Sitting of 6 March 1929

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL,
  "to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Cardiff, Gateshead, Leeds, New-castle-upon-Tyne, and Uxbridge," presented by Mr. Chamberlain; read the First time; and to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

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 of 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: The House will remember with regard to this Motion, standing in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Transport, that when it appeared first on the Paper, through a printer's error, it was difficult to form a reasoned opinion upon it. On its appearance on the Paper yesterday, I asked that it should be adjourned, so that I might give it further consideration. I have now given it most careful consideration, and I have come to the conclusion that it raises questions dealing with general policy which ought not to be brought up at the time of Private Business.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  PERSIA (TREATY RELATIONS).
  Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a Perso-German treaty of friendship, to which are appended a domiciliary agreement, and a trade, customs, and shipping agreement, was signed in Teheran on 17th February; what is the position of Great Britain as regards her relations with Persia in these respects; and, seeing that the above-mentioned treaty may place this country at a disadvantage by comparison with Germany, will he initiate negotiations to establish similar relations with Persia?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Existing treaty relations between this country and Persia are based on the principle of reciprocal most-favoured-nation treatment, and there is no reason to apprehend that British subjects in Persia and their trade will be placed at a disadvantage by comparison with German nationals. Negotiations for a new general treaty of commerce and navigation have, however, already been initiated with the Persian Government.

  AFGHANISTAN (KABUL EVACUATIONS).
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all British subjects have now been evacuated from Kabul; and can he give the total number of evacuations to date, stating the nationalities of the persons so evacuated?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir. A number of British subjects from India elected to remain in Kabul. The following persons of various nationalities were evacuated from Kabul by the Royal Air Force between the 23rd December, 1928, and the 25th February, 1929:

  357

  British subjects

  369

  Afghans

  36

  French

  23

  Germans

  57

  Italians

  19

  Persians

  25

  Rumanians

  1

  Swiss

  1

  Syrians

  5

  Turks

  49

  United States citizens

  1

  making a total of 586, of whom some 300 were women and children.
  Mr. DAY: Are there any other subjects of other nationalities who elected to remain, or have all been evacuated?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There are, I think, subjects of other nations still there.

  BRITISH SUBJECTS ABROAD.
  Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state, as regards European or Asiatic countries, respectively, the number of British subjects resident therein who are either foreign correspondents or young persons occupying supernumerary posts for limited periods in order to obtain experience and some knowledge of the country's language, or persons taking up work in the foreign branches of British firms?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I regret that it is not possible to give the desired information. There are no available statistics from which it could be compiled.
  Mr. WILSON: Seeing that we have information here, in the Ministry of Labour, as far as foreign nationals are concerned, would it not be an advantage if similar information could be obtained as to British subjects abroad?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We have a reciprocal arrangement with France, and, I think, we are making such an arrangement with one other country. The difficulty is that persons going abroad are not compelled to register, so that it is quite impossible to state what they are all doing.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (MINORITIES).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the protection hitherto afforded by the League of Nations to minorities protected by the Treaties with Poland, Rumania, Hungary, etc., whether he will take steps to see that His Majesty's Government initiates a more satisfactory system, especially for minorities which have no national representation at present at Geneva?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the 27th February last.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman press for a reversion to the old tradition of this country in regard to the protection of minorities, so honour ably associated with the names of Canning, Palmerston and Gladstone?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That raises a big question of policy which cannot be debated now.
  Mr. RILEY: Has the Cabinet had recently under consideration our responsibility, along with other Powers, towards minorities under these treaties; and what is our policy in the matter?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: We have carried out all our responsibilites under the minority treaties. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, the whole subject is now under the consideration of the Council of the League of Nations, and it is being discussed, I think, at the meeting to-day. I hope hon. Members will await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will probably make.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are giving the impression of handing over this traditional duty of ours to the new German Republic?

  RUSSIAN OIL (BRITISH INTERESTS).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that negotiations for the sale of Russian oil have been in progress between the Russia Naphtha Syndicate, a Soviet Government organisation, and the oil group of which the Anglo-Persian

  359
  Oil Company is a member; and whether any steps have been taken to safeguard the rights of British subjects who claim compensation for the loss of their oil interests in Russia?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have no information in regard to these matters beyond what has appeared in the Press.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I understand that the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a commercial matter with which we pledged ourselves not to interfere.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor was far more jealous of British rights in this matter?
  Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is not this corner in oil a perfect example of rationalisation in industry?

  ROYAL NAVY.

    BOYS IN TRAINING, PORTSMOUTH (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what allowance is made to boys under training in His Majesty's Ship "Fishguard," stationed at Portsmouth, in the matter of their travelling expenses to and from their homes in Devonport; and whether, seeing that the boys in training are unable out of their pay to defray the travelling expenses themselves and it therefore falls on the parents, he can arrange for free travelling facilities to be given to these boys when travelling home on leave?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): When proceeding on leave, boys over 16 years of age are granted return tickets by the railway companies at the rate of one and a-third of the ordinary single fare and those under 16 years of age at half that rate, that is to say, at two-thirds of a single full fare. I regret that I am unable to entertain the suggestion that these reduced fares should be borne by public funds.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What is the reason for the discrimination between boys above 16 and those under 16?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I should imagine that it is due to the difference in the size of the pay of the two classes of boys.

    WAR VESSELS (MEASUREMENT).
    Sir CYRIL COBBasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the standard displacement method of measuring war vessels is applicable to pre-War vessels; and whether, as this will have the result of considerably reducing the recorded tonnage of pre-War ships of all nations, it is the intention of the Admiralty, for the purpose of comparison with the ships of other nations, to adopt this new method of measurement for all the vessels enumerated in the Navy List?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Washington standard displacement method of measuring war vessels can be made applicable to all types. The Washington Treaty of 1922, however, contained a provision that "vessels now completed shall retain their present ratings of displacement tonnage in accordance with their national system of measurement." In the Navy List, therefore, standard displacement is only shown against vessels completed since the Washington Treaty.

    SUBMARINE SALVAGE (EXPERIMENTS).
    Lord FERMOYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the successful efforts in America in raising promptly an obsolete submarine which was sunk for the purpose of an experiment; and whether he will include in the naval programme for this year the sinking of a similar obsolete vessel and its raising by the employment of the American methods or by any other which may be deemed to be of equal utility and value?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part arrangements have been made for experiments in lifting a submarine to be carried out as soon as the special fittings to be tried are ready.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, KIDSGROVE (INVESTIGATIONS).
    Mr. BROMFIELDasked the Minister of Labour whether the officials of the Employment Exchange at Kidsgrove, Staffordshire, are acting in accordance with his instructions, or with the instructions of his Department, in sending officials of the Employment Exchange to the homes of persons on the unemployment benefit fund to ascertain whether such persons are at home and, if not at home, asking other persons in the house where the person on the fund is, and generally putting them through a severe cross-examination in respect to the person on the fund; and whether the officials at the Employment Exchange are acting under instructions in striking off the fund a person who is at home when they call on him?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): In accordance with instructions visits are sometimes made to the homes of applicants for benefit, in order to verify that the conditions for receiving benefit are satisfied. Local officials do not themselves disallow claims: all decisions to disallow are given by the insurance officers in London.
    Mr. BROMFIELD: Will the hon. Gentleman inform me whether the officials of this Exchange are acting under the Ministry's instructions in striking off the fund any person whom they find at home?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I could not hear the last part of the hon. Member's question. With regard to the part which I did hear, as I have already said, visits are made sometimes in accordance with instructions issued by the Ministry.
    Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that these men are interrogated by the officials of the Exchange; and, when there are courts of referees and all the rest of it, why should it be necessary to have a spy system in addition?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Really, the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. These so-called investigations are often quite as much in the interests of the men themselves as for any other purpose. It
    362
    is very often the case that charges are made which require investigation in the interests of the men.
    Mr. BROMFIELD: Are we to understand that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Employment Exchange officials can make inquiry at a person's home, and, if they find the person not at home, can strike such a person off the fund?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Certainly not. The fact that a man is not at home may show that he is seeking work and may be very much in his interest.
    Mr. BROMFIELD: Is it the case that, on the Ministry's instructions, if a man is found at home he can be struck off by the Exchange officials?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Certainly not. A man may be at home for a very good reason. He may be ill, for instance, in which case it is to his interest that the fact should be known.
    Mr. BROMFIELD rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a Debate.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Mr. Speaker, this is an awfully important matter.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have the same question put over and over again and exactly the same answer given.
    Mr. BROMFIELD: This question is important to the persons in this position, and I am just asking the hon. Gentleman if he will say whether the officials at this Employment Exchange are under the instructions of the Ministry in deciding that a man must be struck off the Fund if they find him at home?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I have answered that already, and I might say, in addition, that it does not rest with the officials as to whether or not a man is struck off.
    Mr. BROMFIELD rose—
    HON. MEMBERS: Order!
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is the first time the hon. Member has put a question for months, and he cannot get a chance!
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot take up the time of the House like this. If he is dissatisfied, he must put down another question on the Paper.

    DEPENDANTS' BENEFIT.
    Mr. OLIVERasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the hardship inflicted on unemployed widowers who are deprived of dependant benefit where their daughters are acting as housekeepers, he will consider an early amendment to Section 4, Sub-section 2 (b), of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The limits within which dependants' benefit ought to be granted under an unemployment insurance scheme, under which persons with dependants pay the same contributions as those without dependants, were carefully considered by the Blanesburgh Committee. The existing law gives effect to the unanimous recommendations of the Committee, and I do not think a case has been made out for reopening the question.
    Mr. OLIVER: The Blanesburgh Committee is not Parliament, and I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary whether, in view of the experience which has been gained since this Act was put upon the Statute Book, it is not time the amendment which I now suggest was made?
    Mr. BETTERTON: It is true that the Blanesburgh Committee is not Parliament, but Parliament legislated on the lines of the unanimous recommendation of that Committee, and this is one of those recommendations.
    Mr. OLIVER: Will the hon. Gentleman mind answering the question on the Paper?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That I have already done.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Minister tell us how it is they are always sheltering themselves behind the Blanesburgh Report?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Gentleman not stop sheltering behind this very stupid and foolish Report?
    Mr. OLIVERasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that unemployed men have been deprived of the dependant allowance in respect of their wives in consequence of the latter earning, in some instances, only a few
    364
    pence per week; and whether he will consider the advisability of amending the law in this regard?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The statutory provision, which has been in force since dependants' benefit was firs; instituted in 1921, is that such benefit is not payable in respect of a wife who is in regular wage-earning employment or is engaged in any occupation ordinarily carried on for profit. Any question arising with regard to it is decided by the statutory authorities. In accordance with the decisions of the umpire, employment averaging less than five days a month or less than eight hours a week is not, for this purpose, regarded as regular wage-earning employment. It may occasionally happen that dependants' benefit is disallowed when the wages or profit earned is small, but I am afraid I do not see how legislation to remedy this could be framed without creating other difficulties.
    Mr. OLIVER: In view of one or two recent cases where an unemployed man has been deprived of his wife's allowance in consequence of the wife earning as little as 3d. per week, is it not time the Amendment was made?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am perfectly well aware that the point put by the hon. Member is really a substantial one, but all I can say is that it has been considered both by the Ministry and by the Blanesburgh Committee, and we can see no way of avoiding these difficulties without creating other and worse difficulties.
    Mr. SHINWELL: But if eight hours per week are the minimum, why is it that women have been struck off and refused benefit because they have undertaken two days' charing a week, in the course of which they have worked for only four hours?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I have not that particular case in mind, but the construction of the Act is, of course, subject to the umpire's decision, and I can send to the hon. Member the umpire's decision bearing on that point.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does it not follow, then, that the Act is operating mere harshly towards women than towards men?
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons who have been transferred from the depressed areas to the Borough of Southwark and obtained employment through the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The number of men and boys who have been transferred direct from the depressed areas into employment in the area of the Borough Employment Exchange under the Industrial Transference Scheme is 64.
    Mr. DAY: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that among the thousands of unemployed in Southwark there are sufficient men and boys to fill these jobs without going to other areas to find them?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I cannot think that this small number would have any appreciable effect. It amounts to less than one in 1,000 of the insured population.
    Mr. DAY: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that even 64 people in Southwark could be found work at the Employment Exchanges without bringing in these men from outside areas?
    Mr. BETTERTON: That is really a question of policy, which we have often discussed in debate, and I cannot go into it in answer to a question.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour how many persons have been found employment at the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange for a period of two weeks or longer during the six months ended 31st January, 1929?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. Thomas Ryan, 11, Forge Hammer Row, Cwmbran, near Newport, Mon., who has had his unemployment benefit stopped on the ground that he refused employment at the British Industries Fair; whether he is aware that this man was sent to London, under the transference scheme,
    366
    and sent to various places by the Shepherds Bush Exchange, including a hotel and the British Industries Fair, where he was informed by the manager that ex-service men were preferred and that no work was available for him, and that he was eventually sent back to his home by the Exchange; and whether he will have inquiries made into the matter?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I have not yet received the necessary report regarding this case, but I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Will the hon. Gentleman grant me an interview to discuss this matter, if his reply is not satisfactory to me?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I will certainly do that. I will communicate with the hon. Member, whom I shall be happy to see, the moment I have the information he desires.

    TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he has yet come to any decision as to the continuance or otherwise of what is known as the transition period; if so, what is the nature of his decision; and, if not, can he state when a decision is likely to be arrived at?
    Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement on this subject before the House rises for Easter.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that really that will be cutting it tremendously fine, in view of the anxiety that is felt in many quarters, and cannot the Minister see his way to make the statement at an earlier date than that?
    Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friend is fully mindful of the importance of making a statement on this matter, which is an important one, as soon as possible, and he has undertaken to do that.
    Mr. SHINWELL: What is the special information for which the right hon. Gentleman is waiting to enable him to come to a decision?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The information which is necessary before we legislate or if we legislate—I do not know whether or

    367
    not we shall—on a very important matter.
    Mr. SHINWELL: But what is the information?
    Mr. LAWSON: Will this statement be made in time to give an opportunity for discussion?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, certainly.

    TRANSFERRED WORKERS.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Minister of Labour if any cases have been brought to his notice of men having been discharged in certain districts and their places taken at reduced rates of pay by miners transferred from distressed areas; and will he inquire into this question?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and I do not think a general inquiry on the lines suggested by the hon. Member is practicable. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to inquire into it.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not obvious that if 60 or 70 miners have been sent to Devonport and Plymouth and have been found work there, when there have been 5,000 or 6,000 unemployed there for many years, they must have taken jobs for which those unemployed were waiting?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, but that is not the question the hon. Member asked. He asked whether their places had been taken at reduced rates of pay by miners from distressed areas.

    WEST LOTHIAN.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Minister of Labour how many female unemployed persons there were in West Lothian at the last available date; and the number in receipt of benefit?
    Mr. BETTERTON: At 25th February, 1929, there were 264 females on the registers of Employment Exchanges in West Lothian, and of this number, 150 had claims to benefit admitted or under consideration. The total numbers on the registers included 95 uninsured females.

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Labour why the undertaking
    368
    to enter resident domestic service in exchange for the expenditure of taxpayers' money in training schools for this purpose has been abandoned; and what percentage of the whole and what expenditure has thus been without return?
    Mr. BETTERTON: This requirement was abolished as long ago as January, 1924. I am not in a position to say on what grounds the decision was then taken, but I may point out that such an undertaking is not really enforceable in practice, and experience has shown that since it was abandoned the proportion of trainees entering domestic service has increased.

    ALIENS (CLERICAL EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour if he will state, before permits are granted to aliens to take up clerical employment in Britain, what steps are taken to ascertain whether the work could be efficiently done by British subjects unemployed?
    Mr. BETTERTON: Before a permit is issued the employer is required on the form of application to state the steps he has taken to find labour here. In some cases he is required to notify the vacancy to the Local Employment Exchange and in others to get in touch with the local Chamber of Commerce. Apart from young foreigners who are coming here in supernumerary capacities to gain experience, the great majority of the permits issued in respect of clerical employments are for aliens having a knowledge of foreign languages.
    Mr. MORRISON: Surely the hon. Member knows that when men of this character, to whom a knowledge of languages is essential, are wanted, it is perfectly useless to apply at an Employment Exchange? Is the employment department of the London Chamber of Commerce asked whether it has any suitable persons before aliens are imported?
    Mr. BETTERTON: As I have said in my answer, in some cases they are required to notify the vacancy at an Employment Exchange, and in others to get in touch with the local chamber of commerce.
    Mr. MORRISON: But can the hon. Member say whether the employment department of the London Chamber of Commerce is asked?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The London Chamber of Commerce or any other chamber of commerce is asked, because we are just as anxious as anybody else that aliens should not be admitted for this kind of work if there are men or women in this country who can do it equally well.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Labour if he will state, of the 4,229 aliens admitted for clerical occupations since 1924, how many permits were for the purpose of taking up work in the British branches of foreign companies and corporations?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I regret that the information required is not available.
    Mr. MORRISON: Is the hon. Member aware that there is a strong feeling that this is a very large number of aliens to come into this country to take clerical occupations? Since 1924, there have been 4,000. There is a strong feeling that there are plenty of ex-officers and other educated people in this country who could do the work, but that these aliens have been brought in to take the work at cheaper wages.
    Mr. BETTERTON: If that be the impression, I hope the answer I have given will go far to dissipate it.

    STATISTICS.
    Captain MACMILLAN (for Viscountess ASTOR)asked the Minister of Labour the average number of persons registered as unemployed in 1928; whether these were the same individuals; and, if not, the number of separate individuals who registered during the year?
    Mr. BETTERTON: In 1928, the average number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain was 1,231,109. Only a small proportion of this total consisted of the same individuals throughout the year. The total number of separate individuals on the register at some time or other during the year was about 4½ millions, or nearly four times the average number at any one date.

  TRADE BOARDS ACT (CATERING TRADE).
  Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the wide variation in the hours and conditions of employment of persons engaged in the catering trades; that some observe fair conditions of labour, while competitors work their employés long hours and frequently for low wages; and if he will, in view of this, institute an inquiry under the Trades Board Act into the conditions of employment of workpeople in this trade?
  Mr. BETTERTON: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member's question on this subject on 2nd August last.

  INDUSTRIAL WORKERS (HOLIDAYS WITH PAY).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour the industries in which agreement has been arrived at for an annual holiday with pay; and the number of men and women who under such agreements are entitled to annual holidays with pay?
  Mr. BETTERTON: The number of wage-earners covered by the agreements for holidays with pay is approximately 1½ millions. A list of industries in which there are agreements providing for holidays with pay was published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for March, 1925. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Gazette referred to, with notes bringing the information up to date.
  Mr. KELLY: Does the list contain the names of any Government Departments?
  Mr. BETTERTON: I think the hon. Member had better look at the list and form his own opinion.
  Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of industrial employés in the service of the Air Ministry, and the number of these workers who are entitled to at least one week's holiday with pay each year?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The number of industrial employés, strictly so described, in the service of the Air Ministry at home stations is 5,373; none of these receive leave with pay apart from the recognised public holidays.

  371
  There are in addition 1,338 employés, graded as industrial, but not serving in workshops or the like, who are entitled to at least one week's additional holiday with pay.
  Mr. KELLY: Have the Ministry given consideration to the question of giving them an annual holiday with pay?
  Sir P. SASSOON: I would like to have notice of that question.
  Mr. KELLYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department as representing the First Commissioner of Works the number of men and women employed by the Office of Works as industrial workers and the number of these employés who are entitled to at least one week's holiday with pay each year?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): The total industrial staff is approximately 3,000, of whom about 2,600 are entitled to at least one week's holiday with pay each year.
  Mr. KELLY: Is any consideration being given to the other workers?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: The other 400 are mostly engaged on intermittent work in connection with ancient monuments all over the country. Practically, none of them work right throughout the year, and so the position is different in their case.

  AVIATION.

    ATLANTIC FLIGHTS (ANCHORED ISLANDS).
    Viscount SAN DONasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has entered into any arrangement or understanding with the American promoters of the scheme to lay down permanently anchored islands for the use of aircraft at regular intervals across the Atlantic, the first of which is to be started immediately; what are the terms and conditions of their use by British aircraft; whether he will first of all take engineering advice as to the safety of this device; and whether it is to be armed for defence?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I am aware that the scheme referred to by my Noble Friend has been proposed in America, and any development of it will be closely watched by the Air Ministry, but no question
    372
    has arisen of entering into any arrangement or understanding with its promoters. The answer to the first part of the question is, therefore, in the negative, and the remaining parts do not arise.

    AIRSHIP R100.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is yet in a position to state when the airship R100 will take the air?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Everton (Colonel Woodcock) on 31st January.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (BOMBING SQUADRONS).
  Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Air how many of the proposed additional squadrons for home defence will be composed of bombing machines?
  Sir P. SASSOON: The answer is four squadrons, of which one will be a cadre squadron and three auxiliary Air Force squadrons.
  Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for Air how many of the existing home defence squadrons are bombing squadrons?
  Sir P. SASSOON: The home defence force at present includes 19 bombing squadrons, of which eight are cadre or auxiliary Air Force squadrons.
  Mr. THURTLE: In view of the fact that all these bombing squadrons will necessarily be employed in offensive operations overseas, does not the hon. Baronet think it is a misnomer to call them home defence squadrons?
  Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir.

  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (ADVISORY COMMITTEES).
  Mr. WELLOCKasked the Attorney-General upon whose recommendations the appointments to the reconstituted advisory committees will be made?
  Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The Lord Chancellor consults the Lord

  373
  Lieutenant, and persons representing different points of view, about the members he appoints to his advisory committees. He does not bind himself to consult any particular organisation or individual. The committees are appointed to advise the Lord Chancellor, and any noble Friend is, of course, free to select his advisers in the manner he thinks most suitable.

  CASUALS, TAMWORTH.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Health whether he has seen a report of a recent meeting of the Tamworth Board of Guardians, in which it was stated that the number of casuals was nearly double and that the overcrowding was serious, and that the vice-chairman pointed out that if Lichfield and Atherstone casual wards were re-opened it would relieve the pressure and that men were taken before the magistrates through those wards not being re-opened; and will he cause those wards to be re-opened?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend has seen a newspaper report of the meeting to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but he has received no representations from the guardians or the vagrancy committee on this subject. If such representations are made, they will receive my right hon. Friend's careful consideration, but the information at present before him does not support the view that the re-opening of the Lichfield or Atherstone casual wards would relieve the situation at Tamworth.

  ABATTOIRS.
  Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the number of abattoirs in some districts is considered by the local authorities to be excessive; and whether, with a view to more effective inspection, he will introduce legislation empowering local authorities to close all redundant registered slaughter-houses?
  Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware that the number of private slaughter-houses in some districts is considered by the local authorities to be
  374
  unnecessarily large, but he can give no undertaking to introduce legislation of the character suggested by the hon. Member?
  Sir R. THOMAS: If that be the case, surely the Department of the right hon. Gentleman ought to be prepared to advance a remedy?
  Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. I think there were a number of local authorities who thought the number was unnecessary, but it must be realised that there are a great many important questions of policy involved.
  Sir R. THOMAS: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these local authorities are quite powerless without the assistance of the Department?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it might be a great inconvenience to persons using these places if there was not a fairly reasonable number of them, and that they and not the local authorities are the best judges as to whether they are convenient or not. If they are redundant, they will not be used.

  PARKING PLACES (LIGHTING REGULATIONS).
  Sir FRANK MEYERasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that Regulation 6 of the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations of 19th April, 1928, is framed in such a way as to deprive the chief officer of police of an area of any real powers to dispense with the lighting of vehicles standing at parking places; and whether he is prepared to issue revised Regulations?
  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I cannot agree with the conclusion drawn by the hon. Member in the first part of the question. The only limitations upon the powers of the chief officer of police are:
  "(1) That the parking place must not be on a part of the highway which is ordinarily used for the passing and repassing of vehicles, and
  (2) That the parking place must be adequately lit."
  These two conditions are, in my opinion, essential in the interests of public safety.
  Sir F. MEYER: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he does not think the words "ordinarily used for the passing and repassing of vehicles" restrict the police from allowing unlighted vehicles at any parking place, because it is obvious that vehicles have to pass to get there? Does not the inclusion of these words make the whole intention of the Act nugatory?
  Colonel ASHLEY: I think the wording of the Regulations was not meant to have that effect. I am as anxious as anybody that the provisions of the Act of last year shall be carried out in their entirety. Possibly the best thing would be for me to confer with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the whole matter.
  Sir F. MEYER: When conferring with the Home Secretary, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider whether it is possible to allow one lamp only to be used for parking purposes instead of three as at present, that is, the rear light and two lights in front?
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider whether in cases where a row of vehicles are standing the lighting of the foremost and rearmost is not enough? Even in a cul-de-sac, beside a picture house, people are made to turn on all their lights, and these are exhausted by the time the people come out of the picture house?
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has not my right hon. and gallant Friend power to make regulations—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a debate on this subject.

