangement on the lines set out in the question was entered into by the town council of Burntisland, but as my approval is not required by statute, I am unable to say whether all the facts are as stated. As regards the last part of the question I understand that the general terms of the arrangement were known to the district committee when the subsidy was paid, but that the conditions of their scheme of assistance to private enterprise having been complied with the district committee considered subsidy was properly payable. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that there is any ground for inquiry on my part.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the whole of the circumstances connected with this transaction—by which the council gets three valueless buildings for the value of a new house—have been disclosed; is he satisfied that the subsidy was properly paid in view of those circumstances; and will he inquire more closely into the matter?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, I cannot judge whether the local authority made a good bargain or a bad bargain. That was for them to decide. As regards the payment of subsidy, all the circumstances, as far as I know, were before the local authority upon whose shoulders rests the responsibility.

    NAIRN COUNTY COUNCIL (LOAN).
    Mr. JAMES STUARTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury under what Regulation or statute the Public Works Loan Board, in making loans to local authorities, is limited as to the amount of such loans to 50 per cent. of the sale proceeds of saving certificate issued within the area of the borrowing authority during the 12 months preceding the application for the loan; whether he is prepared to reconsider this arrangement in the case of the application of the county council of Nairnshire for a loan of £815 to provide offices for the sanitary inspector, in view of the exceptional circumstances which have resulted in practically the entire sale of certificates for both county and burgh of Nairn being effected in the burgh; and whether he is aware that the Scottish Board of Health has recommended to the Public Works Loan Board that a loan should be arranged?
    Mr. SAMUEL: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Savings Certificates and Local Loans, etc. (Command Paper 1865), where he will find a full account of the matter. The point of the special arrangement with regard to savings certificates is that it enables a local authority to obtain loans for many purposes for which the Public Works Loan Board would not normally lend at all. The arrangement is necessarily based on the known sales of certificates in the area, and would become unworkable if other considerations had to be taken into account. I regret that it is impossible to make an exception in the case referred to by my hon. Friend. In reply to the last part of the question, the assent of the Scottish Board of Health is in some cases a necessary preliminary to the consideration of a loan application but does not affect the discretion of the Public Works Loan Commissioners.
    Mr. STUART: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this means that the county council of Nairn are practically debarred from borrowing any money at all, owing to the fact that all the sales of these certificates have taken place in the burgh?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My hon. Friend wrote me very fully upon this matter, and I made it my business to go into the subject carefully, and I have come to the conclusion which has been stated, because I think the scheme will become unworkable if we make alterations, and that we must adhere to the Regulations.

    SUB-POST OFFICES (RATES).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the Treasury has refused to make a contribution in lieu of local rates to the corporation of Glasgow and other local authorities in respect of premises occupied by sub-postmasters, which premises have been held by the Courts to be occupied solely by such sub-postmasters as servants of the Postmaster-General and for the use and service of the Crown?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The remuneration paid to sub-postmasters is intended to cover the payment of rates by them. It has not been the practice to make a Government contribution in lieu of rates in the
    188
    case of the premises which they occupy. The Government have not felt able to alter established practice on the strength of certain decisions which are of local application only and may not be universally accepted as binding in other areas.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the decision of the Courts of Scotland that these sub-postmasters are not liable for rates, and that the Corporation of Glasgow are, in consequence, losing a large sum? Will he take steps to see that this loss is met?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I did not know of these cases in the Scottish Courts. As the rule is not of universal application, I think it might be helpful if the Corporation of Glasgow or some other authority took steps to secure a decision in the Higher Courts of Justice, and then we might perhaps have a basis for a reconsideration of the arrangements.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received a copy of a resolution, unanimously adopted by the Aberdeen-Angus Cattle Society, drawing attention to the losses suffered by Scottish breeders of pedigree stock in consequence of the intermittent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in various parts of England, and urging the necessity of applying more stringent regulations to prevent the introduction of the disease into Scotland and suggesting that the penalties for failure to report outbreaks of the disease be increased; and whether he will state what action he proposes to take?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. I much regret the loss suffered by all breeders of pedigree stock owing to foot-and-mouth disease, but I do not consider that it is practicable to take any further precautions to prevent the introduction of infection from abroad. I will circulate details of existing precautions in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I would add that the maximum penalty for an offence under the Diseases of Animals Acts was increased by the Diseases of Animals Act, 1927, from £20 to £50.
    Following are the details:
    Measures for Preventing Introduction of Infection from Abroad.

    (i) Prohibition of landing of live animals from abroad, except—

    (a) From Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, subject to certain conditions;

    (b) Canadian store cattle for feeding purposes, subject to the provisions of the Act of 1922, and

    (c) Fat cattle or sheep from Canada, the United States, the Union of South Africa (including the Mandated Territory of South West Africa), Southern Rhodesia, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, subject to slaughter at an imported animals' wharf at the port of landing within 10 days after landing.

    (ii) Prohibition of the landing of fresh carcases and animal products from the Continent of Europe, with certain minor exceptions.

    (iii) Prohibition of landing of hay and straw from countries infected with foot-and-mouth disease.

    (iv) Requirement that packing materials used for goods and meat, whether imported or not, shall not be brought into contact with animals and shall be destroyed when their use as packing material is finished.

    (v) Requirement that all waste animal foodstuffs or swill containing animal matter, whether of foreign or home origin, shall be boiled before being fed to or brought into contact with animals.

    (vi) Arrangements have been made with the South American Governments for the imposition of stringent regulations designed to prevent the export to this country of carcases of animals infected with or exposed to the infection of foot-and-mouth disease.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    DISTRESSED AREAS (CLYDE).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received from the Clyde Joint Committee of Trade Unions a request that that area should be included as a distressed district for relief; if he is aware
    190
    that distress among large numbers of people is very acute; if he intends to include the Clyde area as desired; and, if not, can he state his reasons?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am aware that unemployment in the shipbuilding industry has been severe and that hardships have had to be borne during the period of depression. From inquiries I have made, however, I understand that the prospects of the industry appear to be improving. The tonnage of work begun in the last quarter of 1928 was greatly in excess of that begun in the preceding quarter and an improvement on the last quarter of 1927. Orders for a large amount of new work have also been given. A good deal of tonnage is becoming worn out and must be replaced and in addition it is likely that recent technical advances will necessitate extensive modifications of equipment on many coasting ships. In these circumstances, I see no sufficient reason why the area should be scheduled as a distressed area nor do I consider that the proposal of the Joint Trades Committee to raise a special fund is expedient.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that practically the same answer about improved trade in the Clyde has been given ever since this Government came into office, but that it is like Charlie—it is long in coming?

    TRANSFERRED WORKERS, PLYMOUTH AND DEVONPORT.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Labour whether any miners have been transferred to Devonport and Plymouth under the transference scheme; and, if so, the number of those placed in work in Devonport and Plymouth respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): Since the 5th October, 54 men from depressed mining areas have been transferred by the exchanges to employment in Plymouth, and three to employment in Devonport under the Industrial Transference Scheme.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether any of these men have been given work in the dockyards?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir.

    VOLUNTEER LEGION, WALSALL.
    Mr. W. M. ADAMSONasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the organisation of a volunteer legion at Walsall to supply unemployed workers for relief and public work without payment of wages; whether the Employment Exchange recognises such schemes for provision of work; and if unemployment benefits continue to be paid?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am aware that proposals of this kind have been put forward, but so far as I know they have not as yet been put into practical effect. If men are engaged in accordance with these proposals it will be for the statutory authorities under the Unemployment Insurance Acts to decide whether unemployment benefit is payable; I cannot say beforehand what the decision would be.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Is any encouragement being given by the hon. Gentleman's Department to that organisation?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I would rather not say anything one way or the other about this scheme at the present time, because a deputation is corning to the Ministry of Labour on this point, and I do not want to prejudge the question. At the same time, I feel bound to point out that we shall have to consider what effect a scheme of this kind would have when put into operation upon normal wages and labour conditions.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Would it be possible to give a summary of the decisions arrived at after the deputation?

    Persons on the Registers of the Employment Exchange at Stornoway.

    Date.

    Numbers on Registers.

    Date.

    Numbers on Registers.

    1927.

    1928.

    3rd October

    …

    …

    …

    1,076

    1st October

    …

    …

    …

    1,063

    10th October

    …

    …

    …

    661

    8th October

    …

    …

    …

    915

    17th October

    …

    …

    …

    414

    10th October

    …

    …

    …

    742

    24th October

    …

    …

    …

    371

    22nd October

    …

    …

    …

    459

    31st October

    …

    …

    …

    365

    29th October

    …

    …

    …

    456

    7th November

    …

    …

    …

    364

    5th November

    …

    …

    …

    433

    14th November

    …

    …

    …

    371

    12th November

    …

    …

    …

    416

    21st November

    …

    …

    …

    535

    19th November

    …

    …

    …

    540

    28th November

    …

    …

    …

    950

    26th November

    …

    …

    …

    1,123

    At 22nd October, 1928, all the unemployed insured men on the Registers of the Stornoway Employment Exchange were resident in Ross and Cromarty, and none were resident in Inverness-shire, of which Harris forms a part.

    Mr. BETTERTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his question after I have received the deputation.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the deputation which is coming to the Ministry against this scheme?
    Mr. BETTERTON: No, Sir, I do not understand so. They are coming to discuss the merits or demerits, and the advantages and disadvantages.
    Mr. PRESTON: Has the Parliamentary Secretary had any invitations from the local authorities to discuss this question?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am nut sure about that. I could not say.

    HARRIS.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed on the Island of Harris in October and November, 1927 and 1928, respectively?
    Mr. BETTERTON: There is no local office of the Ministry of Labour in Harris, and the only figures available relate to persons on the registers of the Employment Exchange at Stornoway. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving such figures for the periods referred to.
    Mr. KELLY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what efforts, if any, are being made by his officers to place these men in employment?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member will be interested to know that an analysis that we made last October showed that there were no unemployed men in Harris at all.
    Following is the statement:

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    AMALGAMATIONS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary for Mines how many amalgamations have now been made in the coal-mining industry; and how many pits are affected?
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines the number of amalgamations that have taken place since the passing of the Mining Industry Act, 1926; and will he say what proportion they comprise of the total number of collieries in England, Scotland and Wales?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I made a report to Parliament on this subject on 5th November last. One scheme involving 19 pits and about 16,300 workpeople has since been approved by the Railway and Canal Commission, and another affecting 9 pits and 6,100 workers is now before them. The amalgamations completed since August, 1926, cover about 16 per cent. of the industry.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied with this rate of progress?
    Commodore KING: It is not for me to express an opinion, but I think the answer shows that considerable progress has been made.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not the Minister's business to try to hasten on amalgamation?
    Commodore KING: The Government have already done that in the Mining Industry Act.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it is clear that general amalgamation will not operate as a result of the voluntary efforts of the coalowners?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir. I do not think anything like that.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Do not the figures just given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, showing that only 16 per cent. have been amalgamated since 1926, prove that voluntary effort is insufficient?
    Commodore KING: I do not agree.
    Mr. BATEY: Are the amalgamations as numerous as the Government expected when they passed the Mining Industry Act?

    FUEL RESEARCH STATION.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Secretary for Mines whether an arrangement can be made for an extension of the activities of the fuel research station with a view to the production of oil from coal on a commercial scale, so that the station can become productive as well as experimental in its operations?
    Commodore KING: No, Sir. It is considered that the main activities of the fuel research station should he devoted to providing authoritative technical information and data for the general benefit of the community.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is Government money to be expended solely for the purpose of assisting private enterprise, and is the community to gain no benefit from the operations of the Fuel Research Department?
    Commodore KING: I think the general community do obtain benefit from the assistance of private enterprise.

    CLOSED PITS, WEST LOTHIAN.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Secretary for Mines how many pits have been closed in the district of Armadale and Blaskridge, in West Lothian, during 1927 and 1928; and whether there is any prospect of any resumption of operations at these pits at an early date?
    Commodore KING: Four pits are closed at the present time which were working at the beginning of 1927. I have no information of the owners' intentions with regard to re-opening them.
    Mr. SHINWELL: In view of the extraordinary distress that prevails in that area, is it not possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to ascertain how far the recent schemes of the Scottish coalowners have contributed to this serious position, and will he not be able to use his influence in the matter?
    Commodore KING: It would not be in the interests of the industry if I were to

    195
    exert influence to open pits which the owners did not think it would be wise to open.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman no responsibility for the men at all?

    WAGES.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is taking any steps to afford any protection to miners when colliery companies refuse to pay the recognised minimum wage?
    Commodore KING: Means already exist whereby the terms of a contract of employment can be enforced, and I have no reason to believe that these are not adequate.
    Mr. SMITH: When an employer says he is not prepared to pay the recognised rate any longer and the men must either accept lower rates or be dismissed, cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman do anything in the matter?
    Commodore KING: The hon. Member will realise that there is machinery under which wages can be reviewed by local wages boards, and the local wages board will say whether or not the wages are proper.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that in a large number of collieries in nearly every coal-producing county men are threatened with dismissal and victimisation if they insist on the recognised rate of wages?
    Commodore KING: No, I am not aware of that fact.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: If instances are brought to the notice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, will he take steps to deal with them?
    Commodore KING: The hon. Member does not understand the position. It is not for me to take steps. If there is any breach of the law or any breach of contract, it is for the workers themselves to take action.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Have not the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Government some duties and obligations towards 1,000,000 men?

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD GRANTS (MORAYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL).
    Mr. J. STUARTasked the Minister of Transport whether he will reconsider the decision of the divisional road engineer, Edinburgh, in refusing payment of an additional sum of £304 to the Morayshire County Council in respect of their expenditure on road improvements under the 75 per cent. grant scheme, in view of the fact that the total amount for which grants had already been authorised by his Department for 1927–28 would not have been exceeded with this addition as a result of the saving effected on the 50 per cent. and 33⅓ per cent. classification grants; and whether he will give instructions that in such cases overpayment may be made and charged against the grant on which there has been a saving, provided that such a course results in no loss to his Department?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I am unable to agree to the transfer of expenditure from one grant to another, but I am always prepared to consider an application relating to unavoidable excess expenditure on a particular scheme provided that good cause can be shown and that, wherever possible, prior sanction has been sought. In this case the excess was largely due to an unauthorised extension of the proposals upon which the grant was based. The county council were aware of the procedure which should have been followed, and I am unable to find any reason for departing from the usual practice of my Department.
    Mr. STUART: Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend realise the difficulty of estimating accurately in advance for a work of this sort, and, where there is a saving under one head, is it not reasonable that that saving should be transferred to meet the additional expenditure under another head?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The difficulty of estimating accurately in advance is always taken into consideration in deciding whether the excess expenditure shall be allowed or not.

    HEAVY VEHICLES (DAMAGE TO PROPERTY).
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOXasked the Minister of Transport whether,

    197
    in view of the damage now being done to house property by heavy transport, he will consider legislation to limit the size and weight of vehicles using the public roads?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I would refer by hon. Friend to the answer given on the 13th November last to the hon. Member for the St. George's Division of Westminster (Mr. Erskine), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is it not possible, pending legislation, for my right hon. and gallant Friend to issue regulations limiting the size of these "Dreadnoughts"?
    Colonel ASHLEY: All vehicles on roads are strictly limited as to size.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Could not my right hon. and gallant Friend in towns put something in the nature of a speed limit on these heavy vehicles with solid tyres?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The law is that the local authorities can apply for speed limits, and then, after a local inquiry, the Minister can, in certain localities, if he so thinks fit, impose a special speed limit.
    Sir A. KNOX: Is it not possible for my right hon. and gallant Friend to insist that the local authorities carry out their duties?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly, but the duty to which my hon. Friend refers is the enforcing of the speed limit, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

    ROAD MATERIALS.
    Mr. MURNINasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to a specification issued by the Clackmannan county council inviting tenders for road binding materials; whether he is aware that foreign bitumen is exclusively specified and British tar is expressly excluded; Whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to support local authorities in specifying only foreign materials; and whether a grant from the Road Fund will be made to the Clackmannan county council during the financial year governed by this tender form?
    Colonel ASHLEY: My attention has not been drawn to the specification referred to, but I am making inquiries into the matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Transport what local authorities used foreign road-stone during the past year in connection with schemes for which he gave grants; and the average difference in price per ton between British and foreign stone in these districts?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have no information which would enable me to give the particulars asked for. My hon. Friend is aware that circular letters have been issued impressing upon local authorities the desirability of using British materials wherever practicable.

    MOTOR OMNIBUSES (STOPPING).
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that motor-omnibuses often stop suddenly without giving any intimation of their intention, thereby causing danger to following vehicles; whether he has received representations from the South Devon advisory committee for licensing motor-omnibuses on this subject; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have received representations on the subject from the South Devon Area Advisory Committee for the licensing of motor omnibuses. Drivers of motor omnibuses, as a class, are certainly not less careful than other drivers of motor vehicles in giving the proper driving signals, and I do not think there is a case for requiring these vehicles to be equipped with special means of indicating the driver's intention to stop.
    Major HARVEY: Will not my right hon. and gallant Friend take into consideration the fact that the roads in South Devon are very different from the roads in other parts of the country?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am always willing, within reason, to assist the South Devon authorities in improving their roads.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend not aware that, although the driver may

    199
    make the signal that he is going to stop, it is very often not possible, on account of the size of his vehicle, for it to be seen by the driver of the vehicle behind?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I will take that into consideration.

    MOTOR DRIVERS (TESTS).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any information as to the tests applied in other countries to persons desiring to be possessed of licences to drive motor vehicles; and, if so, whether, in view of the changes in the proposed law in this country, he will cause such information to be circulated?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The latest information in my possession was collected during the year 1925, and relates to the practice in certain European countries. As this information is not up to date I feel that its publication might be misleading.
    Mr. R. MORRISON: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman taking steps to get any further information?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I think probably it would be better to wait till we have a clearer view of how this is working.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Even if the information is not up to date, does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not think it would be better to publish it?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I will consider that, but I do not want to go to expense in publishing information which is not up to date.

  ELECTRICITY COMPANIES (PROFITS AND CHARGES).
  Mr. WELLOCKasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that many electricity distributing companies which enjoy monopoly powers in addition to paying reasonable dividends distribute large reserves in the form of bonus shares; and whether, in view of the high cost of electricity in many areas, he will inquire into the matter?
  Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware that certain electricity distributing companies have capitalised their undistributed
  200
  profits. As regards the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that it is open to the local authority concerned or the consumers, if they are of opinion that a company's profits are excessive, to apply for a reduction in the maximum charges authorised by the Act or Order relating to the particular undertaking.
  Mr. WELLOCK: Seeing that reports have to be sent in by all these companies, have not the Commissioners, under the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, power to deal with them?
  Colonel ASHLEY: If a local authority or a certain number of consumers—I think 20—consider that the price they are charged is too high, they can appeal to me to hold an investigation, and I am empowered to deal with it, and no doubt in an appeal of that sort the fact that there had been a bonus distribution of shares would be taken into consideration.
  Mr. WELLOCK: Has not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman power to intervene without the intervention, first, of the local authority?
  Colonel ASHLEY: No, it must come from the local authorities.

  IRISH LOYALISTS (PAYMENTS).
  Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will have circulated a White Paper giving the names of Irish Loyalist claimants and the amount claimed by each claimant as compensation before the next Supplementary Estimate is brought before the House?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Benn) by the Secretary of State for the Dominions on the 28th February.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider giving, not the names, but the particulars, where the claim exceeds some amount, say, £10,000 or £20,000, of public money?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No. I consider that this matter has been definitely

  201
  settled by the decision of the House, taken without a Division—not even challenged by a Division—and taken with the full knowledge that this nominal list would not be published.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's own statement in the House a fortnight ago, when he said that the Treasury had no control or oversight over any of the claims, does he not think it is absolutely necessary that the names of claimants for over £1,000 should be communicated to the House?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have resigned myself to submit to the decision which was taken with the full knowledge of all the circumstances.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that he has resigned himself absolutely to 283 Irish Loyalists?

  INCOME TAX (LEASES).
  Sir HERBERT NIELDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in arriving at assessable profits for Income Tax it has been the custom to allow as an expense the cost of renewing leases, the original cost and any premiums having been regarded as a capital expense, and that notice has been issued by the authorities at Somerset House to inspectors of taxes to disallow for the future the cost of renewing leases; and on what grounds has that been done?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. and learned Friend is, I think, under some misapprehension in this matter. It has always been, and still is, the view of the Board of Inland Revenue that these expenses are inadmissible as deductions for Income Tax purposes, being in the nature of capital outlay. The notice in question was issued last October in order to bring the views of the Board of Inland Revenue to the attention of His Majesty's inspectors of taxes with a view to securing uniformity of practice.
  Sir H. NIELD: Would the right hon. Gentleman be surprised to know that the question was prompted by one of the principal firms of chartered accountants in the City of London, who know their facts?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend is always strongly fortified by facts in any question which he puts in this House.

  PETROL PRICES.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the advance in the price of petrol owing to price-fixing agreements between the oil combines; and whether he will take the possibility of further increases in prices of petrol into consideration in framing the Budget for next year?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir. Naturally I shall take all these matters into consideration.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the action of this "ring" will affect the right hon. Gentleman's Budget?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Naturally, I cannot give any indication of what the course of the decision which will be taken in regard to the Budget for next year will be, but I may say that there are on the Paper several questions addressed to various Departments—
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Not for to-day.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, not for to-day. I think they are mainly for Thursday. The Government will take an opportunity in regard to those questions to make a comprehensive reply.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was not the right hon. Gentleman very clearly warned last year when the marketing arrangements—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Hore-Belisha!
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very serious effect this rise in price is having on the motor industry?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; I am left in no doubt of that from the columns of the daily newspapers.
  Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: If there is any further reduction of taxa

  203
  tion on oil or petrol, will the right hon. Gentleman see that it does not apply to any coming from Russia?
  Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Is not this the case of a capitalist combine formed by the Russian Soviet Government?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The original question refers to the Budget for next year, and I do not see that these supplementary questions have any bearing upon it.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Am I not in order in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he did not receive warning of this last year when the amalgamation took place?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Budget for next year.

  POST OFFICE.

    LETTER-BOXES (SIZE).
    Mr. DAYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in some provincial districts the letter-box provided by the postal authorities is so small that during week-ends the box becomes so full that letters can be easily extracted; and will he call for a special Report from his Department with a view to replacing these smaller pillar-boxes with those more suitable for the requirements of the districts?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Such complaints are quite infrequent. If the hon. Member will let me know of any places which he has in mind I will have inquiry made.

    MISSING REGISTERED LETTERS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Postmaster-General whether the Metropolitan police authorities were immediately informed on the discovery of the robbery of mail bags which took place on arrival from Manchester at Euston Station on 23rd February; and can he give the House particulars as to the manner in which this robbery took place?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In answer to the first portion of the hon. Member's question I would refer him to
    204
    my reply of the 28th of February to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain). It has not been possible to determine how the theft occurred, but the inquiry is still proceeding.
    Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in many cases these mail bags travel in vans through which people can pass to and fro, and without any protection of any kind? When valuable mail bags are being carried by rail, ought they not to be locked in?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The Department is dealing with that point. I said something about it during the Debate yesterday.

    TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
    Sir JOHN POWERasked the Postmaster-General the total loss on the telegraphs, on the basis of the commercial accounts, since they were nationalised; and which was the latest year in which a profit was earned?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Commercial accounts were not prepared before the 1st of April, 1912. It is estimated that during the period 1870 to 1912 the total loss amounted to approximately £21,800,000, of which interest charges account for about £12½ millions. From April, 1912, to April, 1928, the loss amounted to approximately £24 millions, including about £5 millions for interest charges. The latest year in which a surplus was shown was 1871, when, as I have indicated, the accounts were not on a commercial basis.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is it not a fact that the profit on the Post Office since the War is far greater than the loss on the telegraphs in the whole of the period referred to by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I could not say that without notice.

    TELEPHONE SERVICE.
    Sir J. POWERasked the Postmaster-General the net profit or loss on the telephones, on the basis of the commercial accounts, since the service was taken over from the National Telephone Company; and the amount paid to the Post Office by the National Telephone

    205
    Company by way of royalties during the last three years of the operation of the company?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: From the 1st April, 1912, to the 31st March, 1928 (the nearest convenient dates) the aggregate telephone surplus, after providing for maintenance, depreciation and operating costs, but not interest, amounted to £24,591,445. The interest charges for the same period amounted to £27,059,534. In considering these figures it is necessary to bear in mind that application of the post-War tariff was postponed for a considerable time and also that during the past few years reductions of telephone charges have been made amounting in the aggregate to many millions of pounds. The royalties received from the National Telephone Company during the last three years of its operation amounted to £970,000.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not also the fact that many rural districts have been provided with telephones on a non-commercial basis?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Yes.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it not also a fact that not enough rural districts have been provided with telephones?

    CASH-ON-DELIVERY SERVICE.
    Captain GUNSTONasked the Postmaster-General if he can give figures showing to what extent the cash-on-delivery system is being used for agricultural produce?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I regret that neither the railway companies nor my Department have any figures to show to what extent the cash-on-delivery system is being used for agricultural produce.

    BAIRD TELEVISION SYSTEM (DEMONSTRATION).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Postmaster-General why his invitation to witness a demonstration of the Baird television system in the near future is limited to a certain number of hon. Members only; if he will consider extending these invitations to other hon. Members; and if any experts in television, other than those
    206
    interested in the Baird system, are to be present at the demonstration?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The demonstration to which the hon. Member refers took place to-day, and was witnessed by a few hon. Members of all parties, in addition to representatives of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Baird Company. It was necessary to restrict the number present to a minimum, because at present the nature of the apparatus makes it impossible for more than a few persons to witness the experiment simultaneously.
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the Postmaster-General reply to the last part of my question as to whether "any experts in television, other than those interested in the Baird system, are to be present at the demonstration?"
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The only expert present at the Post Office demonstration who comes within that category that I can remember was Professor Fleming.
    Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a widespread impression that the whole system will not stand examination and that there is a great speculation going on in regard to this company on the Stock Exchange; and will he see that his Department does not lend itself to any of these marketing operations?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There are a great many reasons why we should not make any representations on this question, but all relevant facts will be taken into consideration.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the demonstration took place this morning on the understanding that on no side should any information be given to the Press?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is so.

    MAIL BAGS IN TRANSIT.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General what precautions are taken to preserve the security of mail bags in transit by rail?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Mail bags are conveyed by railway in charge

    207
    either of Post Office or of railway officials. As I stated yesterday, the matter is at present under investigation in my Department.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that anyone may go through the vans and find that nobody is about and that the mail-bags are lying about?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is undoubtedly true. The mails are during that period in charge of the guards of the railway company, but I should prefer to say nothing further on the subject at the moment, because the whole question of the custody of the mails is under consideration at the present moment.
    Mr. DAY: Is it not the case that while the mails are in the railway vans sometimes the guards are not there at all, and passengers can pass in and out of the carriages?

  KENYA (LAND BANKS).
  Mr. GILLETTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the recommendation of the East Africa Commission that a suitable proportion of the loan money should be spent for development purposes in native areas, and seeing the Kenya Legislative Council are proposing to raise a loan, a part of which, amounting to £200,000, is to be used to start a land bank, he will recommend that the bank should be available both for white settlers and native producers?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The question of establishing a land and agricultural bank in Kenya and the method of financing the bank if established are still under consideration. In publishing the Land and Agricultural Bank Bill for information and guidance, the Government announced that the question of participation by Africans in the benefits of the proposed law would, if supported by African opinion, form the subject of a separate Bill. I understand that it would be necessary to frame different provisions in view of the communal holdings of the natives.

  TANGANYIKA (NATIVE LANDS).
  Mr. GILLETTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that at a Government sale of farms at Tanganyika in October, 1928, it was announced that 20s. would be given as compensation for the loss of the use of the land for cultivation purposes in the case of each native affected; and whether this is all the compensation given to a native whose land is sold by the Government to non-natives?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have not seen such an announcement and I am not aware of the place to which the hon. Member alludes. No land (other than areas of freehold land alienated by the former German Government) can be sold in Tanganyika, and no non-native can be granted a lease of any land that is in the lawful occupation of a native. I understand, however, that in certain cases where a native has had an isolated rice patch or plot of vegetable cultivation within an otherwise unoccupied area he has been offered the alternative of retaining the patch or of receiving some monetary compensation.

  AIRSHIP R.101.
  Mr. GILLETTasked the Secretary of State for Air what was the original amount of the contract given, without competition, in January, 1926, for the construction of the airship R.101; how much of this sum has been expended; and how much in excess of the original estimate has already been paid to the contractor or has been promised to him?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The construction of R.101 is being carried out by Government labour and not by contract, and I assume that the hon. Member refers to the contract for the supply of component parts of the framework. This contract, which was placed without competition in view of the fact that only one firm had the particular experience required to enable it to collaborate in work of such highly experimental character, was not for a fixed or comprehensive sum, certain of the elements of the contract price being contingent upon actual costs. The payments due under the contract to date amount to

  209
  approximately £176,800. On completion, a position which has now been almost reached, the contractors will become entitled to a further payment of approximately £8,000, together with the repayment of certain direct expenditure, estimated not to exceed £4,000.
  Mr. GILLETT: If there was no definite sum arranged with the directors, how was it that £14,000 was afterwards paid on account of the delay on the part of the Government fulfilling certain parts of this transaction which ought to have been carried out?
  Sir P. SASSOON: There was no fixed over-all sum.

  ADMIRALTY EMPLOYES (DOCKYARDS ABROAD).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of Admiralty employés who are engaged in dockyards abroad having gone out from this country under agreement with the Admiralty?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The total number of employés serving under agreement at dockyards and other Admiralty establishments abroad who have been sent from home establishments is 736.
  Mr. KELLY: Is there any maximum period under this agreement for service abroad?
  Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think I must have notice of that question.

  NAVAL DISARMAMENT.
  Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the invitation given by the United States of America Government to submit further proposals on outstanding naval difficulties, as indicated in their last official despatches on this question, and of the fact that His Majesty's Government has been giving this last note their careful consideration, whether he can now make any statement to the House?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): No, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply returned on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 20th of February last.

  POOR LAW.

    INSTITUTIONS (COCAINE).
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Health whether he has received any complaints of large amounts of cocaine that have been used in any of the Poor Law institutions in England and Wales; whether he will give the House particulars; and is it his intention to set up an inquiry into these charges?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend has received no formal complaint of this kind, but he is aware of one instance in which a Poor Law medical officer has used considerable quantities of this drug for his own treatment. The officer has resigned his appointment and my right hon. Friend sees no reason for further action on his part.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the amount of cocaine used by this medical officer?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, it was a very unhappy case, and I do not think it is desirable to go further into the matter.
    Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that in one case £2,000 worth of this drug was used at an institution in one year?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, there is no justification for any anxiety on that account.

    CASUALS, LAMBETH.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Health whether he has received representations from the Lambeth board of guardians in regard to the sending to the hospital of surplus casuals from the casual ward; and what action, if any, he has taken?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. My Department is, in conjunction with the other

    211
    authorities affected, considering the action to be taken on these representations.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many times this hopital has been used for this purpose?

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BRITISH MIGRANTS).
  Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to render British migrants entitled to unemployment insurance benefits."
  Of late I have been employing the ample leisure between Divisions in this House by stealing off into the Library and reading some of the so-called histories of the world. I have galloped through Gibbon, and have even waded through H. G. Wells; and I find that, of all the theories that provoke historians, the one that disturbs them most is the decline and fall of nations. Each and every one of them expends much time, and move ink in unfolding the causes of collapse of the lost empires of the world. Some of these causes, which are gone into at great length, need not be detailed here. But there is one symptom of decline which is common to every diagnosis, and which seems to be the chronic forerunner of imperial dissolution. In every case these historians admit the presence of an ominous excess of population, which cannot be absorbed and has to be maintained in charitable idleness by the State.
  It would be insulting to ask whether that symptom is present in our community to-day. Opening the newspaper this morning, I discovered that over a million and a quarter people are still workless in these Islands. Some of them have been out of work since the War. Some of them are the best material we possess. People speak of them as being shirkers and thriftless, but the truth is that some of them are the finest elements in the country. They went over the top in the Great War, and they were heroes then. They did splendidly on many a front. They realised the high level of living in those days, and they came back to this country under the
  212
  promise here of an endless El Dorado; but they were crushed instead into sunless slums, and have been forced to partake of the crumbs which fall from civilisation's table. Is it to be wondered at that some of them have become what the world calls shirkers? Men who were independent freemen originally, have become inevitably shameless devourers of the dole, and, in the enervating atmosphere of subsidised sloth, sometimes the noblest heroisms have melted away. For the pittance which is drawn by these cheated citizens is not valid for any State purpose. What is the use of it? It does not keep the person who gets it in a proper condition; it produces no extra employment; it creates no wealth; it cures no malady; from start to finish it is waste, waste, waste. It simply perpetuates chaos, and it does one thing which is even sadder and more tragic than anything else—it blinds millions to the bankruptcy of conditions here, and to the illimitable solvency of conditions overseas.
  For while this country is congested, the Empire is empty. We need not argue about it. We are always being told that Australia is as big as Europe without Russia, and it is a strange fact that, if to-day we could hook on to Australia and tow her into the Atlantic alongside this country, so vast is she that we could walk across to the United States dry-shod; and yet the population of that great Continent numbers 6,000,000 people at the most. New Zealand, again, has barely 1,000,000. What about Canada? Professor Seeley, the great Imperial exponent 50 years ago, told us this, that in ten years from that date Canada would have a population of over 12,000,000. Her population to-day is under 10,000,000.
  While the Mother Country is a tangle of towns glutted with human beings, the bulk of the Dominions remain vast, void tracts. While England is to-day semi-suburban, five-sixths of the Empire has never felt the foot of man. Empty continents gape to be filled, the rich earth cries out "till me"; the rivers call aloud "navigate us"; the woods wait for the axe. But where are the hands to glean in these fields? They have fallen feeble in ten years of torpor over here, and the sad thing is that there is no magician with a wand which he can wave to effect the mighty exchange. I

  213
  am aware that in 1921 there was an Imperial Conference, and it was followed by a grant by the Government of £3,000,000 a year in order to assist migration. We all know that the results of that grant were lamentable and the expenditure under it has been pitiful. We know that not only has the £3,000,000 a year never been reached, but that in certain years not even £35,000 was reached to assist emigration.
  Our Governments have all along blamed the co-operation of the Dominions, which has not been up to the mark. But the truth is that a mediocrity of outlook has all along doomed overseas settlement to disrepute and failure. The question is this. Why has no more money been spent? Is it the fault of the Dominions? Is not the truth really nearer at home? Does it not lie in this simple fact, that in eight years we have spent over £400,000,000 on unemployment? Every week we are spending £1,000,000 on the unemployed. It costs, I think, 17s. 9d. a week to demoralise a Briton. This money is paid out and what is the object of it? It finds no work. It creates no wealth. But it does one thing. It keeps the recipient here. And so you have this incredible anomaly. Governments with one hand dealing out money to invite the unemployed to pack up and go, and with the other hand bribing them to stop.
  It would be cowardly merely to criticise and not offer an alternative, and I therefore will describe the essence of the Bill which I and those with me are introducing. In effect it amounts to this. Instead of merely continuing unemployed pay in a country of vanished markets, it is suggested that the workless who migrate overseas within the British Empire, should receive up to two years' unemployment pay. It is further suggested that a wide scheme for training would be migrants should be launched, and that farmers and other employers of labour should be approached and invited to take selected migrants and educate them. These employers would receive the unemployment pay of the migrants towards the payment of the full local wage to these trainees. To-day it costs £50 per unemployed person yearly. It will cost in six or eight years another £400,000,000 to £500,000,000. We may be saving per person perhaps £200 if he
  214
  emigrates. And the benefit is two-fold: it encourages the workless to leave empty markets, and it makes them welcome overseas.
  This in outline is the Bill. It is a sad fact that in this matter we have forgotten the British Empire. I wonder, if Germany had won the War, whether she would have forgotten? She went to War, after all, to get our place in the sun. If she had been victorious, she would have poured out her citizens into the uttermost parts of those realms. To-day Italy is without a dominion into which to send her surplus population. What would Japan give for a continent into which the leaking reservoir of her teeming population could overflow? Unemployment is a scourge under which none of us can sit idle. It is an Imperial issue. I hope that it will never be made the football of faction.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I should not have risen to oppose the Bill but for the speech which we have just heard. I am absolutely tired of hearing this talk about the demoralisation of the dole. I am prepared to admit that there is something in the statement that the subsidising of idleness is demoralising, but it is a remarkable fact that that demoralisation is only discovered when it is the working class. There are plenty of idle people in this country who do not belong to the working-class, and never intend to belong to the working-class, and will never intend, either, to migrate to the Colonies. So long as they can find plenty of opportunity of living in idleness in this country, they will leave the sparsely populated Colonies to look after themselves. It is only our workers who have to go over, although they fought for this country.
  I am not prepared to admit that this nation is as overcrowded as the hon. and gallant Member suggests. It is relatively overcrowded, it is true, but when the hon. and gallant Member tells us that we have to encourage farmers to get hold of the best blood and stock of this country and to train them for the cultivation of land overseas, the thing that occurs to me, and to many on these benches, is that we want our best blood and stock in this country, and that there are millions of acres of land in this country which are not cultivated at

  215
  all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] The figures are beyond dispute. In every part of the country there is land that is idle and, compared with the year I was born, just over 50 years ago, there are very nearly 3,000,000 people fewer directly or indirectly engaged in the business of agriculture. These facts are significant enough as to the way in which agriculture has been depleted and ruined by the policy of successive Governments.
  4.0 p.m.
  Something ought to be done to cultivate that part of the British Empire which lies at home. We are as much a part of the British Empire as the Colonies are, and it is a dangerous thing for any country to have to depend upon foreign sources for its food supplies and upon the exploitation of mineral resources and foreign trade as completely as we have to. From one point of view, the more you depend upon your foreign exports, the more are your standards of life governed by the lowest denominator of foreign conditions, and surely there is a great deal to be said for spending money at home in again making this country what she was in years past, a premier agricultural country. This country, after all, is the only country in the world which has not a prosperous agriculture as its basis. Even those countries which commercially are successful against us in foreign markets, have their agriculture to depend upon as a basis, and the country which allows its agricultural basis to slip from it is always a country which is upon the slippery slope to economic ruin. That is the position which the Socialist party have taken up for a good many years—that we ought to make the best of our own country and the best of our own people. When I hear hon. Members, such as the one who has asked leave to introduce this Measure, talking so glibly about sending our best men abroad to cultivate the land there, I feel that it is about time to protest, not that I am so much opposed to the idea, which is a very minor one, expressed in the Bill itself, but that it is based upon a wrong assumption, namely, the idea that it is economically good and sound for a country to lose its agriculture. It is our business as a nation to see that we do all we can to utilise our own resources, our own stock and our own blood, and then,
  216
  if we have anything to spare from them, by all means develop our Empire. For that reason, I take the opportunity of opposing the Bill, although I do not intend to vote against it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Commander Oliver Locker-Lampson, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Viscount Sandon, and Sir Newton Moore.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BRITISH MIGRANTS).
    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (BRITISH MIGRANTS) BILL,
    "to render British migrants entitled to unemployment insurance benefits," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Mr. KELLY: I beg to move,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1914."
  This Bill seeks to remedy a great injustice to those who are in the Civil Service of this country. It is thought by the great bulk of the people of this country that every civil servant is entitled to superannuation when he has finished his service. That is so, as far as a great number of them are concerned, when they remain in this country, but should the Government ask them to render service in the Colonies, the Dominions, or any of the mandated territories, then we find that these employés of the Government are penalised by the loss of the period of years which they may happen to serve in other parts of the world. Cases have arisen where men just after the Armistice were sent out by the Food Control Department of that time to the Continent of Europe, and they were compelled either to lose the period that they were away from this country in the service of the Government in counting towards superannuation, or they had to pay an amount of money equal to 12½ per cent. of their wages. Again, we had the instance of the men who were sent out by the Admiralty to the Australian dockyards, and the whole period they were away, some five years, was taken off the period of years counted for superannuation. It is to remedy that,

  217
  that I am asking leave to introduce this Measure, so that, in the event of a civil servant being transferred, probably temporarily, to the service of a Dominion Government, a Crown Colony, or any territory in respect of which a mandate is being exercised by the Government, that period shall count for the purpose of superannuation.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. Member to move that leave be given to bring in this Bill. Inasmuch as it provides for larger pensions than those to which those affected are entitled under the existing law, or provides pensions for those who otherwise would not get them, it would be a charge on the Revenue.
  Mr. KELLY: I am quite willing that this may be examined, though the Bill I am putting forward would not give a larger pension. It would enable civil servants to count the period so as to give them the pension which they believed they would have, and which they were promised when they entered the service of His Majesty's Government. It would not give them a larger pension.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The only effect of the Bill would be that any civil servant who was employed overseas would be entitled to a pension to which he would not be entitled now for the period so served.
  Mr. TOWNEND: The point is that if a member of the Civil Service were to be called upon at any time during his service under the Government to leave this country for a period of five years, those five years should rank for superannuation when the superannuation age was reached. For instance, a person who now enters the service at the age of 15, at the end of 45 years, that is, on reaching the age of 60, is entitled to a pension. If, however, he had to go abroad at the instance of the Government, say between the ages of 30 and 40, those 10 years would not rank for superannuation. He would not, therefore, receive the maximum of his pension, to which ordinarily he would be entitled at 60, until he had made up those 10 years spent abroad, which would make him 70.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is exactly what I said. The man would be entitled to a larger pension than that to which he would otherwise be entitled. I am afraid I cannot allow the Bill to proceed further.
  Mr. R. MORRISON: Is it not a fact that the Bill just introduced and read the First time would impose a very large charge upon the Exchequer?
  Mr. SPEAKER: No, the effect of the Bill which the hon. and gallant Member, by leave of the House, has brought in, would affect the Insurance Fund. It would not be a direct charge upon the State.
  Mr. KELLY: I submit that this Bill would not affect the State in the sense that if a man had not been sent to render service in the Colonies, and had remained at home, the whole of that time would have ranked for pension, and the fact that he is rendering service in another part of the world than in his dockyard or the War Department, certainly is not putting a greater charge upon the Exchequer than was expected when the men entered the Service.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is the question of the exact operation of the Bill if it became an Act of Parliament. Probably he would be entitled to a larger pension if the Bill passed.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand that the objection to my hon. Friend bringing in this Bill is that it might entail an extra charge upon the Exchequer. May I point to a recent precedent, namely, the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) to provide boots for necessitous school children. I believe your ruling was that it could not be proceeded with further than the Second Reading, for example, unless a Financial Resolution were passed, and that that was the Government's affair. May I put it to you that if this Bill passes the First Reading now, the Government could then be approached to see if a Financial Resolution could be moved, and that that would safeguard the Exchequer?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I could not allow a private Member to bring in a Bill which increases the charge on the Exchequer.
  Mr. THURTLE: On that point of Order. May I submit to you an analogy of last year, when a Bill was passed conferring on teachers who served abroad the same rights which this Bill seeks to establish for civil servants, and on that occasion there was no Money Resolution?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot be called upon at the moment to deal with the question to which the hon. Member refers. I have now to deal with the Bill before the House, and I could not accept a Bill which would have the effect to which I have referred.

  IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) ACT (1921) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Tuesday next read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE BILL.
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Doncaster Area Drainage Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

  CHAIRMAN'S PANEL.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Ellis Davies to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Savings Banks Bill).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  PONTYPRIDD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions for increase of town, councillors in large burghs.)
    (1) The provisions of the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, with regard to the alteration of the number of magistrates and councillors in burghs and to the number of councillors in each ward, and to the division or redivision into wards shall cease to have effect as regards any large burgh, and it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State on the representation of the town council of any large burgh by order to determine of alter the number of councillors and magistrates of the burgh, the number and boundaries of the wards into which the burgh is divided, and the number of councillors to be elected for each ward, and where under any such order the number of councillors for any ward is a number other than three or a multiple of three the order shall make such modification of the provisions of the said Act of 1900 with regard to the retirement of councillors as may be necessary to make these provisions conform to the order.
    (2) A reference in the foregoing Subsection to any provision in the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, shall be deemed to include a reference to any corresponding provision in a local Act.
    (3) The number of councillors and magistrates to be elected in each large burgh and the number and boundaries of wards into which any such burgh is divided shall, unless and until determined or altered under the foregoing provisions of this Section, remain the same as under the law existing at the passing of the Act.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause is introduced in response to certain representations that were made, particularly by the City of Aberdeen and Falkirk, though the Clause has also the approval of such burghs as the City of Dundee. It is clear that by the imposition of fresh duties upon some of these bodies it may be desirable to have machinery to increase the number of representatives. Under the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1900, there are
    242
    certain restrictions which we propose under this Clause to remove, in order to meet, for instance, the particular case of the City of Aberdeen. Recently, under a private Act, there was a re-allocation of the areas within the city, and, following upon representations from the City of Aberdeen, it might be more suitable, for instance, merely to add one representative to the existing districts, making it four for each district instead of three, or a multiple of three. We are merely applying the county council procedure to these circumstances.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: I should like, first of all, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and ourselves on his return to the House, and to thank him very heartily, on behalf of the City of Aberdeen, for this Clause.
    Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I would like to say, in a word, that the City Council of Dundee very much prefer the wording which the right hon. Gentleman has used to the wording which was proposed before.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I wish to express my satisfaction at the response which has been made to the proposals of Aberdeen, and I am glad that it is possible to accept the proposals of the Government.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE—(Provision as to alteration of register of electors when electoral divisions or wards are altered.)
    Where any Order made under this Act determining or altering the boundaries of electoral divisions in a county or of wards in a burgh, or dividing a burgh into wards or where a scheme providing for the election of district councillors for wards of electoral divisions involves an alteration of the area of any registration unit within the meaning of the Representation of the People Acts the Secretary of State may by Order make such provision as may be necessary with regard the register of electors to be used at any election of county, town, or district councillors for any electoral division or ward affected by such alteration in the area of the registration unit.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

    243
    This Clause is really consequential upon the new Clause which has just been added to the Bill. It is clear that the register on which the elections will take place will be already made up, and it will be necessary, in view of the alteration to some of these districts, that powers should be given for altering the registers upon which those elections will take place.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amalgamation or extension of burghs.)
    In the event of the town council of any burgh, either before the passing of this Act or within twelve months from the passing of this Act, making application for a Provisional Order to extend the boundaries of their burgh, nothing in this Act contained shall affect or prejudice or be deemed to affect or prejudice any such application, and in the event of any such Provisional Order being passed into law and the population of such extended burgh at the date of the passing of the Act confirming the said Provisional Order being twenty thousand or upwards, such extended burgh shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a large burgh and be deemed to have existed at the time at which the Census of nineteen hundred and twenty-one was taken, and to have had a population within the police boundaries of such extended burgh according to that Census of twenty thousand or upwards.
    For the purposes of this Section the expression "a Provisional Order to extend the boundaries of their burgh" shall be deemed to include a Provisional Order to amalgamate with any adjoining burgh or other area.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. T. KENNEDY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Later on in our proceedings, I hope to move an Amendment to this Bill of a somewhat wider character than the Clause which I am now moving. This Clause is limited in its scope and I think its object will be obvious to every Member of the House. In spite of the general provisions of this Bill, adjoining burghs with common services and common interests will find it desirable and, I hope, easy and possible, in the future to amalgamate their various services. Normal burgh development means extension of burgh boundaries, and we may expect that extensions, amalgamations, and absorptions will take place in the
    244
    future as has been the case in the past. When those amalgamations take place in the natural order of things, we shall have under this Bill, unless it is amended, the anomaly of an extended burgh with a population approaching perhaps 40,000 being placed in the category of a small burgh and included in the county council administration, and denied the status of a burgh in regard to its burgh services and interests. It will be regarded in a worse position than a burgh with a population of, say 20,500. That I am sure is an anomaly which no Member of this House would seek to defend.
    I admit that the are not many cases in Scotland that would come within the scope of this Clause, but I have in mind a typical case of the burgh of Buckhaven and Methil in Fifeshire with a population of between 18,000 and 19,000. The ratepayers in that burgh are now, as they have been ever since this Bill was promoted, unanimously opposed to absorption into the county administration. I am sure that no Member of this House would dare to argue that, either in regard to county services or burgh services, this Bill will effect any improvement whatever in the existing situation. Here we have a burgh which has been efficiently and economically administered in the past. It has extended its services. It has, as a matter of fact, during the last four or five years incurred an expenditure on housing and on roads within its boundaries of about £500,000. It has the most efficient municipal services in the matter of health administration of any burgh in the county of Fife, and yet this burgh, placed as it is almost on the brink of qualification as a large burgh, is thrown into the general county administration and deprived of that direct control over its municipal services to which it is entitled and which the ratepayers in the burgh are anxious to retain. The present Bill will not come into operation before May, 1930. I cannot see that the administration of the county of Fife will be at all affected by the exclusion of a burgh such I have mentioned from county administration. I am perfectly certain that the burgh administration will not be improved in any sense whatever by being included in the county administration. All that I am pleading for is that burghs so placed shall have time to look round, adjust

    245
    their affairs and their prospective relations with the county authorities, and that we shall leave the door open for the next 12 months for this purpose.
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I beg to second the Motion.
    I think we are all agreed that, where there is a possibility of a few adjoining communities coming together and co-ordinating their various functions and making one unit which will be more efficient, it is desirable to encourage that possibility. We know that when any of these amalgamations are spoken about or suggested that there are always difficulties and objections, and a great deal of energy and effort has often to be expended to secure a very desirable end. As a set-off against that, if the combined unit, the new unit, is to have an opportunity as a large burgh of carrying through its own self government, there will be a greater inducement for these amalgamations to take place. In the same way, when a burgh is considering the extension of its boundary, which would involve new responsibilities and a considerable addition to the local burdens but which might be a very desirable thing from the public point of view, it will be an inducement for it to do so if it has the advantage of status which this new Clause would give. As my hon. Friend has said, this is rather apart from the other question, which we have not yet had an opportunity of discussing properly, as to the limits of a large burgh. I hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing that later on. Whether we leave the figure as it is now or not, at any rate, it should not be determined finally by the Bill that the status of the burghs of Scotland are to remain as they are at the passing of the Measure. One of the things for which the Bill has been commended and for which the Minister has pleaded, more than once, is elasticity. I suggest that if we stereotype the position as it is now, we shall not have the elasticity which is so desirable. I quite understand that the financial adjustments with the county council would be one of the difficulties, but this is a difficulty which it is not impossible to surmount in any particular case. The object of the new Clause is a desirable one, and I trust that the Government will see their way to accept it.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): The arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman in favour of this new Clause may seem at first sight, perhaps, to have a certain amount of force, but I think that on investigation the House will realise that the Clause would produce a very difficult position. Indeed, the position, if this Clause as it stands were passed, would be seriously prejudiced for the whole future of the new authorities—the new county councils of combined county and burgh authorities which it is the object of the Bill to set up. I note, in the first place, that it would be almost impossible for this provision only to operate in one way. It has been suggested by the two hon. Members that elasticity is desired, but I am sure that both of them would agree that what they probably have in mind is only elasticity in one direction. What about the case where the population of a burgh happens to fall under 20,000? It would obviously be most injudicious to advance a line of argument which might mean, for instance, that a town, because of a fall in population by some 200, might lapse from the position it held at present, and find itself merged in a county authority.
    It is desirable that we should determine the position of the burghs and the county authorities in Scotland and lay it down with a certain degree of definiteness. The financial adjustments necessary would be far-reaching and extensive. The proposal that for 12 months after the passing of this Act it should still be possible for a burgh to apply for a Provisional Order might easily mean that the Provisional Order would be made or refused late in 1930. Now the new grants are payable in two monthly instalments as early as 16th May of that year. It is quite right that a certain amount of margin should be given, and, indeed, a certain amount of margin is provided in the Bill. If any amalgamation takes place during the passage of the Bill through this House or through another place, it would still be possible to add the name of another burgh to the Schedule and make it clear that it was not to come within the scope of the new county authority. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause will see that the Bill provides an extension of time up to one month after the passing of the Act,

    247
    and that the object he has in view may thus be secured. Twelve months is altogether an unreasonable extension of time.
    In the first place, the number of units to which this proposal applies are very small indeed. In fact, in one of the cases brought forward it has been proved that the time given is quite adequate, because Dumfries and Maxwelltown have already taken the necessary steps, and they will no doubt find it possible to bring themselves within the ambit of this Bill. Another case which is germane to this question is the case of Musselburgh. Certainly, when Musselburgh desires to unite with the adjacent city of Edinburgh it will have no difficulty. The combination of the two will certainly bring Musselburgh outside the scope of the Bill. That brings me down to the single example of Buckhaven and Methil. The hon. Member said that Buckhaven and Methil had about 18,000 inhabitants, and is on the verge of carrying through some amalgamation which will enable it to have a greater population than 20,000. I am informed that a plebiscite has been taken in the other burgh with which it is proposed the amalgamation should take place. With all the advantages of the proposal in its mind and the proposals of this Bill clearly in view, the other burgh voted almost unanimously against the proposed amalgamation. Only 126 of the electorate were found to register their votes in favour of it.
    Mr. T. KENNEDY: Only about 16 per cent. of the ratepayers voted. The whole arrangements for the plebiscite were so inadequate that we cannot take that result as at all convincing.
    Major ELLIOT: Seven hundred electors found it sufficiently adequate to vote against the proposal, and only 126 found it sufficiently adequate to vote in favour of it. The onus rests upon those desiring the change rather than upon those opposing the change. It would be impossible to allow the whole arrangements of all the new authorities to be held up for the next vital 12 months, while possible amalgamations were being discussed and re-discussed or voted upon and possibly re-voted upon under the proposals made by the hon. Member. He said that no Member of this House could contemplate the possibility that a unit of well over
    248
    20,000 might be within the county for major purposes, while units of barely 20,000 were outside. The hon. Member was speaking without his book. More than one hon. Member of this House has examined precisely that possibility, and more than one hon. Member of his own party has examined that possibility. My predecessor in office, the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart), who has as great a claim to knowledge of local government as any hon. Member sitting on these benches, has specifically examined this proposal and has specifically reported to the Board of Health upon it. This is what he said in the report which he signed:
    "We encountered much difficulty in considering what burghs are capable of being independent units in health administration. The population limit is, admittedly, not always the true criterion of what should be an ideal unit, but it is the best that can be suggested. We have come to the conclusion that only those burghs with a population of 50,000 and over are in a position to administer the services that will be brought under the control of the unified health authorities."
    The hon. Member for St. Rollox went further. He and the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) considered even a unit which transcended that population limit. They decided that it should not by any means be automatic that a unit which transcended even the limit of 50,000 should not thereby automatically pass from the category of a small burgh to that of a large burgh. They said:
    "A burgh which was included in a county unit and whose population subsequently increased beyond the 50,000 limit should not thereby become automatically an independent unit."
    Their final recommendation was that:
    "A burgh of over 50,000 population may be required by the Department to be included in a county unit, and burghs which, once having been included, have a population of over 50,000 should become independent units only with the sanction of the Department, granted after full inquiry into all the circumstances."
    Therefore, the very emergency which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy) mentions has been examined and scrutinised carefully by an authoritative committee, which has reported in a sense adverse to that which he desires to convince the House this afternoon. That report was signed by two of the most representative members of his own

    249
    party. In view of all these circumstances, I hope that the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press his new Clause.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I hope that the Under-Secretary will pay as much attention to the reports signed by the Noble Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Duchess of Atholl), in so far as she deals with Scottish local government, as he has asked us to pay to reports signed by my two hon. Friends, whose remarkable report he is continually quoting. There is not very much in the particular point raised by the new Clause, which simply asks that for a period of 12 months local authorities may combine to get outside county council control. Could we have any indication from the Under-Secretary or from the Secretary of State for Scotland that they are prepared to consider favourably the Amendment on page 804 dealing with the same point, but not specifically limited to twelve months. In page 2, line 19, at the end to insert the words:
    "Provided also that where a burgh is not a large burgh at the commencement of this Act but becomes a large burgh at any time thereafter by reason of an increase in population, such burgh shall, on application being made to the Secretary of State and with his approval, be deemed to be a large burgh for the purposes of this Act."
    We ask in that Amendment that provision shall be made for application to the Secretary of State and that in future local authorities which become large burghs, shall not be debarred from the privileges granted to large burghs. If we could have an indication that the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to consider favourably something on those lines, there would be very little point in our pressing for a precise period of 12 months; but if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept some such Amendment, may I draw his attention to the strange anomalies which will arise in Scotland? We shall have in many counties in Scotland large burghs of, perhaps, 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 thousand inhabitants, which will come under the control of the county council, while in neighbouring counties there will be burghs whose population has shrunk maybe to 18,000 or 16,000, who will retain an independent existence. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make provision for some kind of elasticity in
    250
    this respect, and unless he is prepared to say that he will retain powers under the provisions of the Act whereby small burghs on attaining the population limit of 20,000 shall have the privileges which have been granted to the other burghs of 20,000, he will land himself and his Measure in additional anomalies and more troubles than all the huge mountains of them which surround the Bill at the present time.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I find myself, strongly against my will, giving some little sympathy to the new Clause. We in Scotland, in spite of the present political representation, are strongly Conservative by instinct, and there is some difficulty in removing ourselves from historical associations. I am now referring to the question of amalgamations. It will take some time for certain burghs to break away from the individuality which the old tradition inspires, and I do think that the 12 months period which has been suggested might well be granted to burghs which are at present nibbling at the idea of amalgamation. It will take some time to swallow the whole bite. In that time they might forget the historical associations of their particular burgh and, in the interests of the general community, come together and make a success of their combines and remove themselves from the scope of this part of the Bill.
    Take the case of a burgh which wishes to extend, and will be forced to extend, its boundaries. I have in my mind the Burgh of Troon. Many hon. Members of this House and many people outside will remember the Burgh of Troon. They have probably gained health and fresh stimulus from the Troon golf course, and they will have got many new ideas about politics and other things from its invigorating sea breezes. In addition to these advantages, Troon has benefited owing to the beneficence of one of its old inhabitants, who has provided for the building of a large college, the Marr Institute. Mr. Marr left the money with the idea of giving the children of Troon and the future children of Troon a cheap, if not an entirely free, education, which would take them right up to the University stage, with bursarships and so on to enable them to complete their education. The result is that this large institute is

    251
    being built just outside Troon, and already many families from various parts of Scotland are being allured to Troon. That means building developments in Troon, and growth of population. It may well mean that before the expiration of 12 months, Troon will have come within the scope of the 20,000 population limit, or soon after the 12 months. It all depends upon the publicity which is given to the offer of cheap education at Troon. For these reasons, and speaking personally as the representative of my own constituency, I feel that there is much to be said for the extension of the period during which amalgamations or extensions may take place.
    Mr. W. M. WATSON: I beg to support the new Clause, and I hope that the Government will listen to the views of one of their own followers. If other hon. Members on the Government side took part in the Debate they would say pretty much what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore). As the Bill stands at the moment, the Government are not allowing sufficient time for the feeling against the Bill, which has arisen within the burghs, to die down. I do not need to remind the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate or the Under-Secretary of the hostility which has been shown by the burghs of Scotland against the whole Measure.
    Commander COCHRANE: Not by Leven.
    Mr. WATSON: I am afraid that the result of the plebiscite is not the opinion of Leven. I believe that if the position could be clearly explained to Leven, that district would be willing to consider amalgamation with the Burgh of Buckhaven, rather than be absorbed in the county scheme. There has been so much hostility created within the burghs in Scotland that it will take some little time before they begin to settle down. If the Government will agree to the new Clause, and give them 12 months to make up their minds whether they are going to extend their boundaries and come within the scope of a large burgh, or to amalgamate burghs, the position would be more satisfactory. There are burghs where an amalgamation could take place satisfactorily, and where if the burghs had a little time in which to consider
    252
    the matter they would probably be willing to carry on their existence in a large burgh, rather than be absorbed in a county scheme. I suggest to the Secretary of State that he might give more favourable consideration to the proposal that 12 months should be given to those burghs to make up their minds whether or not they will come within the scope of large burghs.
    Supposing financial adjustments require to be made and supposing that grants are given to the small burghs and the landward areas of counties before amalgamations take place. There is nothing new in financial adjustments having to take place between a county council and a burgh authority. That has been going on continuously under previous Acts of Parliament. Burghs are always asking for additional territory and they are always opposed by the county council. Whenever a burgh wishes to extend its boundaries it is opposed by a county council, either for good or bad reasons. A county council, naturally, does not wish to lose any rating area, and it opposes such applications. We have had these adjustments in past years, and there is no reason why we cannot adjust all the financial difficulties that are likely to arise if the right hon. Gentleman concedes the claim that an additional 12 months should be allowed to these burghs to make up their minds whether they are going into the county scheme or whether they wish for amalgamation in order to become large burghs within the meaning of the Bill.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clause—(Increase of house-owners' rates)—standing in the name of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is not in order, as it is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. STEPHEN: May I point out that Clause 20 of the Bill does practically the same thing. This Amendment will only take from property owners a certain amount of the rating relief which they already get under the 1920 Act.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This particular new Clause is to amend the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Restrictions Act, 1920, and we cannot amend that Act under this Bill.
    Mr. STEPHEN: We passed an Amendment during the Committee stage to amend the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911, and I submit that if it was in order for such an Amendment to be passed during the Committee stage it should be in order for this new Clause to be considered now.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The proposed new Clause is not covered by the Title of the Bill.
    Mr. SHINWELL: May I draw your attention to Clause 20 of the Bill which provides for certain Amendments to the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1911. Having regard to the Amendments which have been accepted relating to that Act, surely this proposal is now in order?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think this Bill has anything to do with the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Restrictions Act, 1920.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I put this point. What we cannot quite follow is while the Government are allowed to amend the 1911 Act and we are not allowed to amend the 1920 Act. Both deal with the question of rates; the same issue is raised. We are not asking for any alteration in rents. We only seek to alter rates, and we cannot quite follow why there should be this differentiation and that we are unable to move an Amendment to the 1920 Act while the Government are able to alter the 1911 Act. That is what we cannot quite understand. We are not asking for any alteration in rents, but only an alteration in the matter of rating, and, having granted the Government the right to alter the 1911 Act, we cannot quite see why we should not be granted the same privilege in regard to the 1920 Act.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): The question which arose under under the 1920 Act was one of rents, not of rates. This suggested new Clause would take away the right and power of landlords to increase rents in order to recoup themselves in respect of a rise in rates. That is purely a question of rent. Clause 20 of the Bill deals with the commission on the collection of rates for local authorities. That is quite a different matter, and comes under the Title of the Bill. It is the amount of
    254
    the commission which a local authority has to pay to landlords for collecting occupiers' rates. That is purely a question of the collection of rates.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: The Lord Advocate has not stated the position quite accurately. The Act of 1920 did not deal with rent at all. It is definite and specific, and it allows 40 per cent., with 7½ per cent. extra, for an increase of rates in rent; and it has never been held to be rent. We say that we should be allowed to alter the relationship of rates in rent.
    Mr. STEPHEN: This new Clause suggests the deletion of a Sub-section in the Act of 1920 which allows owners' rates over a certain period to be transferred from the owner to the tenant. That is the purpose of the Sub-section in the 1920 Act, and we propose that the rates which the owner is allowed to transfer to the tenant should be re-imposed on the owner in view of the general alteration of the rating system under this Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am not convinced that this new Clause comes within the scope of the Bill. It relates to rent. I do not know whether this point was raised during the Committee stage or not.
    Mr. STEPHEN: May I point out to yon that owing to the fact that we were discussing the Bill under the Guillotine Motion we were not able to consider this particular Clause, and we did not get any ruling from the Chairman during the Committee stage.
    Mr. SPEAKER: In my opinion this new Clause does not come within the scope of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Secretary of State to raise status of burghs.)
    The Secretary of State may by Order raise to the status of a large burgh any burgh which during the summer months of every year has habitually a population in excess of the population which determines the status of a large burgh.—[Mr. Johnston.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

    255
    If I may give an illustration I would choose Rothesay, which at the last census had a population of over 15,000. The census took place at a period of the year when the population of Rothesay is not at its maximum.
    Major ELLIOT: May I point out that owing to the industrial dispute that census was taken in the summer at a period when the Rothesay population is at its maximum.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: It was taken in June, and the population of Rothesay is not at its maximum until about the third week in July. My information is that Rothesay has a winter population of over 15,000 and that her summer population is over 40,000. Rothesay is an up-to-date place, providing all the sanitary appliances which many large cities supply; goes in for child welfare and the provision of hospitals, and has a great and developing population. Surely this is a case where the right hon. Gentleman might import into the Bill some elasticity which would enable Rothesay, and places like Rothesay, to perform their functions in a democratic way. As things are now Rothesay is to be tied up with Arran. There is no communication between Rothesay and Arran; there is no community of interests between Rothesay and Arran; the business interests of Rothesay are entirely apart from the business interest of the Isle of Arran, and no one has yet shown what benefits can possibly accrue to Rothesay by being joined with the Island of Arran. All we are asking in this new Clause is that places like Rothesay and Oban, which in the summer months house a population greatly in excess of the population of other large burghs in Scotland, could be raised to the status of a large burgh by an Order of the Secretary of State.
    Hon. Members below the Gangway have put down an Amendment to this new Clause which would make it compulsory on the Secretary of State to raise them to the status of a large burgh. They propose that the word "may" shall be left out and the word "shall" inserted instead. I do not think there is much in it. Secretaries of State come and go and, if the present Secretary of State would not raise Rothesay and Oban to the status of a large burgh, it may be that another Secretary of State would do
    256
    so, but I am perfectly certain that any Secretary of State if he had the power would, after a careful examination of the circumstances which obtain in Rothesay and Oban, have no hesitation in saying that they are cases where be ought to exercise his discretion and raise them to the status of a large burgh.
    Mr. W. M. WATSON: I beg to second the Motion.
    5.0 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I only speak on this Clause because some of my hon. Friends on this side and myself have a similar Clause further down the Order Paper. I am in a somewhat peculiar position. I have in my constituency five small burghs on the sea coast. They enjoy wonderfully salubrious air, and they attract large numbers of summer visitors. In addition, they provide something like 17 or 19 golf courses, including the Meccas of Troon and Prestwick, and therefore the sporting element of the towns makes for annual, if not more regular visits to my constituency. Then, again, as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, no doubt know and as many other literary Members know, I have the privilege of representing half of the Burns country, where those who yield to Burns as the national poet and the voice of Scotland speaking in the wilderness and who yield to him as the supreme singer for all time come from America and from all pares of our own Empire in increasing numbers by their thousands and their tens of thousands.
    Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask if this is a foreword to a tourist guide?
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: That question needs no reply from me. I am merely trying to give the views of my constituency, and I want to show why these views should perhaps gain some little attention and weight from the Government. In addition to those attractions which I have tried very inadequately to point out, we have also in these burghs civic authorities of tremendous imagination and enthusiasm. They are men who realise what history has handed down to them, and, from a civic administration point of view, they try to equip them in a worthy manner. The consequence is that every summer from May to October—practically six months—we in Ardrossan, Prestwick, Troon, Salt-coats, and so on have a summer

    257
    population varying from 30,000 to 40,000 a year while the winter population varies from 9,000 to 14,000 or 15,000. The point I want to make is that here we have a Clause which is conceived for the purpose of dealing with the six months' winter population instead of six months' summer population, whereas the services of these towns have to be conceived for the summer population. For five or six months in the year, these towns have a population well in excess of the 20,000 limit, and the civic departments of these towns must have adequate public services and various other amenities to make them attractive to the weary town dweller, in these circumstances, the Government ought to take into account the summer population and give power to the Secretary of State for Scotland to raise the status of these towns to that of a large burgh. This Bill is for the purpose of stimulating industry. I would say, therefore, that if you provide a more attractive and a more alluring place where the hard-worked industrialist can get his health and strength back again the Government will be adding something to the help they are already giving to industry.
    Mr. JAMES BROWN: I am very sorry I was not in to hear the earlier part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech. I wish to associate myself with the new Clause. The hon. and gallant Member has been speaking for the coast towns in his constituency, but we have other little towns in Ayrshire. In my own constituency, we have a very fine watering-place in the town of Girvan. I understand it is the most pleasant town on the whole Ayrshire coast, and it is my duty to tell the House so. I want to explain that anybody who has been staying at Prestwick and tries a year of Girvan will see the difference at once. But that is not really the point. Girvan is a small burgh round about 7,000 or 8,000 in population, but in the summer it comes up to round about 20,000. I do not see why the Government could not give us this Clause. I would even accept a little Amendment to it and say "shall" instead of "may," but, knowing something about the psychology of the Scottish character, particularly the Scottish Convention and that you should ask to do a thing by grace rather than
    258
    compulsion, I would rather get it by argument and showing how much benefit it would be to these little towns than by compulsion. It is better to get a thing by agreement. There is nothing to hinder the Secretary of State for Scotland from accepting this Clause so as to raise these burghs to the status desired, and it will be a big help in many respects. All I want to do is to identify myself with this Clause. I trust that when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State gets up to speak he will be able to say, as he has been able to say on other occasions, that this is so reasonable and will be so likely to assist us in the smaller burghs that he will accept it at once without further argument.
    Lieut.-Colonel SHAW: I want to associate myself with this Clause, and, in case this House has any doubt in its own mind, I would like to point out that Gourock also should be considered. Up to this time, we have heard the beauty of various other parts of Scotland extolled, but in the case of Gourock there are exceptional features. It is within more easy reach of the great centre of Glasgow than any other seaside resort, and it is one which during the summer months attracts a great number of visitors. The town council of Gourock have by their energy and enterprise done a great deal to attract visitors to Gourock.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): It is necessary to have some limit to the time hon. Members devote to advertising the amenities of their constituencies. It is in order to refer to a town as an example of a place which would be affected by the new Clause; but hon. Members must confine the advertisement to a reasonable limit of time, and I think the hon. Member has devoted full time to it.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Hon. Members representing other burghs have extolled their advantages, so surely other Members are entitled to do so.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Quite so. I have allowed brief references and will allow others the same limits, but not more.
    Lieut.-Colonel SHAW: Having associated myself with this Clause, I feel I have done all that is required.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I cannot see why hon. Members who represent seaside constituencies should have had it all their own way. There are towns in certain parts of Scotland, for example in my constituency, which compare favourably from the point of view of beauty and historical interest to anything on the sea coast. For example, there is Linlithgow, reminiscent of Mary Queen of Scots, Darnley, and other historical figures. It has a picturesque palace to say nothing of other attractions. If I may go further and direct attention to the amenities of Broxburn and district, I should like to point out that they have mountains of shale. I have not exhausted its possibilities.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is exactly what the hon. Member must not do.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I did rise to say, having regard to the nature of the Debate, that I should like to protest against hon. Members using their position in this assembly to give a free advertisement to certain places in their own constituency. I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) is not here to take advantage of the opportunity. I think a reasonable case can be submitted on behalf of the Clause. There is no reason why burghs which increase their population at certain times of the year, as a result of which they require to submit to certain disadvantages which would not otherwise obtain, should not occupy the status of larger burghs. It is a very reasonable proposition, apart from the comments that have been made upon the advantages or disadvantages of different parts of one constituency.
    Major ELLIOT: I do not think it can be said that the hon. Member who has just spoken clearly interpreted the Debate which we have just had, in his contention that a case has been made out. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), in moving the Second Reading of this Clause, dealt with towns for which perhaps there might be some argument. The case was mentioned of a town which may be part of a county and is disjoined to a considerable extent by intervening channels of salt water, although not by
    260
    action of His Majesty's Government, since a recent Amendment was accepted. But the whole question of altering the constitution of the great major permanent services because of some temporary fluctuations in population really cannot be seriously advanced for the consideration of the House. If there were any claim that could be brought forward it was fully met when my right hon. Friend decided to leave the whole of the services of water, of drainage, and of housing within the purview not merely of certain burghs, but of all burghs.
    The case advanced had to deal to a large extent with the need of a fluctuating population. But provision for those needs does remain with the smaller burghs and with all burghs. Water supply is undoubtedly a case which has to be reviewed. Drainage and sanitation are essentially things which have to be reviewed. If some of the figures of population that have been given are correct those services would need to be brought even more up to date than they are now. But it is not to be considered that a fluctuating population requires special provision to be made for education, for poor relief, for lunacy and mental deficiency. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) eulogised certain burghs in his constituency for their imagination and enthusiasm. But there are certain things which seem to me to go rather counter to the interests of economy and efficiency. In the Northern district of Ayrshire, in six small burghs, there are six infectious disease hospitals. They average 14 beds each. It is imposible to suppose that some advantage would not be gained by combination in such cases. Surely it is only reasonable to say that the object of efficient service would be better served by a combination which would enable full use to be made of each of these institutions. On more than one occasion the opposition of a smaller burgh has led to the opportunity for this combination being missed.
    I remember that three or four years ago a part of Spring Vale hospital belonging to Ardrossan and Saltcoats was destroyed by fire. Here was an opportunity for combination with Irvine. Not at all. These two burghs preferred to re-establish the building which has been destroyed. We are not bringing forward these proposals as a series of temporary adjust

    261
    ments between county and burgh, but as a serious attempt to make a strong financial unit which will be able to lay its plans for the future, to make the fullest use of existing institutional accommodation, and in general to plan its policy over a period of years. To suggest that because some seaside resort happens to pass into a temporary phase of popularity, or because some particular town happens to have a race meeting, or even becomes the centre of a greyhound racing track and attracts a special population during some months of the year—to suggest that for that reason the great scheme of the major health services and the administration services should be warped, is not really bringing forward arguments which should seriously alter the judgment which the Committee has come to, that the 20,000 limit should stand.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The Under-Secretary has given us one illustration showing that two adjacent burghs did not combine as they might have combined for efficiency, and economy. Is it not the case that the overwhelming majority of the burghs in Scotland for many years have combined to run, where necessary and profitable, joint infectious disease hospitals, even where their areas are not even in the same county? It is not fair that one illustration should be used by the Under-Secretary to give the impression that the burghs of Scotland have so far failed in their duty as to—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has really exhausted his right to speak.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: May I put my point in a shorter form? May I ask the Under-Secretary to address himself to the actual facts and figures given on behalf of the burgh of Rothesay? I asked him a specific question. Is it not the case that there can be no connection whatever in the winter months between the burgh of Rothesay and the Isle of Arran, to which it is attached under this Bill?
    Major ELLIOT: I think I dealt completely with the case adduced regarding Rothesay, when I pointed out that the population which was given as the winter population of Rothesay was a population which, by the accident of the census, was taken in June. Even in Scotland our winter does not extend into
    262
    June. By June the population of Rothesay has already risen towards the peak, which continues only for a week or two weeks. The hon. Member is not seriously asking us to consider raising the whole position of a burgh because for one week or two weeks it passes out of the category of the small burgh. The population of 15,000 was calculated in June.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: It is a question of fact. I think I said, and I ought to have said, that my information was that the average population of Rothesay for the months of July and August was 40,000.
    Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member gave figures which, of course, it is difficult to check, but he did refer to the census figure, and the census figure is not over 20,000. One cannot take a figure which fluctuates in this way; one must take an average figure for the whole year. Rothesay cannot be considered alone among the towns of Scotland.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: We all listened with admiration to the speeches of the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite who, with so much spirit and enthusiasm, defended the claims of burghs in their own constituencies. At the same time the weakness of that form of argument is that people are a little apt to overstress the claims of their constituencies and thereby to weaken the argument for a Clause which is based on a sound principle. For example, there was quoted in favour of the new Clause a burgh which had a population of only 7,000, and rose to 15,000. Obviously such a burgh would fall far outside the Clause. Such a skilled dialectician as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was, of course, quick to seize upon this weak point in the argument, and to try to laugh the Clause out of court by drawing attention to some small burghs in Ayrshire which keep a few small hospitals, and in fact he poured doubt on whether a large number of the burghs mentioned had in fact ever reached the 20,000 limit even during the holiday season. Of course, in so far as the Under-Secretary has proved that some of these arguments which have been used in support of the Clause are unsound. I agree with him, but

    263
    he has not tackled the main principle of the new Clause, which relates to those burghs where undoubtedly as the Clause states,
    "during the summer months of every year they have habitually a population in excess of the population which determines the status of large burghs."
    Those cases are not affected by the Under-Secretary's arguments. He tried to ridicule the new Clause by talking about the burgh where there might be a greyhound racing track and people might come in for a week for the racing. But that is not at all the kind of burgh which would be affected by the Clause. The Clause can affect only burghs which "habitually" have a population during the summer months in excess of the population which determines the status of a large burgh. I agree that a lot of the burghs that have been mentioned could not come within that definition, but there are burghs, Oban, Dunoon, St. Andrews and others, which undoubtedly "habitually" have a population in excess of 20,000. It is those which the Clause is designed to serve. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was able to ride off on the illustration of some little burghs in Ayrshire which had their own infectious disease hospitals and which refused to combine. Of course that case is very exceptional. I do not believe the hon. and gallant Gentleman could name another case of that kind. These small burghs would probably be outside this proposal, and, even if they were not, there would, in time, be voluntary combinations. Although on one occasion an opportunity may have been missed of bringing about amalgamation it is impossible to suppose that, with the prudent and strong guidance which they receive from the hon. and gallant Gentleman from time to time, these burghs would not eventually, by voluntary means, bring about that combination which he desiderates.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the new Clause would alter the arrangements which are proposed. It would leave the arrangements as they are now with one important exception, namely the control of education. It is quite true that that would fall to the new burgh but I was rather surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman use that argument against the proposed new Clause. When we were discussing the control of education, one of the best
    264
    speeches in support of the Government's proposals for doing away with the ad hoc system and bringing in the ad omnia system was made by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Buchan) who used as an illustration in support of that policy, a well-known example of the success which Ayr burgh bad in looking after its education. He said what a magnificent thing it was to have education looked after in a burgh by a municipality. Therefore, I do not think there is much to fear even if, incidentally, the effect of the proposal were to be as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested. It will be seen that we have on the Paper an Amendment to the proposed new Clause and I am speaking now because I am afraid we shall not have an opportunity of moving it. If this question were left to the free vote of the Scottish Members I have no doubt the new Clause would be carried, but I am afraid a large majority of English Members will vote down this proposal, and, so, we shall not have an opportunity of moving our Amendment. The effect of our Amendment would not be to apply compulsion to these burghs to become large burghs, but we do not believe that these matters should be left to the decision of the Secretary of State. We believe that Parliament should say, definitely, that in a case like this—not a case like those quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but, the only possible case which could arise under this proposal, the case of a small burgh which has an habitual population of over 20,000 people in the summer months for which it has to provide an elaborate and up-to-date health system—the burgh should have the right, without depending on the fiat of the Secretary of State, to become a large burgh. If it is suggested that any of them would be unwilling, and if that is the only objection which the Secretary of State feels to the acceptance of this proposal we shall be prepared to add other words such as "with the consent of"—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are now discussing the Second Reading of the proposed new Clause, and the hon. and gallant Baronet may refer to his Amendment; he must not make a detailed speech purely on an Amendment which is not before the House.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Our Amendment was criticised by the hon. and gallant