  INDIA (LABOUR UNIONS).
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will give the latest figures showing the number of labour unions registered under the Indian Trade Union Act?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Twenty-seven labour unions were registered up to 31st March, 1928, which is the latest date for which full figures are available.
  Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: Are there no later figures?
  Earl WINTERTON: I will endeavour to obtain the later figures. To a large extent, this is a matter which does not come within the cognisance of my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for India. I am aware of the interest taken in this question of trade unions in India upon all sides of the House, and I have endeavoured to obtain later figures on this and kindred matters.
  Mr. RILEY: Is the number of labour unions in India an increasing or a diminishing one?
  Earl WINTERTON: That I could not say without later figures. As I have already explained, that is not a matter with which officially I am greatly concerned, but I recognise the interest taken in this matter. It was only when the question was put down on the Order Paper that my attention was called to the fact that the figures are only up to the end of March last. I will endeavour to obtain later figures.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Have the labour trade unions in India as much liberty to operate as the labour trade unions in Great Britain?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: When the Under-Secretary makes his inquiries as to the number of trade unions, will he ascertain whether the officials are native Indians or not?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    STATISTICS.
    Viscount SANDONasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the percentage of accuracy when the correct figures are ultimately known of the estimates as to imports and exports and the balances of income and expenditure in transactions with other countries as published annually in the Board of Trade Journal; and whether the degree of error has been on the conservative or liberal side?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The figures of imports and exports used in the estimate are based on the declarations made to the Customs and are only liable to small corrections. The

    377
    figures relating to the "invisible" elements in the balances of income and expenditure in transactions with other countries, are arrived at on the best information available at the time, and every endeavour is made not to overestimate. But this is not a case in which a percentage of accuracy can be calculated. I would refer my Noble Friend to the article on the Balance of Trade in the current issue of the Board of Trade Journal, in which are stated such corrections as have been made in the estimates for 1926 and 1927, and the reasons for their adoption.
    Mr. SKELTON: Is it not my hon. Friend's experience that the degree of error is generally greater on the Liberal side than on the Conservative side?
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the hon. Member say whether under the heading of invisible exports the transfer of the Lloyd George Fund to the Liberal party is included?

    SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (PACKING PAPER).
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the prices of packing paper before and after safeguarding; and whether there has been any increase of price since the industry was safeguarded?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the President of the Board of Trade on 11th December to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), of which I am sending him a copy.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Parliamentary Secretary able to say whether the wages in this industry have been raised?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: That does not arise out of the question.

    PETROL SUPPLIES.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department in what countries Government monopolies have been set up in petrol; and in what countries do the Governments control petrol prices or themselves engage in refining or marketing mineral oil products?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I am advised that the oil industry in Russia is completely under Government control and that there is a Government monopoly in petrol in Spain. I know of no other countries where petrol prices are controlled. The Governments of Egypt and of the Argentine engage to a limited extent in the refining of crude oil.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that the French Government also subsidises its own oil-refining plants?
    Commodore KING: Not to my knowledge.
    Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Is the monopoly in this country under any control?
    Commodore KING: I know of no monopoly.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Are not these monopolies in strict accordance with the recommendations of the Samuel Commission Report?

    TANGANYIKA (COFFEE).
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total export and the value of coffee from Tanganyika; and what is the proportion of native-grown coffee for the year 1920 and for the last year for which complete returns are available?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): 131,899 cwts. of coffee, to the value of £463,420, were exported from the Territory in 1927. 208,622 cwts. were exported during 1928, but the value of this total has not yet been reported. I regret that no information is available which would enable an estimate to be made of the proportion of native-grown coffee in the total amount exported in 1920. In 1927, native-grown coffee mainly from Bukoba constituted roughly three-quarters of the total tonnage exported.
    Mr. MORRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the quality of the native-grown coffee compares with that of the non-native-grown?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different question.

    EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (POSTERS).
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any payment is made by the Empire Marketing Board to the owners of sites on which the Board's posters are displayed?
    Mr. AMERY: Payments from the Empire Marketing Fund are made in a limited number of these cases.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many boards there are?
    Mr. AMERY: Not without notice.

  SCOTLAND.

    TRAWLING REGULATIONS.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any steps are to be taken to carry out the recommendations of the 1924 Committee, presided over by Lord Mackenzie, to inquire into the trawling and policing of Scottish sea fisheries; and whether, as this Committee recommended greater stringency in regard to the closing and protection of the Clyde and the Moray Firth against the depredations of the trawlers and the keeping out of these areas of foreign trawlers by international agreement, he will say why no steps have been taken to secure the prohibition, if need be, by laying the matter before the League of Nations?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): In addition to measures taken to strengthen the protection fleet, attention has been given, as recommended by the Mackenzie Committee, to the situation in the Moray Firth. At the request of the British Government a Committee of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea was appointed to consider whether the prohibition of trawling in that area should be continued, modified, or extended. The Report of this Committee recommends, on scientific grounds, a closure only of part of the area for part of the year both to trawling and to seining. The Report has been made public and is receiving consideration. Apart from this, the whole question of the extent of territorial waters is now under consideration by a Committee of the League of Nations.
    Mr. JAMES BROWN: The Secretary of State for Scotland did not mention the Clyde. Do I understand that the answer applies only to the Moray Firth?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As far as regards the main question, yes.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, as the Fishery Board for Scotland has proposed, subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State, to throw open to trawling an area of the Clyde hitherto closed to trawling by British subjects, and as this proposal has caused anxiety amongst the Scottish people, he will at once cause the proposal to be withdrawn, in view of the findings of Lord Mackenzie's Committee for greater stringency and exclusion of trawling from Scottish waters, which findings have never been called in question by any inquiry of like standing and publicity?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The proposal to which my hon. and learned Friend refers is the result of a very careful survey of all relevant factors by the Fishery Board for Scotland, and I am not prepared, without due consideration, to reject it. I am aware, however, that even the limited relaxation proposed has aroused considerable opposition, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that the objections which have been received will be fully examined. The findings of the Committee referred to will be kept carefully in view in this connection. I fully appreciate the desirability of an early decison.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: With a view to satisfying the popular view and the fishermen, will the Secretary of State, if he finds that there is any proposal to change which is likely to upset the findings of the Lord Mackenzie Committee, set up a powerful and potent Committee to make a fresh investigation into this question before he sanctions the regulations?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is it not a fact that the people who are suffering most on account of these restrictions are the Scottish fishermen and not the English fishermen?
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the objections to the proposed removal of

    381
    restrictions in the Clyde area to which he refers are equally strong if not stronger in the Moray Firth area?
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland not aware that this trawler business is the same thing that caused our trouble with Russia, and will he have due regard to the fishermen round the Scottish coast who are being deprived of their means of livelihood? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take similar steps to send these trawlers back to Hull and Grimsby?
    Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland aware that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) knows nothing about the business?
    Mr. J. BROWN: Will the Secretary of State take into consideration the expert advice and conclusions come to, not only theoretically, but from the experience of expert fishermen in the Clyde area, as to the beam and otter trawling proposed by the Government?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: This question deals solely with the Clyde, from which area I am still receiving representations. As soon as I have received all the representations, as well as the Report of the Fishery Board on those representations, I shall come to a decision.
    Mr. SKELTON: In view of the importance of this question, will the right hon. Gentleman give an opportunity of debating it in the House before the regulations are issued?
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the Secretary of State for Scotland see that the English trawlers are not penalised to any greater extent than the foreign trawlers?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that already a trawler from the constituency of one of the Gentlemen opposite has been fined for anticipating the coming into effect of these regulations, and will the principle of any such regulation applied to the Clyde also be applicable to the Moray Firth?
    Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions must be put down on the Order Paper.

    EGGS (MARKING).
    Mr. SKELTONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the national egg-mark for Scotland will come into operation?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: It is hoped to introduce the national mark for Scottish produced eggs on 1st June next.
    Major COLFOX: Does the Secretary of State estimate that the producers of Scottish eggs are likely to benefit by the introduction of the national egg mark?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, sir; I certainly hope that they will.
    Mr. SKELTON: Would it be possible to accelerate the date—[Interruption.]—on account of the fact that the coming into operation of the English mark has already introduced a great deal of competition from English eggs in the Glasgow market.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I should be glad to see the date accelerated in that way. This is a voluntary arrangement, and application has already been made for registration on that date.
    Mr. HOPKINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that third-class eggs are marked with the Scottish national motto?

  OLD AGE PENSIONERS (INCOME TAX).
  Mr. BROMLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why certain inspectors of taxes have issued a circular to widows in receipt of the old age pension asking them if they pay Income Tax?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I have no knowledge of any such circular, but, if the hon. Member will send me a copy of the circular to which he refers, I will cause inquiry to be made and will communicate the result to him in due course.
  Mr. BROMLEY: If I am able to supply the hon. Gentleman with the information he seeks, will he undertake to endeavour to see that the inspectors of taxes pay more attention to those who are known to have large incomes and are now appearing so frequently in the Courts, rather than badger old working women of 80?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I do not admit the hon. Member's premise. I do not admit the issue of any such circular as is referred to. If it was issued I do not know of it, and have never seen it.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT (OVERTIME).
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the continuous overtime worked by the taxes branch of the Inland Revenue Department, it is proposed to make such addition to the staff as would render overtime unnecessary?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It should, perhaps, be explained to my hon. Friend that the amount of overtime recorded last year was less than one-half of the working time of one clerk per district. All that is possible is done to reduce overtime, but, owing to seasonal pressure, some overtime is always necessary. It would not be proper to maintain staff constantly at a number corresponding to the absolute peak of a variable work load.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is not this overtime due to the sending of large numbers of red letters to individual taxpayers?
    Captain FAIRFAX: Will my hon. Friend consider reducing taxation instead of adding to the staff?
    Major COLFOX: Would not many individual taxpayers be very much relieved if considerably less overtime were worked?
    Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, if hon. Members on the other side of the House were to pay their Income Tax as well as those on this side, there would be no need to work overtime?

    NON-PENSIONABLE EMPLOYÉS.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMESasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of men assigned from the Southborough examination and its supplementary examination for non-pensionable employment?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The number of men assigned from the Southborough examinations for unestablished appointment is 221.

  MALTA (FATHER MIKALEF).
  Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government has been requested to give and is giving support to the Prime Minister of Malta in connection with the dispute between that Government and the Vatican over the expulsion of Father Mikalef to Italy?
  Mr. AMERY: His Majesty's Government, at the instance of the Maltese authorities, have instructed His Majesty's Minister to the Vatican to approach the Holy See with the request that an Apostolic Visitor may be sent to the island to investigate certain difficulties that have arisen—including the case referred to in the question—between the Maltese Ministry and the local ecclesiastical authorities.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any possibility of transferring to a more sympathetic country an ecclesiastic who threatens with excommunication the British Prime Minister of a free self-governing Colony?
  Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Is it not a mistake to say that there is a dispute between the Maltese Government and the Vatican?
  Mr. AMERY: There is no dispute with the Vatican. There are certain controversies in Malta at the present moment, and the Maltese authorities have requested the intervention of an Apostolic Visitor to compose them.

  STEAMSHIP "TRITONIA" (EXPLOSION).
  Sir BASIL PETO (by Private Notice)asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been informed that Robert White, master of the steamship "Tritonia," and members of the crew, have been placed under arrest at Buenaventura, Colombia, pending investigation of the explosion that occurred on board that vessel; whether they have been since released, and whether he will take steps to see that they have legal assistance in the event of the Government of Colombia attaching responsibility to the captain or any of the crew for the results of the explosion?
  Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am in communication with His Majesty's Minister at Bogotá regarding this matter, but I have not yet received confirmation of the reported release of the master and crew. I understand that the owners of the ship have arranged that the captain and crew shall have the best legal assistance available.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to say what business it is proposed to take on Friday?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Yes, Sir; the Second Reading of the Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Bill, the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance (Northern Ireland Agreement) Bill, the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, etc.) Bill, and of a Supplementary Estimate for Dominion Services (Compensation to Transferred Officers), and, if there be time, other Orders on the Paper.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the other Orders include the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimate of the 1st March, which was adjourned last night—the Irish loyalists Resolution?
The PRIME MINISTER: I think so, if we do not get it before. As a matter of fact, I understand that there is a prospect of being able to take other Orders. Consultations always take place through the usual channels as to what Orders shall be taken; it is never done without consultation.
Mr. BATEY: When are we to expect the Supplementary Estimate in connection with the Lord Mayor's Fund?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know when that will be introduced.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to the re-committal of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill; in Committee on the re-committed Bill; and on Consideration of the Bill, as amended, on re-committal, be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The prime Minister.]

ALIENS.
Miss WILKINSON: I beg to move:
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to the status of married women."
This is a very simple Bill, and the principle has already received the unanimous support of the House. It deals with four points. It provides that the British woman who marries a foreigner shall not thereby lose her nationality unless she makes a declaration that she wishes to do so. It respects equally the nationality of a foreign woman who marries an Englishman, but provides a much simpler arrangement if she desires to acquire English nationality. It is retrospective as regards British women. They will automatically resume their British nationality if they have been married to an alien unless they make a declaration that they wish to keep the nationality of their husband. It is not retrospective with regard to foreign women who are married to Britishers, as this might cause hardship. I do not think the principle of the Bill needs very much recommendation. As a matter of fact, when British women had very few other rights they had this one. They enjoyed the right to their own nationality until the law of 1870.
Now that women have been granted the vote on the same terms as men and are in every way equal citizens with men, surely it is not logical to deny as great a right, the right to their own nationality. Of course, the obvious reply might be made that the way to keep her own nationality is not to marry a foreigner, but that in itself constitutes an inequality, as a man cannot be deprived of his nationality whomever he marries or whatever he does. At present, we have a large number of other countries which have made great strides in this matter since the War—the United States of America and most of the other American republics, Russia, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and the other Scandinavian countries. The difficulties of the British Empire are usually used as a screen for not granting this modest request of British women to their nationality. The British Empire is used as a screen by Departments which do not want any change in the present law. The law was passed by Canada until it was intimated that the British Government

387
were not in favour of it, and the Canadian Act was then revoked. The women's organisations of all parties in Australia, Africa, Canada and New Zealand have passed resolutions in favour of this principle. Many members of the Imperial Conference have approved the principle, but we understand that the home Government have been in most cases the stumbling block.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks)The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks) indicated dissent.
Miss WILKINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has always shown himself a strong champion of the equality of women, and I trust that we shall have this little Bill passed.
Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can only speak in opposition to the Bill, and I do not want to oppose it; but, if the hon. Lady will allow me to answer her question, I can perhaps give the explanation. I happen to have been the chairman of a sub-committee of the last Imperial Conference on which all the Dominions were represented. According to my recollection, all but one Dominion, including the home Government, were favourable to the proposal which I understand the hon. Lady makes, but, because one Dominion stood out—on various grounds I understand—they came to the conclusion that it was so undesirable to have a different nationality law throughout the Empire—although nine-tenths of the Empire might be one way—that we allowed it to stand over to the next Conference, when I hope the Dominion that did not agree will fall into line. I and the Government are in favour of the Bill.
Miss WILKINSON: If my little Bill does nothing else it has drawn from the Home Secretary a valuable statement for which I thank him and which, I am sure, the Women's Organisations that are backing the Bill will regard as equally valuable. I feel, under the circumstances, though I have a long argument which would take the rest of the ten minutes, after the Home Secretary's statement there is no further need for me to inflict the rest of my speech on the House or to push open an already open door. I will therefore end by welcoming the declaration of the Home Secretary and I hope the Bill will be given a First Reading as an indication of the spirit of the House
388
and that we welcome the assurance of the Home Secretary that he will give his warm personal support to the Measure at the next Imperial Conference.
Mr. SPEAKER: I assume the Home Secretary was intervening to answer a question. If not, he would have been out of order in making a speech.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Wilkinson, Miss Bondfield, Miss Lawrence, Viscountess Astor, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, and Mr. Kingsley Griffith.

ALIENS.
  ALIENS BILL,
  "to amend the law with respect to the status of married women," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

BILLS REPORTED.
Blackburn Corporation Bill.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Llanfrechfa Upper and Llantarnam Water Board Bill.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.
Torquay Extramural Cemetery Company Bill.
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the Third time.
South Suburban Gas Bill.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill.
Southampton Corporation Bill.
Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Overseas Trade Bill, without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision as to the pension fund and provident funds established by the Pacific Cable Board; and for other purposes." [Pacific Cable Board Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to transfer to the Corn Exchange Company the undertaking of the London Corn Exchange Company; to confer further powers on the Corn Exchange Company and authorise them to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Corn Exchange Company Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the Sheffield Gas Acts and Orders, 1885 to 1928." [Sheffield Gas (Consolidation) Bill [Lords.]
Corn Exchange Company Bill [Lords],
Sheffield Gas (Consolidation) Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

NAVY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928).
Estimate presented, of the further sum required to be voted for the Navy for the year ending 31st March, 1929 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended, further considered.
  [2nd ALLOTTED DAY.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Provisions for uniting burghs and combining counties for certain purposes.)
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I beg to move, in page 15, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that in the case where there is in force, as regards one of the burghs included in a united burgh, an order under Section 7 of the Town Councils (Scotland) Act, 1903, fixing a day other than the first Tuesday of November for the annual retiral and election of councillors, such order shall in the aforesaid year be deemed to apply to each of the other burghs included in such united burgh, and the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section shall apply with the substitution of the day so fixed for the first Tuesday of November."
    This Amendment is moved at the request of certain burghs that are going to be combined. It has been found in one case, the combination of Kilrenny and Anstruther, in Fife, that the date on which the Town Council would be elected is inconvenient, particularly from the fishing point of view, and it is in accordance with their representations that I move the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. JAMES STUART: I beg to move, in page 15, line 42, to leave out paragraph (ii).
    On the last occasion, when this matter was under discussion in Committee, there was very little time, owing to the course of business, to deal with it. The discussion took place on an Amendment to omit the whole Sub-section. In this case, the Amendment is merely to omit a paragraph. The matter, though a small one, is of considerable importance to the district which it affects. It will not in any way wreck the Bill. If anything, it will simplify it, because in working out the details of an amalgamation, such as is proposed in this Clause, there are bound to be various matters which will crop up and will require negotiation and
    408
    matters on which it will be very difficult to get the amalgamating parties to agree. If the Amendment were accepted, those difficulties would be avoided. In addition to simplifying the putting of the Bill into operation, Nairn would be released from amalgamation, which has never been asked for and is not wanted. The Secretary of State and his colleague are well aware by now that very strong opposition is felt locally to this proposal. All the local authorities are opposed to it, and the Secretary of State has received a petition signed by a considerable percentage of the residents. Had more time been available and had the weather conditions been less severe, there is no doubt that many more people would have signed that petition if the upland districts had been canvassed more systematically. I should like to thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for the very careful attention which they have always given to the representations which I have made to them on this subject, I only hope that the representations may have weight. I realise that by this amalgamation the county of Nairn are not going to lose their identity entirely. They will still retain their ordinary parish, and they will retain their county council for certain purposes, but that will only be for minor purposes. They will also retain their name. They will not be merged into Morayshire in that respect. Nevertheless, very grave apprehension is felt, and I should like to state the two chief reasons as to why strong opposition is felt to this proposal.
    It has been stated by the Secretary of State that some of the functions which are to be transferred to the joint county council may be delegated back to the Nairnshire County Council, but there is no guarantee in the Bill that this will take place. Therefore, I do not think that much weight can be attributed to this argument which has been put forward in support of the fact that there is no desire to interfere with the status of the county. On the contrary, it appears that Clause 12 of the Bill which deals with the setting up by the joint county council of certain statutory committees to deal with education, police, and poor relief will entirely prohibit such delegation back to the county council as has been suggested. The Secretary of State, in a letter, has said that it is not his

    409
    desire or intention that the status of the county as an independent unit in local government should be materially affected, but, in view of the fact that these very important services are to be transferred, it is difficult to see how that argument can be supported. It will require a good deal of explanation in order to set at rest the local feeling on this subject.
    Secondly, on the joint county council which it is proposed to set up, Nairn will always be very much in the minority. Under the proposals of representation of county councils, Command Paper 3263, the representation allotted to Morayshire would be 35, whereas Nairnshire would have a total of 12 members. It is natural, therefore, that the people of Nairnshire should be doubtful as to the reasons why their status is not to be materially affected by this proposal. I realise that already counties do combine for certain purposes, for example, in regard to a medical officer of health. This is purely a voluntary combination, because it suits both parties to enter into it. It is a very different matter from forcing an amalgamation upon two counties. After all, in any case, where they are forced or where they are compelled to do a thing, it is much more likely to lead to trouble, and the work will be considerably increased in volume.
    It is also claimed that economy may be effected by this proposal. I should like to point out that there is going to be an additional expense in setting up this new body. According to the figures furnished by the White Paper, there will be a saving, as a result of the amalgamation, of 5d. per head of the population in Nairnshire. With a population of 8,790, I estimate that the saving will come to about £183 per year. If you are going to set up a new county council with the expenses incurred thereby, such as the clerk, the treasurer, and various other officials, I think it is clear that that saving of £183 which is suggested would very soon be turned into a very severe loss. It is very difficult to see how any saving worth speaking of is going to be effected in this way. Speaking personally, and as a member for both counties, I have found considerable duplication of work in already being on two county councils, and, whoever is my successor and has the honour to represent
    410
    Moray and Nairn, when I have lost my seat as a result of this Clause or else been forced into bankruptcy owing to the severe cost of dealing with all the correspondence I have received on the matter, will find, instead of having two county councils to deal with, he will have three. This certainly does not tend by any means that I can see to simplify the work.
    4.0 p.m.
    I have stated that on the ground of public health amalgamation is desirable, but I suggest, if necessary, that this could be effected by making an Order under Clause 11 of the Bill for an amalgamation for the purposes of public health. I do not admit that this is necessary, because the health services have been adequately maintained in the past. Both the county and the burgh of Nairn are served at present by a voluntary hospital and by district nursing services. This should not be discounted, because it is voluntary and is not a burden on the rates. It shows, on the other hand, their sense of the importance of this matter and their independence. Although there is no formal scheme for dealing with tubercular cases, adequate provision is made in this respect. In connection with maternity and child welfare, there is a district nursing service and an arrangement with local doctors to attend in case a child is ill. I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily on this subject. I have already had copious correspondence with the Secretary of State on the question, and I think he is well aware of the attitude which the county of Nairn has adopted. I would ask him, in conclusion, to accept this Amendment on the grounds that I have stated, namely, that this provision in the Bill is not wanted, and has not been asked for; secondly, that it is difficult to see how any economy is going to be effected; and, thirdly, that the Amendment will in no way wreck the Bill, for if anything, I submit, it would be a simplification of the Bill, and any amalgamation of certain services which is thought to be necessary, can well be carried out under Clause 11. I ask the Secretary of State to reconsider this matter very carefully before refusing to accept my Amendment.
    Sir JAMES GRANT: I beg to second the Amendment.

    411
    My hon. Friend who has proposed the Amendment told us that if it were not accepted he would lose his seat. That would be a result which would be very deeply deplored in his constituency, and I do not anticipate any such disaster. I quite understand that when this question was shortly discussed in Committee, my right hon. Friend indicated that he did not desire to accept any such Amendment as that which had been put. Undoubtedly it runs counter to the main principles of the Bill, and the desire of my right hon. Friend to extend the areas of administration. My hon. Friend and myself have no quarrel with the general proposition to enlarge areas of administration. We quite realise that it will generally be of advantage. But my right hon. Friend will admit that a provision of this kind may possibly, and will probably, act with disadvantage, and even with injustice to certain minor localities. We hold that Nairnshire comes into such category, and although an extension of boundaries might be a good thing, we shall receive no advantage from it in Nairnshire. On the contrary, we believe it will be a disadvantage in that county. My right hon. Friend will also admit that although the advice he received from his Department may be excellent, and no doubt is, he may receive better advice and a more correct view from those who live in a locality affected by this Bill, and if this suggestion holds in this instance, my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment, for the Amendment expresses the unanimous view of Nairnshire.
    We resent the imposition of this amalgamation. We have not asked for it; we do not desire it, and, in our opinion, we do not require it. Surely the opinion of those who have lived in the locality all their lives, those who have taken part in public and local affairs should be considered. It is not too much to say that we view this amalgamation with real apprehension and even indignation. The county council of Nairn has acted since its inception with efficiency. It has carried out the whole of the requirements of the county. It has provided or arranged for all public requirements to the complete satisfaction of its constituents. I quite realise that, in dealing with this question, we are dealing with the future, and
    412
    not with the past, and the point we have to decide is whether under amalgamation the local administration of Nairnshire would be more effective or better. We do not think it will. We think that the new requirements can all be met under the provisions of Clause 11. We cannot see why the control of our local administration should be taken away from us when we can effectively deal with it under the provisions of that Clause.
    My hon. Friend has referred to the question of finance. It is undoubtedly the basis of the subject. It is the desire of my right hon. Friend to spread the area of extra expenditure over a larger valuation, and it is also his desire to extend the area of administration. The former seems to me the best standard. I should like to ask him why he considers, as he apparently does under the Bill, that Shetland, with a gross valuation less than Nairnshire, can in the future carry on under the reduced valuation better than can the county of Nairn? Does my right hon. Friend consider that we in Nairnshire are more incapable?
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: He does not put it so bluntly.
    Sir J. GRANT: Another point is the geographical point. Our county councillors, in carrying out their duties, have to go to the capital town of Nairn, and on the day of the county council meeting there is the ordinary weekly market where our county councillors can carry out their private business as well as their public duties. Under the Bill, if there is amalgamation, they will have to go to Elgin for their public duties. It may seem a small point, but it is a real grievance, and has to be taken into consideration. We want the best men we have had on our county council, and I do not believe that they will continue to give their public services. It will be a great disability to our county. In the opinion of leaders of our county council in Nairnshire, it is felt that amalgamation will bring about friction, which has never existed in our local affairs. It will be cumbersome in its operation, and we believe it will entail upon Nairnshire an unnecessary financial burden. I think some consideration ought to be given to those who really know more about the subject than anyone else. I hope, therefore,