    265
    Gentleman who spoke for the Government.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Baronet is perfectly right. I allowed the hon. and gallant Gentleman considerable latitude, but I think the discussion is now reaching a point at which it is developing into a Debate on the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Baronet rather than a Debate on the Second Reading of the proposed new Clause.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I only wanted to make it clear that we would be prepared to accept an Amendment which would remove any idea of compulsion being placed on any burgh. I hope the new Clause will be added to the Bill.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I also support the proposed new Clause because we have in Argyll three burghs, namely, Dunoon, Oban and Campbeltown, to which these considerations apply. A very large portion of the population of Argyll is concentrated in these three burghs. As a matter of fact, I think it would have been better if the county had been divided into three combined town and county council areas, with one of these burghs at the head of each. Failing that, there is a feeling in these burghs that it will be a great hardship if many of their services are to be removed from them to sparsely populated districts of the county. I believe the Secretary of State has the power to remove the health services in a case of this kind. That would be a great hardship to a burgh like Oban, which has voluntarily taken charge of the whole district in this respect and provided an excellent hospital. The hospital has been provided by the generosity of the Oban people themselves. I do not expect, of course, that the Secretary of State would remove that to a sparsely populated district, but it would be much better for these burghs if they were enabled to preserve their present status. They are really large burghs.
    In Dunoon, for example, in the summertime they have often over 40,000 visitors every week arriving at the piers, independent of the vast numbers who come by motor. Large numbers reside there all through the summer, and, taking all the fluctuations of population into account, we get a figure running into 100,000. Similarly in Oban, and to a less
    266
    extent in Campbeltown, there is this access of population during the summer. The resident population who are there for the 12 months of the year really make provision for the summer visitors. They have provided the health services to suit very large populations—much larger populations than are to be found in some of the large burghs—and they feel very strongly they ought to be outwith the purview of this Bill. I wish the new Clause had a little more elasticity so that it would be possible if a place ceased to be fashionable or to attract large crowds—though I do not think that will ever happen in Argyll—for the Secretary of State to put it back again into the position of a small burgh. As these places at present stand they really are large burghs for six months of the year, with all the services which large burghs require. There is also this peculiarity in regard to places like Dunoon and Oban. They have large wide esplanades which have cost thousands of pounds to construct—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member has split up his advertisement of his constituency into a number of small compartments, but, I am afraid that when they are put together he has exhausted the time I can allow him to devote to that.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: I was only pointing out one of the reasons why these should be considered as large burghs. They have these esplanades and boulevards for their summer visitors. They are naturally anxious at the prospect of these matters being remitted to a county council in case the same attention or the same expenditure may not be devoted to them. They are worried about the fact that certain liabilities may arise and they are desirous of knowing as to how they will stand in regard to the liabilities which they have incurred in making provision for very large populations. On the question of population I suggest that a fair way of arriving at the real population of one of these burghs is to add the permanent winter population to the summer population and divide the result by two. I ask the Secretary of State to consider carefully whether it is not possible, in the case of Argyll to give these burghs the status of large burghs. Another of the difficulties in this

    267
    matter is that the meeting place of the county council will inevitably be Glasgow and it will be very difficult for the representatives of these burghs—who are generally men engaged in business—to go away from home for a day or perhaps two days in order to attend the county council meetings. Therefore, these burghs will not be as well represented as they might be on the reconstituted county council. If the Bill had split Argyll into three or four parts it might have been possible to run town and county districts together but that has not been done. While it is all very well to have a cut-and-dried plan if you have districts to suit it, I suggest that you cannot have uniformity where there is a variety of circumstances and I think the Bill ought to have been made to suit the circumstances of the districts instead of trying to make the districts suit the circumstances of the Bill.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary has treated this matter rather lightly by citing cases such as that of a town where there is dog racing for a matter of a few weeks in the year with a consequent temporary increase of population. I think that was a rather deliberate evasion of the point as to "habitual population." It is the habitual population which is in view and in many of these burghs the increase of population prevails during half the year. Reference has been made to St. Andrews. It is an outstanding case of a university centre of great historical interest and in that case the increase of population relates to the larger portion of the year. To handle the thing in the way that the Under-Secretary did does not appear to me to be facing the strength of the argu
    ments that have been put from both sides of the House. There is also the necessity for Parliament definitely settling such burghs as shall have the status of large burghs, but unfortunately that cannot be considered on this Clause. The action of the Government in rejecting this Clause will, I am sure, accentuate the hostility that has been aroused by the Bill as a whole.
    Dr. SHIELS: It will be remembered that when we were discussing the transference of the major health functions of the county councils, this question was brought up, and it was agreed, I think, by the Government spokesman that the reservation in that Clause which admitted the retention of a medical officer of health in particular cases might be used for the case of the burghs which we are now discussing: and I would like to ask if the Government reaffirm the position which they took up then, because I think it is very appropriate to some of the cases which we have had brought before us to-day. If we take Oban and St. Andrews and some other places, we find that these burghs have been supplying not only their own health services, but the health services for the county, and hospital accommodation as well, and, therefore, I think there is an obvious case for their retaining, at any rate, their medical officer of health and their control over the major health functions. If the Government were to reassure hon. Members who are interested in these burghs that that is the position, it might be some compensation for their inability to accept this new Clause.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 115: Noes, 205.

    Division No. 249.]

    AYES.

    [5.48 p.m.

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

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth. Bedwellty)

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

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Buchanan, G.

    England, Colonel A.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Barnes, A.

    Cape, Thomas

    Forrest, W.

    Barr, J.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Batty, Joseph

    Clarke, A. B.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Bellamy, A.

    Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

    Gillett. George M.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Greenall, T.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Compton, Joseph

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Bethel, A.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Briant, Frank

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Bromfield, William

    Day, Harry

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Bromley, J.

    Duncan, C.

    Hardle, George D.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Montague, Frederick

    Stephen, Campbell

    Hirst, G. H.

    Morris, R. H.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

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

    Strauss, E. A.

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Sutton, J. E.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Murnin, H.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Kelly, W. T.

    Owen, Major G.

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Kennedy, T.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Townend, A. E.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Viant, S. P.

    Lawson, John James

    Potts, John S.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Lee, F.

    Ritson, .

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Lowth, T.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Lunn, William

    Scurr, John

    Westwood, J.

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

    Shield, G. W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Mackinder, W.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Wiggins, William Martin

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Shinwell, E.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Windsor, Walter

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    March, S.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Maxton, James

    Snell, Harry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Whiteley and Mr. T. Henderson

    NOES.

    Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Albery, Irving James

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Ellis, R. G.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

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

    Lumley, L. R.

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

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Fermoy, Lord

    McLean, Major A

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Fielden, E. B.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Berry, Sir George

    Freemantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

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

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Blundell, F. N.

    Gates, Percy

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Bocthby, R. J. G.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

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

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hanbury, C.

    Pilcher, G.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Harland, A.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Burman, J. B.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Preston, William

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Ramsden, E.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Christie, J. A.

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

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

    Ropner, Major L.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

    Ross, R. D.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

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

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Rye, F. G.

    Cope, Major Sir William

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

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Couper, J. B.

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Salmon, Major I.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer

    Samuel, A M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Iveagh Countess of

    Sandon, Lord

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Savery, S. S.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Skelton, A. N.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lamb, I. Q.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lister, Cunliffe, St. Hon. Sir Philip

    Smithers, Waldron

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Womersley, W. J.

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

    Waddington, R.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

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

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Wells, S. R.

    Major the Marquess of Titchfield

    Templeton, W. P.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple and Captain Wallace.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next three new Clauses, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston—(Delegation by town councils of large burghs to district councils), (Establishment of a district council for each large burgh and county of a city), and (Provisions relating to district councils of large burghs and counties of a city")—seem to form a connected group: but if the hon. Member desires to move them, I suggest he should move the second of them as I do not think they are placed in the best order.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: We had a discussion on them all together in Committee on the understanding that we had only one Division.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The principle running through these Clauses seems to me to be one that can be most conveniently discussed on the second of the three; therefore I have suggested the hon. Member move that first. Of course if it is not read a Second time, the other two will fall with it.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Establishment of a district council for each large burgh and county of a city.)
    (1) A district council shall be established for every large burgh and every county of a city.
    (2) The members of the district council shall be elective and for the purpose of their election each municipal ward of the burgh or county of the city shall be an electoral division, and such one or more members as the town council of the burgh shall by order determine shall be elected for each such electoral division by the parish electors therein.
    (3) Subject to the necessary modifications the existing statutory provisions regulating the election of parish councillors shall apply to the election of members of burgh district councils, and the first election of such councillors shall take place in the year nineteen hundred and twenty-nine.—[Mr. Johnston.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    These three new Clauses are of very considerable importance to the large burghs in Scotland. There are now, I think, 23 large burghs in Scotland, including Arbroath, which was incorporated as a large burgh very largely as a result of the efforts of the hon. Member who represents that Division in this House, but there are now 23 large burghs, which pay something like 80 per cent. of the Poor Law relief paid in Scotland. They do not have a separate control of Poor Law administration. As the Bill now stands they have Poor Law administration, mental deficiency, and lunacy handed over to their town councils and city councils, which then appoint Poor Law committees, and they co-opt members on those committees to supervise the distribution and the administration of Poor Law relief. I would ask hon. Members to consider the situation as it will actually and of a certainty arise in the five large cities of Scotland.
    6.0 p.m.
    Take Glasgow for an example. Glasgow is declared to have somewhere between 200 and 600 meetings of its town council members. Some members may be on committees to which they are only summoned on 200 occasions, others on committees to which they are summoned on 600 occasions, but between these two figures lie the numbers of committee meetings to which the members of the Corporation of the City of Glasgow are summoned. It is common knowledge that the average member of a city corporation cannot attend 200 meetings and give the attention to the business of those committees that ought to be given by a representative of the people. It is common knowledge also that, as things are now, members, in order to get attendance marks, simply put their heads in at the door of a committee meeting, the clerk marks them as present, and they

    273
    bolt off to another committee meeting which is being held in another part of the building. It may be that one way out of the difficulty is for members to be appointed to fewer sub-committees of the corporation, but that would present serious difficulties in a city like Glasgow, where each ward has its own interests. As things are now, the business of the corporation requires an attendance at somewhere about 200 committees a year as a minimum.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: More.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I said "as a minimum," and I do not want to have the hon. and learned Member proving that the average is somewhere about 300. The minimum is 200; and there are members who attend as many as 600 meetings in the year. We find the same circumstances in other large cities in Scotland. I have asked members of the Corporations of Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen to give me a fair estimate of how much time is required from a councillor to attend to his duties in an average week, and I am told that it takes from two-and-a-half to three days per week in the large cities. If in addition to the work which a city councillor presently has he is to be called upon to undertake the administration of education, and if we discover that on an average that will require one day per week; if, in addition, he has to undertake the business of the distribution of Poor Law relief, and if, as we are informed, it takes the average parish councillor in the large burghs somewhere about two days per week to attend to his duties, then we must conclude that in any of the five large cities in Scotland it will be physically impossible for any city councillor, even though he give up his full time to the work, to attend to the duties properly.
    In this Bill the right hon. Gentleman shows that he appreciates that difficulty. He says, in effect, "A city councillor cannot attend to municipal affairs, to education and to Poor Law affairs, and so I will give powers to city councils to co-opt men and women of experience or skill in education and in Poor Law matters." All those three new Clauses which we are moving raise inferentially the whole question of co-option. We do
    274
    not believe in co-option, because under it public money will be spent by men and women who are not responsible to the electors for the spending of that money. We believe the bulk of the people to be co-opted will not in any sense be representative of the electors, but people who otherwise could not get on those authorities. We believe this system of co-option runs counter to the whole principle of democracy, and that under it the right hon. Gentleman will secure neither efficiency nor economy, but that, instead, we shall have autocracy and bureaucracy.
    I have been a member of a county education authority and have seen the affairs of that authority slide away—inevitably—from the control of the elected representatives of the people into the hands of the education officer. This education officer, who is there the whole time, is the only man who is in touch with all the districts. The elected representatives are in touch with their own several districts, but only this permanent official, this co-ordinating representative, knows all the facts; and in the course of less than 12 months I have seen practically the whole administration of education in a county fall into the hands of this education officer. We are asking in this new Clause that the large cities and large burghs shall be given the power which has already been given to the rural districts, the power, that is, to set up elected committees to undertake Poor Law administration. If such committees are set up we shall get as members representatives of the people and members able to devote time to the work. If we do not have such elected committees, the distribution of Poor Law relief in the large cities will fall into the hands of permanent officials and non-elected and co-opted representatives, a system which will be in contradistinction to that operating in the rural districts. Because we believe it is physically impossible for men or women in large cities to give the time required to look after municipal affairs, education affairs and Poor Law affairs; because we believe that the very attempt to get them means the introduction of the system of co-option; and because we believe that co-option is a bad system and anti-democratic, I beg to move the Second Heading of the Clause standing in my name.
    Mr. MAXTON: I beg to second the Motion.
    I am the more anxious to insist upon retaining the measure of control asked for in this series of new Clauses by reason of what is already beginning to take place even before this Bill has become an Act of Parliament. Instances have already been brought to my notice showing exactly how the changes to be made under the Bill are intended to operate. In the Glasgow area a number of parish councils will be going out of existence, and their functions will be carried on by a great central local governing body. One of these parishes is the parish of Govan, and another is the parish of Eastwood. I would remind the Under-Secretary of the eloquent speech he made at an earlier stage of this Bill's progress in which he said that the welfare and the health of the children were a primary consideration in the mind of the Government, and that they hoped the additional powers given by the Bill and the changes made under it would provide greater opportunities for building up a healthy Scottish nation.
    The properly-elected members of the Govan Parish Council decided that the allowances being made for the maintenance of unemployed and poor people were insufficient, and proposed to increase the allowance for each child requiring relief. But the Scottish Board of Health, meaning the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, who have brought forward this Bill with the object, as they say, of raising the standard of physique of the people of Scotland, refused to allow to the Govan Parish Council to make those small additions to the income of those poor people, although they know as well as any two men in the House how Govan has suffered through the slump in shipbuilding and engineering, a matter for which the workers in Govan have absolutely no responsibility whatever. In the parish of Eastwood, not more than a mile or two away from Govan, and represented in this House by the Secretary of State, there is a parish council mainly representative of the very comfortable section of the community, with poor people in the minority. That parish council does not decide to increase the amount of poor relief, but, in view of the fact that it is going out of existence, and that its administrative expenses will fall
    276
    to be borne by the city area instead of by its own rather limited area, it decides to increase the salary of the inspector of the poor by a very considerable amount. The Secretary of State refuses to allow Govan to pay increased allowances for starving children; but in reply to protests about the action of the Eastwood Parish Council he states that he has no right to interfere with the local autonomy of Eastwood, when the parish council there decide to make a very handsome and unwarranted addition to the already high salary of an official.
    It seems to me that this is one of the clearest demonstrations of what Scotland has to expect if it allows the democratic control of its local functions to pass to wider areas and into the hands of unelected bodies with the Secretary of State as the court of appeal. Where a local authority is attempting to do something for the amelioration of the lot of the worst-off section of the community, then the Secretary of State exercises his bureaucratic power and says to that body, "You are not to be allowed to be generous to the poor." When, on the other hand, a reactionary authority decides to spend public money in increasing the emoluments of an already overpaid official, the Secretary of State says, "We cannot interfere with local autonomy." I think that is atrocious. It is disgraceful that these two things should have happened while this Bill is going through this House. It is a clear indication of the intentions of the Government in introducing the Bill, namely, to give to the vested interests of the country the power to press the poor down to a still lower level, to increase the powers of bureaucracy and to increase the emoluments of public officials.
    Mr. HARDIE: We have now before the Scottish Department one of the many instances of what is meant by indirect administration. I think it might appropriately be termed indirect legislation. When we come to administration, the reality about the whole matter is that it becomes direct. In the case of the city of Glasgow we have the astounding fact that under the existing parish council we have a number of unemployed who have gone through their period of benefit. They get a certain class of work to do in an adjoining parish, but the

    277
    money paid to these men is quite inadequate to keep their families. When we are appealed to by these men who are suffering because of their inadequate wages, we discover that there is nothing direct between them and their employers. When the body who employs them is approached and complaints are made about the inadequate wages which are being paid, the men are told by the particular body who employs them that they have nothing to do with the rate of wages and they they are merely agents.
    What happens in these circumstances? The parish councils say that while it is true that they employ the men, they are not directly concerned or responsible for the amount of wages paid. That is the kind of thing that will take place if this Bill is allowed to become an Act of Parliament. We now discover that this House has no direct contact with the Glasgow Parish Council, and has no responsibility for the amount of wages paid. The Scottish Board of Health has a Department which determines what is to be paid by the Glasgow Parish Council when employing able-bodied destitute men. One can see from the new Clauses of this Bill that the whole idea is to get some form of indirect administration. Those who have had long years of association with this kind of administration hold that, just as the system brings out all the growing needs of a locality, the one way to get rid of those needs under direct administration is to have some form of indirect administration, and the more indirect it is the more difficult it becomes for those in need.
    We all agree that 35s. a week is a totally inadequate wage for these men, but the local authority is told by those who govern that 33s. is the sum to be paid, and they must not pay any more. The body that has engaged these men is not to blame because it is doing what it has been told to do. The result is that you cannot deal with the men who are responsible, because the whole thing is administered by the Scottish Board of Health. That is why I am opposed to all this reconstruction of local administration. Of course, it is not the business of the inspector of the poor to say anything about these matters, because the Department decides these questions, and in that way we lose the human touch.
    278
    The loss of the human touch is a characteristic of this Bill, and it is done to save money. You are not only losing the human touch, but you are losing more; you are losing human beings.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The House will not be surprised when I say that the Government cannot accept a new Clause in this form. This proposal re-opens the questions which we have already discussed very fully, and if it were added to the Bill it would reimpose the ad hoc authority to deal with poor relief, a system which we have decided not to have in the future. Both the Mover and the Seconder of this Motion, and others who have spoken, have made it clear that the feature which they dislike in the Bill as it stands at present is co-option. The plan and scheme of this Bill is to unify the task of looking after the poor instead of having them, as in the past, looked after by parish councils with a variation of circumstances, boundaries and methods which have not always worked satisfactorily. We have decided that these methods shall be unified and brought under the councils either of cities like Glasgow or the councils of other large burghs. The essence of the scheme is that the responsibility for the finance and administration of poor law administration shall lie in the hands of the town council. Under the method proposed by the scheme which the town councils will produce, any necessary evolution or improvement in local management may be carried out.
    This proposed new Clause would strike fundamentally at the root of the responsibility of the town council, and for that reason we cannot allow an elected body to be set up within the bounds of the city itself. In such a case the body to deal with this branch of administration ought to be a committee of the town council. If the town council come to the conclusion that they have not got sufficient time or enough members to carry out the detailed work connected with these problems, then they can, under the scheme of the Bill and the provisions we are making, add to their number by co-opting those who have in the past served on the Poor Law authorities and who possess local knowledge. The local body will have power to co-opt people who have a knowledge of these subjects,

    279
    and they can do this to the extent of one-third of their number.
    Mr. STEWART: I want the Secretary of State for Scotland to make this point clear. Are the Government proposing in this Bill that the persons who are to be co-opted must of necessity be people who already possess a knowledge of the administration of the Poor Law?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In the first instance, I imagine that these individuals would be largely drawn from the members of the existing council. There are many other individuals whose advice and assistance, on account of their knowledge of the circumstances of the people amongst whom they live, might be a great advantage, although they may not have served on Poor Law authorities. For these reasons, I think it would not be wise or judicious to limit the selection. It is clear that this proposal cuts fundamentally across the scheme of the Bill, and for the reasons I have stated the Government are unable to accept the Clause.
    Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The Secretary of State for Scotland correctly stated that the principle underlying this proposed new Clause has been debated and decided on by the House at a previous stage; but the right hon. Gentleman must surely be aware, as we all are, that, as the Bill has been discussed, it has revealed very clearly to us the manifold activities of public life in Scotland. I would invite the Secretary of State to consider this simple point of view. It is often said that these large authorities should be able to administer the work in their towns, because the House of Commons is successful in guiding the destinies of this great country. That argument, however, seems to me to be based on a fallacy. The House of Commons, as I conceive it, is a deliberative assembly controlling the policy of His Majesty's Government; it is not an administrative assembly. Whenever the House of Commons endeavours to interfere with the administration of His Majesty's Government, it is, in my judgment, very seldom successful.
    These large elected bodies in Scotland, administering the thousand and one things which crop up in their areas, are mainly administrative bodies, and, surely, bear
    280
    ing in mind our numerous activities and the difficulties that we all experience in giving daily attention to our work, it stands to reason that, the larger the body, the less chance there is of its keeping a real democratic control over the services which have been entrusted to it. I am sure every hon. Member of this House will agree with me that the only way in which you can effectively control a business is by giving day-to-day and hour-to-hour attention to its details, and, therefore, if, as we all desire, there is to be real democratic control of the services entrusted to these elected bodies, that can only be done efficiently, and that direct human touch which has been referred to this afternoon can only be maintained, by men who are day by day, morning by morning and afternoon by afternoon, giving attention to the administration which has been entrusted to them. As I look at the Bill and its numerous provisions, it seems to me that these large elected bodies will undoubtedly get out of touch with their constituents, and that smaller authorities in these large towns should be in a better position to keep in touch with their constituencies. For that reason I support the Clause.
    Mr. W. M. WATSON: I am sure the House must have been disappointed at the attitude taken up by the Secretary of State towards this proposed new Clause. The Clause simply asks, for the larger burghs, what has already been set up for the counties. It asks for nothing more than that. Already, under the Bill, district councils have been established for the counties, but the Secretary of State says that the proposal to set up a district council within a large burgh is not practicable and will complicate the Measure. I do not see how it is going to complicate the Measure at all. I contend that it is just as easy and suitable and serviceable to have a district council inside a large burgh as it is to have a district council in a county. The district council was conceded to the county in order to make sure that the Poor Law was administered with knowledge and sympathy. It was contended, during the Debate on the Second Reading that, if we attempted to administer the Poor Law from one centre in a county, it would not be properly administered, and, in order to meet that objection, the Secretary of State devised this scheme of district councils.

    281
    The objection that was urged from the point of view of county administration of the Poor Law can also be urged from the point of view of burgh administration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) indicated, in the larger burghs the councillors are attending from 200 to 600 meetings a year, and, in those circumstances, obviously, the administration of education and the Poor Law will suffer. The only way of getting over that difficulty is by setting up district councils inside these large burghs. It is proposed that each ward in the burgh should form a district council area, and I submit to the Secretary of State that a ward in any burgh is a quite big enough area for the administration of the Poor Law. The district council would include representatives from the town council, and also representatives elected from the ward on the same footing as the representatives who are to be elected to the district councils under the county scheme.
    It should be perfectly possible in our burghs to elect all the representatives who are to deal with our public affairs, and, that being so, I cannot understand why the Secretary of State should insist upon the principle of co-option there, when he has abandoned it for the county areas. If he was able to agree that the district councils in the county areas should be elected, surely it should be possible for him to agree that the burgh electors can elect representatives to a district council within the burgh, which will be charged with the administration of the Poor Law and any other services that the town council may ask the district council to undertake. It will certainly cause very great surprise in Scotland that, in the areas where no co-option is necessary, we are to have co-option, while in the wide county districts an elective system has been adopted for the administration of the Poor Law and other services, and I would appeal to the Secretary of State to reconsider this matter, and to give to the burghs that which he has already conceded to the counties.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The right hon. Gentleman said that we should not be surprised at his not accepting this Clause. I certainly am not surprised. The right hon. Gentleman is remarkably stubborn in facing so reason
    282
    able a proposition as this. It is quite true, as he says, that the main points of the proposal has been discussed before, but we are not merely voicing the views of the leading parish councils of Scotland, for, as he is aware, it is true to say that this Clause is put forward by the leading parish councils of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman has said that under his plan there will be unification, but I respectfully differ from that view. I do not think that there is any assurance that that will be so. The parish councils, in their own memorandum, say:
    "It is desirable that there should be uniformity of administration in the various areas in the country, and, if there are created district councils for the counties and for the burgh and city areas, all the delegated functions, including Poor Law, lunacy and mental deficiency, would be administered by similar authorities, and not, as at present proposed, by co-opted members in one area and elected members in another. Uniformity of administration can only be secured if there is statutory requirement to this effect."
    That is the case put in a nutshell by those who are able to speak for these parish councils. They express the actuality of the situation, instead of the merely theoretical view put forward by the Secretary of State. The difficulty which members of councils will find in dealing with the multifarious business which will be submitted to them under the new plan is a very tangible difficulty. Speaking with some experience of parish council work, I can say that those who have given their attention to it have largely specialised in that work, and it has often been stated in other constituencies than my own that undoubtedly parish council work was pre-eminent in its claim for specialised attention and handling by those who were deeply interested in it.
    From the democratic standpoint the system of co-option is most unsatisfactory, and, even allowing for the point made by the Secretary of State that, at the outset, perhaps, this work will be taken up by people who have already served on parish councils, that situation will eventually evaporate and disappear, and it will be found difficult to get people to enter upon the handling of affairs of this kind and yet not have that control and responsibility with which they have so successfully carried out their work in the parish councils.

    283
    Reference was made to the likelihood under this extensive scheme of people adopting the plan of giving in their names as being present at meetings, and getting a wonderful record of attendances on a very thin basis. I was very much surprised to find that that system which is prevalent in our town councils is actually adopted upstairs, and I certainly do not want to adopt that plan—I do not want any camouflaged attendance as far as I am concerned.
    It would be a very unsatisfactory feature of any new scheme adopted by the Government if it were going to accelerate that system under which people find themselves practically unable to accomplish all that is laid down for them, and slide into this very neglectful and not at all creditable plan of public service. I submit that the appeal to which I have referred from the leading parish councils of Scotland is an appeal from those who have devoted, many of them, the service of a lifetime to this specialised work, and who hold, correctly, as I maintain, that this specialised work, which is so important to the suffering poor, is being relegated to the position of a side issue. That is not at all satisfactory, and is very far from what ought to obtain in the handling of the affairs of Scotland. I support most heartily the appeal that has been made from this side of the House.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider his decision. He suggested that it would reopen the whole question as to whether there should be an ad hoc authority or not. I do not think it goes anywhere as far as that. All that is suggested in the Clause is that members of committees who are not members of the local council should really be elected members. The town council is going to set up its committee to deal with the matter. It appoints so many from its own members and it decides to co-opt so many. That is the position as it stands at present. If the Clause were carried the position would be that, instead of deciding to set up its committee, the members of the local authority who would have been on the committee appointed by the local authority will be on another committee, which is this district council of elected persons. The Secretary of State—I hope it is not
    284
    the effect of his illness—seems to have come back in a totally different frame of mind, because when we were discussing the question with regard to the county areas, and Members on his own benches were rising one after the other and pleading for there being this elected body, he got up and agreed to it. Now, when we suggest that the same tiling should apply in the large burghs, he tells us this is cutting into the ad hoc principle. It is no more doing that than it was previously with regard to the county areas, and it simply means that it is better that your committee should be of elected persons than of non-elected persons. There can be no doubt about that. I do not believe even the most die-hard Tory in facing the public would agree that a non-elected person was better than an elected one. He would not do it in speaking to the public, though possibly in his heart of hearts he believes it is true and prefers the charity organisation line.
    I believe if the Government are going to free themselves from the complaint that an attempt is being made here in connection with the Poor Law and the poverty of the people, to make the administration of the Poor Law into something like what it used to be in days gone by, something appertaining to Bumbledom, the Secretary of State has really got to accept the Clause. We have had instances of how he himself, the paternal Conservative, would deal with the matter in the way he interfered with local authorities in the instances that have been mentioned where a parish council was willing to pay the same relief as the Glasgow Town Council, but the Secretary of State said, "No. you cannot do that." Then we have the Under-Secretary, in a most powerful peroration, laying down that the purpose of the Government was to provide sound minds and sound bodies with regard to the children, while the Secretary of State refuses one of these parish councils the right to increase the amount of relief they are giving for the children. Then he comes here and talks all this nonsense about this Amendment cutting into the ad hoc principle. If he likes the role of Bumble, well and good, but at least the people are entitled to know that the purpose of the Bill is to reintroduce Bumbledom into the administration of the Poor Law. I hope it is not the pur

    285
    pose of the right hon. Gentleman to do that, but I should like some explanation of how he reconciles his action towards the Govan Parish Council with the speech of the Under-Secretary. I do not believe they can be reconciled, but if you are going to have a committee administering the Poor Law, as the Secretary of State will admit he expects there will be, it is better that it should be wholly an elected committee than that there should be co-opted persons on it. We do not want these co-opted persons at all, even although the Secretary of State in his heart of hearts wants these benevolent looking gentlemen to come in and rob the poor people of what they are entitled to have.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: In principle this matter is the same as the one that was decided earlier, though in scope it is a very different thing. The principle of that is in the defence of the Secretary of State for refusing the Clause. The case of the Government has been based on their theory that everything must be done to centralise the health services under one control, so that team work may be carried out, so that, whether it is the medical service or the public health service now carried out by the town council or county council they should be under one control. But these Clauses do not undercut that principle, so that the Secretary of State is really driven to very weak ground. The ground of his defence is uniformity, and the illustration is a very interesting one. He is asked to deal with setting up district councils, and he does not take the case of Aberdeen and Edinburgh. He chooses the extreme illustration of the parish councils of Glasgow, Govan and the others. The fact is that this Clause provides for the administrative machine of the Poor Law, with the exception of the health services. Just as there was a powerful case in the landward parts of the country for setting up another ad hoc body in addition to the small burgh, so there is in the large burghs a very powerful case for setting up a directly elected body for this purpose.
    I will not add to the wise words that have been spoken by others on the point of the over-burdening of the present Corporations. I think that is right. The point I want to put is this: The bulk of the present town councils are more
    286
    concerned with material than with human problems. Indirectly, of course, all the government of a great city affects the human life, but the decisions of the ordinary town council committee are decisions mainly directed to the problems of tramways, roads, gas and water, the material government of the city for the better life of the city. The whole problem of handling the Poor Law, apart from the health services connected with the Poor Law, is a human problem demanding close personal knowledge on the part of those administering relief. I make bold to say that the tragedy of the introduction of this Bill was that Ministers, when they desired to co-ordinate the health services of the country under one direction, did not realise how far that principle would lead them, and how many able and disinterested public citizens would be prevented from giving their personal knowledge of these human problems for the advantage of the administration of the Poor Law. Some of us feel very strongly about this matter. It is no small matter. The last return I have gives a total of 110,734 poor people, with dependants to the number of 113,197 in 103 selected parishes. I cannot say, because we have not the return, what proportion is in the large burghs, but of the 253,000 persons affected directly by this administration, 80 per cent. would be found inside these large burghs. It is not only a matter of the total, but there is that gravest of all the problems, the able-bodied unemployed men. In these parishes there is included in the total 30,000 able-bodied unemployed men, with 63,000 dependants, and outside the mining areas nearly the whole of them are concentrated in the large burghs.
    The committee of a town council to be appointed under this Bill, partly elected to the town council for other purposes than this, not directly elected for this, and party appointed for this purpose, cannot handle this human problem of the able-bodied poor as effectively as the men who have been administering it with all the multifarious experience they have accumulated. Consider the case of Edinburgh. The parish council have been handling the problem of the able-bodied unemployed ever since 1921. They have had to handle an expenditure of no less than £881,500 since the slump in trade gave us this new and aggravated problem of

    287
    the able-bodied poor in our necessitous areas. The parish council in Glasgow in the same period has handled £2,704,000, in Govan £1,762,000, in Dundee £128,000, and in Aberdeen £165,000, in relief of the able-bodied unemployed. The magnitude of these financial operations shows that there is a very powerful case. It is not a matter of amour propre for the disinterested parish councils. It is a matter of practical knowledge of a very subtle and difficult problem. I believe under a system of election many more women will get the chance of exercising their knowledge, ability and sympathy than under the co-optive principle proposed in the Bill. It is, in my judgment, a retrograde step to hand over the administration of this vast problem to a partly co-opted body, and at this last hour I would ask the Secretary of State if he cannot see his way to meet us on this point, for I am sure the work will be better done.
    I will give one illustration. I was in my constituency on Friday, and I met a member of the parish council of Edinburgh. I said, "How many days have you given to parish council work this week?" He said, "I have been at the offices five days." I do not believe the ordinary town councillor, elected for all the purposes of a large burgh, will be able to give that amount of time to the administration now given by parish councillors such as the one I have quoted. For that reason I have pleasure in supporting the Clause that this side of the Poor Law work be given over to district councillors elected in each ward of a large burgh.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I would like to bring the mind of the House back to the magnitude of the human distress with which we are dealing. We are apt to allow our minds to become too mechanical and to forget that we are dealing with men, women and children, who are the victims of circumstances for which we are more responsible than they. According to the report of the right hon. Gentleman for 1927, no fewer than 238,000 people in Scotland required relief of one kind or another from the parish councils. Eighty per cent. of that large number are living in the large areas whose machinery we are now discussing. These parish councils are expected to carry out
    288
    the assistance to the poor in exactly the spirit in which that assistance is given by the ratepayers. If I pay rates to relieve the poor, I pay them cheerfully and in a good spirit, and I want the expenditure of these rates carried out in exactly the same spirit in which I contribute them to the public purse. We are dealing here with the machinery to be set up, and the machinery will express to a large extent the spirit of the administration. We can have either the paternal spirit, which regards the poor as the victims of the system under which they are compelled to live, or we can have the mechanical attitude, which regards them as a public nuisance.
    We have had instances quoted this afternoon of the manner of approach usually adopted by the present Secretary of State for Scotland. We have been told that, when it was proposed to grant a little more relief and kindness to the children of Govan by the elected representatives of the ratepayers of Govan, he stepped in and prevented it. We have had another revelation of his mind towards the people who are not poor in the Eastwood parish where he agrees to public money being spent in the further enrichment of comparatively well-off officials. We have also seen his attitude towards the unemployed people at Lennox Castle where he refuses to give them what is not regarded even by Conservative Members as a decent living wage. That is his attitude of mind, but it is not the attitude of the persons elected by the ratepayers to deal with the poor as the ratepayers would like them to be dealt with. Knowing that the elected representatives in Govan would be more kind to the poor than people of the same mentality as his, he is endeavouring through this machinery to introduce into our administration the co-opted person who does not represent the mentality of the ratepayers. We object to that, and say that the people who spend the money should be responsible to the people who provide it, and should be under the necessity of coming to the ratepayers to explain the spirit in which they have spent the rates in order that the ratepayers may have an opportunity of expressing their satisfaction or otherwise with their administration of Poor Law relief.

    289
    It is a desperate situation, and one which should arouse not only the profound sympathy but the profound anxiety of the people of Scotland, to find that almost a quarter of a million of our population are submerged in social conditions in which they require relief from the rates. It is at this time, when Scotland is probably worse off than ever it was, when a greater amount of work has to be devoted to the proper administration of the assistance to be given to these people, that the Government are upsetting the machinery which, on the whole, is working more and more sympathetically towards the poor, and are replacing it by a mechanical system devoid of sentiment, but which will ex-press the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, who, in this House represents not the ratepayers, but the attitude of the rich towards their victims. We protest against all that. We want the people who spend our money to be under our control; we want our poor treated as the victims of society, and not as a mere criminal class. We do not want the children of our neighbours punished because we cannot find employment for their fathers; we do not want our unemployed men to be reduced to a lower standard of living because they have no means of earning their daily bread; we do not want the position of our working-class women to be made more terrible than it is in the ordinary course of their dairy lives. The whole of this machinery is directed to a mechanisation of the manner of dealing with them. It expresses a cruel spirit. We protest against that spirit and against the machinery which has been set up under this Bill to treat the poor worse in the future than they have been treated in the past.
    Sir PATRICK FORD: I do not wish to pursue the right hon. Member who has just spoken in his vendetta against the Secretary of State for Scotland. I merely remark that the people of Scotland and the verdict of history will probably pronounce in favour of the Secretary of State for Scotland as the sounder and better friend of the poor. To come back to this Clause, apart from all these theories as to who are representing certain interests and who are alleged to represent certain others, the real point is, how are we to get efficient
    290
    administration. This ought to be a warning to any Government not to give too much away in granting co-opted members and committees to newly-devised county councils. The object of granting these co-opted committees is that in that way you may get expert knowledge of a certain kind brought to bear. A certain section of the Opposition, instead of taking that as a really well-intentioned desire to meet them, has used it as a lever to get the whole scheme of the Bill upset, and for all these purposes to have new elections and newly-elected members for specific purposes. The Government were perfectly right in yielding a point on that in the large county areas scattered in area, because it is area more than population that is really concerned.
    Where, however, you get the large burgh, where it is perfectly easy to get about, it is quite unnecessary to have separately elected committees to deal with these matters. No good is to be gained by these separately elected committees in an area that can be perfectly easily traversed, as far as the geography of it goes. In order to get what is put forward as the personal touch with the individual poor, you are going to sacrifice the general knowledge of the whole situation of the district that can only be had by a man who has been elected and sits for that district as representing all the interests for which he is elected. That may be necessary where geographical conditions make it impossible for the county councillor to get about in the same way, but when you come to the burghs, to the districts where these geographical difficulties are removed, you are going to weaken the skill and knowledge which should be devoted to poor relief by handing it over to people specially elected for the purpose. I am not going to say that it would be throwing the door open to jobbery to do that, but the fewer local elections you have the better. Get the men and women elected who know the general situation, and do not hand over administration to specially elected bodies. Too many elections produce apathy among the electors. One of the hon. Members opposite has stated that it was not a fair test, because only so many people had come out to vote on a plebiscite on a certain point that was raised. The reason is that we have such

    291
    a multiplicity of these elections that we must come to the conclusion that we must have people elected for the general purposes of the district unless there is a geographical reason to the contrary, as in a scattered county district. It will not strengthen but will weaken the proper representation of the ratepayers and the
    proper dealing with the poor if we are going to have specially elected committees. I strongly support the Government in resisting this Clause in the interests of the poor people themselves.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 115, Noes, 217.

    Division No. 250.]

    AYES.

    [7.14 p.m.

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stratford)

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hardle, George D.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Barnes, A.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Saklatvala, Shapurjl

    Barr, J.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bellamy, A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Scurr, John

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shield, G. W.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Hollins, A.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Shinwell, E.

    Briant, Frank

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Broad, F. A.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bromfield. William

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Snell, Harry

    Buchanan, G.

    Kennedy, T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stephen, Campbell

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lee, F.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Clarke, A. B.

    Lowth, T.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lunn, William

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

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

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Mackinder, W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Compton, Joseph

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Connolly, M.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Cove, W. G.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Townend, A. E.

    Day, Harry

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

    Viant, S. P.

    Duncan, C.

    March, S.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Maxton, James

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    England, Colonel A.

    Montague, Frederick

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Forrest, W.

    Morris, R. H.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gardner, J. P.

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

    Westwood, J.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Gillett, George M.

    Murnin, H.

    Wiggins, William Martin

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

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Greenall, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Owen, Major G.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Potts, John S.

    Groves, T.

    Ritson, J.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Albery, Irving James

    Braithwaite Major A. N.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cope, Major Sir William

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

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Couper, J. B.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

    Atkinson, C.

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

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Crookshank. Cpl. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Dalkeith. Earl of

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Burman, J. B.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Cassels, J. D.

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

    Berry, Sir George

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Bethel, A.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Edmondson. Major A. J.

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Bevan, S. J.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Faile, Sir Bertram G.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Fielden, E. B.

    Lamb, J. O.

    Rye, F. G.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Salmon, Major I.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Looker, Herbert William

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Savery, S. S.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

    Gates, Percy

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

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

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Skelton, A. N.

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

    McLean, Major A.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

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

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Harland, A.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Templeton, W. P.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

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

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

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

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

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

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. Sir K. P.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

    Waddington, R.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Wells, S. R.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Pilcher, G.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)

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

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Hunter-Weston Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Withers. John James

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Ramsden, E.

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald

    Red, D. D. (County Down)

    Wright, Brig-General W. D.

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Reiner, J. R.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Roberts. Sir Samuel (Hereford)

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

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Captain Margesson and Sir Victor Warrender.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Mr. SPEAKER: I am not quite certain whether the next Clause on the Paper—(Methods of securing relief to occupiers)—standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) is in order. In fact, I am not quite certain what it means. If the hon. and gallant Member would like to explain what it means, I should be glad to near him.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Clause is an effort to assist the Government to accomplish the professed purpose of the proposals which they have put before the House. The effect of the Bill as at present drafted is to reduce the assessment in the case of the occupier from one quarter to one-eighth, and in the case of the owner from three-quarters to one-eighth. There are two strong objections to that. One is a mere matter of machinery; the other is a matter of principle. The matter of
    294
    machinery is that it involves the paying back by the landlord to the tenant of half of the landlord's relief. It is the same kind of machinery as was introduced into the 1923 Act and which was then found to be so unworkable that it had to be reversed in subsequent legislation which was passed by this House last year. The effect is, that the tenant comes along and pays rent, and he then claims back from the landlord half of the relief, whatever it may be, that the landlord may have received. If the estate spreads over different parishes, there will be some tenants in one parish claiming for one particular amount and other tenants in another parish having a totally different claim, while a third tenant may, after the 1st June of last year, have no claim at all. There will be three or four classes of tenant each paying in a different way causing immense difficulties and giving ground for

    295
    a large amount of misunderstanding. The 1923 difficulty was got over in the 1927 Act. The Clause which I have put down gets over that difficulty.
    There is a much more important question. The Lord Advocate in defending the Government's proposals last week admitted quite frankly that they would have one effect. He admitted that they would have the effect of giving the greater part of the benefit of this rate relief to one partner in the industry. He said:
    "I do not want to argue at length the question of whether a benefit like this ultimately comes to the landlord or not. My humble view is that it certainly does, and I will tell the Committee why."
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. and gallant Member does not quite do me justice. What I said was that an interesting time would arise when there was a new tenant.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: Oh, yes, I do not want to misquote the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. SHINWELL: On a point of Order. May I ask what is before the House at this stage?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is trying to explain the meaning of his Clause.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: The effect of the new Clause is that it definitely takes this landlord's relief, and instead of allowing it to filter back eventually as the Lord Advocate thinks it will—a good many hon. Members in this House with great authority behind them think it will not filter back to the tenant—and anchors it firmly to the tenant in the form of return of rent.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Member is in order in going into this question of rent. The question of rent is dealt with in Clause 41, and I think the question which he is now raising may be outside the scope of the Bill.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR Sir A. SINCLAIR Although in form it deals with a question of rent, in fact this reduction of rent is merely the equivalent of the rating relief which is going to the landlord under the provisions of the Bill as it is now framed. It is merely a different way of giving the
    296
    same relief, but a way which anchors it permanently to the tenant and gives the full advantage which the Government profess to give and which the Government profess to believe will be given by their own method eventually.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member cares to move the Clause, I will accept the Motion.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Methods of Securing relief to occupiers.)
    The rents of all agricultural lands and heritages payable at the time of the passing of the Act shall be deemed to be the standard rents of these subjects, and upon the passing of the Act these standard rents shall automatically be reduced by a sum equal to two and a-half times the rates payable by the proprietor in the first year of the operations of the Act, and such reduced standard rents shall continue to be the rents payable by the tenants and occupiers of the said agricultural lands and heritages thereafter until new rents have been fixed so far as small landholders or statutory small tenants are concerned by the Scottish Land Court under the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1919, and so far as other agricultural tenants are concerned by arbitration as provided in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923.—[Sir A. Sinclair.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to second the Motion.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I want, first of all, to protest against certain assertions or statements made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) with regard to certain statements of mine. I made it quite clear that, if the landowner is the permanent owner of the land and the tenant is only a temporary person, when that tenant goes the benefit goes to the landowner, but an interesing question arises whether, if another tenant comes along, he would get the benefit or not.
    Mr. HARDIE: He gets it in his rent.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: That is a question about which we do not agree. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the effect of his Clause. The effect of the Clause would be exactly the same as the effect of the Amendment

    297
    which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) wisely did not move on the Committee stage. The result would be to give full effect to the Socialist Amendment which we discussed in Committee of giving five times the rates payable by the proprietor in the first year of the operation of the Act. That would be the result of this Clause.
    It being half-past Seven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 12 th December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 222.

    Division No. 251.]

    AYES.

    [7.30 p.m.

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

    Groves, T.

    Ritson, J.

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Barnes, A.

    Hardie, George D.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Barr, J.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hayday, Arthur

    Scurr, John

    Bellamy, A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shield, G. W.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Hirst, G. H.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Hollins, A.

    Shinwell, E.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Briant, Frank

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Broad, F. A.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bromfield, William

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Snell, Harry

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Kennedy, T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Cape, Thomas

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stephen, Campbell

    Clarke, A. B.

    Lawson, John James

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lee, F.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lowth, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lunn, William

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Compton, Joseph

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

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Connolly, M.

    Mackinder, W.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cove, W. G.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Townend, A. E.

    Day, Harry

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Duncan, C.

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

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Maxton, James

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Montague, Frederick

    Westwood, J.

    England. Colonel A.

    Morris, R. H.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Forrest, W.

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

    Whizeley, W.

    Gardner, J. P.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Murnin, H.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Gillett, George M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Greenall, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Owen, Major G.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    and Mr. Ernest Brown.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypool)

    Potts, John S.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Brass, Captain W.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Albery, Irving James

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

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

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Cooper, A. Duff

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

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Couper, J. B.

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Courtauld, Major J. S

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Atkinson, C.

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

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

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

    Croit, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Burman, J. B.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Burton. Colonel H. W.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Berry, Sir George

    Cassels, J. D.

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

    Bethel, A.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Betterton. Henry B.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Sevan, S. J.

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Ellis, R. G.

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Fermoy, Lord

    Fielden, E. B.

    Little, Or. E. Graham

    Ropner, Major L.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

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

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Rye, F. G.

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

    Salmon, Major I.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farnham)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Lumley, L. R.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Gates, Percy

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

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

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gusteve D.

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

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Savery, S. S.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    McLean, Major A.

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

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

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

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Macqulsten, F. A.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Smithers, Waldron

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Spender-Clay, Colone H.

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

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Harland, A.

    Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Styles. Captain H. Walter

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

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admin Murray Fraser

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Templeton, W. P.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

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

    Newman. Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Hills, Major John Waller

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. Sir K. P.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Waddington, R.

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

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

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

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Warner. Brigadier-General W. W.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Waterhouse. Captain Charles

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Watts, Sir Thomas

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

    Perring, Sir William George

    Wells, S. R.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    White, Lieut.-Col. Mr G. Dairymple

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Peto, G. (Somerset. Frome)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Pilcher, G.

    Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)

    Hurst, Sir Gerald

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Withers, John James

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

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Wood, Sir S. Hill (High Peak)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Ramsden, E.

    Wright, Brig-General W. D.

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

    Remer, J. R.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Major the Marquess of Titchfield

    and Sir Victor Warrender.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Transfer of other functions to county councils.)
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out from the word "functions," in line 8, to the word "as," in line 9.
    Owing to the way in which the Guillotine has worked during the discussion of the Bill the case of the small burghs has never been adequately discussed. This is the last opportunity that we may have while the Bill is in this House of considering the position of the small burghs under the provisions of the Bill. Under the Clause as it stands.
    "all the functions of the district committees of the districts within the county;
    and
    "the functions of town councils of small burghs within the county as local authorities for the purposes of the statutory provisions
    300
    set out in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act"
    are to be transferred to and vested in the county council.
    Under the Amendment which I am now proposing, and the consequential Amendment which also stands in my name in page 3, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
    "of town councils of such small burghs as within six months after the passing of this Act have not been able to satisfy the central authority as to their capacity to discharge these functions efficiently."
    only those functions would be transferred of such councils of burghs as failed within six months of the passing of the Act to prove that they were efficient in the discharge of their duties. It has been admitted in the course of the Debate that the small burghs of

    301
    Scotland, as a rule, are not inefficient in the discharge of their duties. Great praise has been given to the small burghs for the very adequate way in which they have discharged their duties, and the Secretary of State must have realised by now, if he did not realise it when he brought in his Bill, the strong feeling that has been aroused throughout the small burghs by the very drastic methods which he has adopted in regard to them. He has given way to a very large extent, and a large number of the powers which he proposed in the first instance to take away from the small burghs, have been restored. There remain, however, the proposals in this Clause to take away the administration of 25 Acts of Parliament, which are mentioned in the First Schedule, which range from the Registration of Births, and the Land Valuation (Scotland) Act, down to the Food and Drugs Acts, which the small burghs have administered in the past.
    It has been argued on the Government side that the main objects of the Bill are efficiency and economy. We who speak for the small burghs say: "Why do you deprive them of the administration of these Acts which they have proved in the past that they are efficient to administer." Nothing in this world is perfect, and we are prepared to admit that there may be certain small burghs which do not come up to the standard of the majority. In this Amendment, opportunity would be given to the Government to say, within six months of the passing of this Act, "You have not proved your efficiency in administering the Acts; you have failed to take advantage of the opportunities afforded to you. Therefore, we will transfer these powers from you, to the county." Unless a burgh has shown that it is inefficient in the discharge of these duties, the Government should not deprive that burgh of the opportunity of exercising those duties. I suppose there are few Members representing county constituencies who have not several small burghs, two, three, or four, in their constituencies, whose administration is an example of efficiency and economy. It is so in my constituency. We, on this side of the House, are very doubtful where the economy is coming under this Act. We are inclined to foresee that there will be increased expenditure in a great
    302
    many directions, and that if the administration of these matters, which has been in the hands of well-worked burghs in the past, is to be in the hands of the county councils, who have not the same interest in the administration that the burghs must have, we shall not get the same efficiency. Therefore, I ask the Government to give consideration to this Amendment, even at this later hour, so that a small remnant of their powers may be preserved to the small burghs of Scotland.
    Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    A great deal is to be said for burghs with a population of from 8,000 to 15,000 in respect of efficient local administration. There are three such burghs in my own constituency, and the administration leaves nothing to be desired; their general administration of the health services are a model for the rest of the country. They have the most up-to-date hospitals and health inspection, both on the medical and sanitation side; they have public baths, run on the most approved methods, and yet these go ahead burghs, which have administered their own affairs for hundreds of years, are to be drawn into a larger area of quite recent formation. I am satisfied that the administration is bound to Suffer. If I had had the drawing up of this Measure and wanted to create larger areas I should have built the larger areas around these burghs rather than incorporated these burghs in the areas. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will realise the hardship which will be caused by the proposals in this Bill. If he will accept the Amendment he will improve the Bill and also show some charity to these small burghs.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I have an Amendment on the Paper to insert the words:
    "other than Royal burghs and those coastal burghs having an estimated summer population of twenty thousand persons or over."
    It covers the same point as the Amendment we are now discussing, and perhaps I may be allowed to discuss the two together.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment was covered by a new Clause which was negatived by the House.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: There is just one difference, and that is that in my Amendment I refer to the Royal burghs.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is true, but I think the hon. Member should argue his case on this Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I only wish to put in a claim for the Royal burghs of Scotland. I have no justification to advance on their behalf on the ground of population, either summer or winter, but I plead on the grounds of sentiment which seems to have been lost in this early part of the 20th century. The Royal burghs of Scotland date back for hundreds of years. They have a tradition which is unequalled in Scottish history. They are the very basis on which Scottish history is formed. They have contributed to the education of Scottish people, and it is due to them that Scottish education is so widely famed throughout the world. I do not need to accentuate what has already been said in regard to the efficiency of civil administration in Scotland. That is well known to every visitor to Scotland who has had the misfortune to go into the hospitals which these Royal burghs provide or, has had the good fortune to visit the wide esplanades of the coastal towns. There are other reasons. In the small town of Saltcoats we have the largest swimming pool in Scotland; and it is true that these small burghs have shown much initiative and imagination in their civic administration. I feel that there is a point to be made in favour of the exclusion of the Royal burghs and many other small burghs which have shown their efficiency in local administration, and I hope that even at this late hour the Under-Secretary will accept some such proposal as this.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Right throughout the discussions on this Bill I felt that there was some call for a change in local government in Scotland, but I never felt convinced in respect of the transfer of functions from small burghs to the county councils. I do not subscribe to the view that every small burgh in Scotland is efficient. Many of them are, but this at least can be said, that in the main they are much more efficient than county councils. We have no guarantee that county councils, which are to be entrusted with these wider functions, will
    304
    be more satisfactory in respect of the administration of health and other services than the small burghs, and without such a guarantee I suggest that there is no reason why the small burghs should be denuded of the powers which they possess. I am confronted by a difficulty in this matter which, perhaps, the Under-Secretary might be able to remove. It is now proposed to set up district councils, and, as I understand it, these bodies are to have from time to time duties which would otherwise fall on the county councils. Therefore, some district councils may have wider functions than others; it depends on circumstances.
    The difficulty I see is this, that in the transfer of county council functions to district councils it may happen that some small burghs, as a result of the loss of functions, will have fewer functions to perform than the new district councils, and if that is the case, and I think it must be so, it will lead to the seining up of an anomaly that would be wholly unsatisfactory from the standpoint of local government administration in Scotland. That is, I think, a point of substance. At all events we are entitled to some information in respect to the possible variation in power as between small burghs under the new dispensation and the district councils as now constituted under the Bill. Let me say a word in regard to the most substantial argument advanced by the Under-Secretary of State and his friends in respect of the need for taking away certain functions from the small burghs. The argument was this, that for the purpose of the de-rating proposals, and on the ground of efficiency and because of the need for centralisation, it was essential to adopt this device. Let us see what substance there is in that argument. As far as the de-rating is concerned it cannot possibly affect the position of the small burghs in the new form, because if it did it would equally affect the position of the new district councils. The two cases are on all fours. Therefore, derating cannot be adduced as an argument in support of this proposal.
    Take the question of centralisation. I accept the view that centralisation is, on the whole, more advantageous than the existence of a large number of units of a more or less efficient character. But, if centralisation is a good principle to introduce then clearly there was no occasion

    305
    for the establishment of district councils, because the establishment of district councils vitiates the principle of centralisation. As regards the question of efficiency, I submit there can be no gainsaying the fact that in respect of the major number of small burghs in Scotland no case has been made out against them on the ground of inefficiency. Hon. Members during the Debate have referred to their own constituencies. As regards the small burghs with which I am acquainted they appear to me to be quite efficient in respect of health services and general local administration, but of this I am quite certain, that there is no small burgh in the County of West Lothian which has not proved itself better than the County Council of West Lothian. I challenge contradiction on that point. For these reasons I submit that the Under-Secretary of State must make out a much more convincing case if we are to believe that there is need to transfer existing functions from small burghs to county councils.
    8.0 p.m.
    Major ELLIOT: I might have some difficulty in meeting the point put to me by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) if what he has said were the plan and intention of the Government. We have altogether failed to describe the scheme to the hon. Member if he still visualises it as the transfer of functions from burghs to county councils. What is proposed is something quite different. We are proposing to set up a joint authority of burghal and county-authorities, on which urban authorities are to be represented as well as the landward areas. That is the fundamental thing for the House to grasp at this stage. We are not seeking to transfer the powers to be taken out of the hands of the burghs and given into the hands of the county councils. We are seeking to set up a new body which shall be both burghal and county, and which shall exercise the functions of the major health services.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I find it rather difficult to apprehend the meaning of this. May I direct the attention of the Under-Secretary to the First Schedule in which the language is clear and unmistakable:
    306
    "Statutory provisions regarding functions of town councils of small burghs transferred to county councils."
    That surely means what it says.
    Major ELLIOT: If the hon. Member will look further and see the definition of the county council, or see the figures for the reconstituted county council, he will grasp the fact that in the County of Selkirk, for instance, there are seven representatives of the large ward division and 17 representatives from the small burghs. The hon. Member can ask himself whether in that case we are transferring the functions of the burgh to the county council. One might say that we are transferring the functions of the county council to the small burghs instead. Therefore, we sweep away that argument altogether. We are discussing now whether or not a new joint authority, county and burghal, shall be set up to exercise functions in Scotland over a wider field than hitherto.
    I am asked to substantiate the claim which the Government are putting forward to have this Clause to-night. I was asked in what way the Government accused the small burghs or convicted them of inefficiency, and I am asked by the Amendment being discussed to undertake the invidious position of holding a drumhead court-martial and sentencing the defaulters to be led out and shot at dawn. We are not considering that question from that angle at all. We are considering the question whether the major health services of Scotland could be more efficiently administered in a smaller area or in a wider one. That is the question, not the condemnation of the burghs or the county councils. The question is whether the merging of the county and the local administration will provide a more efficient service for Scotland in the future than in the past. On that, I have a wealth of evidence which has been examined and considered by one Committee after another, and which has been reported on by almost every Committee which has been set up upon it in absolutely unmistakeable terms. Committee after Committee have reported urgently that the wider area of health services would be for the good of Scotland as a whole. I do not need to repeat again the report of the consultative council set up to consider this very point, a report which had

    307
    the most authoritative representatives upon it from the hon. Member's own party. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart), my predecessor in this post, the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan)—
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Member for a change and to relieve the monotony find something more substantial.
    Major ELLIOT: I have not the contempt the hon. Member opposite has for these hon. Members of his own party. As Under-Secretary for Health, he must allow me to rely on the opinion of another Under-Secretary of Health from the hon. Member's own party. I will go to another Report. Seeing that we are dealing with the Liberal party's Amendment, I will go to the Report which covers the Highlands and Islands. It is the Report of an authoritative Committee presided over by the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education with a representative of the Liberals upon it and a friend of my own, Dr. Donald Murray, former Member for the Western Isles. I will ask the hon. Member to consider the opinion of the ex-Member for the Western Isles. He recommends:
    "For the major health services the area of administration in the Highlands and Islands should be the county, and that no burgh within the islands should constitute an entirely separate area with administration of the major health services."
    I think we are entitled to call the attention of hon. Members opposite to this expression of opinion of one of their own party, a Member from the region for which many of them sit. The Report also dealt with the local authority for the administration of the health services. The Secretary of State for Scotland in his original draft included water, drainage, sewage, and housing within the functions of the county, but this Committee suggested that these functions would be better left to the smaller local authorities. The health scheme which we have brought in now is in close correspondence with the recommendations made by that Committee, and quite independently of the other Committee which considered the health areas,
    308
    and came to the findings that I have recently given to the House What more remains to be said? It is this, that we are asking neither the burgh nor the county to abandon its functions, but to come together in a new health authority covering a wide area. The hon. Member for St. Rollox will in no way want to go back on the Report to which he gave his signature. In health services, he has never hesitated to affirm that he stands to-day by the position which he then took up. We differ on the question of the Poor Law, but on the question of the health services I think I have his support.
    I would ask my friends of the Liberal party whether they really desire to press this Amendment, and to say that the position of the burghs of Scotland is to be gone over, and that they are to be looked at one after the other as a schoolmaster would mark the exercise books of the children in his school. We ask them to accept the finding of so many authoritative bodies that the wider area for the major health services will be an advantage to the country as a whole. We ask them to say that the burghs will lead in this as in the past, and will be able themselves to continue that lead in a wider area which they have given in the narrower sphere. We agree that the burghs of Scotland have been the centres of education and progress in all manner of ways, but times have moved, and we must move with them. In old days, the burgh street was the only decent road in the countryside. Hon. Members will remember the ride of Tam o'Shanter and the kind of road followed to Alloway Kirk. The burgh police who watched within the walls of the burgh formed the only police system, and the man who was outside the gates at sundown took his own chance and carried his life in his hands. In matters of the administration of health, all these things were confined within the walled towns, which were the only strongholds of culture in mediaeval ages. But now only an imaginary line marks the boundaries. It is possible for us to consider the services in all these respects for a wider area. It is for us to realise that the road runs out from burgh to county and that the ambulance follows the road to where the sick man is collected, whether in the

    309
    burgh or county, and it is for us to ensure that the fullest possible use is made of these services. It is not because I do not recognise the transcendent services rendered by the burghs, but because I see an opportunity now for the burghs to extend these services—an opportunity that is open to the House to-night—that I ask the House to accept this Clause.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: With his usual brilliance the Under-Secretary of State has appealed to us not to press this Amendment to a Division. He has quoted in support of that appeal the opinions of certain eminent authorities and committees. But we should be much more inclined to listen to an appeal based upon the opinions of those committees and authorities if the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself would pay attention to the recommendations of the authorities that he commends to us as our guides. I marvel at his audacity, for example, in referring to the committee presided over by the Noble Lady, the hon. Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl). We know perfectly well that that same committee strongly and categorically recommended, as an essential feature of the local government of Scotland, the retention of parish councils. That recommendation the Under-Secretary sweeps aside as not worthy of consideration. Yet he appeals to us to consider the committee's recommendations with regard to health services. This Bill is not concerned only with health services; they are not the only matters which are being handed over to the new authorities. The Under-Secretary devoted the whole of his speech to health services. I hold here the Bill, and in the first Schedule I find a list of the statutory provisions regarding the functions of town councils of small burghs, which are to be transferred to county councils. I find 25 Acts in the list, including such essentially local matters as the town planning of the burghs. Those 25 Acts, or most of them, have nothing to do with health services.
    The Under-Secretary has indulged in the tactics, which he carries out so well, of ridiculing and travesting the Amendment. He talks about a drumhead court martial to which he would have to submit all the burghs of Scotland, and of giving them marks for their efficiency, like the marks awarded to school child
    310
    ren for success in their studies. But that was a mere travesty of the Amendment. The Scottish Board of Health, are, we believe, in close touch with all these burghs. They know where there is one which is not efficient, and they would be perfectly able to deal with it without any special drumhead court-martial inquiry. Very few burghs would it be necessary to deprive of their powers. If it is an impossible task to decide whether a few authorities are efficient or not, how is it possible for the Ministry to decide when it comes to the question of withholding a grant for inefficiency? In both cases exactly the same inquiry will have to be made.
    I say frankly that I do not like this Bill, and I shall not like it even if the Amendment be accepted. I do not say that the Amendment will cure the defects of the Bill. The Amendment is by no means an ideal one. I do not like this cast-iron standard of efficiency which is to be laid down by bureaucrats in Edinburgh. I agree with the Under-Secretary that there should be wider areas for health services, but those wider areas can be obtained by force of public opinion and by free discussions based on experience over a course of years. That is the true method of reform, the true method of advancing and of raising the standard of civilisation in Scotland—free discussion on the platform and in the Press, free argument, the education of people so that they understand arguments, and learning by experience. But the Under-Secretary demands a criterion of efficieny, a cast-iron standard. Why take away from the burghs which are willing to combine for health services, and are doing it voluntarily, the powers which they are exercising in the way that the Minister wishes them to exercise them? The Government ought to accept the Amendment. They ought to like it better than I do. It is a bridge to meet them. Having regard to the great records of the burghs and the splendid services that they are rendering to the people of Scotland now, the Government ought to welcome the Amendment.
    Mr. HARDIE: The references by the Under-Secretary of State to the historical safety of Scotland makes some of us feel that there is a lack of relation somewhere; but the poem which he quoted

    311
    was rather against what he said, because it did not deal with difficulties and dangers that could be controlled by a county. Those difficulties were "ghaists" and witches. The whole purpose of the poem was to draw people's attention to what was meant by a pledge, and the buying of pledges. The references in the poem are all against the Under-Secretary's own arguments. This Amendment seems to improve the Clause. The transfer of these functions is a matter which has not been fully considered. There has been a lot of talk about it for many years, but you can talk for years about a subject, and unless you have some accurate information, it does not follow that you are going to do the right thing. Had this subject been properly sifted and dealt with we would have some definite result to-day, but, as it is, the answer which we get from the other side shows that even the officials themselves have not tried to find out exactly what are these difficulties.
    There is not that evidence which would show to anyone who wanted to deal fairly
    with administration the necessity for the changes which are to be brought about under Clause 2. It relates to the transfer of functions some of which are as old in practice, if not in legal form, as the "auld brig" in the poem where the gray mare lost its tail. This is not a case merely of transforming something like a new system. Here you are proposing to transfer something which is part of the life of the people, and I claim that sufficient investigation has not been made of the proposal. When we go back to our constituencies and visit various places throughout the country, we find that the more the people learn of these proposals, the more bitter they become against the Bill, because they have the sense that, not only is a certain amount of freedom being taken away from them, but also a certain amount of the local right which they possessed in the past.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out" stand part of the Bill.
    The House divided: Ayes, 181: Noes, 93.

    Division No. 252.]

    AYES.

    [8.30 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Albery, Irving James

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hilton, Cecil

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Couper, J. B.

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

    Atholl. Duchess of

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Atkinson, C.

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

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    Berry, Sir George

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Bethel, A.

    Davies, Or. Vernon

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Betterton. Henry B.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Bevan, S. J.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Iveagh, Countess of

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

    Ellis, R. G.

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

    Blundell, F. N.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lamb, J. O.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Brass, Captain W.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Looker, Herbert William

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Gates, Percy

    Lumley, L. R.

    Broun-Lindsey, Major H.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

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

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

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

    Graham, Fergue (Cumberland, N.)

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    McLean, Major A.

    Burman, J. B.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Hanbury, C.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Cassels, J. D.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Harland, A.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Henderson, Lieut.- Col. Sir Vivian

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

    Clayton, G. C.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Waddington, R.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

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

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

    Savery, S. S.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Perring, Sir William George

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Smithers, Waldron

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Pilcher, G.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Wells, S. R.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Stony-Deans, R.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Ramsden, E.

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Withers, John James

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Wright, Brig-General W. D.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lance., Stretford)

    Templeton, W. P.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

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

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Rye, F. G.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Major Sir William Cope and

    Salmon, Major I.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Captain Wallace.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. Sir K. P.

    NOES.

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

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

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

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Groves, T.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Barr, J.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Shinwell, E.

    Batey, Joseph

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bellamy, A.

    Hardle, George D.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Harris, Percy A.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Snell, Harry

    Broad, F. A.

    Hollins, A.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromfield, William

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Buchanan, G.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sutton, J. E.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Kelly, W. T.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Clarke, A. B.

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

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Townend, A. E.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Compton, Joseph

    Lee, F.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Cove, W. G.

    Lowth, T.

    Westwood, J.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Mackinder, W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Duncan, C.

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Whiteley, W.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Maxton, James

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    England, Colonel A.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Forrest, W.

    Murnin, H.

    Windsor, Walter

    Gardner, J. P.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Greenall, T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison

    and Major Owen.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Transfer of functions of education authorities and of functions relating to police, and registration of electors.)
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison)—in page 5, line 6, at the end to insert the words:
    "Provided also that no person who at a date immediately prior to the commencement of this Act holds the office of chief constable of a burgh shall be deprived of his office save on payment of a sum sufficient to secure him against pecuniary loss."
    —would create a charge and is, therefore, not in order.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: On a point of Order. I think that, as these chief constables are paid out of the rates, there would be no additional expense, even though my Amendment were accepted.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The words are:
    "Provided also that no person who at a date immediately prior to the commencement of this Act holds the office of chief constable of a burgh shall be deprived of his office save on payment of a sum sufficient to secure him against pecuniary loss."
    Therefore, there would be a charge in respect of the outgoing chief constable, which would be a charge on the rates, and that it is not possible to do on the Report stage.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: The point I wish to make is that at present powers are taken in the Bill to remunerate these people for loss of office, and, therefore, this will simply define the amount of compensation which is already allowed in the Bill.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If it defines, it may increase beyond the powers of the Bill. It is a rule of the House that you may not put anything on to the rates on the Report stage of a Bill, and there is no doubt that this, at any rate, might do that.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Transfer of property and liabilities of transferor authorities.)
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, to leave out the word "Board," and to insert instead thereof the words "Department of Health."
    This is a purely drafting Amendment.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: In supporting the Secretary of State for Scotland, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to read a letter which I have received from the chief of the health department of the city of Glasgow. It is from the head of a certain school in Glasgow, but I am not permitted to give his name. He has been able to give definite impressions of his experience in connection with the children previously residing in slum areas under his charge. There are now 140 children formerly residing in the worst parts of Anderston and Gorbals, and the schoolmaster's impressions of one year's experience are these:
    "Prior to the introduction of the rehoused population, the original inhabitants of the district consisted mainly of a good working-class population. The first effect of the introduction of the scholars into the school from the re-housed population was to cause a definite manifestation of snobbery on the part of the original residents. One lady assured him that it was a disgraceful thing that we of the middle classes have to allow our children to mix with such riff raff, and she considered that some protest should be made. In another instance the schoolmaster heard a mother who resided in one of the original tenements—"
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that the expression "Board" here is really the same as the "Department of Health." Therefore, it is only a matter of drafting, and I do not see how any argument can arise on the Amendment,
    316
    which is only to bring the Bill up to date. The word "Board" has been put in apparently by error, and so has to be changed, but there is no change in effect. Therefore, I do not see how an argument can arise.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: No, but I thought I would probably be in order. I consulted the great legal luminaries of the House on this matter before I rose, and they told me it would be quite in order, owing to the fact that the word "Board" was being changed to the words "Department of Health," as this matter would come under the Health Department. If you say I am not in order I will not press it, but I am just about finishing.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: What was called the Board is now called the Department of Health. That is only a change bringing the Bill up to date, and it is really making no alteration in effect at all. Therefore, no argument can arise on it.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Transfer of officers and superannuation funds.)
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 11, line 1, to leave out paragraph (f).
    This paragraph was put in originally to meet certain representations from local authorities, but since it was inserted we have received representations from the National Association of Local Government Officers, who have particularly asked that it should he deleted, and the Government, on reconsideration, have decided so to do.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if it will be in order for me to proceed row?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must first see what it is that paragraph (f) does. I will consider the affect of paragraph (f), and, if the hon. Member will connect his argument with it, I shall be glad to hear it.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: My point is that the Secretary of State has been giving away something to officials. I am interested at the moment in the poor, down-trodden working class. It is the only class in which I am interested.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have looked at paragraph (f) which says that the provisions of a certain paragraph of the Schedule shall apply only in the case of a person who was in the full-time employment of a local authority or held two or more offices under two or more local authorities. It seems to me that the paragraph applies only to certain officials, and, therefore, I do not understand how any argument such as the hon. Member was proposing to put could come in on this Amendment, though I dare say it would be in order on the Third Reading.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will abide by your Ruling.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Reconstitution of county councils.)
    The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. WESTWOOD:
    "In page 12, line 31, to leave out the word 'representing,' and to insert instead thereof the words 'elected for.'
    In line 38, to leave out paragraph (c)."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood) appear to be incomplete, because they make no provision as to the manner in which the members are to be elected, and, therefore, Mr. Speaker could not see his way to select them.
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. E. BROWN:
    In page 13, line 23, to leave out the voids "a newspaper" and to insert instead thereof the word "newspapers."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) appears to be unnecessary. If he can show that there is some point of substance in it, I shall be glad to hear him.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am glad to hear that this Amendment is unnecessary. As Sub-section (4) reads at present, for the purpose of the reconstitution of county councils and determining the number of county councillors the Secretary of
    318
    State is empowered to do certain things by Order. Before he makes the Order he is to cause a local inquiry to be held in certain cases, and when the order is made it is to be published in the "Edinburgh Gazette" and in a newspaper circulating in the area to which it relates. If publication is to be confined to the "Edinburgh Gazette" and a single newspaper, I desire to move my Amendment, with the object of securing that there shall be publication in more than one newspaper. If the Lord Advocate tells me that the drafting of the Subsection gives me what I want, then there is no need to amend it, but unless the words of the Sub-section have some technical and legal meaning they seem to me to limit the publication to one other newspaper beside the "Edinburgh Gazette," and if that be so I do not think the Order will have the publicity which is necessary.
    Clause 8 does very wide things. It makes drastic changes in the constitution and the election of county councils and confers on the Secretary of State important powers as to determining the number of county councillors for a county, apportioning them between the landward area and the burghs, and determining the contents and boundaries of electoral divisions. If the Lord Advocate tolls me that what I want is covered by the terms of the Sub-section I have no more to say, but according to my reading of the Sub-section it is, to use the word of a late Cabinet Minister, "definitive" to say that publication is to be made only in the "Edinburgh Gazette" and one newspaper. In many places people take only one newspaper and would not have any knowledge of the proposed change.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that point might be made.
    Mr. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 13, line 23, to leave out the words "a newspaper" and to insert instead thereof the word "newspapers."
    The LORD ADVOCATE: My answer to the hon. Member is that his Amendment does not make twopenny worth of difference, because under the Interpretation Act of 1889 where it is in the plural it includes the singular, and where it is in the singular it includes the plural.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I think that is a most inadequate reply, and that we are entitled to further elucidation of the point raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). If the right hon. Gentleman proposes to issue an Order, he may regard it as quite sufficient for his purposes to insert an advertisement in either the "Scotsman" or the "Glasgow Herald" newspapers. Both those newspapers circulate in practically the whole of Scotland, and that, no doubt, would be regarded as adequate, but, in my submission, it is very far from being adequate. Publicity ought to be given to the proposed Order in the local newspapers circulating in the areas concerned. That is a perfectly reasonable proposal. The Lord Advocate may say that if an announcement appears in the "Edinburgh Gazette" and, for example, the "Scotsman" newspaper, all persons interested would be informed; but that may not follow, because they may not make themselves acquainted with all that appears in the "Edinburgh Gazette." I do not know of anybody who does read the "Edinburgh Gazette." I have no acquaintance with the periodical.
    Mr. BROWN: If it were in the "Evening News" they would read it.
    Mr. SHINWELL: The "Scotsman" and the "Glasgow Herald" are both excellent newspapers from the point of view of publicity, but publication in them would be insufficient from the standpoint of the publicity required for such Orders as are contemplated. My last point is this. I think it will be conceded, even by those on the Treasury Bench, that there are many points arising out of this Sub-section which are involved and require much elucidation. We do not want to circumscribe publicity in the manner which is proposed in this Clause, because in my judgment that would be a disadvantage. For these reasons, I
    hope the Lord Advocate will see his way to make the necessary change. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us the assurance that publicity will be accorded in respect of local newspapers. I quite appreciate the point that in this case the singular includes the plural, but does it refer to the leading newspapers as well as to the various local newspapers?
    Sir R. HAMILTON: May I point out that the words in Clause 14, Sub-section (8), are
    "shall publish in one or more newspapers." Why not retain the same words in this case?
    Mr. STEPHEN: In the past a proposal of this kind has been taken to mean cither the "Scotsman" or the "Glasgow Herald," and very often the local papers have been lost sight of. Suppose the advertisement to be published related to something connected with Leith. If an extension was made beyond the "Scotsman" it might be the "Evening News." I look at this matter from another point of view. I suggest that you should take a paper like the "Labour Standard," which is the best paper circulating in the Edinburgh districts of North and South Midlothian. It is obvious to anyone acquainted with newspapers that the Labour weekly newspaper is the brightest and most interesting newspaper circulating in those districts. If there is to be any advertisement relating to matters connected with the district I have mentioned, I hope that the "Edinburgh Labour Standard" will be duly noted, and then the advertisement will be brought to the notice of a wide circle of people who will be glad to read it.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided Ayes, 171; Noes, 87.

    Division No. 253.]

    AYES.

    [8.59 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Bevan, S. J.

    Brooke, Brigadler-General C. R. I.

    Albery, Irving James

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Blundell, F. N.

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    Atkinson, C.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Bullock Captain M.

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Burman, J. B.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Brail, Captain W.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Cassels, J. D.

    Berry, Sir George

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Bethel, A.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Chapman, Sir S.

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

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Charteris, Brigadier, General J.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Ramsden, E.

    Clayton, g. C.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

    Ropner, Major L.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

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

    Cohen, Major J. Brunei

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Rye, F. G.

    Couper, J. B.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

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

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Savery, S. S.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Lamb, J. Q.

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

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Loder, J. de V.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cethcert)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    McLean, Major A.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. Sir K. P.

    Gates, Percy

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Waddington, R.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

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

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

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

    Grant. Sir J. A.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Hanbury, C.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Harland, A.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Wells, S. R.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

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

    Withers, John James

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

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

    Wright, Brig-General W. D.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Perring, Sir William George

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

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Pilcher, G.

    Major Sir William Cope and Major the Marquess of Titchfield.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    NOES.

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Shinwell, E.

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

    Hardle, George D.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Burr, J.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Batey, Joseph

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bellamy, A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Hollins, A.

    Snell, Harry

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Strauss, E. A.

    Bromfield, William

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Kennedy, T.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Buchanan, G.

    Kirkwood, D.

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lawrence, Susan

    Townend, A. E.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lee. F.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Clarke, A. B.

    Lowth, T.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lunn, William

    Westwood, J.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Mackinder, W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Compton, Joseph

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Whiteley, W.

    Cove, W. G.

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

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish universities)

    Maxton, James

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Duncan, C.

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Murnin, H.

    Windsor, Walter

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Oliver, George Harold

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Greenall, T.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Granted, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffith, F. Kingeley

    Potts, John S.