    413
    my right hon. Friend will give favourable consideration to the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am sure that the House, as I do, will realise the interest which my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have taken in this problem, and I, myself, as Minister am very conscious, of course, of the numerous representations which have been made to me upon this point. I hope to be able to show to my hon. Friends and the House that we are not seeking to make this combination out of malice, or with any other desire than to confer upon the inhabitants of these two counties the best opportunities of the future development of the services which are necessary to their well-being. When one has to consider this problem of dealing with the larger services, let me remind my hon. Friends that this combination is only to have effect for the purposes for which small burghs are to be included within the county, that is, the major services of education, poor relief, public health, police and classified roads. Outside those particular problems the county of Nairn will continue to operate and be in being as it is to-day.
    There is, I think, a measure of misconception, if I may say so, in the minds of some of those in the locality as to what is really meant, and they will find that a good many of their misapprehensions, as I will explain, are due to the fact that they have not really studied what these alterations mean. As my hon. Friend said, they will retain the ancient name of their county, and nothing will alter that. They will retain their Lord Lieutenant and their county council, and they will continue to control and operate all matters relating purely to their landward areas. If we look at the problem of population, Nairnshire, including the burgh of Nairn, has a population amounting to only 8,790, and the County of Kinross one of 7,963. Those are the two instances of counties in Scotland which we are seeking to combine, and if one were not to combine these two very small counties, what indeed would be the justification for combining a great number of the burghs which we are combining under this Bill. There are only two counties with a population of less than 20,000 which are not being combined. One of these is Sutherland with
    414
    a population of over 17,000, or double that of Nairn, and the other is Peebles with a population of 15,000, which again is much higher than the population of Nairn.
    If I turn to the problem of Nairnshire when the de-rating takes effect, the House will observe, that a rate of a penny per £ will produce in the landward area of that county £84. When that figure is stated it is evident that it is practically impossible for such a unit to carry on a large part of the necessary development of such services as health and education. It is said, of course, that Nairn is going to lose because of the inconvenience which will be caused by county councillors having to attend meetings in Elgin instead of Nairn. All I would say on that is that I think if any inconvenience of a personal nature arises from this circumstance, it will be found to be minor compared with the great advantages which are going to accrue to the county. Further, I would point out to my hon. Friend that in this Clause which we are discussing paragraph (f) says:
    "Subject to the provisions of their administrative schemes, the joint county council may delegate any of their functions to the county council of either county as if such council were a committee of the joint county council."
    Those are very wide powers, and I do not doubt that they will be used by the county council, and that it will be found that a very large part of the work which Nairnshire will have to carry out in the future will be delegated and that they will only require to go to Elgin for their special meetings on comparatively few occasions. A precedent exists for such a combination as the one proposed. When the National Health Insurance system was introduced, Nairn and Moray were combined. In the matter of health services, I find that in the county of Nairn there is no county scheme for the treatment of tuberculosis and none for maternity and child welfare service.
    Mr. STUART: They have no formal scheme as regards tuberculosis, but adequate provision is made to meet cases which arise with regard to maternity and child welfare, the work is done by voluntary associations, and they have an arrangement with local doctors to attend in cases of childbirth.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: That may be so, but that does not alter the fact that when the general scheme comes into operation throughout the country the health services which are essential and necessary do not exist at the present time there. The medical officer of health and the school medical officer are obtained by combination with Moray. Treatment for venereal disease is also provided by a combination with other areas. It has been argued that with regard to tuberculosis the conditions in this case are such as would scarcely justify a formal scheme for treatment, but that is hardly borne out by the facts. During the five years 1923–27 there were 37 deaths from tuberculosis, and 12 cases were notified in the landward part of the county in the three years 1925–26–27, and there were 12 cases notified in the burgh of Nairn in 1926–27. There is no institution either in the county or in the burgh of Nairn for the treatment of early or advanced cases of tuberculosis. It may be said that those on the spot think that they are doing sufficient for the purpose, but I hope they will find that when the combination takes place they will be in a position of advantage and will be able greatly to increase these services. As regards maternity and child welfare, the county of Moray has adopted a scheme, whereas Nairn has not, although the conditions of the two counties are not dissimilar. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) has told us that the question of maternity and child welfare is being dealt with by voluntary associations. I am willing to admit that that meets the position to some extent.
    Let me turn to the health of the school population. As regards the school health administration, the position in Nairn is less complete than that made by Moray, especially as regards dental treatment and treatment of the ear, nose and throat. I do not wish to point out these things with respect to Nairn in a derogatory way, but it is right that they should realise to the full that what I am asking is that they shall combine for the improvement of these services by coming into line with the neighbouring county. It is said that the county will make a loss financially by this amalgamation. I do not think they will be able to maintain that position. If the two counties are left separate, Moray would gain under
    416
    the scheme 70d. per head of population, and Nairn County 65d. per head, whereas the united county would gain 70d. per head. So that Nairnshire would gain 5d. per head from the union. Whether it is to be a forced union or not, I should say that from the point of view of the ratepayers it is a desirable union.
    I am asked why I insist upon this amalgamation, whereas in the case of Shetland I do not so insist. The answer is twofold. In the first place, the population of Shetland is something like 20,000.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 25,000.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Twenty five thousand as compared with a population of something like 8,000 in Nairn. Moreover, Shetland is surrounded by sea, and there is the impossbility of combining it with other places. I hope very sincerely that, on further reflection, my hon. and gallant Friend will be able to show to those who are feeling sore about this matter, that it will be materially to their advantage that this combination should take place, that there is nothing derogatory to their ancient traditions and nothing which impinges or takes away from the position which Nainshire has always rightly held in Scotland. I hope that the last thing that will happen will be that any action of mine will result in the disappearance of my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: We all appreciated the admirable speech made by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) in defence of the privileges of his constituents. I do not feel that the Secretary of State has given any adequate answer to the points which the hon. Member and the Seconder of the Amendment brought forward. He does not meet the point that if there is any difficulty in the existing health services it can be dealt with under Clause 11, or outside the ambit of the Bill by firm leadership and voluntary understanding between the parties concerned. I refuse to believe that the people of Nairn, once they realise, if it be a fact, that the figures for tuberculosis, which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, are worse in their county than in other counties similarly situated, would allow that slur to rest on the county. They would be the first to insist that it should be remedied, either by action in the county or, if that was impossible, by agreement with the county

    417
    of Moray, so that by voluntary means a more efficient system of health management could be introduced.
    The right hon. Gentleman referred to the low valuation which will be left in Moray and Nairn if they remain separate. He says that a penny rate in Nairnshire will only raise £83 and that that would make it impossible for the county of Nairn to develop its services adequately in future under the provisions of the Bill. What about the counties of Orkney and Shetland? Whereas Nairnshire will only have £83 return from a penny rate, the county of Orkney will only have a return of £73 and the county of Shetland only £68. Therefore, by the Secretary of State's own criterion we have a condemnation of this Bill as applied to such counties as Orkney and Shetland. The Secretary of State said that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment had not sufficiently studied what their proposals meant. I think the general feeling in the House was that they realised more keenly and more accurately how the Government's proposals will affect their constituents than the Secretary of State does.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not his intention that Nairn should lose its status. They are going to lose
    the control of their five major public services. We were talking yesterday about burghs like Nairn with a considerable population, which attract at holiday seasons a very large population. We were debating how they would be absorbed into a county, and the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary assured us that these burghs would have a great say in the county. Here is one of the principal small burghs of Scotland, the burgh of Nairn, not merely losing its identity in its own county but losing it in a combination of counties, in which it will be in an insignificant minority. It seems to me that the provision for the combination of those two counties is one of the most indefensible in the Bill. The Secretary of State said that the combination was necessary, otherwise he would find it difficult to justify the combination of burghs with counties, which we have already criticised. Two blacks do not make one white. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman is a very inadequate ground on which to defend a proposition which, on its merits, is obviously indefensible. I hope that the Amendment will be pressed to a Division.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 106.

    Division No. 254.]

    AYES.

    [4.28 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

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

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Couper, J. B.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

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

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Berry, Sir George

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Bethel, A.

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

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

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

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Looker, Herbert William

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Gault, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

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

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

    Lumley, L. R.

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Goff, Sir Park

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

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

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hanbury, C.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Harland, A.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Christie, I. A.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Templeton, W. P.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Ropner, Major L.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Ross, R. D.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

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

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

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

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

    Rye, F. G.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Oakley, T.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Sandon, Lord

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Savery, S. S.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Smithers, Waldron

    Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

    Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Preston, William

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Radford, E. A.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Bowyer.

    Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

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

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    NOES.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Groves, T.

    Ritson, J.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Barnes, A.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Barr, J.

    Hardie, George D.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Batey, Joseph

    Harris, Percy A.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bellamy, A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shield, G. W.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Hayes, John Henry

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shinwell, E.

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Hirst, G. H.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Broad, F. A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bromfield, William

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Snell, Harry

    Bromley, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buchanan, G.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Kennedy, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kirkwood, D.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Clarke, A. B.

    Lawson, John James

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lowth, T.

    Townend, A. E.

    Compton, Joseph

    Lunn, William

    Viant, S. P.

    Connolly, M.

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

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Cove, W. G.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Westwood, J.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Maxton, James

    Whiteley, W.

    Day, Harry

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Wiggins, William Martin

    Dennison, R.

    Montague, Frederick

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Morris, R. H.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    England, Colonel A.

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

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Gardner, J. P.

    Owen, Major G.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Gillett, George M.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Mr. James Stuart and Sir James Grant.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Purcell, A. A.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Riley, Ben

    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 16, to leave out from the word "for", in line 3, to the end of line 5, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "every purpose for which any small burgh is by virtue of this Act included within a county and for no other purpose."
    This is largely a drafting Amendment. It is in order to make it clear that only major services shall be transferred. It is thought that it would be undesirable to transfer from the burghs a matter like the registration of motor vehicles.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in in page 17, line 10, to leave out Sub-section (8).
    Let me make it quite clear at once why I am moving this Amendment. We hope that much time will not be spent upon it because there are important Amendments coming on later which were not discussed during die Committee stage; for example, an Amendment dealing with house factors' remuneration, and we hope to so arrange business this afternoon that an opportunity will be found for discussing these important questions.