    Major-General Sir Robert Hutchison

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    and Major Owen.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 13, line 23, after the word "newspaper," to insert the words "published or."
    This is to indicate that, if there is a local newspaper in the district, notice of the scheme that is required to be published shall be published in that local newspaper.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 24, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(5) Section 51 of the Act of 1889 (which relates to alteration of the number of county councillors and of boundaries, etc.) shall have effect as if after the words 'town council,' there were inserted the words 'or of a majority of the members of a county council elected for the landward area.'"
    In Section 51 of the Local Government Act, 1889, it was laid down that, after the machinery of the new Act had once got going, there might be an application for alteration, for instance, of the number of county councillors, boundaries, and so on, and that application could be at the instance either of the county council or of a town council which was within the county for any purpose. I made some reference to this matter during the Committee stage. It seemed to us fair that the landward members of the county council should also have the chance, if they thought that the balance of representation was a bit unfair to them, to make an application at their own hand, and I said then that I proposed to put down an Amendment to give to that third interest the power to make such an application. This Amendment secures that by putting in, in addition to the words
    "county council and town council,"
    the words
    "or of a majority of the members of a county council elected for the landward area."
    I notice that there is an Amendment, if I may refer to it, which seeks to insert, before these words, the words
    "representing the burghs."
    A town council itself has the right to make an application under Section 51, and to put in these words does not seem to add anything very material. If the Government Amendment be agreed to, the three parties who can make such an
    324
    application will be, first, the county council; secondly, any town council within the county for any purpose; and, thirdly, a majority of the members representing the landward area of the county. That seems to cover the ground completely.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, may I ask him how he can argue that the second party referred to can possibly be in the same fair position, shall I say, as the landward members, since the second party is merely a separate burgh?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: As the Lord Advocate has already spoken, I do not think he would be in order in speaking again.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I think, Sir, that that was really an interruption; I had not quite concluded. Under the Bill, the town council are the people who nominate representatives to serve on the county council, and any town council separately will be entitled to make an application of the kind suggested. They, of course, represent the interests of the small burghs in the county, and each small burgh council by itself may make an application. It is not necessary that all the town councils, or even a majority of them, should act together; any town council can do it. As regards the rest, namely, the representatives of the landward areas, it seemed to me fair to say that a simple majority of the landward members should be entitled to make such an application. That would secure consideration for any substantial body of opinion that might think that an alteration was due. The third body that can make the application is, as I mentioned at first, the county council itself, that is to say, the whole body.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate if it is not rather complicating matters to create this new body inside the newly constituted authority? The newly constituted authority will consist of the members elected for the landward areas and the councillors nominated from the burghs within the county. Under the Act of 1889, either the county council or the town council of any burgh which will now be included—I understood the Lord Advocate to say that—
    The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, but not the representatives of the town council.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: No; the town council of any burgh included within the county will have the right to make representations to the Secretary of State. I should like to ask what is really the object of creating this third body, namely, the majority of the landward members. If it is desired to get the new authority working together as one body, it would seem to me to be a pity to insert this third body. If I have understood the Lord Advocate aright, the majority of this third body of landward members will have the right to make representations independently to the Secretary of State on any matters with which Clause 51 deals.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The town councils now have that right.
    Sir R. HAMILTON: The town councils have the right, and the county council has the right. Why create this new body, which is a portion of the county council?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might answer that question. The newly constituted county council will consist partly of representatives of the landward areas, and partly of representatives of the small burghs. The persons who can apply, under Section 51 of the Act of 1889 as it now stands, are either the whole body, consisting both of the landward members and of the representatives of the burghs, or only a section of it, namely, the town councils. That section can now apply independently of the whole body, but the other section, the representatives of the landward areas, cannot, and we thought that the landward section, who, if they were in a minority on the county council, might otherwise suffer an injustice, should in fairness be allowed to apply just as the town councils can. It is not a third body; it is the other half, and, really, I cannot see that the matter admits of any argument. Although there may be matters affecting the landward areas very intimately, at present an application can only be made either by the county council as a whole or by one section of the county council, and what we want to do is to give to the other section of the county council the right also to go at their own hand. Surely, that
    326
    is only fair, and I cannot see why it should be spoken of as creating a third body.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am sorry that the Lord Advocate has suggested that this matter is incapable of argument, because that shows that his mind is definitely made up, although he has not heard the other side of the case. One county council which I have in mind, dominated by a majority of representatives from the landward areas, is already approaching the Secretary of State complaining about the representation he has given to the burghs. Under the proposal before us there can be no collective appeal by the representatives of the burghs, or the county council either, to reduce or increase, as the case may be, the representation which finally will be given so far as the constitution of these county councils is concerned. The lord Advocate has made it quite clear that a single burgh will have a right to appeal, not for an increase of the burgh representation but for an increase of its own representation.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, the right of the burgh to appeal is with regard to the representation of the whole county. Under Section 51, the application is not to increase the particular representation, but to reconsider the whole distribution of the representation in the total area. The hon. Member has given a very useful illustration. He takes a case where the representatives of the landward area are going to be in a majority. It does not need the whole of them to act together. One alone can apply to have the whole electoral distribution of the county council area reconsidered. The landward area's representatives in the opposite case, where the burghs are controlling the county council and are in a great majority, even if they are unanimous, cannot make an application under present conditions. We say it is unfair that in the one case a minority can make the application and that in the other case they cannot. They are not even as well off as the braghal areas, because they have to get a majority under this, whereas a single one can make a representation. That is why it is to me quite unarguable.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: It may have been density on our part or lack of lucidity

    327
    on the part of the Lord Advocate on the first occasion, but the Lord Advocate did not give us as clear an exposition of what is meant on the first occasion as he has given now. It was lack of clearness on the first occasion that led me to the impression that a single burgh could only make an application on its own behalf. The further explanation that a single burgh can make representations for a complete change in the personnel so far as the whole of the burghs' representation is concerned certainly makes the position far clearer, and I think it is quite a fair suggestion that landward members should be in the same position as burgh members for the purpose of making representations.
    Mr. W. M. WATSON: Will the Lord Advocate say to whom the application is to be made for a reduction of the burgh representation?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: To the Secretary of State.
    Mr. WATSON: Not to the county council?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I cannot understand why the Lord Advocate did not adopt another expedient in order to meet the difficult position as it concerns the landward members of the county council. He has proposed, and we have been compelled to accept, the constitution of the district councils which are to undertake functions on behalf of the county council. Why not leave it to the district councils to make individual representations in respect of changes in the boundaries and in the number of members who are to serve on the county council? Then we shall have this position, that the burgh council can make representations, and equally the district council, representing a small section of the landward area, can make representations also. That would be a fair position, but the proposal the right hon. Gentleman makes—I take no exception to the fairness of it—seems to me to create an anomaly which it is desirable to avoid. My own view is that it would have been very much better to give the district councils similar powers to those at present held by the burgh councils, namely, of making application to the Secretary of State in the event of new
    328
    boundaries being required and new membership having to be called for for the county council.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (5) and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "(5) No councillor representing a small burgh shall be entitled to exercise a deliberative vote in respect of any matter relating solely to the exercise of any function which the county council is not entitled to exercise within the burgh;
    (6) No councillor representing a large burgh shall be entitled to exercise a deliberative vote except in respect of any matter relating solely to a function which the county council is entitled to exercise within the burgh."
    We had some discussion on this matter in. Committee, and there was general agreement that the words of the old Act were not satisfactory, and I felt that even the words we got in Committee were not altogether satisfactory. I hope the House will be able to agree that we have found a clearer basis. I hope to satisfy them at any rate that the new basis is a very clear one. May I explain it as it appears to me? The two classes of members of the county council which we are considering here are first of all, those who represent the small burghs, and, secondly, those who represent the large burghs, and one of the topics in which one is particularly interested is the question of Standing Orders, for instance, and the Chairmanship. The interest of the large burghs in the council's business will really be very small. It may be in education or police, and that not in all cases, that they have representation. On the other hand, the interest of the small burghs is proportionately very much larger. We thought the fairest and most correct way would be to approach the right to vote of these two classes of representatives from exactly the opposite angle. The effect of what we have prescribed in these two new Sub-sections is that a person representing a small burgh is entitled to a deliberative vote on everything, prima facie, unless the person challenging can say to him, "The business on which you are going to exercise your deliberative vote is concerned with the landward areas and nothing else." In effect, that is what it comes to. That means that he could vote on the Standing Orders, or on the

    329
    election of the Chairman, or of the officials whose services are used generally by the county council. Then, with regard to the representatives of the large burghs, we approached it entirely from the opposite angle, and the new Subsection (6) prescribes that he is not to exercise a deliberative vote except in respect of a matter which relates solely to the exercise of a function which is exerciseable within a large burgh. In other words, the moment you get a taint of any county matter, then he is excluded, even though the large burgh is interested. The result of that, of course, is that while under the other Clause a person residing in a large burgh will be qualified to become a Convener, if they choose to elect him, the representatives of a large burgh will not be able to weigh in with their large battalions and cast a deliberative vote on such a question as Standing Orders. I suggest it is not a very easy problem to define, and the words we have discovered, particularly the words beginning "solely", are the most satisfactory method that we can find. On the whole it does deal fairly with the difference in the representation of large and small burghs in these matters, and I hope the House will be ready to adopt our suggestion.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I would like to have an assurance from the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate that, in considering this rather difficult problem they have consulted with the people who have to carry out the administration. What is the view generally held by county councils regarding what will happen at a meeting convened to be carried out under these provisions? You will bring these people, in a widely scattered county, distances of 40 or 50 miles, and they will sit down together at a meeting where there will be three distinct and separate voting powers. You have the county councillor who is the representative of the landlord area and who has very comprehensive voting powers; then you have the representatives of the large burghs, who have less voting powers, and then you have representatives of the small burghs, who have still less voting powers. Surely there will be a perpetual wrangle at that meeting as to whether No. 2 is to go in or No. 3 is to go down. I speak seriously of this, because I have had some experience of it on the county
    330
    council of Lanark, and I know it does not work. We had to abandon it in disgust. We had representatives of a Government Department sitting on the district committee and we had to carry on our business, I suppose illegally, by allowing all these people, for mere purposes of convenience, to participate in the whole of the business which came before our meeting.
    Common sense will tell you that it is a most complicated procedure to carry out in practice, and I hope the Government will not, without serious consideration and consultation with the authorities, saddle them with a procedure of this kind. I am not speaking in a hostile manner or suggesting any alternative. I know right hon. Gentlemen themselves must recognise what a difficult scheme it is in actual practice. Remember that these people will have been brought a considerable distance and may have a very limited period in which to get through their deliberations, with a lot of business to transact. I wish a more simple method could have been devised, and I am quite sure that if those on the front Bench had put their minds to it, they could have devised a simpler method.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am sure that this, like the previous Amendment, will require some further explanation particularly as regards the part which deals with the representation or voting powers of the representatives of the large burghs. They are to have a vote solely on those functions which the county council is entitled to exercise within a burgh. Would they have a vote, for instance, on the chairmanship of the county council, or would they have the right to vote for the finance convener or any of the other conveners? We have to keep the fact in mind that the rates which are to be collected now by the county have to go into a common pool. There will be a stand on the part of the respective conveners as to how the money is to be spent. Take the problem of education, which up to the present has been a separate problem as far as the collection of rates is concerned. Under this new scheme, there will be a fight for the money that is to be collected which comes into that pool from the ratepayer's pocket. The result will be, that while the representatives from the large burghs are only directly interested in connection with education, they will be indirectly interested in the expenditure of

    331
    all services of the county council, owing to the fact that the more money that is spent in connection with certain health services or other services which the county council have got to administer, the less money will there be for education. Consequently, every representative from a large burgh will be as much interested in the appointment of the finance convener and the conveners of the other committees, as he will be interested in the convener of the education committees.
    I can see many problems arising in connection with the limiting of the voting powers of representatives, particularly of the large burgh, because they are only to have a vote on those functions solely exercised by a county council within their respective burghs. The chairmanship, for instance, is not a matter that is solely exercised within the burgh, nor is the appointment of the finance convener something that solely affects the large burgh itself. Consequently, I think we are entitled to have some further explanation from the Lord Advocate. I hope he will make it as clear to us that this Amendment is in the interest of fair play and justice to all parties as he did in connection with the previous Amendment. I am afraid that is going to be a far more difficult job, realising that the rates are going into the common pool, and that there will be a general scramble for the allocation of that money. I am afraid that in this representation of the large burghs, which are only interested in education, and in some cases the police and in others lunacy—for those are the only three things in regard to which the representatives of the large burghs from an administrative point of view are directly interested—there will be serious difficulties as far as this Amendment is concerned.
    Mr. E. BROWN: I rise only to ask that, when a reply is given, I may be told whether the word "deliberative" covers the whole of what is meant. Has it a technical meaning, or is it a new word that is chosen? If it means that every vote, except those limited by the proposed words, "except the casting vote," is a deliberative vote, then I have never met the phrase before. I ask for information, as it seems to me to be a new phrase.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish the Lord Advocate, in amending this Clause, would have faced the problem in a better fashion. The one objection which I see to the Clause is that you have three persons attending—the town councillor, the representative of the larger burgh, and the representative of the smaller burgh. It is argued by the Lord Advocate and the Government supporters that it is not fair that the representatives of the small burgh should vote on matters in which there is no payment made by the small burgh, or in which the small burgh is not directly interested. The Lord Advocate will at least agree that the small burgh representative is penalised in regard to voting on certain occasions. He is not allowed to vote on every question that comes before the county council. On other questions the representative of the larger burgh is not allowed to vote. The representative of the smaller burgh, before he or she can vote, must prove that the matter upon which he or she wishes to vote relates to a smaller burgh. The Lord Advocate in explaining the Amendment pointed out that if there was the slightest doubt members would not be allowed to vote.
    The objection to this proposal is that in actual practice the thing cannot work. Immediately members at a meeting will start wrangling as to who is entitled to vote and who is not. Every member who attends the council meetings will want to vote as often as he can. One of the worst features of this Clause is that it will force a person, who ought to be independent and free, into the firing line of two or three different groups. Who has to decide whether a person can vote or not? The clerk. Immediately you get a wrangle on this matter, the clerk will be hauled into the firing line. He will be hauled into a position from which he ought to be kept clear. It is not customary to have a roll call vote. In the Glasgow Council it is not common to have a roll call vote unless on very exceptional matters. Here you may have a county council meeting voting by the showing of hands and depending on a member's honesty as to whether he votes or not. Unless you have county councillors descending to the level of spying on one another, you can have no real check as to how this method of "ins and outs" will work at all. I think with my

    333
    hon. Friends that the system wants revising, and, speaking personally, I would sooner that every person had a vote. All members should be placed on an equal footing. I believe that within six months of the actual working of this Measure that will be the position of affairs. I would sooner the Lord Advocate had treated all councillors alike, because I think such a course would make for much better local government than the unseemly wrangles which, I think, will result as the outcome of this Clause.
    Mr. W. M. WATSON: The Lord Advocate has tried very hard indeed to support a proposition to which he committed himself at an earlier stage in the discussions on this Bill. He committed himself to the proposition that the Provost of a small burgh might be selected as the convener of the county council. I hear that that is also supported by his hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State. On a previous occasion I reminded both the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary of State that if such a gentleman were selected us convener of the county council, he would be presiding over county council meetings and conducting discussions upon which he would be entitled to have neither a voice nor a vote. After all, the Government have left something to the small burghs. They have left them the water supply. Sup posing the subject before the county council was the water supply for the county, would such a convener be in a position either to speak or to vote on the question? Housing, drainage and water supply are things which are still retained by the small burghs, and my contention is that if a representative of such a burgh were elected to the position of convener of the county council when matters of that kind came before the county council, he would not be in a position to take any part in the discussions or to vote upon them.
    The position is worse, if we imagine a representative from a large burgh being appointed the convener of the county council. What connection has a large burgh with a county council? It has connection in respect of education, perhaps lunacy, and perhaps the police. It is not so in every case, but there may be cases where the large burgh has a police con
    334
    nection with the county council. Only on matters of that kind coming before the county council would such a chairman have either a voice or a vote in the proceedings. I maintain that it is absolutely ridiculous to say that either a representative from a large burgh or a small burgh should be the convener of the county council. Even if the representatives of the burghs had a majority of the representation on the county council, it would not be advisable for them to elect to the position of convener of the county council a man who had a limited vote at a county council meeting. I would appeal to the Lord Advocate to reconsider this matter, because I contend that he took up an absolutely impossible position on the last occasion in maintaining that the representative from burghs had equal voting powers with the representative from the landward areas. I agree that in certain very important matters that come before the county council the small burghs will have a very direct interest. They will have interest in finance, in roads, in education, and in many other things that come before the county council, but, even at the best, the representative of the small burgh cannot expect to exercise the same liberty of action either in speaking or voting at a county council meeting as the man who is elected from the landward area.
    I would ask the Lord Advocate to reconsider this matter. It is absurd for him to contend that the representatives from the large burghs or the small burghs are in a position analogous to the representatives from the landward areas. It is clear to those who have had any experience of work done in any county council, that the county council will decide that the man who is to preside over their deliberations must be a man who has the right to speak and vote upon every question that will come before the county council. The Lord Advocate must admit that the representatives from the small burghs or the large burghs cannot, under these circumstances, hold the same position as the representative from the landward area.
    Mr. SHINWELL: The Lord Advocate is not to be envied in this matter, because it is clear that he is up against a very awkward difficulty. If any complication arises, it will be because of the Bill itself. Complications are bound to

    335
    ensue, once the Government step from the slippery slope of local government reform in Scotland. The initial meetings of the reconstituted county councils in Scotland will be a series of miniature Bedlams, because it will be almost impossible for the county clerk of these new authorities to know what members should vote in respect of one proposal and what members should be prevented from voting. Another complication will arise. Meetings may be convened in connection with the county council to deal with certain matters, yet many of the members who are called to such meetings may be expressly precluded from voting upon the issues involved. Therefore, what on earth will be the use of calling those members to such meetings? It will not be possible to say before the meeting is called what the nature of the business will be as affecting all the members concerned.
    As far as I understand it, the Government are anxious to promote centralisation in local government in Scotland. They have told us that time and again. Where is the centralisation in respect of this proposal, when we are to have three sets of members on the county council? One set are to be full members, another set are to be half members, and the third set, presumably, are to be half-baked members. We are to have members representing the small burghs, who will be able to vote only on certain matters concerning themselves, but what these matters are the Lord Advocate is not in a position to tell us. There are to be members representing the large burghs and members representing the landward areas. What is to be the position of the members who represent the landward areas? The members representing the small burghs and the large burghs are to be precluded from voting on certain issues. Presumably, the members representing the landward areas are to vote on all issues that come before the county council. If the Under-Secretary thinks that what I am stating is not accurate, perhaps he will correct me.
    Major ELLIOT: Such matters as the water rate are debated in the town council and do not come before the county council.
    Mr. SHINWELL: That does not remove my difficulty. On all the major
    336
    issues that come before the county councils, the members who represent the landward areas will have the right to vote. If matters such as water and drainage are excluded from the county councils and are dealt with, as I understood the Under-Secretary to state, by the town council, and do not come before the county council, that matter does not arise, but I am in doubt as to whether the Under-Secretary understood the point that I was making. If there arises no doubt in the mind of the Under-Secretary, why cannot he put the matter as clearly as he usually does? It appears to me that a very awkward complication arises. Complications are bound to arise. When you present a complicated Measure of this character, you cannot avoid difficulty. In these circumstances, it is possible to suggest a way out to the Secretary of State. I cannot appeal to the Lord Advocate, because he always makes up his mind a long way ahead, and there is no possibility of any new orientation so far as he is concerned. No such thing would occur to him, but perhaps the Secretary of State is more susceptible to the influence that can be brought to bear during Debate.
    May I suggest to the Secretary of State, in view of the difficulty that arises—and there is some difficulty and complication—that it would be wise to withdraw this proposal and allow the newly constituted county councils to work out their own destiny. They may make by-laws, standing orders, rules and regulations governing their conduct, quite sufficient for their guidance, and if they find themselves on the horns of a dilemma not of their making they may come to the right hon. Gentleman and ask for his advice. The members of the county councils will occasionally have to set up committees to deal with various aspects of county council administration. Are the members from the small burghs and the large burghs to have the right to deliberate in respect of the personnel of such committees, or will they vote only in the selection of such committees where those bodies are to deal with matters affecting the small and large burghs? I put that point because this consideration occurs to me; that you start off by setting up a committee to deal with a matter that affects the county council work itself, and may not affect the small or large burghs,

    337
    but in the course of time the functions of the committee widen, they are amplified, and the functions of that small committee six months after its inception, may be entirely different from its functions when it was inaugurated.
    In view of that complication this point arises, that you may find that a committee of that kind will be dealing with matters affecting the small burghs and the large burghs and not exclusively county council or landward affairs, and yet Members representing the small burghs and the large burghs may not have been represented on the committee. How are these matters to be dealt with? The Lord Advocate has a legal mind, a very brilliant legal mind. Every Member on these benches appreciates that fact, and some of us are rather inclined to the view that he is much too clever, and we would wish it were otherwise. For my own part, I do not like to see so many clever men sitting on the Front Bench opposite. However brilliant the Lord Advocate may be in respect of legal matters, he does not appear to me to have got the right hang of local administration in Scotland, whatever he may know about the theory. It is the same with the Under-Secretary. The Under-Secretary is chock-o-block with theory in these matters, but the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary know very little about the practice of local government. If any hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite had been members of a local authority in Scotland for 14 months, they would know much more about local government affaire than they appear to know at the present time.
    Major ELLIOT: The right hon. Gentleman has been a member for years.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Quite frankly, and without any disrespect, I must say that that would not appear to be the case from the observations he has made in the Debate to-night. If it is the case I accept it, and I ask him from his great fund of administrative experience in local affairs to give some consideration to the important and complicated issue with which we are now dealing.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I can only speak again by leave of the House; but I am very anxious to make things as clear as I can. We have, as hon. Mem
    338
    bers have observed, three classes of persons appearing in the county councils, the landward representatives, the small burgh representatives and the large burgh representatives; but elected for a different set of things. There is nothing new in that. That was the situation under the 1889 Act, where there was a similar provision limiting the exercise of the right to vote by the representatives of the burghs. The basis on which that provision, Section 73, Sub-section 8, of the 1889 Act was based, was unfortunate, because it made a financial interest the test as to the capacity to vote. That was found to be really quite unworkable in some instances. But we have taken quite a different test in this Bill. We have taken what, I think, is a very easy and simple test. It is this: is the business in hand business which relates to a function which the county council as a whole can exercise within the small burghs? Functions which can and cannot be exercised within the small burghs are defined by the statute and are simple. The boundary lines of a county in these respects are simple and county council clerks in Scotland are a competent body. I imagine that they will find it far easier to answer that question than having to work out their own salvation as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) suggests.
    One is faced with this difficulty in settling this question. Let me give an illustration. In the case of the County of Renfrewshire, in the draft scheme, taking it broadly, the landward representation is 21, the small burgh representation is 15, making 36, and the larger burgh representation 54. That is 54 as against 36 for the other two interests combined. It is clear that it would not be fair to allow the larger burghs to swamp the rest of the county when their only interest probably is education and police, perhaps only education. It is quite clear to me at any rate, and I am sure the House will appreciate it, that the larger burgh interests ought to be limited to matters with which they are really concerned. The hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) made a point in regard to general finance, but I would point out to him that the subjects in which they are interested are subjects in which the grants are not pooled.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I was not arguing about grants. What about rates?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member's point was as to the allocation of grants.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: The Lord Advocate has not really grasped the point I was making There is no question about the distribution of grants. They are not interested as to the manner in which the grant coming from the central education fund in Scotland is to be spent by the education committee, but they are interested in the amount of money necessary to make up the deficit between the amount of the grant and the expenditure on education in the county.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: Therefore, they are interested in the expenditure on education. That is perfectly true. The consolidated rate which is going to include all the needs of the county is quite a separate matter. I assumed that the hon. Member was referring to the question of the allocation of the general grant of money to the different needs of the county, but it so happens that the things they are interested in do not come into the pool and they have no interest in it. Then the question arises as to what is fair as regards the small burghs. There again, I agree that it might have been simpler to say that the representatives of the small burghs should be free to vote on every subject which came before the county council, but that again would have been a bit unfair if we allowed the small burghs to vote on matters in which the landward areas alone were interested. Therefore, it seems fair that the small burghs should be allowed to vote on everything except matters which solely concern the landward areas. That is the perfectly sound lines on which we proceed.
    One or two minor points have been raised. One hon. Member referred to the deliberative vote. Surely a chairman is chosen for his capacity to act as chairman. I assume that is the basis on which local authorities elect their chairmen, and it may be an advantage if he has no direct personal interest in the business in hand; he may make all the better chairman. I for one would agree that eligibility for chairmen should arise
    340
    whatever part of the county he lives in. We thought it would be unfair that while they would be eligible to be chairmen the representatives of the larger burghs should not be entitled to force one of their own men on the rest of the county council for the whole of the rest of the business in which the smaller burghs and landward areas were alone interested. I do not think that is an unreasonable proposal. With regard to the distinction between the deliberative votes and the casting votes, the hon. Member for Leith asked if it was a new distinction. It is not; you will find it in Section 73 (5) of the 1889 Act. With regard to the general difficulty as to voting power the hon. Member for Linlithgow said that this difficulty arises out of this Bill. It does not, The difficulty existed in the 1889 Act, and I submit that we have very much simplified and indeed, I think, have solved it by the demarcation between business which we have taken. We have divided along the line of functions, not on the line of financial interests, which proved a difficult one and led to litigation in the courts. I think I have now dealt with all the matters raised as far as I can remember. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles asked a direct question as to whether the representatives of the large burghs will be entitled to vote, but I think I have already answered that question. He would be eligible to be elected, but not eligible to vote. This is a fair solution and a clear solution of a question which primâ facie presents difficulties, and I ask the House to agree to the Amendment.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: There is one point which the right hon. Gentleman has not made clear, and that is the fact that the representatives of the large burghs have an indirect interest in the whole of the expenditure in the county, because the more money spent on roads, for instance, the less money available for education.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I agree that when you come to the last bit they will have an indirect interest, but they are directly interested in the amount of expenditure on education in the county as a whole. It will be no difficult matter to arrange the business so that the different matters will not be jumbled up.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Election of reconstituted county councils).
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 14, line 3, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that any reference in any Act to a triennial election of county councillors shall be deemed not to include a reference to the first election of members of the reconstituted county council to be held in pursuance of this Sub-section."
    County council elections have always been held triennally, and it is proposed under this Bill that they shall continue to be so held. The last county council elections were held in 1926, and the next county council election will he held in 1929; that is, the new county council election will he held in 1929, and the one following that in 1932, and so on. There are certain Acts which lay down that where a triennial election of a county council takes place these Acts apply and there is the particular problem of the Temperance (Scotland) Act which has a proviso to that effect. We have consulted with those in Scotland who are concerned in this matter both pro and con, and it is clear they think it is undesirable that the 1929 election should be counted as a triennial election for this purpose, and to avoid the possibility of this taking place I am moving this Amendment. There is agreement on the part of the parties concerned, and I hope the House will accept it.
    Mr. BARR: I just wish in a word to thank the Government for this arrangement. I speak particularly on behalf of the Scottish Temperance Alliance, but I am glad to know that other bodies are equally agreed, and it will greatly simplify procedure and prevent what might have been two elections coming one year after another, and it will give a matter of four years, I take it, until the forces rally together again.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood) has an Amendment on the Paper—in page 14, line 16, after the word "any," to insert the words "large or"—which is covered by a following Amendment in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, In page 14, line 16, to leave out the word "small."
    342
    This Amendment and the following Amendment—in page 14, line 17, after the word "county," to insert the words "for any purpose"—are put down to carry out the promise made during the Committee stage of the Bill, and they provide that any person who is an elector resident within the county should be eligible for election on the county council.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what he means by the words "for any other purpose" after "county"?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: That is to cover both large burghs and small ones.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: You could put them simply "or large burgh." I could understand that, but to say "any burgh included within the county for any purpose" seems to me to be extraordinary phraseology, and I should like to be very clear that there is no other purpose or possibility covered by these words. If the purpose, as the Lord Advocate says, is to bring in simply small burghs, why not say so?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: There are certain large burghs which are not included in the county for certain purposes, and some large burghs which are included for some purposes. Therefore, to include those will be wrong.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: That makes it worse. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has moved to take out the word "small," in other words, it is simply to be voted at an election for town councils for any burgh included in the county. What is the idea of "for any purpose "?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I will try to make it clear again. Every small burgh is within the county for certain purposes. Every large burgh is not included for the purpose of county council business. We do not want to include those. Therefore, we have to put in the phrase
    "included within the county for any purpose."
    If they are not "included for any purpose," we do not want to include them here.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The Amendment is to leave out the word "small." Therefore, the words that remain are
    "any burgh included within the county."
    The LORD ADVOCATE: That is so.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The Clause then reads:
    "election of town councillors of any burgh included within the county."
    The LORD ADVOCATE The LORD ADVOCATE "for any purpose."
    Mr. JOHNSTON: You have got a burgh "included within the county." That is sufficient definition. If the burgh were not included within the county, it would not come within the scope of this Clause.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I am very anxious to clear away any misunderstanding. There are certain burghs which are not included within the county, but, if I may use the term, they are deemed to be included within the county for particular purposes. They are large burghs. There are other large burghs which are not so deemed to be or are not made part of the county. What we want to do is to bring into this qualification Clause the former ones, the large burghs that are included for some purpose within the county. Equally we want to leave out of the qualifications Clause the large burghs that are not so included.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am afraid the Lord Advocate has not made himself clear.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I cannot do any better.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman. There are three types of burghs referred to in the Bill. There is the small burgh, there is the large burgh and there is the county city burgh. If I understand the matter aright, the only ones that will be excluded, the only ratepayers or electors that will be excluded from offering their services in any part of the county will be the ratepayers or electors in the county city burgh, namely, those of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Glasgow and Dundee. I did not move earlier to-day an Amendment which stood in my name as I thought that the words of the Government would concede all that had been argued before on the Committee stage. That was the right of any individual living in a large burgh to be in a position to offer his services directly to the
    344
    electors in any part of the county. In he large burghs the ratepayers were being called upon to pay their full share in connection with education, and unless provision was made for them to offer their services and to give the electors in the landward areas a chance of selecting them, they were placed at a great disadvantage in comparison with the situation at the present time.
    Under the existing law, even a person who is not a ratepayer can offer his or her services to the electors for education authority purposes. If the Lord Advocate suggests that any large burghs are excluded that does not meet the claim that was made, nor the promise that was made during the Committee stage of the Bill. No one made the claim that those not paying rates, or those who were not electors in connection with any particular area—where they had no Hay in the county administration—should have the right to offer their services. But I understand that under the proposal which we are now discussing, if this word "small" is omitted and if the next Amendment to insert the words "for any purpose" is carried, there will be a third Amendment to leave out the words "small burgh but excluding any large burgh" and to insert "such burgh as aforesaid." If these Amendments are carried, I understand it will be made quite clear that the elector or ratepayer in any large burgh will have the right to offer his or her services, and the landward area electors will have the right to elect him or her on the county council.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member is wrong in assuming that the expression "large burghs" excludes the burghs which he has mentioned. The expression includes every burgh, whether it is a county of a city or not, having over 20,000 inhabitants.
    Mr. E. BROWN: And Arbroath.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I think that what the hon. Members opposite desire is covered by this Clause. Let me put it in another way. Their desire is that residents in every large burgh which sends representatives to the county council for any purpose is to be qualified for representation as under this Clause. That end is secured by the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 14, line 17, after the word "county" insert the words "for any purpose."
    In page 14, line 21, leave out the words "small burgh but excluding any large burgh," and insert instead thereof the words "such burgh as aforesaid."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Ordered, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

  SUPPLY.
    REPORT (1ST MARCH).
    Resolution reported,
    REPORT (1ST MARCH).
      CIVIL ESTIMATES, REVISED SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.

        CLASS II.
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £380,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for sundry Dominion Services, including a Grant-in-Aid, for advances in certain cases on account of liabilities assumed by the Government of the Irish Free State in connection with Compensation for Damage to Property or with Land Purchase, for certain ex-gratia Grants, and for Expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State."
        Resolution read a Second time.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
        Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
        It is shocking that there should be no representative of the Treasury and no representative of the Dominions Office present on this occasion. We have this treatment from a party which prates about constitutionalism. Look at the gathering we have on the Treasury Bench. We have the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has many virtues, but nobody would credit him with any quality for looking after the financial position of the country. Then there is the Under-Secretary. If, as I understand, the Motion for Adjournment is going to be accepted, I need say no more.
        Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BILL [Lords].
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [19th February]:
  "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Sir JOSEPH NALL: I cannot think that those who back this Bill expect it to be passed without due Debate. There are several aspects of the Bill which have been considered from time to time, and I must remind the House that on a previous occasion when this Bill was presented it was not passed. True, the subject of the Bill was considered at some length by a Select Committee, but I believe that legislation of this kind is wholly unnecessary, would be detrimental to the interests concerned, and would be against the public interest. There is in existence an Institute of British Architects, which for many reasons and in many ways commands the respect of the general public, and it is a singular comment on that Institute that those who are, quite rightly, its supporters should not be content with the merits of that Institute as it exists to-day, but should endeavour to rely on the statutory compulsion of those engaged in the architectural profession to join the Institute.
  A number of circulars have from time to time been sent to hon. Members, and I am entirely at a loss to understand on what ground some of the arguments in favour of this Bill can be advanced. It is said that if only members who come within the registration scheme involved in this Bill are allowed to draw plans and design new buildings, the public safety will be secured and the amenities of the countryside will be safeguarded. I should profoundly disagree with that proposition. It is within the knowledge of hon. Members of this House that some of the most outrageous designs up and down the countryside have emerged from the brains of men who were already members of the Royal Institute of British Architects. [An HON. MEMBER: "Name!"] Far be it from me publicly to announce the name of any particular architect in this connection, but it is the fact that up and down England to-day, although there are new building schemes going on which show a marked advance on what has been done

  347
  in the past, here and there you will find the most outrageous, ugly buildings, which completely spoil the amenities of some of the most delightful parts of England.
  There is absolutely no distinction between architects who are members of the Institute and those surveyors or architects, as they may be, who are outside it. You will find that some of the most deplorable designs are the result of the work of members of the Royal Institute of British Architects, while some of the most attractive housing schemes are the result of the careful thought of men who have never aspired to be, never hope to be, members of that Institute. This Bill would seriously handicap professional employment for a very large number of people such as engineers, surveyors and others engaged in the building trade, who have never been trained to be and do not want to be architects within the restricted sense of the word under this legislation. To subject those people to the tyranny it is desired to set up under this Bill, would, in my view, be something which is opposed to the traditional spirit of this country.
  I will ask the House to consider what is involved in this Measure. A council is to be set up which is to maintain a register of architects. That council is to appoint officers. Then there is a definition of persons who are entitled to be registered without examination. The council is to prescribe future qualifications for registration. It may remove the names of persons from the register, and may restore other names to the register. An appeal against refusal to register may be made. And so on. On what grounds can it be urged that the designing of buildings, whether for private or public use, has fallen into such a low state that a Measure of this kind is necessary? In my view, there is absolutely no justification for a Bill of this kind, and it is to the prejudice of the reputation of the Royal Institute of British Architects that any Measure such as this should be presented to the House. If that Institute is what it purports to be, if it be worthy of public esteem, then it should rely upon its own merits to attract the membership of those who are entitled to be regarded as architects of the first rank. To say that men who are engaged in the plainer and more utilitarian branches of public
  348
  building should be excluded from that Institute merely because they fail to comply with the provisions which it is proposed to set up under this Bill is altogether unreasonable, and I hope that at this late hour the House will not give a Second Reading to a Measure which has previously been rejected, for which there is no public demand, and which certainly ought not to command the support of this House.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: It fills me with surprise when I see hon. Members seeking to sneak this Bill through the House of Commons in this way.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: It is not a question of sneaking the Bill through because it is down on the Order Paper.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Up to the present, no one has taken the usual course of explaining the Bill to the House.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I am ready to explain it.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I think it is the duty of the promoters of this Bill to explain the Measure to their colleagues.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: This Bill has already been explained in the House and hon. Members are fully acquainted with the whole of the Clauses, its implications and its meaning. I am only waiting to find out those who are antagonistic to this Bill in order that I may be able to reply to their arguments.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: When a Bill of this kind is brought forward it is usual for some hon. Member to get up and explain its provisions. There is contained in this Measure vicious principles which cannot be commended to the House. It has been said that this Measure is a first-class trade union bill. It is very strange that hon. Members who are supporting this Measure should have been engaged not long ago in smashing trade unions connected with bricklayers and others. Now the same hon. Members are proposing a trade union for architects. Take the proposals contained in Clause 8 which deals with the Discipline Committee. It says:
  " The council may (subject in the case of persons removed from the register under the immediately preceding Section to the approval of the Discipline Committee) at any time restore to the register any name or entry removed therefrom."
  We are not told whether this Discipline Committee will act like the General

  349
  Medical Council. Hon. Members know that they meet in private and when they find that a person is guilty of some offence they can remove him from the register. Such inquiries are held in private, and a person may have his name removed from the register for any particular reason including professional jealousy. Very often people who are removed from the register are placed in a position in which it is impossible for them to earn a livelihood. The Discipline Committee may remove any man they like and his means of livelihood might be taken away from him.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Only for an offence against the rules of the profession.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The worst form of cruelty I know is that of cruelty to children, but even in that case you limit by Statute the sentence that can be passed for that crime. Cruelty to children is punishable either by a short sentence or a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment. The Statute says that a person may be fined for cruelty to children, but, if a man commits some so-called offence against this body, he is going to be punished even worse than by being detained in prison for a week or two, or fined; it is proposed to take from him the right to earn the necessary livelihood for his wife and family. [Interruption.] I cannot see where I am wrong. The most cruel thing that can be done to a man is the thing that is now proposed. The Bill says:
  "For the purpose of holding any inquiry under this Section as to whether any person registered under this Act has been guilty of any conduct disgraceful to him in a professional respect."
  What does that mean? The Medical Council do things which possibly are in many respects right, but, on the question of the professional point of view, a man may have wrong associations—morally wrong associations, say in the Divorce Court. Under this Bill as it is now worded, a man who has been divorced might lose his position. There is nothing to hinder that. That has happened already under the Medical Council, and there is nothing to hinder its being construed as wrong professional conduct, because the words "professional respect" might mean anything. No doubt it might be an excellent thing for us to
  350
  establish a very high code of moral conduct for others, but that has nothing to do with architecture. It might be that an architect drank too much, and it might even be possible that the best architect might have been better if he had drunk more. What does "professional conduct" mean? It might be construed in the interests of some competitor who sees the work being taken from him, or some group who see another man taking a job from them because he is clever. They might come along and frame up some sort of charge that he was drinking too much, and, therefore, committing an offence against professional conduct. Then whom do they elect to try him? Possibly their own friends. The Bill says:
  "at which inquiry such person shall be entitled to be heard."
  I am surprised at the graciousness shown on this point; I advise the promoters of the Bill to reconsider their position. He is entitled to be heard, and that, at any rate, is a concession. Then it says:
  "There shall be appointed annually a committee to be called the 'Discipline Committee' consisting of eight members."
  May I point out also that he is not allowed to be represented by counsel; he cannot bring his lawyer; all that he is entitled to is to be heard? Being heard may mean little or it may mean much, but, according to the Bill, he is only entitled to be heard. Why should not a man, if he is being tried for his life, get at least the right that a Law Court would give him—the right to bring counsel, the right to be properly defended? Here is a man who is going to be deprived of the right to earn his livelihood, and he himself is only to be heard: he is to have no right to bring any person with him. Who is to compose the Discipline Committee? There is one member appointed by the Commissioner of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, one by the Minister of Health, one by the president of the Law Society, one by the Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, and one by the Ulster Society of Architects. Where is the Welsh member? What crime has poor Wales committed? Wales produces a magician who can cure unemployment in a year. Why has it not one representative on this body? There is this other peculiar thing, that the Bill is not to apply to Northern Ireland. I wonder at the hon. Member for Ayr

  351
  Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) sponsoring a. Bill of this kind.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Clause 21.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: "In the event of this Act being so extended to Northern Ireland"—
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: They will have representation.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Whether it applies to Northern Ireland or not, they are to have a representative, while Wales has not got one at all. I am sure the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) has a legal mind. I am certain he could not have taken his part at the bar of Scotland without understanding it. Why should not the man who is described as the Pooh Bah of politics have representation? The Secretary for Scotland controls public health, prisons, and every service in Scotland. Why should he not have this added one?
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: There is representation for the Incorporation of Architects in Scotland.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: That is the kind of interruption one likes to get, because it is seeking after truth, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken. It is the Incorporation of Architects. I said the Secretary of State for Scotland. I want him to be placed in an equivalent position to the Minister of Health in England. Why should Scotland be let down?
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Give me a chance of speaking for Scotland.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I will see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman gets every chance. At the moment I am asking why Scotland should be placed in an inferior position, not only to the Minister of Health but to the First Commissioner of Works. What experience has he more than the Secretary of State for Scotland? Is it that the person who fills that Cabinet post is a more intelligent man than the Secretary of State for Scotland? It may be, and it may be not. The President of the Law Society has also a chance in this matter, and there is one member to be appointed by the Ulster Society of Architects. The council may convene a meeting of the disciplinary committee
  352
  from time to time as may be necessary in order to hold these inquiries. Now under the law it has been held that in the case of trade unions the person so summoned must have a certain period of notice of what he is to be summoned for, and the indictment must be stated in full detail, showing the alleged offence. Further, the persons accusing him must give their names and the man must know who are his prosecutors. Here we have this position that, under the Bill, a man is to be hauled up and possibly his livelihood taken from him, but he is not to know who is the libeller of his character. Will the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) show me—
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I will, if you give me a chance.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Will he show me the Clause which gives a right to a person who is to be hauled before the committee to know who his prosecutor is? Has a man the right to have the indictment placed before him so that he may know what is his alleged crime? I cannot find any such provisions, and the fact that the hon. Member is silent shows it does not give him these rights. Look at a man's position. He may have a charge of this kind against him. Even a criminal must be tried within a specified time limit, but under this Bill whenever the disciplinary committee decide it, they may hold a charge over a man for one, two or three years. We have in this country bodies which have done useful work but which are not represented. Why should the building trade unions be left out, and why is the general council of the Trade Union Congress not included? Nobody has done more than the co-operative movement, and why should not that body be represented? Instead of that, we have it deliberately narrowed down.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The hon. Member has asked me several questions, and there are only four or five minutes left in which I can answer them. If he is asking me questions, the least he can do is to allow me to reply.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I have a right to speak, with all due deference to the hon. and gallant Member, who has not yet

  353
  been appointed Speaker of the House. I have not yet exhausted my right to speak.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: But you ask me questions.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: You will have another day. There will be a number of days before May, because after May you are not likely to be here. I see the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper) sitting beside the hon. Member. He, too, no doubt, has to do with a conspiracy on another Measure of this kind.
  Mr. COUPER: On a point of Order. Is it right for the hon. Member to jump from one subject to address you, Mr. Speaker, on another, when I have no opportunity of replying?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member will have an opportunity of replying on another occasion.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: Before the hon. Member for Gorbals leaves the point about co-operative societies, will he read to us Clause 18 and see whether that would apply?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: At the moment the point with which I am dealing is so important that I must address myself to it. I am one of those persons who believe that if a man has to be tried for any-kind of offence he should be tried before a legal tribunal. I would prefer to be tried by the Sheriff in Scotland and by justices in England.
  Mr. COUPER: Has that anything to do with the subject before the House? The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has departed to another subject.
  Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. Couper) has accused me of making certain statements and I have not taken part in the Debate at all.
  Mr. COUPER: I meant the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan).
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I hope that that will be the last occasion on which my constituency will be confused with another constituency. Gorbals is Gorbals. The point I wish to make is, why should not a man have an appeal to the High Court?
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Read the Bill.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I have read it.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: The hon. Member is frightened to allow me to reply to the statements he has made.
  HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: But it is true.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: Hon. Members on the other side know me. I have plenty of faults but there is one thing of which I cannot be accused, and that is fear. [Interruption.] An hon. Member has asked me about Clause 18. I think the House ought to be made aware of what Clause 18 means:
  "Nothing in this Act shall prevent a body corporate, firm or partnership from carrying on the professional business of a Registered Architect."
  It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday, 18th March.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BILL [Lords].