    421
    Therefore, I do not propose to take up much time on this proposal, because it was discussed at some length during the Committee stage, and it will arise again in a more acute form on Clause 68. I should imagine that under Clause 68 the Secretary of State can take whatever powers he chooses and that he does not require to have them repeated in this Clause. I cannot understand why he should ask for the same powers twice in the Bill. If he gets them in Clause 68, I cannot understand why he requires them in Clause 10.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    This Sub-section seems to me to be redundant. If the right hon. Gentleman contemplates passing the remainder of the Bill with the inclusion of Clause 68, then clearly there is no occasion for this Sub-section. I think he will share that view. If he will look at the Sub-section, he will find that the words are almost the same as those in Clause 68, and like my hon. Friend I am at a loss to understand why it should be necessary to have two provisions in the Bill bearing on the same point and in almost precisely the same language.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I propose to accept this Amendment. Since the Committee stage I have had time to look into it, and I see no necessity for retaining this Sub-section.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Provisions as to combination of local authorities.)
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 19, line 17, after the word "the," to insert the words "gross annual or other."
    This Amendment makes it clear that whatever valuation is referred to, whether it is the gross annual valuation or the rateable valuation, or any other valuation, that the new rateable value shall be substituted therefor.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made:
    In line 5, after the word "order," insert the word "made."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to insert the words "or by the Electricity Commissioners."
    This is to make it clear, if there is any doubt about it, that it should be included.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 12.—(Committees.)
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): I beg to move, in page 20, line 26, to leave out the words "Save as otherwise provided," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "Except where for the purpose of co-ordinating the services provided by the council it is otherwise specified."
    This is to fulfil a pledge which was given during the discussion on the Committee stage and to make it clear that there is no intention of taking away by a side wind matters which have to be referred to a special Standing Committee. There may be occasions when it is desirable to refer certain matters to other committees. Take the case of playing fields. This subject might be referred to the Open Spaces Committee as well as to the Education Committee, but this does not in any way minimise the duty of the local authority to refer these matters generally to the appropriate committee. I understand that the Amendment meets with the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House who raised this question at an earlier stage of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I beg to move, in line 44, at the end, to insert the words:
    "and the council, before exercising any function relating to such instruction shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the education committee with respect to the mutter in question."
    This is really to put right an omission in the Bill; an omission by inadvertence. The House may remember that in Committee we separated the question of religious instruction from other matters and put it in a Sub-section by itself, but we omitted to carry along this provision. It is necessary to put it in again.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 21, line 30, after the word "prescribe," to insert the words:
    "the number of such representatives in proportion always to the number of duly constituted charges within the area, and shall prescribe."
    It will be remembered that this question about the representatives of the other denominations being co-opted on to the education committees—persons interested in the promotion of religious education—was discussed previously. It undoubtedly was our intention that the meeting of representatives was to elect those persons, and was to consist of all other denominations having "duly constituted charges." We intended that the number of representatives should be in proportion to the number of charges in each denomination, but that was not quite clear in the Clause as it was drawn, and this Amendment is moved to make the matter clear. Normally the representation will be one for each charge. The Amendment will give a proper weight to the particular denomination in the area according to size. "Duly constituted charge" is a well-known ecclesiastical phrase.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Let us be clear on this point. Does the importation of this word "charge" rule out such an organisation as the Salvation Army or is the local meeting of the Salvation Army held to be a charge under the terms of the Bill?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: Probably the ordinary local constitution of the Salvation Army would be ruled out, but the Army might well have a duly constituted charge. It depends on the local constitution. A charge means, in effect, having a local congregation or something corresponding to it. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Barr) will check me if I am wrong when I say that in effect it means that you have a form of congregation. The Salvation Army, in my apprehension, do not normally have such a thing, but they do have it in certain localities. One cannot be absolute on the point, but I should imagine that ordinarily they would not have a duly constituted charge.
    Mr. JAMES BROWN: Would it not mean that where the Salvation Army
    424
    have what they call a citadel, with a captain in charge, they would be included?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: That is the sort of thing I had in mind, but the question has been sprung upon me, and without having definite information I cannot give a definite answer.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Would it be necessary to have a combination of these citadels or would one citadel, according to the numbers attached to it, suffice?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I hope hon. Members will not think that I am objecting at all, but it is a fact that we have passed the point of deciding what constitutes a charge. I am perfectly willing to consider putting the matter right in another place if it is now wrong. I am only too anxious to get the thing right. The Salvation Army was not mentioned in the Committee stage.
    Mr. MACLEAN: There seems to be much difference of opinion on this side of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman is not himself quite clear as to the implication of the Amendment. He has made the suggestion that if the Amendment embodies in the Bill what is apprehended by some of my hon. Friends he will put the matter right in another place. Can he not put it the other way, and reconsider the matter, and if it does not carry with it the implications that my hon. Friends seem to believe that it carries, he can then put the matter right in the other place?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: We have passed that stage. The pertinent words occur in an earlier part of Sub-section (1), and we are at line 30 now. We have passed the stage at which we can possibly put it right in the way suggested. The "charges" ought to be represented according to their strength, according to the total number of charges. The larger church ought to have a greater number of representatives. The whole purpose of the Amendment is to make that clear. It occurred to us that there might be cases in which, if you had one representative for every charge, the meeting would be too large, and that it would be much more convenient to prescribe for a smaller meeting by providing that there should be, for instance, one representative for every three

    425
    charges. The purpose of the Amendment is merely to make clear that in settling the number of representatives the proportionate size of the different denominations concerned shall be taken into consideration. The point raised now is what are the denominations concerned? We have passed that stage. Therefore, all I can say at the moment is that we undertake to consider the matter further and, if necessary, to have some talk with hon. Members opposite about it. If we find it preferable to alter these provisions the only way in which we can do it is in another place. I cannot make a better offer than that. So far as the Amendment is concerned, surely the House will agree that it is the intention of us all that the representation at the meeting shall be in proportion to the size of the denominations concerned, whatever the denominations may ultimately be?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I trust that the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate will not press this Amendment. It has created in the minds of some of us the greatest suspicion yet created on this matter. Two Members on this side of the House carried through most of the successful negotiations in connection with an Amendment which was ultimately accepted by the Government. I happened to be one of those individuals. In discussing the question with Dr. Whyte and three other representatives of the Churches I pointed out definitely that there were Members on this side of the House who were determined to do everything possible to safeguard religious instruction in our schools in Scotland, but that they were not prepared to fight merely for the Church of Scotland having representation. The complaint on the part of the Church of Scotland and the Churches generally was that the Act of Parliament safeguarded the religious instruction of the Catholics, and the demand was that there should be on these constituted committees direct representatives of the Protestants. As an individual I have repeatedly said in this House, and say again without any shame, that all my religious connections have been with the Salvation Army. Why should I, for a moment, yield to any Dr. Whyte or anyone else associated with the Old Kirk, that they are greater Protestants than I am? They are not.
    426
    All that they were fighting for, all that they were anxious to get was direct representation of the Christian Churches and the Christian brotherhoods and the others who were associated with the Protestant form of faith in Scotland.
    In discussing this matter with Dr. Whyte—no one has tried to let us down worse than the same individual—the particular claim was made that the Salvation Army was as much entitled to have representatives at the meeting convened to appoint representatives to the Education Committee, as any other organisation. The same claim was made on behalf of the Baptists who, after all, have churches. The same claim was made on behalf of the other religious denominations in Scotland that are associated with the Protestant form of religion. Now we have the claim being made by the Amendment that the more numerous the charges are, not the more numerous the members of the churches, the greater shall be their representation. In Kirkcaldy, where I live, if it was a question of membership the Old Kirk has not the same membership as the Salvation Army. In fact, if all the charges of the Old Kirk were put together, I question whether they would have the same membership as the Baptist organisation. Now the Government are going to throw into the melting pot what was an agreed Amendment, merely because a communication has been received by one Member of this House and by the Secretary of State from Dr. John Whyte. That is really the position; I am stating the fact. I know the communications that have been sent.
    It is most regrettable that after we had had a most harmonious Debate in this House and that after our proposal was accepted with practical unanimity, Dr. Whyte should come along again for the purpose of demanding on behalf of the Old Kirk the maximum representation, not for the purpose of getting representatives who will be prepared to see that religious instruction is given in our schools, but because he is determined that it shall be an Old Kirk representation if it is possible by numbers to carry the matter. I trust that the Government will not press the Amendment, but will go further into the question of charges. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson)

    427
    and myself were the two individuals who carried through the negotiations and ultimately managed to get a formula accepted by the Government. For it we received no credit whatever; the Moderator or ex-Moderator was prepared to take all the kudos. I trust that we are going to get a further explanation as to what "charges" means, because Dr. Whyte and the other three representatives made it quite clear that the word "charges" would include organisations such as the Salvation Army, the Baptists, the Brethren and the other properly constituted religious organisations that we have in different parts of Scotland. That was made clear so far as I was concerned. I hope that the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland is now making it clear to his colleagues that the word "charges" does include these particular denominations.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. BARR: It seems to me that there are two questions here. The first is as to whether the word "charge" is the best word. I thoroughly corroborate what fell from the Lord Advocate that it is the usual word in the case of what we know as the ordinary church, but it is doubtful whether it is comprehensive enough to include the various religious bodies that should be represented. Reference has been made to the Salvation Army, and there are other bodies, such as the Society of Friends, which we should wish to have included. I have no doubt that the Government will consider whether there is a better word, and it seems to me it might avoid dispute in the future, even though the Solicitor-General is of the opinion that the matter would be covered, if we had words to make this perfectly clear. The second question is as to the new form of this representation. As it stands, it would simply mean that each Church in Scotland would have—I will state my own opinion—separate representation and that might not be equal to the exact proportions of the various churches.
    I saw this Amendment yesterday and said, on the first sight of it, that I did not think it was one to divide against, and I am not taking up a position antagonistic, but I must say that the more I consider the Amendment the more I think the new form is very clumsy. I take it from the
    428
    Lord Advocate himself that the idea they had in their minds was one representative for every three charges. In the City of Glasgow, we have 192 charges. That means that we are going to have 65 men trying to represent the Church of Scotland—something like 50 from the United Free Church, and you have the congregationalists represented by perhaps two and the Methodists represented by four or five. I think that is a very clumsy arrangement, and I would point out that there has never been any dispute as to the particular form of religious instruction. They are united, and therefore it seems that it does not matter so much from what quarter they come. I would also point out that, supposing each church was only represented by one, the fact that the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church have that numerical preponderance would secure that representation. Therefore, while I have been very much adverse to anything like opposition in this matter, and, while I should be sorry if this were carried to a Division by this side or the other, yet I must say, when I look at it, that it does seem to me a somewhat clumsy arrangement. I think the mutual trust that should obtain between the churches should be sufficient without every church grasping at exact numerical proportions. Surely the one object in view should be unity.
    Sir HARRY HOPE: Throughout Scotland there has been an extraordinary feeling of unanimity in approaching this question of the continuance of religious instruction in our schools, and that unanimity in Scotland was reflected in this House a fortnight ago when the Bill went through the Committee. Nothing that my hon. and learned Friend is doing this afternoon is in any way detracting or subtracting from that spirit. This Amendment is a very small Amendment. I originally had a little band in drafting it. I submitted it to my hon. Friends opposite, and they thought, as I thought, that it was a means of assisting the putting into practical shape of findings which were unanimously arrived at when the Bill was in Committee. Therefore, this Amendment in no way desires to reopen or to alter the agreement arrived at. The hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood) suggested that this Amendment might have the effect of preventing the Salvation Army

    429
    from being recognised as one of the bodies coming into this scheme. The Amendment in no way takes away any rights from the Salvation Army. Recognising as I do that we want to enable all our denominations, including the Salvation Army, to come into this great work of facilitating religious instruction, I say my right hon. and learned Friend is only moving in accordance with an agreement already come to and is assisting in a practical way the working of the scheme. I do not think the Amendment would have any great effect if it were put in, but it is put forward in good faith, and that is what I am anxious for my hon. Friends to recognise.
    Mr. J. BROWN: I should not have risen at all, because I could very well have left it to those who have spoken, but I certainly did not think that this Amendment would have annoyed anyone. If I thought for a moment that the Salvation Army or the Society of Friends or any Christian denomination were to be prevented from getting fair play, I would vote against the Amendment; but I do not see for the life of me, and I have looked at it from every angle, how it will prevent the Salvation Army more than now from coming into it. Everyone will agree that it is democratic. We know that the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church of Scotland are democratic, and I never thought any hon. Member would take exception to it or impart heat into it. I welcome all Christians to take part in the work that lies before us in the education of our youth in Scotland, and I think we could easily be content with the promise of the Lord Advocate that, if there is any dispute regarding those who are to be called together to elect the representatives, he will see that it is put right in another place.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The only point here is the interpretation of the word "charge." As I understand the Lord Advocate, he intends to make that interpretation cover any religious body. From the statement the right hon. and learned Gentleman made, I felt that he had given us an undertaking to avoid misinterpretation and misunderstanding. We do not want to have any misunderstanding when it is too late, and, if we have a definite undertaking and it is
    430
    scheduled, that is all that is required. The word employed in the Bill is "body."
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask one question? I received the guarantee on the Committee stage and I only want to have it repeated here. I, as everybody knows, represent a constituency which holds the largest proportion of Jews in Glasgow. I do not know whether the word "charge" is suitable. The Government bring in a thing in good faith, and then somebody of a quibbling type of mind goes to the Court of Session and upsets it. I am anxious, not to safeguard the honour of the Lord Advocate, which is not in danger, but the legal interpretation of what may become a dangerous thing, apart from the legal aspect of it. Would it apply to the Jewish community? Once you proceed on democratic lines, they must be thoroughly democratic. Nobody would deny that to-day charges have altered completely. There are some charges that are packed to the door, and others that are empty. I do not say it in depreciation of other religious bodies, but, if it came to the actual numbers of membership, which ought to be the truly democratic way in charges—like the membership of trade unions—I would say that it must rest on the basis of a great amount of give and take.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I assure the House that I had no intention or idea, that, by this Amendment, I was likely to disturb any settlement or agreement which had been reached on this subject. There are two questions directly affected by this Amendment. As to the first one, I may read what the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood) said during the Committee stage discussion:
    "The Churches themselves, as a result of the discussion which took place either on Tuesday or Wednesday, agreed that these representatives were to be not merely representatives of the Churches but representatives of the other denominations which have charges in the respective areas, so that under the Amendment which has been submitted by the Lord Advocate not only will representatives of the orthodox Church—the Free Church, the Established Church and the others—but also representatives of the Salvation Army or of any other constituted denomination having a charge in a particular area be called to the meeting from which the nomination is made of representatives on the education committee."—[OFFICIAL