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Hennessy.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

SCOTLAND.
  TRAWLING AND SEINING, MORAY FIRTH.
  TRAWLING AND SEINING, MORAY FIRTH.
  RATE COLLECTION, GLASGOW.
  RATE COLLECTION, GLASGOW.
  SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS.
  SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS.
  LUNATICS.
  LUNATICS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  TANKS.
  TANKS.
  MEAT SUPPLY.
  MEAT SUPPLY.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  PIG-IRON INDUSTRY.
  PIG-IRON INDUSTRY.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  RIPLEY (DERBY).
  RIPLEY (DERBY).
  GLASGOW.
  GLASGOW.
  FARM WORKERS.
  FARM WORKERS.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (VOLTAGE).
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (VOLTAGE).
TRANSPORT.
  HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (VIBRATION).
  HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (VIBRATION).
  AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS.
  AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (SPECIAL REGISTER).
  OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (SPECIAL REGISTER).
  IMPORT DUTIES (NEW FACTORIES).
  IMPORT DUTIES (NEW FACTORIES).
  MUNITIONS (EXPORT).
  MUNITIONS (EXPORT).
  SCRAP IRON AND STEEL (IMPORT AND EXPORT).
  SCRAP IRON AND STEEL (IMPORT AND EXPORT).
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIRS.
  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIRS.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  MIGRATION
  MIGRATION
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DISABLEMENT (INQUIRIES).
  DISABLEMENT (INQUIRIES).
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
COAL INDUSTRY.
  RE-OPENED PITS, SOUTH WALES.
  RE-OPENED PITS, SOUTH WALES.
  ACCIDENTS.
  ACCIDENTS.
  REPARATION COAL.
  REPARATION COAL.
POST OFFICE.
  ADVERTISEMENTS.
  ADVERTISEMENTS.
  DOORKEEPERS.
  DOORKEEPERS.
  INLAND TELEGRAMS.
  INLAND TELEGRAMS.
  TELEVISION (EXPERIMENTAL DEMONSTRATION).
  TELEVISION (EXPERIMENTAL DEMONSTRATION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before we begin business I wish to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House if he can tell us up to what time he expects us to sit in connection with the discussion of the Amendments on the Local Government Bill. I only wish to ask this because we desire that full time should be given for discussion of a good many points. I should like to know whether he proposes, or whether he thinks it will be necessary to sit late on any particular evening to ensure that there is ample time for the discussion of Amendments.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I need not say that I quite agree with the noble Lord that ample time should be given to your Lordships to discuss the Amendments which you think it right to bring forward. There is a very long list of Amendments already and I am informed that Amendments come in every day and almost every hour of the day. Therefore we are not yet able to say accurately what is exactly in store for
2
us. I do not suggest that your Lordships should sit after dinner to-night because no notice has been given of that proceeding and it is a little hard on noble Lords to make a sudden proposal of that kind, but I feel no doubt that your Lordships will think it right to sit after dinner to-morrow and after dinner on Thursday, and indeed always after dinner until we get through the Committee stage.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess. I myself think it is a great convenience to know beforehand when a late sitting is suggested and I am glad to know that he proposes that course.

BLACKBURN ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1929.

  HENLEY-IN-ARDEN AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1929.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
  Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last be approved.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Transfer of functions of Poor Law authorities.
1. On the appointed day the functions of each Poor Law authority shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be transferred to the council of the county or county borough comprising the Poor Law area for which the Poor Law authority acts, or, if the Poor Law area is not wholly comprised within one county or county borough, the functions of the Poor Law authority so far as they relate to any county or county borough into which the area extends shall be transferred to the council thereof, and as from the appointed day all then existing Poor Law authorities shall cease to exist.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved to leave out "of each" and insert "exercised by a". The noble Lord had also given Notice to move, after the first "authority," to insert "within the area of any county borough or of an urban or rural district having a population of fifty thousand or over." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the other Amendments on Clause 1 standing in my name will, I presume, be dealt with together as they are consequential Amendments, the object of them being to make non-county boroughs and urban district councils with a population of 50,000 or over primary Poor Law units as well as county boroughs and counties. The reason why county boroughs were made separate units was, I presume, that their town councils were already one authority and they were large enough to provide a reasonable basis for rating. They had manageable populations and their areas were of manageable size. Another reason, I believe, why it was thought an advantage that county boroughs should he made separate units was that by doing so a certain part of the many burdens which fall upon the shoulders of the county councils would be removed. This step was recommended by the Maclean
4
Report and that Report also recommended that urban districts and non-county boroughs with a population of 50,000 or over should be in the same position.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what was said by the Minister of Health, speaking in another place on December 13. He was referring to an Amendment exactly similar to this and he referred to the proposals made in the Maclean Report. In speaking of the case of the non-county boroughs and urban districts, he said that though the Maclean Report had recommended that these should be put in the same position as county boroughs, two important events had occurred since the Report was made which necessitated a change of view. One was that a Royal Commission had sat later and had recommended that the figure should be put at 75,000 rather than 50,000, and the second was that, the derating proposals having been made, the suggestion should therefore be considered in the light of those proposals. He went on to say that under those proposals local authorities affected must spread their charges over a reduced rateable value and—I am now reading his exact words—he also said—
"that alone is sufficient to make it quite impossible for us to accept an Amendment which would throw upon these bodies, with their reduced rateable valuation, the liabilities for Poor Law administration."
That, I presume, means that the Poor Law authorities would have been in a less strong financial position after the passing of the Bill than they were before.
How can we square this statement with the frequent statements of a reassuring nature which have been made supporting the financial proposals occurring in a later Part of the Bill, that local authorities are not going to be in a worse financial position owing to the passing of this measure? If there really is a risk of this occurring, that the local authorities will not be in so favourable a position, would it not be wiser to make up to each what it loses by derating? I do not know what are the answers which will be given to this question, but I think that there is no force in the argument which was used by the Minister of Health. It appears to me that we should take these cases entirely on their merits, and by that I mean that we should consider the suitability of these areas for

5
treatment as areas on account of their size and population rather than in connection with the financial proposals which occur later in the Bill. If the county boroughs are suitable for this treatment surely also non-county boroughs with a very high population and even rural and urban district councils are also suitable.
I adhere to the Maclean Committee's Report. We go a little further because we include rural district councils of which there are a few in the same position. I have here a list of these non-county boroughs and urban and rural districts with a population of over 50,000. There are 15 non-county boroughs, 13 urban districts, and 5 rural districts. It does not appear to me to be possible to give any reasonable answer why a County such as Rutland, which has a population of only 18,000, or a county borough like Canterbury, with 24,000, should be put in a position different from that of a big town like Leyton, with 129,000 and rates of about £600,000. It seems to me quite absurd. There are other anomalies. One was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, in the debate on the Second Reading: Oxford, with a population of 57,000, is a county borough and Cambridge, with a population of 59,000, is a non-county borough. I ask your Lordships to support this Amendment. I believe that it will remove a number of anomalies and tend to improve the administration of the Poor Law by providing a larger number of manageable units and by relieving county councils of some of their burdens.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("of each") and insert ("exercised by a").—(Lord Henley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): Your Lordships will not be surprised if I say that this is an Amendment which the Government are unable to accept and which they will ask you to reject. One of the main objects of the measure which we have submitted is to widen the area over which the burden of Poor Law relief is to be spread. The first effect of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord would be to increase the number of Poor Law areas contemplated by the Bill from a total of 144 to 193, an addition of more than one-third. That in itself is in our
6
view a retrograde step, and a step in direct contradiction of the principle of the Bill. But that is not the only objection. The Amendment cuts right across the scheme of the Bill, in which the de-rating and the transfer of functions to the counties and county boroughs are intimately related, because you will see, when we come later to the derating plan in Part V of the Bill and the financial plan in Part VI, that the whole basis upon which our proposals are to be carried out is that of taking the county and county boroughs respectively as the unit for the allocation of the finance, and for dealing with loss of rates and so on, and the weighting of the population for poor relief, among other things. That, of course, is completely inconsistent with the proposal which your Lordships are now asked to adopt.
Thirdly, in our view, the proposal would not make for efficiency. One object of getting comparatively large areas into the one Poor Law area—the whole of the county except the county boroughs—is to enable the county councils, having a large area with which to deal, to choose hospitals in which the different services which may be required for the treatment of disease can be specialised and concentrated. There may quite well be in one district of a county comparatively few cases of a particular kind of illness and yet there may be in the whole county a sufficient number to justify a hospital being devoted to its special treatment. My right hon. friend in another place gave some instances as to the very diverse kinds of case which were found being treated in one institution under the existing Poor Law arrangement, and one great object which we have here is to enable these wide areas to centralise in different suitable institutions the sort of treatment which is desired for particular classes of disease. If you are going to narrow and cut down the areas you render that task much more difficult of achievement. It can only be done by some form of combination, instead of allowing the county council to be its own effective unit.
Further, it would in some cases at any rate so emasculate the remaining part of the county if you took the urban districts with the larger population out of it, that the area left would be quite unable to bear the burden of its own

7
Poor Law. The noble Lord in moving the Amendment said his object was to have regard only to the merits, by which he was careful to explain he meant the population and nothing else. I do not dispute that the population is one factor in deciding a question of this kind, but I do dispute that it is the only factor. He was careful to say he excluded all considerations of finance. I do not think you can exclude considerations of finance in a question in which finance enters so intimately as the question of this relief. He excluded altogether all questions of historical association, which account for such anomalies as Canterbury, for instance, being a county borough, or Rutland being a county. We do not think, in our country at any rate, that historical associations and historical reasons are reasons which can be cut out of account altogether.
It is possible, of course, that some of these larger areas, to which the noble Lord referred, may, in time to come, become themselves county boroughs, and no doubt, in determining whether they are or are not to be county boroughs, due weight will be given to the effect which it will have in making them separate Poor Law authorities, and the effect it will have on the remainder of the county. If and when it is thought right in the general interests that a particular district should become a county borough that can be done, and it can be constituted a Poor Law authority. Until that is done there is no reason in our view why the particular number of 50,000 in a particular district should have the magic effect of subtracting it from the general area of the county, and we ask your Lordships to say that the principle which we have adopted of taking the county as the unit except where there is a county borough, and then taking the county borough as the unit, is the sensible and logical one, and the only one which will make the Bill practicable.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, as an Amendment which I have on the Paper deals with very much the same point as this Amendment, it may save time if I deal with my Amendment now—[after the first "borough" to insert "or the council of a borough or urban district with a population of not less than twenty thousand"]. The noble and
8
learned Lord, after turning down the Amendment of Lord Henley, is not likely to accept mine, because it goes even further in what he considers the wrong direction. It would increase the number of Poor Law authorities to an even greater extent. But I do not think that quite gets rid of the principle at stake. That principle, in our view, is that the county council is not really a representative body for this particular purpose. It is remote from the great centres of population or even those smaller centres in non-county boroughs which are industrial in character. From a working-class point of view as a rule the representative character of the county council is largely negligible. And when the noble and learned Lord says that the acceptance of such an Amendment as this is against the principle of the Bill, he seems to have quite forgotten that in this Bill itself there is a precedent for such an exception as we suggest—it was in Clause 29; I think it is now in Clause 31—and that exception is to the effect that in the case of roads,
"Where an urban district has a population exceeding 20,000, the urban district council may claim to exercise the functions of maintenance and repair of any county road within their district, and if a claim is made within the time hereinafter limited …"
and so on. In other words, an exception is made which goes against what the noble and learned Lord called the principle embodied in this Bill; and what can be done in the case of roads can surely be done in the case of human beings. The Poor Law has not been abolished by this Bill, only the boards of guardians; and we are leaving the functions of the Poor Law to men who are not from their position and general attitude so likely to afford sympathetic treatment to persons who are out of work—and out of work in nine cases out of ten through no fault of their own. That is the argument for our Amendment, and I submit it was not answered in the reply given by the noble and learned Lord.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Although I am not surprised at the decision announced by the noble and learned Lord, none the less I regret that he found it necessary to come to that conclusion. The Amendment is a very important Amendment,

9
but none the less, for perhaps that very reason, I think we are the more grateful to the noble Lord for having brought it forward. The anticipation that the Government were not likely to accept this Amendment does not relieve us of the duty of discussing these important matters of principle in Committee. I wish, indeed, that I could have an opinion from the noble and learned Lord—though I am afraid I cannot hope to get it—as to the relative merits of the Amendments suggested by my noble friend Lord Henley and by Lord Thomson. I venture to hope at any rate that he will express his preference for the Amendment moved by my noble friend. I confess that I should be a little more convinced by his argument that it is desirable to have wider areas, if the Government at the same time had been bold enough to sweep away these smaller county boroughs as being isolated authorities for the purpose of carrying on this particular work. But, so long as they leave the county boroughs, and are convinced by an argument which in these practical days is of comparatively small importance, that is, the argument of historical continuity, I think we have some reason for pressing this Amendment on the Government.
The reason that they give is that in these wider areas you get greater efficiency, and you find it not only in these matters that I have already mentioned to your Lordships, but in such matters as police. If you have too small an area, and you very often get a small area, in a county borough and there is no possibility of promotion amongst the police, it is obviously bad for the force and it is much better that they should be merged into the county. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is exactly the same with regard to a large number of these health visitors, If you have a body of 50,000 with power to come to mutual arrangements with similar bodies in the same neighbourhood we might have a more ideal arrangement. Under this Bill I think there is power given to different authorities to consult together upon such matters as roads and things of that kind. If it had been possible to extend that power so that authorities who are interested in the same kind of subjects could come together with regard to such matters and yet have
10
their autonomy in other matters left to them, I think we might have come to an arrangement which, on the whole, would have been a more satisfactory compromise. It seems to me that here we come back to one of the difficulties which are inherent in this Bill, from the mixing up of two subjects, rating and changes in local government. If those two matters could have been separated and made the subjects of two separate Bills we might have found it altogether easier to deal with them.
I venture to remind your Lordships that the Maclean Committee recommended that every non-county borough of over 50,000 inhabitants should be made a county borough, not only for purposes such as are dealt with in this Bill but for every purpose as well. I venture to put forward yet another argument. Having regard to the burden upon the county council which is involved in this Bill, I feel that a great many people will shrink from it because it will result in an amount of work dealing with a lot of people of whom they know nothing at all. Had you had smaller bodies you would certainly have had a good deal of local knowledge of the families and the persons involved. That is why I think 50,000 is better than 20,000. If you had had 20,000 you might have had a certain amount of rather improper pressure put upon people to give relief in cases in which it was not desirable. But in bodies of 50,000 I think you would have been able to ensure just that local knowledge of particular circumstances which really is very desirable, and yet have had that larger area from which you would have had the advantage when it came to deal with such problems as unemployment and the question as to whether there was too much unemployment in one trade affecting the whole area. In the whole of the circumstances I venture to hope that my noble friend will go to a Division in order to assert the importance of making these large non-county boroughs autonomous for this purpose.
On Question, Whether the words "of each" shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Yarborough, E.

Faringdon, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Forester, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Northumberland, D.

Chaplin, V.

Harlech, L.

Wellington, D.

FitzAlan of Derment, V.

Hastings, L.

Hood, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Bath, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.]

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Bristol, M.

Islington, L.

Exeter, M.

Knutsford, V.

Jessel, L.

Lamington, L.

Airlie, E.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Ancaster, E.

Merthyr, L.

Cavan, E.

Avebury, L.

Monson, L.

Clarendon, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Monteagle. L. (M. Sligo).

Denbigh, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Byron, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Carson. L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Fortescue, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Halsbury, E.

Queenborough, L.

Harrowby, E.

Cushendun, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ilchester, E.

Danesfort, L.

Remnant, L.

Iveagh, E.

Darling, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Daryngton, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lichfield, E.

Deramore, L.

Strachie, L.

Lovelace, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Suffield, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Dynevor, L.

Templemore, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Wargrave, L.

Plymouth, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Wharton, L.

Spencer, E.

Ernle, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Leverhulme, V.

Olivier, L.

Parmoor, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Buxton, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Shandon, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Charnwood, L.

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

De La Warr, E.

Clwyd, L.

Russell, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Joicey, L.

Swaythling, L.

Allendale, V. [Teller.]

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Tenterden, L.

Thomson, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think that covers all the Amendments to Clause I except the last one. I think Lord Henley's Amendments are all consequential and Lord Thomson has been good enough to tell me that his Amendments and those of Lord Henley hang together.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"Provided that in the transfer of the functions of a Poor Law authority to the council of a county or county borough, it shall be a condition that the function with respect to relief of persons on account of unemployment shall be transferred to the distress committee of such council within the meaning of the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905."
The noble Earl said:—The object of this Amendment is to give to the county
12
councils powers of dealing with the unemployed that they possess under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, which is repealed in a later clause of this Bill This is essentially an Amendment that fits into the principle of the Bill. It is not a principle that all of us would be prepared entirely to endorse, but, as the principle is in the Bill, it is for us to try to do our best to improve it.
Ideally, of course, it would be very much better if the State were to assume its full responsibilities for the unemployed. It does not do so under this Bill. It hands them over to the county councils—that is, those unemployed who are not at the moment in receipt of unemployment relief. At the same time, while handing the care of these unemployed over to the county councils, it takes away from those bodies the powers they already possess of putting these unemployed to useful work—powers of in-

13
quiry into the possibilities of transference, powers of paying for transference and emigration, and even putting the unemployed to temporary work and training them as a preparation for ultimately placing them in employment. In other words, the county councils are to be forbidden to treat these unemployed paupers as anything but paupers. They are only to be allowed to give them out relief or to put them into the workhouse. In another place it was argued from the Government Bench that it would be possible for the county councils to place a great number of these men on some of their own jobs, such as roadmaking. If your Lordships think for a moment, however, you will realise that there is really not very much in that suggestion, because the county councils have already their work going on and they have already men employed upon it, and it will only be by an infinitesimal number of men that they will be able to increase their present staffs. Furthermore, at the present moment there is hardly a local authority in the country that has not got a great number of schemes that it could put into operation—road improvement schemes and so on—and we all know that the Ministry of Transport is full of such schemes. The reason those schemes are not put into operation is that the Government are not prepared to make sufficient grants to the local authorities to carry out the schemes.
Therefore, to judge from the argument of the Minister in another place, the Government are really trying to get the best of both worlds. On the one hand they are disallowing work that the county councils and local authorities could carry out, and on the other hand they are justifying the repeal of this Unemployed Workmen Act by saying that the county councils could carry out work. But they cannot have it both ways. The Government case is based on the assumption that they are prepared to accept full responsibility for the employment or for the maintenance of the unemployed by providing national work, by establishing sufficient training farms and generally by sanctioning schemes of work and being prepared to put up the grants. But they are not prepared to take this step. They do not under the Bill assume national responsibility for the unemployed, and therefore, by this Amendment, we are trying to
14
make the best of what is admittedly a bad situation. We are asking the House to leave the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905 in operation so that county councils will be able to make as profitable a use as possible of the unemployed—profitable both to the county councils and to themselves. It is obviously very much better that these men should be kept at work or in training, and doing something useful rather than merely being maintained by out relief or in the workhouse. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): I think the noble Earl has put down this Amendment under some misapprehension of the functions of the committees under the Unemployed Workmen Act. His Amendment says—
"Provided that in the transfer of the functions of a Poor Law authority to the council of a county or county borough, it shall be a condition that the function with respect to relief of persons on account of unemployment shall be transferred to the distress committee of such council within the meaning of the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905."
There is no such committee. The Unemployed Workmen Act applied only to London and to boroughs and urban districts with a population of 50,000 and over. It empowered the Local Government Board, on the application of a borough or district of that size, to establish a distress committee for that area, but it did not apply to the country as a whole, and the committees to which the noble Earl wishes to transfer this duty were not charged with the relief of the able-bodied. If they had been so charged, they would have needed an entirely different equipment from that which was provided. What they did was to act as intermediaries between parties who could not find workmen and men who were able to do the work. That is exactly the function now performed by the labour exchanges, which did not exist in 1905. The Act was brought into force to carry out the function which is now performed by the labour exchanges.
One great object of this Bill, which would be obstructed, I think, if the Amendment were accepted, is to secure a greater measure of co-ordination between the different local activities dealing with various matters, and with this

15
matter in particular. If the relief of the able-bodied and the organisation of work were entrusted to two separate bodies, we should not arrive at that desirable result. On the other hand, the Bill will provide that relief of the able-bodied will be the function of the county councils, and they will also deal with the organisation of work, and the same body, with a common purse and estimates, will carry out the two branches of the work through different committees. I feel sure that the organisation of relief on those lines will be of advantage, and that to prolong the existence of the Unemployed Workmen Act would really be a retrograde step and would not serve the object which the noble Earl has in view. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment, but will maintain the principle laid down in the Bill.
LORD THOMSON: The noble Earl has given a somewhat different explanation of his refusal of this Amendment from that which was given in another place. There the Minister of Health did not say that which the noble Earl has just said about the different character of these committees. In point of fact, the repeal of the Unemployed Workmen Act shows that it has a possible application to this Bill. Otherwise why should it be repealed? The Minister of Health, in another place, gave what I thought was a most extraordinary explanation in refusing this Amendment. He said that the county councils and the county borough councils had never asked for it. When one reflects on the state of confusion into which this Bill has thrown county councils and county borough councils, it is not surprising that they should not have asked for this particular Amendment, especially in view of the fact that they would not have got it if they had asked for it. I am reminded of what used to happen to one in the Army. If one did not ask for leave one was supposed not to want it, and if one did ask for leave, one did not get it. That is exactly the position of the county councils and county borough councils in regard to this particular improvement of the Bill. How a Conservative Administration can refuse to revive that which was their pride and glory in 1905, just before they went to a General Election, I fail to understand.
16
The Minister of Health put forward another excuse for not accepting the Amendment. He said that it would lead to the duplication of functions, which is very much what the noble Earl has said, and he deprecated any tendency in that direction. I do not see that there is a duplication of functions in this instance. As a matter of fact, it will be an amplification of the work carried out by the labour exchanges, and an assistance to them. Indeed, if there were any duplication, I am sure that it would not be amiss if it helped to reduce unemployment, and I do not think the noble Earl can deny that it would have that effect if county councils could exercise these powers of seeking for information outside their area and transferring men from one area to another in case work was found in another area. I cannot see any harm in this Amendment, and it seems to me to assist the very principle which the Government have had before them in framing this measure. It will amplify and assist, instead of complicating, and yet, by some strange perversity, the Government go out of their way to repeal what is possibly the best Act that a Conservative Government has passed since 1874, and certainly the best that they have passed in this century.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Special provisions as to functions of Poor Law authorities in respect of infant life protection and vaccination]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out ("elsewhere than in the County of London").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Power to combine councils for special purposes.
3.—(1) Where any two or more councils, whether councils of counties or county boroughs, consider that it is expedient that the areas of the councils should be combined for any purpose connected with the administration of the functions transferred or to be transferred under this Part of this Act and make application to the Minister for the purpose, the Minister may make an

17
order for combining the areas of the councils for the purposes named therein.
(2) Where it appears to the Minister that the combination of the areas of any two or more councils, whether councils of counties or county boroughs, for any purpose connected with the administration of the functions transferred or to be transferred under this Part of this Act, would tend to diminish expense, or would otherwise be of public or local advantage, the Minister may make an order for combining the areas of the councils for the purposes named therein:
Provided that an order shall not be made under this subsection except after a local inquiry, unless all the councils whose areas are to be so combined consent.
(4) Any such order shall define the functions of the joint committee, and regulate the election, meetings and business of the joint committee, the mode of defraying the expenses of the joint committee, and any other matter or thing which it appears necessary or proper to regulate for the better carrying into effect of the order, and may provide for making applicable, subject to the necessary modifications, to the joint committee any of the provisions of this Part or Part VII of this Act (including the provisions as to administrative schemes).
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (2), after "Where it appears to the Minister that the," to insert: "powers contained in the preceding subsection are not being exercised sufficiently in the public interest, he may appoint a committee to make inquiries either generally or as regards particular areas, and if such committee reports that the." The noble Earl said: With the acceptance of this Amendment the clause would read as follows:—
"Where it appears to the Minister that the powers contained in the preceding subsection are not being exercised sufficiently in the public interest, he may appoint a committee to make inquiries, either generally or as regards particular areas, and if such committee reports that the combination of the areas of any two or more councils … would tend to diminish expense …"
he may make an order. The object of the Amendment is to provide that the Minister may appoint a committee to consider the matter before he makes an order. It seemed to us that it would be an advantage to the Minister to have the advice of a committee of this kind before he took action under this clause, and that no difficulty would be created by the words that we propose to insert. I have some hope that the noble Earl opposite may see his way to accept this
18
Amendment, which would not at all interfere with the effect of the clause, but would merely give the Minister an opportunity of having a committee to make inquiries and to report.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, after the second ("the") insert the said words.—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think that the noble Earl is under a slight misapprehension. There is no difficulty, if the Minister wishes or thinks it necessary, in his appointing a committee if he wishes for advice.
EARL RUSSELL: He can do so without this provision?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes, I think so. Certainly, I quite agree with the noble Earl that in certain cases it might be a great advantage for the Minister to have the advice of a committee, but it would not be necessary in every case that he should do so, as the noble Earl's Amendment, so far as I understand it, would provide. I think that is the case. Then if reports are made to him from all sides that it is desirable to do so and he gets reports from his own officers that it is desirable, there would be no need of appointing a committee. A local inquiry is provided for. Unless the councils concerned consent a local inquiry would be held. The order would be subject to provisions of Clause 122 when made. Therefore I hardly think it is really necessary to add these words to the Bill.
EARL BUXTON: Do I understand the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to say that if the Bill is passed as it stands the Minister will have the power in his discretion to appoint a committee?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.
EARL BUXTON: As I understand the noble Earl's Amendment, he would make it compulsory. I think it would be much better to give him the power.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There is nothing whatever to stop him appointing a committee if he wishes.
EARL RUSSELL: In view of what the noble Earl has said I will withdraw the Amendment at this stage at any rate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK moved to insert the following proviso in subsection (2):—
"Provided that the Minister shall make orders for combining any two or more councils, whether councils of counties or county boroughs, covering suitable areas, for the purpose of dealing with vagrancy."
The right rev. Prelate said: I can explain very briefly why I am moving the Amendment which stands in my name. It is to make plain that the problem of vagrancy should be dealt with not by an individual council but by co-operation between different authorities. This problem is one which is becoming of increasing difficulty. During the War the casual wards were practically closed. Some three years ago there were some 9,000 men on the road. This March we are informed that there will be no fewer than 12,000. I fear that there is every prospect when the weather becomes warmer that this number may be considerably increased.
This very difficult problem of vagrancy is one which is best dealt with, not by an individual union or by the new authority, but by a number of areas acting together. There are, of course, problems which can best be dealt with by those who have knowledge of local conditions, but vagrants wander from county to county, staying here one night and elsewhere another night, and it is impossible for any one authority to deal with the problems which arise in connection with them. What actually happens is that the vagrant is unpopular everywhere, and you find that different unions have their own special methods of dealing with the vagrant. Some are much stricter than others, and the terms under which he is admitted to the casual wards vary greatly. In some wards there is heat and in others none. In some he is given a bunk to sleep in, in others he has to lie on a mattress on the floor. In some he is let out early in the morning in time to find work, in others he is let out much later. The result of these differences is that the vagrant soon knows where he is likely to meet with what he regards as undue hardships. He concentrates therefore on other unions and goes to those casual wards where he knows that his lot will not be so hard. The result is that these unions, in their turn,
20
have to make their conditions stricter so as to discourage the vagrant from coming into their areas.
In some cases the conditions under which the vagrant exists are nothing less than horrible. I have in my hand a report, written evidently by some careful and experienced investigator, called "On the Road," which describes a journey from Reading to York. The investigator stayed in the different casual wards on the way. In some of them he had humanitarian treatment, but in others the conditions were nothing less—I am not exaggerating—than horrible. The only way in which you can possibly overcome these conditions is to bring a large number of districts under one authority which will co-ordinate the relief and the methods which are adopted in dealing with these unhappy people. Moreover, it is only by a larger area that you can deal with problems such as those of the younger traveller. At one time most of the tramps were older men. I am told now by those who are best acquainted with the subject that there are a large number of young men out of work wandering from place to place, and it is very easy for them to deteriorate unless some remedial treatment is applied. A man who had himself been on the road told me that after about a fortnight he found he was deteriorating, not only in physique, but in the whole of his outlook. Some special treatment ought to be given to these men who, only for a time, probably, through no fault of their own, come on the road. This harsh treatment simply makes it impossible for them to rise from the condition into which they are sinking.
Then, of course, there are the children—not many in number—of the vagrants. These, again, can only be dealt with by some central authority. And there are the old and infirm who wander from place to place. These, again, can best be dealt with by an authority which covers a number of different areas. It has always been recognised that there should be some greater uniformity in dealing with this problem. It was recognised by the Vagrancy Committee in 1906, and I notice that in the Memorandum which has been issued by the Ministry of Health explaining this Bill as it left the other House, it is said that:—

21
"Experience has also shown that the most effective control of vagrancy can be secured by the co-operation of authorities covering a wide area."
There are already in existence a certain number of committees—sixteen statutory committees which cover thirty-nine counties, and sixteen voluntary committees which cover nineteen. There is a real fear that unless some such proviso as I am moving is inserted in the measure the work of these committees may be brought to an end and that the problem, which is an intricate one, may be over-looked in the new commitments and new problems which are being placed upon the authorities which will take over all this work.
I know it may be said that it is quite unnecessary to move this Amendment because the Minister of Health already has power to draw up a scheme of co-ordination. If we could always have the present Minister of Health I should have little fear about the matter, because the present Minister of Health has shown very great interest in the subject, but we are not legislating only for one Ministry. We are legislating for years to come, and therefore I hope that some such proviso as I am moving may be adopted, so that we can secure better treatment for a class of very unhappy people. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, after ("therein") insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Bishop of Southwark.)
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: I should like to support my right rev. brother. I have made it my business lately to visit some of these casual wards, and for a long time when I was at Hatfield I was in the habit of visiting the casual ward there in connection with which we had a home where we tried to do some reclamation work. The problem is an intensely difficult one under present conditions. The number of vagrants is increasing, as my right rev. brother has told your Lordships, and it must increase because there is at present no real means of reclaiming these poor fellows. Once on the road, always on the road! A man who gets on the road becomes weaker in physique, and he is unable to do hard work. He falls lower and lower. Just now the men who are coming on the road are very often quite young men. What we
22
are afraid of is that there will be a competition between the various bodies to avoid having the responsibility for these men. At present it exists to a certain extent. Where there is a vagrancy committee that treats these men with severity the men avoid that locality and this mobile stream of poor wanderers is to be found in another part of England. The other day I visited a casual ward in Devonshire and found in that little town a man from Northumberland, a collier from Wales, a sailor from Liverpool, and only one Devonshire man. Therefore I think that unless this problem is dealt with from a national standpoint we shall never solve it.
Again, you want to classify these men. A Father Downes, who has made it his duty to go from casual ward to casual ward, divides these men into the old infirm men who are regular vagrants, and the men who are bona fide seekers of work and who cannot very likely find work for some time—for instance, men who work at a seasonal occupation. They are out of jobs and must wait for employment until the season begins. Then there are the boys, who can be divided into two groups: (1), those who have friends and relations and who should be sent back to their own parish; and (2), those who have no one belonging to them. There ought to be some means of putting these boys into an occupation which will give them a livelihood. Those things are larger things than a county can do. We want a bigger unit—several counties together, but working in conjunction with other counties, so that there is no competition to avoid responsibility. I have visited a great settlement at Witzwill, in Switzerland. That is a settlement for the hardened tramp, and they boldly claim that they constantly make cures of them by improving their physique and their morale. I hope that if the Government are unable to accept this Amendment they will take steps to deal with this vagrancy problem on a national basis. Father Downes tells us that he had to sleep on stone, and in the casualty ward which I visited it was miserably cold. When the War was on there was an enormous reduction in the number of casuals. The rest were fighting for their country. I think it is extraordinarily hard that these men, who are quite

23
ready to work, many of them, and are merely unfortunate and reduced to poverty through want of employment, should be treated as if they had done something wrong, and that the casual ward should be as hard as, and even harder than, the prison.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think that the object which the two right reverend Prelates who have addressed your Lordships have in view is one which would command the sympathy of all members of your Lordships' House; that is to say, that vagrancy should be dealt with by executive authorities in a wide geographical sphere of action. The right rev. Prelate who moved the Amendment said he was quite certain that the present Minister of Health would deal with such matters in a sympathetic and politic spirit, but he said that he had some fears lest in future years the matter might not meet with such satisfactory treatment as he anticipated under the present régime. The point is this, that vagrancy must be dealt with, whether by combined or single areas. I do not think that any such alteration as this Amendment effects would make any difference on that point, and I would draw your Lordships' attention to the difficulties which in the past have militated against dealing with vagrancy so fully as has been suggested by the right rev. Prelates. The principal difficulty has been this. Supposing you have a number of unions which wish to combine for dealing with the point, one union, by standing out, might upset the whole scheme and cripple the efforts of the other authorities who are willing to combine. Under the Bill that difficulty will be very largely removed, because you are going to do away with the separate unions and small authorities, and combine the whole administration of the Poor Law under one authority—namely, the county or the county borough.
There is also a second safeguard. The Minister has power under Clause 3 to require the constitution of a joint body, even against the will of one of the authorities, if, after holding a public inquiry, he is satisfied that that is the right course to pursue. So I venture to think the Amendment is unnecessary, because all the provisions which it enumerates are already in the Bill, and I do not think that this Amendment as drafted
24
would take the matter very much further. The effect of the Amendment depends upon the selection by somebody of a suitable area, and therefore the operations depend upon the view which may be taken as to what is a suitable area. I venture to think that the whole of the results which the right rev. Prelates have urged upon your Lordships will be achieved by the provisions of the Bill as it stands and by the power which Clause 3 gives to the Minister.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Do I understand that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill says that the object of the Amendment is really met by the Bill? Under the Amendment no local inquiry is required, and if this provision were inserted in the Bill it would be unnecessary to hold a local inquiry. All that would be necessary would be to see that there were certain areas that were suitable. That is a very simple matter, and would avoid the necessity for a local inquiry. I would suggest that under the Amendment it is not necessary to have a local inquiry at all; whereas, as the Bill stands, the object which the right rev. Prelate has in mind would never be attained unless there was a local inquiry.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I very much hesitate to differ from the noble and learned Marquess on a matter of construction, but I do not think that he is quite right in saying that the effect of the Amendment would be to do away with the necessity for a local inquiry if one of the two proposed combined councils should object. The Amendment is to come in before the proviso, and it proposes that the Minister shall make orders for covering suitable areas. But then the Bill goes on:—
"Provided that an Order shall not be made under this subsection except after a local inquiry, unless all the councils whose areas are to be so combined consent"
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I agree. That is quite right as it stands. That makes it necessary to hold a local inquiry. I did not gather that that was the object of the right rev. Prelate. I thought his real object was to get the combination and, as I understand, without the local inquiry, and I was addressing myself to that rather than the actual Amendment on the Paper.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK: I was anxious to make it clear that the Minister should not regard this as a matter which was occasional or exceptional, that the normal method of dealing with this problem was through uniting these various areas. That is the real point of the Amendment. As the clause stands, there is nothing to make it at all necessary to deal with this particular problem in this way. My contention is that this is a special problem, which cannot be solved locally, and therefore must be dealt with by a larger area. But I quite recognise that my drafting may be very defective, and I would gladly withdraw the Amendment now if I received a promise that it would be considered, at any rate, before the Report stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR; I had not understood that it was desired to do away with the necessity for a local inquiry. But, if that be so, the noble and learned Marquess agrees with me that that is not the effect of the Amendment as it stands. There is this difficulty. The Amendment—assuming that it was desired to do away with the local inquiry—provides that the Minister is to make orders for combining any two or more councils covering suitable areas. If a council regards itself as not properly married to its neighbour on the right, and as more suitably combined with its neighbour on the left, unless you have some means of letting it have its say, and having its ojcetion inquired into, you are giving to the Minister a very arbitrary power. In all other matters there is to be a local inquiry unless the bodies which are intended to be combined agree. I confess I do not think it would be desirable that in this one case the bodies which are to be combined should be combined, whether they agree or not, without any local inquiry as to whether the particular combination which the Minister desires is the one which is the most suitable.
I am afraid I cannot go further at present than to say that the Minister sympathises fully with the view which both the right rev. Prelates have urged, that the problem of vagrancy is one which ought to be dealt with on wide lines and over wide areas; but I cannot promise that we can make it mandatory in this Bill that the Minister shall make orders covering suitable areas.
26
There is power to do it. The Minister, I hope, will do it in suitable cases. After all, in the mandatory clause which is suggested it would still be left to the Minister to decide what were the suitable areas, and, therefore, you do not do very much more than you are doing already by the clause—namely, suggesting to the Minister that, where it is desirable, there should be a combination of functions, of which this is one which he would be most anxious sympathetically to consider.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: From the point of view of the persons whose benefit we are considering I should be very glad if I might say a word in favour of holding a local inquiry. The fact of the matter is that there are things going on in our country which the ordinary man knows very little about. When you hold an inquiry, when you bring the whole question before the public in the local Press, you do something which is very informing to the ordinary person. There is no doubt at all that the right rev. Prelate who brought this forward has put before us a matter of intense national interest. A great deal of it has been dealt with already. When I was much younger than I am now I spent some years as chairman of the casual ward of the City of London Union. Any of you who know the City of London at all—I lived in it for seventeen years—would wonder that such a place should need a casual ward at all, and I am bound to say that from many points of view, except that it was so sad, the whole thing was very ridiculous. You have done away with that; in the course of the development of this legislation it will disappear.
But, as the right rev. Prelate has told you, the situation is still very serious. As I came along the road from my house to Worcester this morning I must have met eighteen or twenty tramps. I suppose they were going from the Worcester house either to the Kidderminster house or the Shrewsbury house. But the majority of them were young men. It is too late to cry over spilt milk, but what we have done in the last few years by means of unemployment payments and the like is undoubtedly very largely responsible for that state of affairs. Well, now, here is a clause which, when I read it first, delighted my heart. I

27
thought that here was all that the right rev. Prelate wanted: it would be possible for the Minister to combine suitable areas; and it did not seem to me, thankful as I am to him for raising the subject, that the actual proposal that he brought before you was really necessary. But I am thankful indeed for this discussion, because you are dealing with one of the great problems of English life, which is not getting better and better, but steadily worse and worse. I merely rose to urge that you should not push aside the local inquiry. In my judgment it is a very useful and beneficial arrangement.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. Part VIII contains some general provisions—provisions as to borrowing—which might very conveniently be applied to the joint committee as constituted under this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("Part VII") and insert ("Parts VII and VIII").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD moved to insert as a new subsection:—
"(7) The Minister may by regulations authorise any such joint committee, subject to compliance with the regulations, to pay the reasonable expenses of any of their members or of their clerk incurred in attending any conference of such committees held for the purpose of discussing any matter which is connected with the duties which devolve upon them and any reasonable expenses incurred in purchasing reports of the proceedings of any such conference."
The noble Lord said: I placed this Amendment on the Paper in the interests of the particular joint committees dealing with vagrancy which, no doubt, will be set up under this clause. Members of the existing joint committees value very much the power which they have, whether as boards of guardians or not I am not sure, of holding conferences from time to time with their colleagues in other parts of the country, and they are very anxious that the joint committees who succeed them shall have the same facilities in doing this as they have themselves. Your Lordships have been hearing of the great importance of administering the law with regard to vagrancy over areas of con-
28
siderable size. I do not know how it is in the South of England generally, but certainly in a great deal of the North of England it is being dealt with with considerable success by joint committees in which the unions of, perhaps, two or more counties and county boroughs are combined.
It will, of course, conduce a great deal to the success of their work if the various joint committees in different parts of the country act more or less upon the same lines. For that purpose it is desirable that they should have means of conferring with one another, and I think that some such Amendment as I have here set down is necessary for the purpose. The county councils, in fact, take conference with one another through the County Councils Association. County boroughs again, are in standing conference with one another through the Association of Municipal Corporations. But under the Bill you will have, I dare say, joint committees which will join together areas of counties and areas of county boroughs, and I think I am right in saying that in order that conferences of joint committees of that character may take place it is necessary that some such provision as I have set down should be inserted in the Bill. Whether the subsection I propose is the best for its purpose or not I do not undertake to say, but I have followed as exactly as possible the wording of Section 145, I think it is, of the Poor Law Act, 1927, under which conferences of guardians are held at the present time. At any rate I hope that the Government may be able to look benevolently upon the purpose for which I have placed this Amendment on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Charnwood.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think the object which the noble Lord has in view will be attained by a somewhat different route. There is no doubt whatever, I think, that there will be every reason for the consultation of authorities on a basis covering the whole country or, at any rate, very large portions of it, especially among authorities who administer relief in connection with the question of vagrancy. Local authorities already have their own associations. There are the County Councils Association, the

29
Association of Municipal Corporations and so forth, and undoubtedly one may expect that on matters of common interest such as that which the noble Lord has brought before your Lordships joint discussion will be introduced by those associations. It seems desirable to systematise these joint discussions which may take place on all kinds of subjects and, on the whole, I think it is preferable that the existing associations of counties and municipal corporations should organise them. They have, of course, powers under which they can draw upon financial resources to further these conferences upon this or upon other subjects. In those circumstances, I think it is desirable to leave things as they are, to leave the matter, as I think we can with perfect confidence, in the hands of the various associations of local authorities, and to allow things to proceed in the manner in which they have done so far, feeling certain that these national conferences for which the noble Lord wishes will take place in the future when the authorities are constituted under the Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: I am not sure whether this matter might not come better under Clause 49 where I have an Amendment which has to some extent the same object. But I would rather like to know what is the financial resource to which the noble Earl referred that local authorities can draw upon for these expenses. Is it in the form of public money?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am speaking without the book, but I think it is contributions from the county councils and the constituent bodies, which they can give to the associations for expenses. I think it is that, but I am not quite sure.
EARL RUSSELL: Authorised contributions to a central body for expenses. That would cover it, and it would still come out of the public funds, which is rather the object of the proviso. But I do not quite understand from the noble Earl what possible harm this proviso can do. It will be observed that it only gives power to the Minister in proper cases and where he thinks it desirable to make a regulation to that effect. If you do not put it in I assume he will not have that power unless he gets it under Clause 123,
30
which may not survive criticism. I cannot understand what the real objection can be to putting this proviso in. It leaves it entirely in the Minister's discretion and it seems to me that it might be a reasonable and useful provision.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think the real reason is that it is desirable to systematise these matters as far as possible. There are already associations which function very well indeed, and it is the best sort of organisation to allow all these conferences and arrangements through the one channel and not to have different channels and set up ad hoc bodies. That has been the whole trend of local government during the last fifty years. You have done away with ad hoc bodies and set up special bodies to deal with everything of this kind. I am not really putting this very high. I think the suggestion of the noble Lord has merits in it; I am not denying that. But on the whole I think it is better to allow these things to take place through the constituted associations rather than through another body even though powers to the Minister to withhold or to give his consent, as the case may be, exist. I think it leads to a better organisation of local government.
EARL RUSSELL: I shall not disagree with the noble Earl about the advantage of this being done through a central body provided that it is perfectly clear that the central body has undoubted statutory or other power to make contributions to these associations.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: That is the case, as I have ascertained.
LORD CHARNWOOD: I do not want to be troublesome on this rather small point, but I am net quite sure that the noble Earl has altogether appreciated the point of my Amendment. He speaks of the valuable machinery now provided by the County Councils Association on the one hand, and the various organisations in which municipalities are represented on the other. My difficulty is that you are dealing in this Bill with bodies which fall neither into the one class nor the other, and they will not be constituent members of these joint committee—neither the County Councils Association nor the Municipal Corporations Association, nor, so far as I know, any existing body. The contemplated

31
joint committees, if I understand aright, will be joint committees in which county areas and county borough areas will be combined. They will be nobody's child so to speak. These conferences will not be the business of the County Councils Association or of the other associations to which I have referred, and I think it would be harmless, and might be even useful, if special provisions were made for what I submit would be impossible if the Bill remains as it is—special conferences between this special class of bodies and joint committees of county borough councils. I am not going to press the matter, but I hope that the noble Earl will consider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Administrative schemes.
4. The council of every county and county borough shall prepare, and within six months after the commencement of this Act submit to the Minister, a scheme (hereinafter referred to as an administrative scheme) of the administrative arrangements proposed to be made for discharging the functions transferred to the council under this Part of this Act:
Provided that the Minister may on the application of a council extend the time within which a scheme is to be submitted if he is satisfied that there is reasonable cause for such extension.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, after the first "county," to insert "in consultation with representatives of the districts comprised within the area and the council of every." The noble Earl said: This is quite a small Amendment, but I think it would be a useful one if it were adopted by His Majesty's Government. The object is that consultation between county councils and the various districts should take place at the earliest possible moment. I have three reasons for moving this Amendment. The first reason is that it is only natural, when the county councils are taking over the work which at present is done by these small authorities, that they should consult the authorities who have been carrying on the work, and get what advantage they can from their experience, before drawing up their scheme. Secondly, it is very desirable to get their co-operation and you are more likely to get it if they are consulted in the matter. Finally, His Majesty's Government realise that there is something to
32
be said in regard to this matter, because they did introduce in another place an Amendment dealing with it. Unfortunately it does not seem to me that the Amendment went quite far enough. That Amendment is now to be found in Clause 8, providing that the county council, as soon as they have made their scheme, shall at once publish a copy of it in the local newspapers. That does not go quite as far as I should like. I should like to secure, at the earliest possible moment, the co-operation of the county councils with these local authorities. In the end it may mean that the Ministry of Health may have a great deal less work to do. It is that which is in my mind in moving the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, after the first ("county") insert ("in consultation with representatives of the districts comprised within the area and the council of every").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Earl has suggested, this is not a point of first-class importance, and, probably, he will forgive me if I tell him the Government, as at present advised, prefer the Bill as it stands. The proposal is that before any scheme is put forward by the county councils they shall be under the obligation to consult with the representatives of the districts comprised within the area and the council of every area. No doubt in most cases consultation may take place with individuals representing the districts. We have to remember first of all that every one of them will have their own members on the county council, so that the county council is in touch with local requirements. Under Clause 119 the districts are under the obligation to give all such information as may be required. Under the Amendment to which the noble Earl called attention in Clause 8, which was made in another place, provision is made that the scheme shall be communicated at once to the different district councils as soon as the county council has prepared it.
The only small point between us is whether or not the county council must have a formal consultation with representatives of the districts and of the council of every district before they submit a scheme at all. We do not think it necessary to impose that obliga-

33
tion upon them, and unless necessary we do not think it desirable for this reason. When the scheme has been submitted and communicated representations have to be made to the Minister by every district. The Minister has to given full opportunity for those representations under Clause 8, subsection (2), and then there has to be consideration by the Minister, and no valid scheme can be prepared until the Minister has approved it. We have, unfortunately, not unlimited time in which to do all these different things. The 1st of April, 1930, is the date upon which this Bill comes into effective operation, and we think, if we impose this obligation, which would involve at any rate some form of election or selection of representatives of the districts, before the councils embark upon the preparation of a scheme, we should be adding an extra delay in the preparation of the scheme which might make it even more difficult than it is likely to be as it is for the scheme to he ready and approved within the statutory time.
We think the districts are amply protected, firstly, because their own members are on the county council; secondly, because they have to have the scheme communicated to them; and, thirdly, because the Minister has to consider their representations before he approves any scheme. Therefore we think it is sufficient to leave it to the county councils to ask the district if they desire any more information other than that which the local member is able to give and not to make it obligatory upon the council, before it even prepares a scheme, to have a consultation with representatives the exact selection of whom is left in some obscurity under the terms of the Amendment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said that this Amendment does leave in some obscurity with whom the consultation is to be made, but that does not touch the real part of the Amendment. Surely the reasons which have been given by the noble and learned Lord himself are reasons in favour of the Amendment. He says that the Minister must, under Clause 8, subsection (2), submit this scheme after it has been put forward, to these very people. Surely, for a simple working of the measure, it would
34
be infinitely better that the scheme should be submitted in the first instance to the people who are interested in it rather than have the representations of these people after the scheme has been submitted. The Amendment of my noble friend on these Benches might be modified so as to show what selection means, and then that would be a much better arrangement than that in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF READING THE MARQUESS OF READING moved to insert immediately before the proviso, "In so far as such scheme relates to hospitals the council shall take reasonable steps, to seek and to continue to secure full co-operation with every voluntary hospital within or serving the area of the council." The noble Marquess said: The Amendment which stands in my name is of very great importance to voluntary hospitals throughout the country. I am proposing it in their interests, and for the purpose of protecting them and of ensuring that there shall be full consultation with them before any action is taken that might impair in any degree their usefulness, as well as of ensuring that full effect will be given to what I understand is one of the main purposes of the Bill. There are three other Amendments in my name all dealing with the same subject, and I propose to address my-self to the subject matter of this Amendment in the hope that we may arrive at a conclusion which will not make it necessary to discuss the others.
I apprehend it is quite unnecessary in your Lordships' House, where so many of you are not only familiar with the work of voluntary hospitals but take an active part in their management and administration, to dilate upon the importance of voluntary hospitals and the system that has grown up in connection with those hospitals, and I shall receive the sympathy of your Lordships if I show that voluntary hospitals run the risk of being injured in some way if the Bill remains as it is at present. The whole purpose of the Amendment is to ensure co-operation with the voluntary hospitals and co-ordination of the various efforts so that there may be no overlapping of the work of, let us say, rate-supported hospitals and voluntary hospitals and that the voluntary hospitals may be consulted in order that the best

35
use may be made of existing institutions. I understand from the White Paper and from the whole tenor of the Bill that this is intended by the framers of the Bill and by the Minister responsible for it.
The words that I desire to insert are taken from the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, which was brought forward after this Bill had gone through all its stages in another place. The words are almost identical with those that appear in Clause 27 of the Scottish Bill. I am proposing that—
"In so far as such scheme relates to hospitals the council shall take reasonable steps to seek and to continue to secure full co-Operation with every voluntary hospital within or serving the area of the council."
I cannot believe that there is any intention of not giving effect to the view expressed in this Amendment. Indeed, I know perfectly well from that which took place in the other House and from the statements of the Minister of Health that he is in full sympathy with the idea that there should be co-operation with the voluntary hospitals, that there should be co-ordination of effort and that the voluntary hospitals should be consulted. The only point that has arisen, so far as I can understand from the discussion that has taken place already, is that an objection was raised to introducing a statutory provision. In a matter of such vast importance, affecting voluntary hospitals and the whole system under which they have developed, I feel that we should make quite clear what is the intention of the Bill. When I put down this Amendment I thought that I was not going counter to the views of the Minister of Health, but rather supporting him, and I am confirmed in that view by finding an Amendment that was put on the Paper to-day—at least I had not seen it before——
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It was put down this morning.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: This Amendment proposes to insert a clause which will ensure that the county councils shall make such arrangements as they think desirable for securing that the functions transferred to them shall be dealt with in consultation with some body in their area representing the voluntary hospitals. I should like to know whether it is proposed to introduce that provision.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I imagined that it would be. I gathered from the discussion that took place in the other House that the Minister would find it possible to insert a provision to meet this case. I think the Government are perfectly reasonable in taking this course and that the introduction of this provision will allay the apprehensions of those who are concerned with the voluntary hospitals. For my part, having taken some share and having been engaged in consultation with those who really care about the hospitals and work for them, I am merely anxious to ensure that this provision really meets the point.
There is one question that I should like to put to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I should like to ask him whether, when the proposed Amendment has been accepted and the Bill comes into effect and, in the ordinary course, a circular is issued to the councils by the Minister of Health, special care will be taken to draw their attention to this part of the Bill, and particularly to the new provision which is to be introduced. I ask that question because the clause as it stands is really not mandatory except in so far as it says that the councils may make such arrangements as they think desirable and that they are to consult a representative body. I want, if I may, and if the Government see no objection, to emphasise the point that the Ministry are strongly in favour of consultation and co-operation with the voluntary hospitals and that such coordination is their desire.
To give a simple instance, supposing that, under the functions transferred by this Bill, a council wished to start a new rate-supported hospital, I wish it to be emphasised that the Ministry desire that they should first take care by all proper means to ascertain from the voluntary hospital that it is unable to do the work better. If the voluntary hospital can do and is doing the work, and perhaps can do it better, assisted in some way by the council, then it is obviously better that the work of the voluntary hospital should be continued and that this institution should go on as before. It would be wrong to start a rate-supported hospital whose functions would overlap those of the voluntary hospital. This would injure the latter and impair

37
the value of the medical teaching and training, the nursing and medical research which are provided by the voluntary hospital. If the noble Earl could see his way to tell me that attention will be drawn to this point in the circular that will be issued and that it will be made plain that the Government intend that there shall be this co-operation and consultation, then I should be prepared to withdraw the Amendments that stand in my name and accept the provision that is to be introduced.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Reading.)
LORD DAWSON OF PENN LORD DAWSON OF PENN had given Notice to move to add to the clause:—
"A council in preparing a scheme under this section shall have regard to the desirability of consulting (a) any body existing in the area which is so constituted as to be representative of the voluntary hospitals in the area, and (b) any body existing in the area which is so constituted as to be representative of the duly qualified medical practitioners in the area, including those on the medial and surgical starts of any voluntary hospitals in the area."
The noble Lord said: I understand that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if we discuss all the Amendments connected with hospitals at the same time, and accordingly, with the permission of the Committee, I will speak to the Amendment of the noble and learned Marquess, because it is cognate to the subject of my Amendment. The noble Marquess has spoken in defence of the voluntary hospitals with his usual force. For my part I do not think that they require any defence, for their work is known and without them medical progress and the progress of nursing would not exist. If they need support it is because of the aid that they can bring to the new hospitals which must inevitably arise. I cannot contemplate that in the future there will be voluntary hospitals alone, for it seems to me inevitable that municipal hospitals must arise. It is true that these hospitals will arise very slowly, but this makes it all the more important that in their early beginnings they should have the advantage of consultation with the great voluntary hospitals that at present exist and should be brought into touch with their traditions. And if that is to occur it seems to me essential that those who do know about voluntary hospitals should
38
co-operate with those who have had no experience up to now and who have had little or nothing to do with curative medicine.
In times gone by the medical officer of health was the person and he is now the main person responsible to the council on questions of health. As long as these councils deal with preventive medicine that is a scheme which will work well enough. But the medical officer of health has no knowledge of curative medicine. He is not competent to deal with it. When, therefore, the councils are going to enter upon the founding of hospitals which will steadily grow year by year, it is surely reasonable to suppose that you want to bring to the aid of the present advisers of the councils, to bring to the aid of the medical officers of health, the assistance of those members of the medical profession who have spent their lives in dealing with the cure of disease. I will quote to your Lordships figures if you will allow me. The whole time medical officers of health in England and Wales number altogether 1,740 men, whereas the medical men in England and Wales who are in active practice number 30,000. Is it reasonable to suppose that this great and large work of hospital management into which these councils are going to enter can be undertaken by them without an organic nexus being formed between themselves and those whose lives have been spent in curative medicine?
That is the reason why I have put down an Amendment of my own which not only asks, as the noble and learned Marquess has asked, that when a council prepares a scheme under this clause it shall consult representatives of voluntary hospitals, who are very excellent people, very able in administration and very experienced in administration, but that, they shall also consult with the doctors of the district who are competent to deal with the curing of disease. For myself I cannot see what objection there can be to that course. It is quite as easy to find a coherent body of medical men in any district as it is to find a coherent body of those representing the management of voluntary hospitals. Experience of the Poor Law is little or no help in the administration of a curative hospital. The traditions of the Poor Law are quite different. The status of the medical

39
officers is different and they have not had the necessary experience, and therefore experience of the Poor Law may even be a disadvantage in founding a hospital if it is going to approximate to the quality of work of the voluntary hospitals. I would urge most strongly that it would be to the public advantage if, in some way, you can bring the great body of the medical profession in contact with this new work which is going to he undertaken by the councils. Only in that way do I see the progress that is required.
It is along the line of hospitals that I see progress in attainment of the health of the people, for in dealing with the health of the people it will be more and more necessary to have institutional provision. Improvement in the quality of panel practice, as distinct from quantity, will depend very largely on the amount of institutional provision. I do not deceive myself by thinking that voluntary hospitals alone are going to be any longer adequate for the medical needs of the country. It is for that reason above all others essential, as I think, that in their early beginnings these council hospitals should get the right tradition and should get the advantage of the long experience which the voluntary hospitals have gained. It is for that reason that I am most anxious that there should be some machinery provided, that it should not be left to the will of the local authority, and that there should be some opinion recorded in the Bill which will not depend upon whether this Minister of Health or that Minister of Health is in office. It should be recorded in the Bill so that, should there come into office some Minister in favour of an entirely nationalised or municipalised medical service for the country, it would make it more difficult for him, with an opinion of this kind recorded in the Bill, to transpose the medical policy of the country.
I urge upon His Majesty's Government that they should find a form of words if they do not agree with the words I have suggested. The words I have put upon the Paper are these:—
"A council in preparing a scheme under this section shall have regard to the desirability of consulting (a) any body existing in the area which is so constituted as to be representative of the voluntary hospitals in the area, and (b) any body
40
existing in the area which is so constituted as to be representative of the duly qualified medical practitioners in the area, including those on the medical and surgical staffs of any voluntary hospitals in the area."
I am not wedded to that form of words, and if the noble Earl opposite when he moves his new clause can find some way of effecting the object which I have in view—an object which, I may say, has the support and the wide support of my own profession—I shall be satisfied, because I am in no way wedded to the form but only to the substance.
LORD JOICEY: I think that the question we are now dealing with is one of the most important in the Bill. I doubt whether there is any matter which is looked upon with greater interest in the country than this matter of the hospitals. Owing to the enormous taxation the voluntary hospitals have had some difficulty in getting sufficient money to carry on their good work. I have no doubt that as time goes on it will be necessary for some contribution to be given to those hospitals if they are to continue in the form in which they exist at the present time. I think any one who has had anything to do with voluntary hospitals must realise that the services which they render through the medical profession and the nurses, are such as could not be so satisfactorily rendered by any hospital which was under the control of a local authority or the Government.
In the North of England the wage-earning class take the very greatest interest in their hospitals. Until the serious depression came two or three years ago they contributed to them most liberally. Tyneside, I believe, contributed through the workmen something like £30,000 to £40,000 a year, and representatives of the wage-earning classes were put upon the committees to deal with the various matters likely to come before them. It is not only on Tyneside but on the Wear and in different parts of the Counties of Durham and Northumberland that this great interest is taken. We have there a system of contributing to these hospitals. I may say that the workmen of the company with which I am connected are in the habit of contributing, by weekly sums, between £7,000 and £8,000 a year to the hospitals of Sunderland and the employers make an addition of 10 per cent. The result is that we have a most valuable body

41
of men who take an interest in these hospitals, which makes me thoroughly in sympathy with the speech delivered by Lord Dawson of Penn.
I hope that if the Amendment put forward by the noble Marquess will meet the views which Lord Dawson has stated the House will be disposed to accept it. I think that at the present moment it is most important that we should not go wrong on this question. I am one of those who believe that the voluntary hospitals are doing such immense good in the country that it would be a disastrous thing if their great services were not assisted generously, where necessary. I should certainly be very much opposed to any hospital which could be established either by a local authority or by a Government Department doing anything to interfere with the splendid work which the voluntary hospitals are doing.
LORD ATKIN: May I take this opportunity of asking the Minister in charge of the Bill whether he is quite satisfied with the Amendment which he has put down? I venture to suggest to tile House, merely as a matter of drafting, that it is in a somewhat restrieted form. The only obligation which will be imposed upon any council under the clause on the Paper is that they shall make arrangements for securing that the functions with respect to hospital accommodation will be discharged "after consultation with such body, if any, within the county … as they consider to represent the voluntary hospitals in the area." It would seem to follow that if there were no body within the county which could be considered to represent the voluntary hospitals, then no statutory obligation would be placed upon the county council at all, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that in a good many of the smaller counties it would be impossible to find such a body. No doubt there is a general hospital association, but that is not a body, as far as my information goes, which has county subcommittees, or which can be in any way considered to be representative of the special needs of any special county. It would seem to follow that in this restricted form of the proposed Amendment a county council might very well proceed without consulting with anybody.
42
In the county—a poor county I am sorry to say—with which I am familiar there are three or four, or perhaps four or five, small voluntary hospitals. They are cottage hospitals. I am quite sure they are not united. There is no general body which represents them, and I cannot help therefore preferring the words that the noble Marquess has taken from the Scottish Act, which provides, so far as hospitals are concerned, that the voluntary hospitals shall be represented, without imposing a condition that there must be some body which represents the hospitals as a whole. There seems to me, if I may suggest it, a very much stronger claim which has been made by Lord Dawson of Penn, and which is ignored by the Government Amendment. What Lord Dawson of Penn desires, as I understand, is that a question of the probable extension of the hospital system of this country should not be embarked upon without consultation with the medical profession as a whole. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that it is essential, if this new scheme is to take a real hold and serve a proper part in the future welfare of the country, that it should be done with the good will and co-operation of the medical profession.
It seems to me impossible to conceive a hospital system in which the poor are to have relief for their different ailments and needs, to which the poor will be entitled to come freely and the moderately poor en making payment if necessary—it seems to me impossible that such a scheme could be started, and be carried out satisfactorily at all, unless the medical profession, and the general practitioners, had at any rate some voice, through their proper representatives, in the organisation, or at any rate unless they had been consulted. I venture to suppose that these new municipal hospitals, if founded, will desire, as do the voluntary hospitals, to draw upon the good will and services of specialists and consultants and so forth, and surely it would be right, in proposing such a scheme, that the scheme should be devised in the first place after consultation with the medical profession as a whole. The medical profession is organised. The British Medical Association represents for all practical purposes the whole of the

43
medical profession, and has branches in every county, and there should be no difficulty in carrying out a scheme, whatever form it may take, in consultation with the medical authorities.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: The noble Earl in charge of the Bill is willing, I understand, to substitute the words of his Amendment for those of the noble Marquess opposite. All I wish to say, after some experience of voluntary hospitals, is that we are extremely anxious to co-operate with the proposals in the Bill. We have no fear of competition. What we are anxious about is that if any new hospital is started it should not overlap and do the same work as the voluntary hospitals. We do not want money to be wasted in carrying out work which may be done by a hospital set up by the county council across the road. We expect and hope that they will strengthen our weakness, and we hope that we shall be able to help them do their work well. That can only be done, as the Minister for Health said in another place, by consultation not only in drawing up your scheme but in the proper way of carrying it out.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I would like à propos of what Lord Atkin said just now, to make an appeal to the noble Earl to take into consideration in this connection not the type of great urban institution with which Lord Knutsford is so honourably associated, but rather the small cottage hospitals, and hospitals of that type, which are doing invaluable work in many parts of the country today, sometimes under considerable financial stress, but at the same time not merely serving the local requirements in the matter of disease, but also to a large extent assisting the counties in their own administrative work. I happen myself to be not only on the executive committee of the county infirmary, but also the chairman of a hospital of this character in a rural district., and it is only two years age that we were invited by the medical officer of the County of Gloucester to undertake on the premises of our relatively small hospital the work of a clinic to examine school children for various defects of the nose and throat and eyes and similar small ailments, and for their treatment on the premises of our hospital.
44
We put in hand an extension scheme in order to meet these requirements, and I cannot help thinking that if the Government look to what is described as a "body" as the medium of co-ordination between the county and the hospital interests, such a small hospital as that which I represent would be left out of representation on such a body, and that, therefore, the words which the noble Marquess has suggested would be infinitely more apposite to meet the case of the hospital which I have in mind, which is at present doing county administrative work with, I am hound to say, a certain amount of undesirable detachment between the executive of the hospital and the medical staff of the county which has asked us to undertake this obligation. I hope that the noble Marquess's Amendment will receive due consideration on that footing, if on no other, that a so-called" body "does not meet the case of a small rural hospital of the kind that I have described.
LORD JESSEL: The clause seems to me a very nebulous sort of clause, and I do not understand, for instance in London, what would be the proper authority. Would it be King George's Hospital Fund, or what? should also like to know whether the Government are going to adopt the view so eloquently put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Dawson of Penn, who pleaded for some representation of all the medical practitioners in the country, that is, that the British Medical Association would have some say in the matter. I hope that the Government will take into consideration the very strong feeling there is on both sides of the House in this matter, and see that the medical profession as well as some definite body of voluntary hospitals, should have representation.
LORD GORELL: It seems to me that there are three points involved in this discussion. I understand that it is the purpose of the Government to move a clause which they have printed on the Paper, and it would appear that that goes very far to meet the case as urged on behalf of the great urban hospitals, for which the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, spoke, but that it does not meet the position of the small cottage hospitals. One would like the noble Earl to say how far it may be

45
possible to meet the very reasonable objections which have been made on their behalf. The Amendment to be moved on behalf of the Government does not in any way touch the last point referred to in the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Dawson of Penn—namely, the taking into consultation of the representatives of the management of voluntary hospitals and also the representatives of the general practitioners. I hope, in view of the speeches made from all parts of the House, that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that it will be possible for him to meet that last point to some degree.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: When I expressed my satisfaction with the proposals, as I understood them, and with the answer which the noble Earl gave, I was not dealing with the second part of Lord Dawson's Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I quite understood.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: In regard to that second part, I would support the view of Lord Dawson, but I did not think we were discussing it at that time. May I ask the noble Earl whether he will consider between now and a later stage, changing these words in the clause which he says he will move later "as they consider to represent the voluntary hospitals in the area." This clause has not been on the Paper until to-day. It is very difficult to consider it. The more I look at these words, the more unhappy I am about them. I suggest some such words as "after consultation with such body as represents the voluntary hospitals in the area."
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendment moved by the noble Marquess has led to a very interesting and informative discussion of the whole of this Bill as it affects the voluntary hospitals in the country. I think that the method which noble Lords have followed in discussing it all together has been a very convenient one indeed. If I may take the first point raised by the noble Marquess, I mentioned on the Second Reading that it was the desire of the Government to encourage as much as possible the co-operation between local authorities and hospitals, which has had such good results in the past, and from which so much may be expected in the future.
46
I should like to assure the noble Marquess that the object with which the Government and my right hon. friend are mainly concerned is to make the best use of the existing institutions. It has not been from want of sympathy with those objects that the Government have found some difficulty in framing a clause to meet the wishes of noble Lords.
As the noble Marquess said, it was on the question of making statutory provision to give effect to the suggestions that the difficulty cropped up. It has been sought in certain quarters to make use of the analogy of Clause 7 (3), which says that county councils should consider the appointment of members of existing Poor Law authorities on guardians committees. If the hospitals had been organised in the same way as the Poor Law authorities are to-day—that is to say the guardians, the unions—and were statutory bodies defined in law, perhaps this analogy might have been of assistance. But that is not the case. We all know what is meant by a voluntary hospital, but there is no precise definition of such an institution. I remember—and by noble friend Lord Clwyd will remember it, too—that when t he Voluntary Hospitals Commission was instituted, the first thing we had to do was to devise a definition of voluntary hospital and a very difficult thing it was. It was rendered more easy because it was done for a special purpose—namely, the distribution of a Government Fund to certain institutions which were badly in want of money. The definition was arrived at on that occasion, and it worked fairly well, but I do not think it could be used at the present moment, because it did not include such institutions, for instance, as mental hospitals: in the course of the administration of the Fund various other border-line institutions cropped up, and I do not think it would have been possible to use that definition as a statutory one.
Considering that point it seemed that the only way of meeting the wishes of noble Lords was to draft the clause in as wide terms as possible, making it flexible and, therefore, adaptable to every area. It is to be remembered, of course, that the areas differ very largely in administration and in amount, and they differ altogether in regard to their hospitals and their hospital provision. So that we propose in the Amendment which I

47
shall lay before your Lordships later, but which I shall venture to deal with now, following the excellent example of Lord Dawson of Penn, that county and county borough councils themselves be the judges of the bodies which may be represented on the voluntary hospitals in their areas. We propose that they may make arrangements for consulting them.
The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, asked me if it would be possible to emphasise this fact in a circular or by some other means from the Ministry of Health. I am very glad to be able to meet him in that respect. My right hon. friend has authorised me to say that he will use such means as he properly can to bring, by circular or otherwise, to the notice of local authorities the provisions of the new clause that I have put down, and point out to them the desirability of the fullest co-operation with the voluntary hospitals. Under the provisions of the clause which I hope to introduce to your Lordships later, it will be open to the councils of boroughs and counties to enter into consultation with either the local voluntary hospital committees where they are functioning or where they may be resuscitated for the purpose, or with the descendants of those committees—because they have developed in some places, notably in county boroughs and to a very large extent will become hospital councils in some county boroughs—or they will be able to utilise the committees of the British Hospitals Association as they exist at the present time, or as I believe they are shortly to be altered and put upon a committee basis. It will be open, of course, to the local authority to make use of those means.
We have had a speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, who asked—and my noble friend Lord Bledisloe said the same thing—what was going to happen about the smaller cottage hospitals; how would they be represented? Take the voluntary hospitals committees. Where they function they consist of representatives of the local authorities, both county and county borough, in the area, of the medical profession, both general practitioners and consultants, of the voluntary hospitals, both of the larger type like infirmaries, and of the cottage hospitals which were referred to by Lord Bledisloe and Lord Atkin. Sup-
48
Posing use is made of the British Hospitals Association Committees, any hospital has only to join the British Hospitals Association, a branch of which exists in each area, and its views will be available for the local authorities through that particular channel.
I have now to mention the very important point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dawson. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, said that he dealt only with the point in his Amendment; he did not deal with the second point of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, so I propose to deal with that at this moment, with your Lordships' permission. The noble Lord, Lord Dawson, has informed me that he proposes to move an Amendment to the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper dealing with this particular question. I think he accepts the Amendment which I have put down as meeting his views regarding the first part of his own Amendment, but he has other suggestions to offer your Lordships regarding the second part. The words of the Amendment which he has handed to me are—
"and (b) any body existing in the area which is so constituted as to be representative of the duly qualified medical practitioners on the medical and surgical staffs of the voluntary hospitals in the area."
In his very eloquent and able speech the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, said that in order to make this consultation between the hospitals function properly, not only must you consult with those experienced in the management of voluntary hospitals but also there should be an "organic nexus," I think those are his words, between the medical profession in the area and the local authorities who are calling the bodies into consultation.
In order to meet that I am afraid I should find it difficult to accept the Amendment which the noble Lord has put on the Paper. But he does not hold himself to those words. He is ready to accept any other form of words which the Government may put forward and which would give effect to the ideas which he has placed before your Lordships. I cannot propose anything at the moment because obviously we have not had very much time in which to deal with the matter, but I shall hope on the Report stage to be able to add to the clause which I have put down, if that is

49
accepted by your Lordships, words which will provide that some of those who are to be consulted, who shall be referred to by the county councils or the county borough councils, shall be representatives of the medical profession in the district. I hope those two together will make a clause which will be acceptable to those of your Lordships who are so deeply interested in and so cognisant of all matters connected with hospitals and their work, and will secure, what we all desire to secure, the close co-operation and consultation with voluntary hospitals in the different districts.
I have one or two words to add. Firstly, on the point which was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin. There is, or was, a local voluntary hospitals committee in each county. That may not be functioning now. It may be resuscitated or, as I said just now, the work may be done through the British Hospitals Association. As regards the County of Merioneth that was dealt with by the local voluntary hospitals committees in a group of councils for the whole of North Wales. I do not know whether it is functioning at the moment but doubtless it was a very efficient committee as the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, I think will agree. If it was asked to function again I think it would do so to the particular satisfaction of the noble and learned Lord. London is, of course, different from other parts of the country. I should have suggested King Edward's Fund which was the local voluntary hospitals committee for London, as suggested by the late Lord Cave. It was a useful arrangement. I do not know whether that would be the most suitable body. That brings me to the desirability of leaving it open to the county council to choose the particular body which will best represent the voluntary hospitals in the particular district owing to the great variation all over the country in the arrangements regarding the voluntary hospitals. I do not want to delay your Lordships any longer. I think those were the only points. I hope that the clause which I shall be able to move on the Report stage will meet all views which have been heard from every part of your Lordships' House.
EARL RUSSELL: I only want to add one word to the discussion. I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and
50
the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, who both said that they were not wedded to any particular form of words. I think it will be sufficiently clear to your Lordships that the Committee is determined that this matter shall be settled in a satisfactory manner, and I hope that the noble Earl will consult with those two noble Lords and will succeed in producing a clause. If Clause 7 is not reached to night I cannot see why he should not produce the Amendment during the Committee stage to-morrow and let us deal with it at once.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I will try. I do not know how far your Lordships will get to-night and it may require a little consideration. I should not like to hurry it.
EARL RUSSELL: I appreciate that. I am sure it is quite clear to the noble Earl that we do not profess to have the knowledge of these matters that the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, has, but I think it is clear to the noble Earl that it is the general sense of the House that this matter must be settled in a way which will be regarded as satisfactory by those who know most about it. I have no doubt he will take that warning.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: We are all equally anxious to have the matter settled in the manner the noble Earl has indicated.
LORD HANWORTH: Before your Lordships pass away from this matter may I support the plea of Lord Atkin and the noble Marquess [the Marquess of Reading]? The Amendment which is on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl, the Earl of Onslow, appears to me to be drawn in what I might call epistolary language. It may be quite true in writing a letter to say that we had a debate tonight "for securing that the functions transferred to the county council under this Part of this Act with respect to the provision of hospital accommodation will be discharged after consultation with such body" and so on. That might be all very well in a letter, but I agree with the noble Marquess that it really carries out nothing. It is drawn so loosely that it is quite ineffective. May I suggest that something of this sort is what the House really wants? I am not prepared to be precise as to words that would meet Lord Dawson's point, but it is almost im-