    431
    REPORT, 7th February, 1929; cols. 2008–2009, Vol. 224.]
    I still maintain, with some confidence, that if the representatives of the Salvation Army or any other constituted denomination have a charge in a particular area, they come within the terms of this Clause. Doubts have been raised as to this matter, however, and all the Government can undertake to do is to look carefully into it and to make sure that we are covering every one that we wish to cover. In the case of the Salvation Army, if they have a station or a post—[HON. MEMBERS: "A citadel!"]—or a citadel, or any kind of fixed centre from which they are working in the district, I think it is the intention of the House that that should be included.
    The second question is the question of whether the representation at these meetings is to be one for each denomination or is to be in proportion to the number of charges. I think there is no dispute that what was intended was that the representation should correspond to the size of the church as shown by the number of charges. But when I came to look again at the actual wording, it seemed clear to me that that wording left it open to draw the scheme either way—either as allowing one representative for each church, or as allowing representation in proportion to the number of charges. The purpose of the Amendment is that the intention should be defined more accurately. If, however, the present Amendment is going to raise any doubt or difficulty about the settlement which has been arrived at, I certainly am not going to press it. I would prefer to leave the wording as it is. I think it a pity that we could not have a clearer definition on this point but, as I say, I have no desire to create any difficulties and as I understand it is not the desire of the House that the Amendment should be pressed, I would, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, ask leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made:
    In page 21, line 32, leave out the words "including also."
    In page 23, line 4, leave out the words "not less than two-thirds," and insert
    432
    instead thereof the words "a minimum number."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

    CLAUSE 13.—(Power of delegation by county councils.)
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to move, in page 23, line 27, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
    It is obvious from the wording of the Clause that it is the intention of the Government that this delegation of authority should take place. With that idea, no doubt many county councillors and town councillors will agree. But we are setting up here a new county authority. It will be an authority not quite sure of itself in many cases. It will be an authority, largely without predispositions and largely ignorant of its own powers. We shall have that authority on the one side, and on the other side the town councils with their traditions, their local knowledge, and experience of the various services gained during many years of working. I think it would be to the advantage of the burghs and the people of Scotland if this delegation of authority were made compulsory, and—although the Amendment does not provide for this—I think it should at least be made compulsory for one year, until the powers of the new county councils become so clearly defined that there will be no possibility of trouble arising or of the people of the burghs suffering from failure to delegate powers.
    Major PRICE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Major ELLIOT: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not find it necessary to press the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment is not as he has described it, and I notice that his seconder, evidently realising the fact, has left the House. To import the word "shall" in this line would not make the Clause mandatory. Let me read the sentence as it would run if amended in the way suggested.
    "A county council shall, on such terms and conditions as the councils concerned may agree, appoint…to act as the agents of the county council," etc.
    That means nothing. Supposing the councils concerned did not agree, this would produce at once an administrative deadlock. Apart from the fact that

    433
    the Amendment does not achieve the object which the hon. and gallant Member desires, I do not think that object is in itself a desirable one. The fact that the Amendment would lead to an administrative deadlock and that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not found it possible to resolve that deadlock by introducing any subsequent words, shows the great difficulty of the proposal and in these circumstances I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Schemes for administration of functions.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 24, line 22, leave out the words "roads, but that only in the case of a county council," and insert instead thereof the words "in the case of a county council, roads."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 24, line 27, at the end, to insert the words
    "Provided that the council in preparing the administrative scheme so far as relating to education shall consult with the education authority of the area."
    This Amendment carries out a pledge which I gave on the fourth day of the Committee stage to the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Westwood) to accept the principle requiring the county council or town council to consult with the education authority.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: On a point of Order. I have down an Amendment to the Amendment which I hope I may be allowed to explain, at least to the Chair.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member will have an opportunity when we reach his Amendment to Amendment. At present, we are dealing with the original Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State.
    Mr. BENN: I was only anxious that my Amendment should be preserved.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this Amendment referred only to the education committees of the large burghs? I think the undertaking given was that all outgoing education authorities should be
    434
    taken into consultation, either by the county council in the one case, or the county of a city in the other case, in the framing of these schemes.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: This covers the county areas as well as the others.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I only raised the question, because I thought the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the large cities. So long as I have that assurance it will be unnecessary for me to move the Amendment which stands in my name—in page 25, line 42, at the end, to insert the words
    "Provided that the administrative scheme, so far as it relates to education, shall be framed by the county council or the town council, as the case may be, in consultation with the existing education authority for the area to which such scheme shall apply."
    I take it, however, that the Amendment now moved by the Government is carrying out that pledge.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: For every one which has to prepare a scheme.
    Mr. BENN: The Amendment which I have put down to the right hon. Gentleman's proposed Amendment is to leave out the words "education shall consult with the education authority of the area," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "the said functions may make provision for making applicable to such functions the statutory provisions in force prior to the passing of this Act relating to the audit of the accounts of such council."
    As a matter of order, perhaps it would be more convenient that I should state briefly the Aberdeen case as regards the Amendment on the Motion to leave out Clause 15. May I ask you, Sir, in advance, if you will put the Amendment to leave out Clause 15, and perhaps I should save time by not moving my Amendment to the present Amendment.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman. I understood that he wanted to move the Amendment to the Amendment which stands in his name on page 816.
    Mr. BENN: That is so, but there are two ways of doing it. One is by moving to introduce the proposed words here. The other is by raising the point on the Amendment to leave out Clause 15. If I am likely to be so fortunate to catch

    435
    your eye on the Question to leave out Clause 15, I should be satisfied not to move my Amendment to this Amendment.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot, of course, give the hon. Member any guarantee as to exactly what will happen in the further course of the Debate, but, as far as I can see, there is no reason why he should not have an opportunity, in the ordinary course, of moving to leave out Clause 15, bearing in mind, of course, the guillotine Resolution.
    Mr. BENN: Then I do not move my Amendment to the proposed Amendment. Amendment agreed to.
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel MOORE):
    In page 24, line 38, at the end, to insert the words:
    "The administrative scheme of a county in which is situated any of the following burghs frequented as holiday resorts, namely, Ardrossan, Dunoon, Gourock, Irvine, North Berwick, Oban, Prestwick, Rothesay, Saltcoats, and Troon shall provide for the delegation by the county council concerned to the town council of any such burgh of their functions relating to public health and classified roads 60 far as the same are exerciseable within such burgh, and that upon such terms and conditions as the county council and the town council concerned may agree and, failing agreement, as the central department may determine."
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: This Amendment is more or less the same as one that was debated last night and negatived, and, therefore, I do not move it.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: We are very glad to hear that, after the speech which the hon. and gallant Member made yesterday.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 26, line 21, after the word "newspapers," to insert the words "published or."
    This is a consequential Amendment on one previously moved.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Before we leave Clause 14, I want to ask a question on it.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot ask a general question on a Clause on the Report stage.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Audit and accounts.)
    Mr. BENN: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
    I do so, not because I desire to destroy the provisions as to audit in the Bill, but in order to draw attention to the very remarkable increase which is being sought by the Secretary of State for Scotland in his powers to audit the accounts of the big cities, and particularly of the City of Aberdeen, part of which I have the honour to represent. The situation at present is this, that the audit of Aberdeen is carried out under a Provisional Order of 1915. We have three auditors—not one, as stated by the Minister—who are appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The local Aberdeen newspaper said I said so, but the OFFICIAL REPORT said the contrary, and correctly. It was Dundee, not Aberdeen, that I spoke of.
    Mr. BENN: I was under the impression that the Minister said it, but I apologise. The audit they make is quite satisfactory, and there is no complaint about it. No one has ever said that the accounts of Aberdeen are not well audited and that the whole city is not thriftily managed. Now comes along the Secretary of State for Scotland, and for no possible reason whatever proposes to co-ordinate or assimilate the management of the finances of the City of Aberdeen with a general scheme which has absolutely no application to our special case. I cannot conceive of the ground he has for doing so. He is, first of all, securing the right of surcharge and, further, the power to audit accounts which have nothing on earth to do with him. When this Bill has been passed, the expenditure of the City of Aberdeen will be about £1,600,000 a year, of which £1,500,000 will be money that is not grant-aided in any shape or form, and part of which will be the Common Good, which is even independent of the rating assessment. What justification can there be for the Secretary of State for Scotland to insist upon the right of audit and surcharge of these matters, which are no concern of his whatever, but purely the concern of the citizens of Aberdeen?

    437
    We are unlike a county council. Something might be said for altering the audit of county council acounts, but, so far as Aberdeen is concerned, we have, in addition to the ordinary county services, such trading departments as gas, electricity, water, tramways, parks, sewers, the Common Good, and our Art Gallery. What the citizens of Aberdeen say—and I am speaking with the authority of the Treasurer of the City—is, "Why should we surrender to the Secretary of State for Scotland and a Government Department—because that is what it means—these powers over matters with which they have no concern and to which they make no contribution from the Exchequer?" The present system is going on with complete satisfaction to the citizens of the city, and the change is proposed for no reason whatever by the Government, and I think it is the duty of the Lord Advocate, if he can, to give some reason for this much resented increase of bureaucratic powers in this and other cases.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to second the the Amendment.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Benn) has spoken entirely of Aberdeen. Our proposal is that the general code of audit should be applied right through Scotland to the local authorities. I said on the Committee stage that a distinction existed between county and burgh accounts. The accounts that are least like those of a county at present are those of the City of Glasgow, who, subject to the Amendments we have put down, are perfectly content to come under the code which is proposed, and who would have stronger reasons for objecting to it than the City of Aberdeen. I have seen the City of Aberdeen. I had an interview with them about something else, and they never said a word about the audits previous to my—
    Mr. BENN: Since when have we had the new constitutional doctrine that the place in which to raise objections is in a public Department and not in the House of Commons?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The Report stage in the House of Commons is a little late for raising objections which are so strong and which have been so long felt, according to the hon. Member.
    Mr. BENN: But is the Lord Advocate not perfectly aware that under the Guillotine it is impossible for Scotland to raise any objections?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: No, I am not aware of it at all. The present state of Aberdeen is that, under its own Provisional Order, the appointment of auditors, whether there are to be one or more, is in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and, therefore, there is no change in that respect. I think the hon. Member will agree that the only substantial change, apart from the education accounts, will be the right of surcharge, and the general view is—and I spoke about this last time, and dealt with it in the House—that, generally speaking, the right of the ratepayers to inspect accounts and to take objection to them is not a satisfactory method of check, and that the right of surcharge is the more valuable method. That is founded on general experience, and I do not agree that this method of making effective the control of an auditor with regard to illegal expenditure is bureaucracy at all. It gives full opportunity for the defence of the alleged illegality, and I cannot see that anyone who has the public interest at heart can validly take any objection to it.
    Aberdeen is getting grants. Public money is going to Aberdeen from the Exchequer in increased quantities, and through the grant going in the form of a pooled sum, on the one hand, the central authority does not require to maintain the same close supervision of the local authority as it used to have to do when grants were made for specific purposes. That is one of the advantages of the reforms proposed in this Bill, but surely the central Department is entitled to have some independent, separate check with regard generally to the question of expenditure, and that is done by the surcharge, both in the interests of the taxpayer and of the local ratepayer. I submit that when you find that the local authorities, the burghs generally, are quite content to accept this code, while, of course, every burgh is entitled to have its own opinion, there is nothing very outrageous, as the hon. Member suggested, in making a uniform code, as we have done in this Bill. I may say that the block grant to Aberdeen will amount to between £112,000 and £113,000.
    Mr. BENN: Out of a total expenditure of what?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: What has the total expenditure to do with it? That is a very substantial sum, and it should entitle the central authority to have an adequate audit.
    Mr. BENN: It is one-sixteenth of the expenditure, and puts us in the clutches of the bureaucracy.
    Mr. JAMES STEWART: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate said, or it was said, not once but on several occasions throughout the Debate on this Bill and the Bill dealing with the same thing with regard to England, that one of the objects of the Measures was to give greater power and control to the local authorities and to take away from the central authority some of that control which they had exercised previously. [Interruption.] I know the Lord Advocate will bear with me in my lack of understanding, but that is what was said, but now we are being told the opposite. I am not disagreeing with it at all, but I want to point out what seems to me to be a contradiction. The local authorities were to get greater power and were to be less meddled with by the central authority, but now we are told that something of the opposite is to obtain and that greater powers will go to the central authority, of course, in the interests of the ratepayers.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: Over illegal expenditure.
    Mr. STEWART: I have had some experience of illegal expenditure, and I know that what is illegal expenditure under one administration may become legal under another, or vice versa. That happens occasionally, according to the reasoning powers of the gentleman who happens to be Secretary of State or who has control for the moment.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I would recall one point to the mind of the Lord Advocate, and that is that his own Government once had to ask this House to pass an Act of Parliament because of an administrative expenditure which had been incurred at the instance of the Scottish Office.
    The LORD ADVOCATE The LORD ADVOCATE indicated dissent.
    Mr. STEPHEN: The Lord Advocate shakes his head, but there was the case of the illegal expenditure incurred by the parish councils, and I myself thought that the administration was quite right in going on with that expenditure, but afterwards, when the Court, came to a decision on the matter, there had to be an Act of Parliament passed by this House, an Act of indemnity, in connection with that matter. I do not think the Lord Advocate ought to get away with it in that fashion. I believe, also, that from time to time similar circumstances have arisen in connection with health services, that is to say, that in view of the needs of the people the executive have decided to undertake expenditure for which there was no legal sanction and afterwards come to Parliament for an indemnity. Possibly the Lord Advocate is rather irritated because I have recalled this, thinking it may not be pertinent to this subject, but I am only quoting it as an illustration of what people who sit on the Treasury Bench may do. He has pooh-poohed our complaint and has spoken of "illegal expenditure" as though it were always a great crime. A local authority may be put into a position similar to that in which the Government have occasionally found themselves, and incur expenditure which is not strictly within their powers in the hope that the central Government may afterwards pass an Act of Parliament to indemnify them.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Payment of travelling expenses by county councils, etc.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 27, line 29, after the word "by," insert the words "order made by."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