51
possible to leave it in that loose way—"will be discharged after consultation." That seems to introduce merely a note of futurity as to consultation; they seem to be entitled to show they have discharged their functions if they merely have that consultation in the future.
Something of this sort is really necessary:
"The council of every county and county borough shall"—
and then you ought to introduce the latter portion of the clause—
"after consultation with such body within the county or county borough as represents the voluntary hospitals in the area, and anybody constituted to be representative of the duly qualified medical practitioners in the area, make such arrangements as they think desirable."
Without some condition such as that put in at the early stage of the clause it is impossible to carry out what the intention of the House is. I merely call attention to this in the hope that the noble Earl will take a little trouble to have this recast. It certainly is very imperfect in its present form.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I propose to withdraw the Amendment, and all the Amendments to this part of the Bill which stand in my name. I do hope that the noble Earl will take the opportunity for consideration as to what language would adequately meet what the House desires.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: I would like to follow the example of the noble Marquess and not move my Amendment now, but I take that course in the hope that we may get something more out of the Government than good intentions. I do not want them on the one hand to dissemble to the medical profession and on the other to kick them downstairs. The more I look at the Amendment suggested by the Government the more it seems to fall under that head. It really gives us very little. I do hope that in recasting it the noble Earl will fall in with the excellent suggestion of the noble and learned Lord opposite [Lord Hanworth] and give us something clear and definite, which will bring in contact those who are going to administer and know the work—the people who really know something about it.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Provisions as to alternative powers of giving assistance.
5.—(1) A council in preparing an administrative scheme shall have regard to the desirability of securing that, as soon as circumstances permit, all assistance which can lawfully be provided otherwise than by way of poor relief shall be so provided, and accordingly any such scheme may declare that any assistance which could, after the appointed day, be provided either by way of poor relief or by virtue of any of the following Acts as amended by any subsequent enactment including this Act (that is to say)—

(a) The Public Health Act, 1875;

(b) The Local Government Act, 1888;

(c) The Mental Deficiency Act, 1913;

(d) The Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 1918;

(e) The Blind Persons Act, 1920;

(f) The Public Health (Tuberculosis) Act, 1921;

(g) The Education Act, 1921;

shall be provided exclusively by virtue of the appropriate Act and not by way of poor relief, but nothing in this subsection or in any scheme shall diminish or otherwise affect the duty of a council under section thirty-four of the Poor Law Act, 1927, to provide relief for the poor.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (g), to insert "(h) or any other enactment mentioned in the scheme." The noble Earl said: This is a very small Amendment and one I venture to suggest of a very reasonable character. Indeed it is of so reasonable a character that I think If the government not accept it they will convict themselves of unreasonableness. If your Lordships will notice what Clause 5 deals with, in the first part you will see that it deals with preparing an administrative scheme and that all assistance which can legally be provided otherwise than by way of poor relief shall be so provided. That is to say, the object is to touch all possible sources for dealing with unemployment and poor relief. That is the object of the clause and for that purpose it may be provided either by way of poor relief or by virtue of any of certain Acts. Then come seven Acts which are set out. I propose to insert at the end these words: "or any other enactment mentioned in the scheme." It is possible that there may be some Local Act or even some General Act which has been overlooked that might help to provide for an object such as this, which is providing

53
for some of the cases of poor relief. The addition which I am proposing is clearly quite permissive, because it has to be mentioned in the scheme; it is not like the first seven Acts which have to be included. These have to be mentioned in the scheme; and the scheme is subject to the approval of the Minister. I confess I cannot see any sound reason why the Government should not accept the Amendment. I have such confidence in their reason that I hope they will. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 17, at end insert ("(h) or any other enactment mentioned in the scheme").—(Earl Russell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl said that if we did not accept his Amendment we should convict ourselves of being unreasonable. Whether he really was moving this Amendment or one on another clause at the moment I am not sure. The reason why we do not ask the House to accept his Amendment is one the noble Earl would appreciate and one that is not quite so unreasonable as he thought. As far as we know the seven Acts set out here are the only enactments which could be referred to except one, and the one which is deliberately omitted is the Lunacy Act. Your Lordships are aware that under the Lunacy Act a public lunacy authority can only deal with lunatics after certification, but in Poor Law institutions under an earlier section—I think 24 or 25—of the Lunacy Act, a large number of persons infirm in mind but not certified as lunatics are in Poor Law institutions, and if these persons are to be brought within the purview of the lunacy authority they must have them certified, which, I think, would probably be undesirable, or else the powers of the lunacy authority might be extended so as to deal with persons without certification. That is a very controversial alternative.
The noble Earl himself was a distinguished member, if he will allow me to say so, of a very important Royal Commission which has recently dealt with the subject of the lunacy law. It is hoped that before long legislation may be brought forward dealing with the whole question of the lunacy law and based upon the proposals of the Royal Commission. The Government have deliberately thought that it was much more
54
desirable that we should not include the Lunacy Act in these specific enactments referred to in Clause 5, for the reasons I have given, and that the question of taking the lunacy cases out of the Poor Law altogether, which I think is the recommendation of the Royal Commission, should be dealt with when we deal with the Lunacy Acts and when we deal with the rather comprehensive legislation which it is hoped to introduce based upon that Royal Commission's Report. I hope the noble Earl will think I am not quite so unreasonable as he did when he got up to move the Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: With everything the noble and learned Lord has said I entirely agree, but it does not seem to me to have anything to do with my Amendment. I am most unwilling to alter the Lunacy Act until we have that great reform which I welcomed in the observations I made in the Second Reading, and which we are promised in the White Paper will at last be introduced at an early stage. I am most unwilling to interfere at the present time, but it may surely be possible that there is some Local Act or some small Act somewhere in some particular district of the country which might be of use, and what conceivable harm can it do for the Government to give themselves an opportunity, if there is such an Act, of putting it in a scheme? That is all I suggest. If the Government are determined to say that is an unreasonable thing to ask and a reasonable thing to refuse I must leave it at that.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Public assistance committee.
6.—(1) An administrative scheme shall provide for the constitution of a committee of the council (hereinafter referred to as the Public Assistance Committee), and may provide—

(a) for the inclusion therein of persons, some of whom shall be women, who are not members of the council; so, however, that of the whole number of members of the committee two-thirds at least shall be members of the council;

(b) that any other committee of the council shall act as the Public Assistance Committee, or that the members for the time being of any other committee, with such additional members as may be provided by the scheme, shall so act.

(2) Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing section, all matters relating to the exercise by the council of the functions transferred to them under this Part of this Act, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money, shall stand referred to the Public Assistance Committee, and the council before exercising any such functions shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the Public Assistance Committee with respect to the matter in question.
(3) The scheme may provide for the delegation by the council to the Public Assistance Committee, with or without any restrictions or conditions as they think fit, of any of the functions so transferred, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money, and may provide for the discharge, on behalf of and subject to the general direction and control of the Public Assistance Committee, of any of the functions of that committee by any of the other committees of the council.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out all words in the clause after "An administrative scheme shall provide for the" and to insert "delegation of the functions so transferred to appropriate committees of the council, with or without any restrictions or conditions as the council think fit, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money." The noble Earl said: I am afraid that this Amendment is less likely to commend itself to noble Lords opposite. We are inclined to think it better that such delegation to committees as the county councils desire to make should be left entirely free. No doubt it is desirable that there should be a certain uniformity, and the schemes that are presented and introduced will, no doubt, provide for that uniformity, but there seems no particular reason for directing a council in its scheme to set up a committee of a particular kind and constituted in a particular manner. It is surely much better to give these local authorities, who, after all, are elected bodies and therefore have the confidence of the ratepayers in their area, the power to delegate their functions to appropriate committees and to put upon those committees any restrictions or conditions as to exercising their function, subject, of course, to not giving them, the right to raise a rate or to borrow money. I do not quite know why the Government are wedded to the particular form which this clause takes, but we on this Bench think that it would be better to give the councils a reasonably free hand and not to require them to
56
constitute a Public Assistance Committee or any other committee by name, but to leave them to arrange the matter in whatever way they think best. That is the reason why we propose this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 15, leave out from the first ("the") to the end of the clause and insert the said new words.—(Earl Russell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment proposes that the powers of the guardians which have been transferred under the earlier part of the Bill shall be distributed among appropriate committees instead of being transferred to one committee called the Public Assistance Committee. This does not seem to the Government either a useful or, indeed, a practicable proposal. There are being transferred a whole block of functions which at present belong to the boards of guardians. The noble Earl proposes that in future these shall be split up among a whole lot of different committees of the councils. This would be a very complicated business indeed and, as we think, it would be much less desirable than the provision which we propose to enact, that a committee of the council shall be constituted for the express purpose of dealing with the functions of the guardians, with power to add from outside such members as may be necessary, up to the maximum of one-third, who will bring local knowledge and expert experience to bear upon these problems.
It seems to us that the plan that we have set out, that there should first of all be a Public Assistance Committee which takes over the functions other than financial of the guardians, and then that there should be a guardians committee which will do the actual local administration of relief after consultation with the Public Assistance Committee, is the practical and sensible means of dealing with the problem of the administration of these functions of the guardians by the council. We feel that it would be much less practical and sensible to try to split up the existing functions among a whole lot of committees and to delegate different bits of them to different existing committees of the council. Further, there would apparently be no provision, such as we have at present, for the co-option upon the Public Assistance Committee of members

57
from outside who can bring their expert qualifications to bear. If you are simply going to delegate to committees of the council, then presumably the committees would consist of members of the council, each of them would have particular functions delegated to them and they would lack the advantage, to which we attach importance, of having co-opted members brought in from outside.
LORD PARMOOR: This is a question of administration, and we have to decide whether the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Russell would lead to a better system of administration than the Bill as it stands. There are really two points involved. Is it better to leave to the councils upon whom these new functions have been laid for the first time the power of distributing their business amongst committees of the councils in whatever way they think fit, in order that the business may be carried out in the best manner? That is the proposal made by the noble Earl. There is a further point which, I think, is rather important. The noble Earl's proposal, as I understand it, is that these committees should not consist partly of co-opted members, but only of representative members. I do feel, in reference to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that there may be difficulty in maintaining the committees merely from the representative members, and I understand that this is the reason why the system of co-option is suggested. It is, of course, inconsistent with ordinary representative principles and it creates a new phase in local government. I do not think, however, that it is worth while for the noble Earl to press his Amendment, having regard to what has been said by the Lord Chancellor. After all, this is only an administrative question, upon which there may be two opinions, and I gather from the Lord Chancellor that he, at any rate, prefers the system which is already in the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HEMPHILL LORD HEMPHILL: moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "may provide (a) for the inclusion therein" and to insert "shall provide (a) for the election thereto." The noble Lord said: The Amendment that stands in my name and those that follow on Clauses 6 and 7 deal
58
with the question of direct representation. The Party to which I have the honour to belong has always been of the opinion that persons who deal with public funds or public functions should be directly elected, and this part of the Bill is, if I may say so, particularly important. Latterly the opinion has grown up that there are super-men and super-women—people who are so constituted that they do not care to waste time by fighting an election and who prefer to be selected. Indeed, we may at some time or other have a super-House of Lords. There will be a super-Lord who is selected by somebody or other who will be superior to all other Lords. This same principle seems to me to be extending. To my humble mind the one thing that appeals is the difficulty that the people who select these super-men and super-Lords and so on are not themselves super-men. I think it is very advisable to consult what a very eminent statesman—who I regret is not present this evening—referred to at one time as the Man in the Street. After all it is the Man in the Street who controls all public bodies and it is the Man in the Street who, a few months hence, will say what is going to happen to the Government of this country.
I venture to think that it is very desirable that these Public Assistance Committees should have on them only directly-elected representatives. As it is they are to have the members of the county councils, but members of the county councils, as they are constituted at the present time, are not entirely satisfactory from the public point of view, because I doubt very much whether members of the county councils represent the public to a great extent. Most of the county councils consist of members elected with very little competition. You find in the County of Hereford, for instance, that with 52 members only, four seats were contested. It is unnecessary to weary your Lordships with a long list, but in Northampton, where there are 40 members of the county council, only five seats were contested. Therefore you cannot say that they are very representative. They are not very representative because the only person who can be a member of a county council is a person who has some money and a motor car to get about in and also is able to afford the time. Therefore, not merely the

59
poorer classes but people like solicitors and barristers and middle-class people cannot afford the time. Now you are throwing on the shoulders of these members of the county councils enormous additional work, and who are you going to get to do it? You must have some provision to make it easy for them. Therefore it is extremely important that there should be local representation on these Public Assistance Committees, and the best way of getting that is to have direct election. At this late hour 1 do not propose to detain your Lordships further. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("may provide (a) for the inclusion therein") and insert ("shall provide (a) for the election thereto").—(Lord Hemphill.)
LORD PARMOOR: So far as I understand the Amendment in its present form it really amounts to substituting the word "shall" for the word "may." The difference between election and co-option I will not deal with, but in my view the word ought to be "shall" and not "may." To that extent I support the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hemphill. The word "may" leaves the matter entirely vague, whereas "shall" determines it definitely and that is the right thing to do.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will try to imitate the brevity of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. The effect of the scheme in the Bill is to provide for a Public Assistance Committee which may contain up to one-third of co-opted members, added members from the outside. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment wants to substitute for these co-opted members elected members, and later on to have them elected by proportional representation. It is a strange recommendation of a proposal that you should increase the number of elections to say that the elections we have already do not give you representative people; to say that county councils were non-representative because it was difficult to get people to stand, and that therefore you should add to the number of elections and elect even the people who are put on the Public Assistance Committees by sonic method of public election. Of course that would not alter the non-representative character of the county councils. It
60
would not alter the character of the two-thirds who must be members of the county council. It would only involve another special election to find the other one-third of the committee. Our view is that that would be the greatest possible mistake.
You have the county council, which, by this Bill if it becomes law, will be responsible for the financial control and administration of these great functions. You have a committee to which that county council is to delegate its duties other than finance. On that committee naturally the county council must have a majority, which in the Bill is put at two-thirds. Then it is thought that it may be desirable to have on that committee also some people who, to use the noble Lord's expression, have not time to waste on fighting elections to get on, but who would be willing to give their services and experience if invited to do so and thereby strengthen the Public Assistance Committee and add to the weight to be attached to its decision and to the efficiency with which the committee will do its work. To wipe that out and substitute some sort of bastard guardians' election under which members shall be elected who cannot control finance, does seem a retrograde step which would ensure a much less efficient committee and certainly would not be in the interest of democratic government.
EARL BUXTON: I think the great fault of this Bill is that it is less democratic and that it diminishes direct representation of those who are entrusted with these matters. We have, at the present moment, in the boards of guardians, directly elected, many thousands of persons, men and women, taking a direct interest in local government especially in regard to the Poor Law and matters of that description. They are all to be wiped away and absorbed in the county councils or county borough councils. Direct representation will, therefore, disappear. That is apparently not a democratic proposal nor is it a democratic basis for this Bill. There is a great deal of force in what my noble friend behind me said, that on the boards of guardians you have people who are directly elected and directly interested in these particular matters. You now propose to have them transferred to the county councils or county boroughs, in which the direct

61
representation is only nominal, and with regard to which the voters, for reasons which have been explained, have little opportunity of expressing their views or of electing those whom they would desire to elect.
I think this Amendment will enable those who are willing to serve to have an opportunity of doing so. When you come to the election of a county council there is very seldom an election at all. It is the natural state of things under present conditions, under which the work of the county council can only be carried on by those who have money and leisure. The result is that the work of the county councils falls more and more into the hands of one class, and also, I am afraid, of one political complexion. I attach no
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "some," and to insert "one-third at least." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is simply to increase the chances of securing the services on the Public Assistance Com-
blame to the county councils, but that is the result. If you can provide that a section of these committees should be directly elected, instead of being nominated by the county councils, I think it will be a good thing from a democratic point of view, and will secure that these committees shall not be nominated by the county councils and consist of person of the same political complexion. The county councils will also obtain the services of an additional and useful element, which at present they lack.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64: Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Stanhope, E.

Deramore, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Desborough, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Dynevor, L.

Northumberland, D.

Chaplin, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wellington, D.

Churchill, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Elibank, V.

Faringdon, L.

Bath, M.

Falmouth, V.

Forester, L.

Exeter, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Hood, V.

Hampton, L.

Airlie, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore. More.)

Hanworth, L.

Ancaster, E.

Jessel, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Knutsford, V.

Monson, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Sidmouth, V.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

Southwark, L. Bp.

Fortescue. E.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Queenborough, L.

Iveagh, E.

Riddell, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Sempill, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Bledisloe, L.

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

Mount Edgecumbe, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Onlslow, E.

Strachie,L.

Plymouth, E.

Cushendun, L.

Swaythling, L.

Sandwich, E.

Darling, L.

Templemore, L.

spencer, E.

Dawson of Penn, L.

Teynham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L.

Olivier, L.

Buxton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Parmoor, L.

De La Warr, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Russell, E.

Hemphill, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Thomson, L.

Allendale, V. [Teller.]

mittees of the women who are at present acting as guardians. I hope that that is an object which will secure more benevolent attention from the Government than some of those which we have dealt with to-night. The Poor Law Commission of 1909, so far as boards of guardians generally were concerned, were not able to praise them very highly,

63
but I believe both the Majority and Minority Reports did pay a special tribute to the work of the women guardians, and the Minister of Health in another place has, I believe, expressed the hope that the services of existing guardians will continue to be largely available. Of the 20,000 guardians at present working I believe only 2,500 are women, and I am quite sure your Lordships know the extraordinarily valuable services which women at present perform on the boards of guardians. I apprehend very seriously that under this Bill as it stands there will be very great difficulty in these women being able to continue to do the work which they have been usefully carrying out, and the object of this Amendment, is simply to increase the chances of those services being available. There is nothing compulsory about it, because the Bill states that the administrative scheme "may" provide for the inclusion therein of persons, some of whom shall be women. The Amendment is extremely mild; it simply provides for "one-third" instead of "some."
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("some") and insert ("one-third at least").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am very sorry, but I am afraid I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept this Amendment, because the effect of it would be to tie the hands of councils in an undesirable way. The extent of the representation of women on any committee depends largely upon the number of women who may already be on that committee in the capacity of councillors. There may be quite a large number of women already acting as elected councillors. There is another objection. If you put in this "one-third" you insist that one-third shall be women, and only one-third, though it may be desirable to nominate more.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The words of the Amendment are "one-third at least."
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. That objection, therefore, would not apply. It would be possible under his Amendment to appoint more than one-third. Still, for
64
the reasons I mentioned, I think it would be undesirable to tie the hands of the council. They are bound under the Bill to appoint a certain number of women, and it should be left to them in their schemes to determine the number.
LORD PARMOOR: I regret to hear the noble Earl's answer, because he mentioned on the Second Reading that there were nearly 2,500 women guardians.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: 2,319.
Loan PARMOOR: 2,319 women, who were admittedly doing admirable work in Poor Law relief on the boards of guardians at the present time. I think it is fanciful to suggest that putting in a figure like one-third as a minimum would tend to decrease the number of women who would be likely to give their services in the future on these new bodies. I am disappointed by the noble Earl's answer. I think the Amendment is an extremely reasonable one, and, in accordance with past history, there ought to be a guarantee that at least as many women as are mentioned in this Amendment should be on the new body. I suppose, however, we have to accept the noble Earl's answer under the conditions.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK: I agree with the noble Lord. I fear that, as things stand, it will mean that a large number of women who are now serving admirably on boards of guardians will not have the opportunity of serving on the new committees. I wish very much that the Government would re-consider their decision.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Among the 2,319 women guardians there is a considerable number who are already councilors.
LORD ASKWITH: I am inclined to support the Amendment. There is a good deal of feeling that the women have not sufficient chance under this Bill, and that many devoted workers who have practically given their lives to assistance in this matter have little or no chance of continuing the work they have done, or of training others. Moreover, if your Lordships carried the next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of

65
Lord Thomson, whereby the number of persons who are county councillors would be five-sixths instead of two-thirds of the committee, the chances of women would become still less, because the majority of county councillors are men. To ask that one-third of these committees should be women is only reasonable and fair.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Plymouth, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Spencer, E.

Stanhope, E.

Cushendun, L.

Northumberland, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Deramore, T.

Wellington, D.

Desborounh, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Bath, M.

Allendale, V.

Faringdon, L.

Exeter, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Forester, L.

Chaplin, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Airlie, E.

Churchill, V.

Jessel, L.

Ancaster, E.

Elibank, V.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Cranbrook, E.

Falmouth, V.

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

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuech and Queensberry.) Iveagh, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hutchinson, V.(E. Donoughmore.)

Stanmore, L.

Iveagh, E.

Strachie, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Knutsford, V.

Swaythling, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Templemore, L.

Teynham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Askwith, L.[Teller.]

Olivier, L.

Buxton, E.

Balfour of of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

Parmoor, L.

De La Warr, E.

Riddell, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Clwyd, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Arnold, L.

Hemphill, L.

Thomson, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "two-thirds" and insert "five-sixths" The-noble Lord said: It is evident that there is a widely held opinion in favour of having the elected element in these Public Assistance Committees as strong as possible. As these committees, so far as I can gather from the Bill, do not travel around the county but remain rooted to one spot, there should be no difficulty in manning them with county councillors. Therefore, there seems no particular point in having the co-opted members as strong as one-third. I agree that some co-opted members are necessary, but why so high a proportion as one-third? It is to meet the general view that the elected element ought to be strong that I placed this modest Amendment on the Paper to increase that element from two-thirds to five-sixths on the Public Assistance Committees. I beg to move.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: am afraid I am unable to withdraw the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the word "some" shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Non-Contents, 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 21, leave out ("two-thirds") and insert ("five-sixths").—(Lord Thomson.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I venture to hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment because it will hamper the use of co-option considerably. The proposal which we have made is that there should be two-thirds in order to give a clear majority of county councillors. So long as that exists, and so long as there is a clear majority of the elected element, surely one should give as much opportunity as possible for securing the services of those who are not able to stand for election and become county councillors and yet are ready to give their assistance to these committees. I venture to hope, therefore, that your Lordships will support the principle which exists in the Bill and will not accept the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 6 agreed to.
House resumed: To be again in Committee on the Bill to-morrow.

BRIDGES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
House in Committtee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Application of Act.
(2) The powers conferred by this Act on a highway authority shall be exercisable—
(b) in the case of a bridge in an urban district, if the road at each end of the bridge is vested in the county council, and in the case of a bridge in a rural district, by the council of the county in which the bridge is situate;
Where a bridge is situate partly in one area and partly in another, any council may exercise the powers of a highway authority in relation to the bridge if the council could have exercised those powers in relation thereto had the bridge been situate wholly within the area for which the council acts.
For the purposes of this subsection "bridge" includes the road carried thereby and the approaches thereto.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (b), to insert—
"(c) In the case of a bridge in an urban district, if the road at each end of the bridge is vested in the council of the urban district by virtue of a claim made by that council under subsection (2) of section eleven of the Local Government Act, 1888, or under any enactment amending that Act, either by the council of the county in which the bridge is situate or by the council of the urban district."
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to cover a point which it seems to me is not covered by the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have spoken to the noble Lord about the
68
Amendment which is one we cannot accept. The principle is accepted and the point is already covered in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the subsection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Power to make orders as to reconstruction, maintenance, etc., of bridges.
3.—(1) If the owner of a bridge, or a highway authority, considers that the bridge is or may be, by reason of its construction, position, or state of repair, dangerous or unsuitable for the requirements of road traffic as then existing or the anticipated development thereof, or that the responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of the road carried by the bridge or the approaches thereto should for any reason be transferred from the owner to a highway authority, the owner or authority may apply to the Minister for an order to provide for the reconstruction or improvement or maintenance of the bridge or road carried thereby or the approaches thereto.
(2) The Minister on any such application may make an order, and may by the order—

(b) determine and direct by Whom the bridge and the read carried thereby and the approaches thereto shall be subsequently maintained;

(c) in the case of a swing bridge, determine and direct by whom and in what manner it shall be operated;

(e) modify, so far as he considers necessary to give effect to the order, any statutory provisions applicable to a bridge other than the provisions of any general Act; so, however, that, in the case of a bridge crossing a railway or a canal, he shall not without the consent of the owner of the bridge modify any provisions relating to the headway below that bridge and, in the case of a swing bridge, he shall not modify any provisions relating to precedence of traffic;

(3) Before making any order under this section with respect to a bridge crossing tidal lands, the Minister shall consult with the Board of Trade, and any order made by him with respect to such bridge shall include such provisions as the Board of Trade may deem necessary.
Loan STRACHIE Loan STRACHIE moved to insert at the end of subsection (1) "or for the transfer of the responsibility for the improvement and maintenance of such

69
road". The noble Lord said: I formally move this to get an assurance from the noble Marquess.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This Amendment is also covered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OP LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OP LONDONDERRY moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert "Subject to the provisions of this Act." The noble Marquess said: This is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, at the beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this Act").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
Login STRACHIE Login STRACHIE moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to leave out "subsequently". The noble Lord said: I understand the noble Marquess will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("subsequently").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE MARQUESS or LONDONDERRY: This is a drafting Amendment and I accept it.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON had an Amendment on the Paper to add a proviso to paragraph (c) of subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I understand die noble Marquess in charge of the Bill is about to move the next Amendment on the Paper and as my Amendment becomes unnecessary I do not move it.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved to add to paragraph (c) of subsection (2):—
"so, however, that in the case of a swing bridge crossing a canal, he shall not direct that the bridge shall be operated otherwise than by the owner of the canal unless he is satisfied, after considering any representations made to him by the owner, that the facilities for traffic on the canal will not be prejudiced thereby."
The noble Marquess said: I am moving this Amendment in substitution of the one which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, had upon the Paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: With regard to this Amendment I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the word "canal" ought not to be amplified to include other water courses, because to my knowledge as Chairman of the Land Drainage Royal Commission, there are quite a considerable number of water courses that are employed for drainage purposes that are every bit as wide as some of the canals and carrying at least as much water. Although I am not conscious that any of them are spanned by swing bridges at present, it is quite possible they may be hereafter. Perhaps the noble Marquess will consider, before the next stage, whether the words "or other water courses" ought to be added so as to cover such a drainage water course employed for land drainage purposes as well as a canal.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I hardly think that what the noble Lord suggests is necessary, but I will consider the matter before the next stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 43, leave out ("bridge") and insert ("railway or canal").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Lord Banbury of Southam has handed in an Amendment in manuscript at this point, but he does not seem to be present.
VISCOUNT CHURCHILL VISCOUNT CHURCHILL moved, in subsection (2) (e), to leave out "below" and insert "of." The noble Viscount said: I understand the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill has no objection to this and it is agreed to by all the parties. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, leave out ("below") and insert ("of").—(Viscount Churchill.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This Amendment and the next one in the name of the noble Viscount we are able to accept. They are designed to preserve on the reconstruction of a bridge any existing statutory provisions governing the width of the canal.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, after ("bridge") insert ("or the width of the canal").—(Viscount Churchill.)
LORD BLEDISLOE LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after subsection (3), to insert as a new subsection:—
"(4) Before making an order under this section for the reconstruction or improvement of a bridge, the Minister shall take into consideration the desirability of special facilities or accommodation being provided for carrying across the bridge the mains, pipes, cables or wires of public utility undertakings:
Provided that in any case where the provision of facilities or accommodation greater than those available in the bridge before reconstruction or improvement would increase the cost of the reconstruction or improvement, he shall have regard to the amount of any contribution towards such cost which any public utility undertaking may be willing to make."
The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment speaks for itself. It is to provide that in the case of these improvements or reconstructions there shall be special facilities for carrying across bridges the mains, pipes, cables or wires of public utility undertakings. These are the mains by which gas, electricity, water and other public utility requisites are carried. I understand that the noble Marquess is prepared to accept this Amendment, so I will not elaborate the argument.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Bledisloe.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord has stated the case very clearly. This is in accordance with good engineering practice and the Government are willing to accept the Amendment.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Provisions as to bridges of railway and canal companies.
4.—(1) An order made under this Act with respect to a bridge owned by a railway company which carries a road over a railway of the company, or carries both a road and a railway of the company, shall not. without the consent of the company, either require works for the reconstruction or improvement of the bridge to be carried out otherwise than by the company, or direct
72
the structure of the bridge to be maintained otherwise than by the company, or transfer the property in the structure of the bridge to a highway authority, or, in the case of a swing bridge, direct the bridge to be operated otherwise than by the company.
(2) In the case of a bridge owned by a railway company or a canal company and crossing a railway or canal of the company, nothing in any order made under this Act shall empower any highway authority, without the consent of the company, to alter or reconstruct that bridge in such a manner as to necessitate any alteration in the level, or reduction in the width, of the railway or canal, or to reduce the headway below the bridge as existing at the date of the order.
(4) Nothing in this Act or in any order made thereunder shall be construed as authorising the stoppage of traffic on any canal without the consent of the owner thereof, and any highway authority carrying out any works authorised by this Act or by any order made thereunder shall take such steps as may be necessary to prevent, so far as practicable, any interference with traffic on that canal.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved, in subsection (1), after the third "company," to insert" or an order made under this Act with respect to a bridge owned by a dock authority." The noble Lord said: The Amendments in my name to this clause and all subsequent clauses are designed for the purpose of affording dock and harbour authorities the same measure of protection in regard to bridges as is given to canal and railway companies. I believe the Government are prepared to accept the Amendments; therefore I content myself with moving.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, after ("company") insert ("or an order made under this Act with respect to a bridge owned by a dock authority").—(Lord Clwyd.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: This Amendment is the first of a series intended to provide that dock undertakings shall have similar protection and safeguards as those which are afforded to railway and canal companies.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 37, after ("company") insert ("or dock authority").—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), before the second "bridge," to insert "structure of the." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment

73
I may say it is generally agreed that, for obvious reasons, the reconstruction and improvement of a railway bridge should be carried out by the railway company unless they consent to the contrary. Perhaps the noble Marquess will explain something that I do not understand—namely, what the difficulties are in this case.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, after the second ("the") insert ("structure of the").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Amendment the noble Lord has just moved is unnecessary because the initial reconstruction or improvement of the bridge mentioned in the clause can only relate to the structure. The references to the "structure of the bridge" in the latter part of the subsection are necessary in order to differentiate between the future maintenance of the structure itself, which cannot be transferred to the highway authority without the company's consent, and the future maintenance of the roadway, which can be so transferred without such consent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The next four Amendments are all on the point raised by Lord Clwyd.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 39, after ("company") insert ("or dock authority").
Page 4, line 41, after ("company") insert ("or dock authority").
Page 4, line 44, after ("company") insert ("or dock authority").—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved, in subsection (2), after the third "company", to insert "or owned by a dock authority and crossing any railway, lock, passage or other work of the dock authority." The noble Lord said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, after ("company") to insert the said words.—(Lord Clwyd.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "empower any highway authority." The noble Marquess said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("empower any highway authority").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, after ("company") insert or deck authority"). (Lord Clwyd.)
Amendment moved—
Page 5, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("to alter or reconstruct that bridge") and insert ("require the bridge to be altered or reconstructed").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, after canal") insert ("or lock, passage, or other work").—(Lord Clwyd.)
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, Lave out ("below") and insert ("of").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 22, after ("thereunder") insert ("with respect to a bridge crossing a canal").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to add to subsection (4):
"Provided that such consent as aforesaid shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any dispute between the owner and the highway authority in this respect shall be determined by the Minister."
The noble Lord said: I move this on behalf of the County Councils Association because they are not satisfied. They think there ought to be some provision in case of dispute between the owner and the highway authority, as in other cases, for the Minister to have the power to intervene. If the noble Marquess assures me that this is unnecessary and that the authorities are properly protected, I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: It is only reasonable that the consent of the canal company should be required to the execution of works in such a manner as to cause complete stoppage of traffic. It is very unlikely that even the

75
refusal of consent would render the execution of the work impossible or would even add seriously to its cost. The span of these bridges would naturally always be small, and the engineering difficulties in the way of carrying out the work without interrupting the traffic on the canal would not be great. The noble Lord will understand that the position taken up by the canal companies is that they will do every-thing to promote the operation of this Bill provided that steps are taken to avoid unreasonable interference with the canal traffic.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Apportionment of Costs]:
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 15, after ("canal") insert ("or any railway lock passage or other work of a dock authority")
Page 6, line 16, after ("canal") insert ("or by the clock authority")
Page 6, line 18, after ("canal" insert ("or work of the clock authority")
Page 6, line 19, after ("company") insert ("or authority")
Page 6, line 40, after ("canal") insert ("or lock or passage")
Page 7, line 4, after ("canal") insert ("or lock or passage")
Page 7, line 5, after ("canal") insert ("or lock or passage").—(Lord Clwyd.)
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 11 agreed to.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following new clause:—
For protection of Weaver Navigation Trustees.
". An order made under this Act with respect to a bridge owned by the Weaver Navigating Trustees shall not without the consent of the trustees either require any reconstruction or improvement of the bridge to be carried out otherwise than by the trustees or direct the structure of the bridge to be maintained otherwise than by the trustees or transfer the property in the structure of the bridge to a highway authority or in the case of a swing bridge require the bridge to be operated otherwise than by the trustees."
The noble Lord said: The new clause that I desire to insert a designed, as your Lordships will see, for the pro-
76
tection of the Weaver Navigation Trust. This is an old public trust, founded in 1721 and administered by trustees representing the toll-payers, nominees of the county council and representatives of two urban districts that are served by the canal. There are 38 trustees in all, of whom 14 are elected by the toll-payers; 12 by the Cheshire County Council from among members of their own body; 10 are life members of the old trust and will within a year or two he nominated by the county council, not from their own body but from the ratepayers of the County of Cheshire, while the remaining 2 are elected by the district councils of Winsford and Northwich. Your Lordships should know that, even at present, 8 out of the 10 to whom I have referred are nominated by the county council, and ultimately 22 out of the 38 trustees will be directly nominated by that council. The Trust is very different in character from the ordinary canal company or undertaking in this country.
Those who are familiar with the salt district of Cheshire will know that the River Weaver flows through that district and that the navigation starts at the upper end of the river at the town of Winsford, passing clown the salt belt and emerging into the sea at Frodsham. This river was canalised and made navigable by the Trust over 200 years ago, and is operated by them. They claim that what is advantageous for the ordinary canal companies of the country is gravely disadvantageous to themselves, and that they are entitled to separate consideration in view of their exceptional conditions. I will state these exceptional conditions. In the first place, the ordinary canal company deals with barges carrying up to twenty or thirty tons freight. The River Weaver is navigated by oceangoing vessels up to 500 tons, operated under their own power and carrying masts which are used as derricks. The traffic of the river is quite different from inland traffic on ordinary canals. The Weaver, being a river, is subject to floods in rainy weather and, further, as is not found as a rule in ordinary canals, there is sometimes a strong current running down. A further point is that the River Weaver, running through the salt area, is subject to subsidences and, if the control of the bridges and approaches is taken away from the Trust, there is a

77
danger that navigation of the river may be impeded by those subsidences and the trustees may find it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the navigation of that river. As I have said, the navigation is carried on by vessels up to 500 tons. The amount of tonnage carried on the navigable river in the last year was nearly 800,000 tons, and the tolls collected in the last year were over £70,000. It will thus he seen that the Trust is a very considerable body.
I think I may claim that there is no fear of antagonism between the Trust and the County Council of Cheshire, inasmuch as the council is represented by a majority on the Trust. Accordingly any anxiety which the Government may feel regarding possible conflict with the county council may, I think, be safely set on one side, since the County Council is the predominant partner in this concern. The effect of the clause that I propose will be to retain to the existing trustees the control of their bridges and approaches and of the navigation, and thus to retain control of the precedence of traffic upon the river, a point to which the trustees attach very considerable importance. As I said, this river may sometimes come down in flood and it would be extremely difficult to manage the river traffic with heavy boats up to 500 tons burden coming down stream. It is essential in the view of the trustees that they should have power to give precedence, in the case of swing bridges, to allow these heavy boats to pass through without endangering the very important works, swing bridges and so on, which they have over the river. The bridges are in every case of the most substantial kind. There are none of those humpbacked bridges for which this Bill is, I understand, primarily designed, and none of the little steep approaches and narrow passages that are found on other canals. The majority are swing bridges operated by extremely competent engineers, and where they are not swing bridges they are lofty bridges with a minimum headway of sixty feet.
I think at this late hour I have perhaps said enough to convince the noble Marquess that there is a considerable ease to be made for the Weaver Navigating Trustees and if I have said enough I do not wish to spoil a good case by overburdening him with facts. I trust that he will be able to accept
78
the Amendment or, if he, is unable to do that at once, that he will give some assurance that the matter will be carefully considered by the Department concerned between now and the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord has made out a very strong case, if I may say so, on behalf of the Weaver Navigating Trustees. I think he is aware that the Bill has been drafted after prolonged negotiations with the representatives of local authorities and of the Railway Association and of the Canal Association. I feel sure that he will realise the difficulties in introducing special exemptions in favour of individual undertakings. Nevertheless, after what the noble Lord has said I will give him the assurance that this matter will be very carefully considered between now and the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Definitions]:
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 21, at end insert ("clock authority' means any harbour or dock undertaking established by Act of Parliament").—(Lord Clwyd.)
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved to insert "'trolley vehicle' has the same meaning as in the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927." The noble Marquess said: I move this Amendment because it is necessary to have some precise definition of a trolley vehicle to avoid ambiguity.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 8, at end insert ("trolley vehicle' has the same meaning as in the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
Amendments moved—
Page10, line 12, leave out ("the expression 'owner' in relation to") and insert ("any expression referring to the owner of")
Page10, line 13, leave out include") and insert ("shall ho construed as including a reference to").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND LAND BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
PARLIAMENT SQUARE AND OTHER STREETS BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).
FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

OVERSEAS TRADE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at quarter past eight o'clock.

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

Mount Vernon Hospital [H.L.],

Romford Gas [H.L.].

Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
Imperial Continental Gas Association.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the.
Winchester Water and Gas Bill ought to be dispensed with:
Read, and agreed to.

SHEFFIELD GAS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
First Report from the Joint Committee on Private Bills Consolidation to be printed.
IMPERIAL CONTINENTAL GAS ASSOCIATION.
  PETITION FOR BILL.
  Examiners certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
NEWPORT (SALOP) URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  METHODIST CHURCH UNION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
    Reports from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.