    CLAUSE 18.—(Rates related to transferred functions.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 28, line 31, leave out the words "relative to the aforesaid expenses," and insert instead thereof the words "so far as inconsistent herewith."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Mr. BARR: I beg to move, in page 29, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (5).
    I will explain shortly the difficulty which has arisen in regard to certain

    441
    public libraries. In the Education Act of 1918 there was a proviso that education authorities in counties, as an ancillary means of promoting education, could provide books by purchase or otherwise, and that those books should not only be of benefit to the children for whom they were first obtained but also be available for the adult population resident in the area. The education authorities were empowered to make arrangements with public libraries, and all the expenses of this particular form of library were to be chargeable to the education authorities, but subject to a certain proviso. I think it would be as well to read the proviso, which is rather confusing:
    "Provided that in any burgh or parish as defined by the Public Libraries (Scotland) Act, 1887, the library rate by that Act authorised is levied, there shall be raised within such burgh or parish on account of any such expenses such sum as will, with the produce of the said library rate, amount to the sum which would have been raised within such burgh or parish under this Section had such library rate not been levied within it."
    I think I can make that clear to the House. The Public Libraries Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1887, allowed the levy of a rate of 1d. in the pound. Under the Public Libraries (Scotland) Act, 1920, that sum was raised to 3d. I will take the case of a burgh—my own or any other burgh—having an ordinary library rate of 2d. and I will suppose that the education rate for this special purpose is 3d. in the pound. The effect of the proviso which the Government are now proposing to delete is that that particular burgh would only pay up to 3d. in the pound, that is to say, it would pay the 2d. it pays as a library rate and 1d. in addition; but if we take away that proviso it would mean that instead of being rated at 3d. in the pound it would be rated at 5d. in the pound. That is how I interpret it, and I think I have interpreted it correctly.
    I would adduce one or two illustrations of why we should maintain this proviso. In 1918, when this system was established, a definite promise was made that there would never be a double burden such as will now fall if we eliminate the proviso. The Government may reply that if they take it away there will be an urge on those communities to come into line with the county as a whole and with its arrangements. I believe this is what is behind it, that there is a desire to have
    442
    a flat rate for the county as a whole, but I do not think that that is a sufficient answer to the injustice which we shall be doing to a burgh. The argument about a flat rate and securing absolute uniformity all round has been so constantly brought up here that it is becoming weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. The action of the Government will penalise the burghs and areas which have been the most progressive. During the last two or three days we have heard from hon. Members advertisements of a great many towns—Saltcoats, Ardrossan, Rothesay, Dunoon and Oban. I would like to take the opportunity of advertising my own town of Motherwell. It has not an esplanade, as some of these other places have, but I would say of the towns I have named that if you put them all together they do not make up one Motherwell. All I am asking is that towns which have gone ahead, relying on a definite promise made in 1918, should not be penalised for their progressiveness, and that a proviso which I regard as being in the nature of a debt of honour should not now be taken away on the plea of the necessity for securing uniformity.
    Mr. W. M. WATSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I realise that this is a question which is of great interest to a large number of burghs as well as county areas. It seems to us that the arrangement we propose is really the most suitable one. What we are, in effect, doing is to leave with the existing burghs the libraries which they already possess, because we do not desire to take away from them institutions in which they have a considerable interest. It might be justifiable in the common interest, eventually, to bring the whole of those institutions under one authority, but we do not think, even in the cause of efficiency, that that time has yet arrived. The hon. Member has said that under our scheme a burgh, in place of being charged only an extra 1d., might be charged the full 3d., but they can avoid that calamity if they enter into an agreement with the education authority. I think that the libraries now existing in the burghs will tend to form centres, distributing points, for much larger areas, and it may be that under a system of co-operation with the education

    443
    authorities we may engage more largely in the distribution of books by motors. It is just because we desire to leave with existing burghs the institutions in which they are so much interested, and to keep open the door for a measure of co-operation, that we think
    it would be unwise to accept the Amendment.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 197; Noes, 104.

    Division No. 255.]

    AYES.

    [5.59 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Oakley, T.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Gates, Percy

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

    Gault, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Pennefather, Sir John

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

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

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Atkinson, C.

    Goff, Sir Park

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)

    Balniel, Lord

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Preston, William

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Radford, E. A.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

    Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Remer, J. R.

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

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Berry, Sir George

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

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

    Bethel, A.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hanbury, C.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Stretford)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Harland, A.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Ross, R. D.

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Rye, F. G.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Sandon, Lord

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

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Savery, S. S.

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

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

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

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Burman, J. B.

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

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

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

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Iveagh, Countess of

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

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

    Storry-Deans, F.

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Christie, J. A.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Tasker, R. Inigo

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Templeton, W. P.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Loder, J. de V.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

    Couper, J. B.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Tinne, J. A.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    McLean, Major A.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Wells, S. R.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Ellis, R. G.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Wright, Brig-General W. D.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Fielden, E. B.

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

    Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

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

    Forrest, W.

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

    NOES.

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

    Grundy, T. W.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Barnes, A.

    Hardie, George D.

    Shield, G. W.

    Barr, J.

    Mayday, Arthur

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Batty, Joseph

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shinwell, E.

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Bellamy, A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Snell, Harry

    Broad, F. A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Bromfield, William

    Kennedy, T.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Bromley, J.

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

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

    Buchanan, G.

    Lowth, T.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lunn, William

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Cape, Thomas

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Clarke, A. B.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Cluse, W. S.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Townend, A. E.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Maxton, James

    Viant, S. P.

    Compton, Joseph

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Cove, W. G.

    Montague, Frederick

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Morris, R. H.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Dalton, Hugh

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

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Day, Harry

    Naylor, T. E.

    Westwood, J.

    Dennison, R.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Owen, Major G.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Gillett, George M.

    Potts, John S.

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Riley, Ben

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ritson, J.

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.

    Groves, T.

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    CLAUSE 20.—(Amendment of 1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 53, s. 7 (6).)
    Mr. STEPHEN: Owing to the operation of the Guillotine Resolution we had no opportunity of discussing this Clause during the Committee stage. There is some doubt as to whether this Clause is in order, and I have consulted Mr. Speaker, who suggested to me that I should raise the question as to whether this Clause is in order or not. Mr. Speaker told me that after the Minister had replied he would be in a position to give a Ruling. Hon. Members on this side were ruled out of order upon a similar Clause not long ago, because it did not come within the scope of the Bill. The preamble to the Bill sets out the various matters with which the Bill proposes to deal
    "To transfer to county councils and to the town councils of certain burghs in Scotland functions of existing local authorities relating to poor relief, lunacy and mental deficiency, education, public health, and other matters; to amend the law relating to local government in Scotland; to grant relief from rates in the case of the lands and heritages in Scotland to which the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, applies; to discontinue grants from the Exchequer for certain purposes in Scotland and to provide other grants in lieu thereof; and for purposes consequential on the matters aforesaid."
    446
    This Clause proposes to amend Subsection (6) of Section 7 of the House Letting and Eating (Scotland) Act, 1911, which states:
    "Every assessing authority shall, in respect of the occupancy of small dwelling houses, allow to owners from all occupiers' assessments levied on and recovered from them in place of the occupiers (less any repayments in pursuance of a claim under this Section) a deduction, to cover cost of collection, on the following scale."
    I submit that, in accordance with the ruling given yesterday that a proposal for the transference of rates under the 1920 Act was out of order, this Clause is quite outwith the scope of this Bill as indicated in those words. To give certain commissions to the factors in connection with the collection of rates has nothing to do with any transference of duties to the county council, amending the law relating to local government in Scotland, or granting relief from rates, and it is out of order because it involves an increase in rates. There is nothing in the Preamble to this Bill which allows the inclusion of a Clause of this kind. On a previous occasion when an English Bill was before this House, hon. Members endeavoured to get a Clause of this kind included and Mr. Speaker ruled that it could not be included because it involved

    447
    a charge. This Clause was originally put down in the names of Private Members and not in the name of the Government, and it was afterwards taken over by the Government. In the first instance this Clause stood in the name of the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. R. MacDonald) and three other hon. Members, and the Government were so long making up their minds to take it over that the local authorities had no opportunity of making representations in regard to this proposal. The corporation of Glasgow have intimated to the Lord Advocate personally, or at any rate to the Secretary of State for Scotland—
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I have had a deputation from them.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Before the corporation of Glasgow were able to interview the Lord Advocate, some of us tried to get an indication from the Government as to whether they were going to accept this Clause which stood in the names of some Private Members, and we were unable to get any information even the day before it was taken over by the Government.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I understood that the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) was raising a point of order. Would it not be better if we disposed of that question first?
    Mr. STEPHEN: On that point of order I should like to say a word or two. I think I have been following out your advice, Mr. Speaker, that I should first raise the question as to whether the Clause was in order, and that after the Minister had replied you would give your ruling. I am quite willing that the point of order should be dealt with before discussing the merits of the Clause.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: If the Clause is out of order, it requires no Amendment to take it away. It seems to me that it would be right to dispose of the point of Order before we discuss the Amendment, and I should like to speak on the point of Order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am prepared to give a ruling if the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is raising his point of Order now. I thought that he was going to raise it at the beginning of his speech, before actually moving the exclusion
    448
    of the Clause. My advice to him was that he should allow the Lord Advocate an opportunity of speaking on the point of Order.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Yes, Sir, that will suit me perfectly, and I will confine myself strictly to the point of Order. I think I have put to you the main point in regard to this Clause, namely, that it does not come within the scope of the Bill as set out in the Preamble. It seems to me that the only part of the Preamble which might afford a shadow of ground for its insertion is that which says:
    "to amend the law relating to local government in Scotland."
    It would, however, seem to me to be a tremendous forcing of the position to try to bring it in there as amending the law relating to local government. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the same wide interpretation as to amending the law relating to local government in Scotland would also have applied in connection with the Act of 1920 and the Clause to which we drew attention originally. I would like to have your ruling on that point.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I shall have no difficulty at all on this point of Order. The local authority, in order to carry on its government, has to levy rates to pay for the expenditure. Having levied rates, it has to collect them, and in doing so, it generally incurs some cost of collection. The provision with which we are dealing here relates to the way in which that collection is to be done and how the cost is to be defrayed. In the case of certain small-sized dwelling-houses, where the rents are usually weekly and there is difficulty in collection, it was found more convenient to deal with the matter by means of what is known as the compounded rent, that is to say, the local authority employed each landlord to collect the rates with the rent, and for that purpose there is statutory provision in the Act of 1911. With regard to the amount of the commission that is to be paid, I submit that that is an essential part of local government in Glasgow and elsewhere in the country—because it does not apply only to Glasgow—and, clearly, it comes within the words of the Title of the Bill:
    "to amend the law relating to local government in Scotland."

    449
    Some suggestion was made that this was comparable in some way or other with the new Clause suggested yesterday relating to the Act of 1920, but the Act of 1920 is something totally different. The provision that it was sought to amend by means of that Clause related to rent, and not to rates—
    Mr. STEPHEN: No.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The provision that it was sought to amend yesterday related to rent and not to rates. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 1920 reads as follows:
    "The amount by which the increased rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies may exceed the standard rent shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be as follows, that is to say:
    (b) An amount"—
    that is to say, an amount of rent—
    "not exceeding any increase in the amount for the time being payable by the landlord in respect of rates"—
    HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
    The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes; that is nothing more than specifying the amount by which the rent may be increased—
    Mr. STEPHEN: No.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, clearly so; the Act deals with the power to increase standard rents. That is a matter which is not dealt with in any way by this Bill. It is a question between the landlord and the tenant, and not between local authorities and their ratepayers, which is the question here. Therefore, clearly, there is a distinction between the two, and I submit that this Clause is entirely in order.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Further on the point of Order. It seems to me that the Lord Advocate has not grasped the essential point. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), there is only one part of the Preamble to the Bill under which this Clause would come, that is to say, the part which says:
    "to amend the law relating to local government in Scotland."
    What the Lord Advocate has to prove to your satisfaction is that an increase of 2½ per cent. in rates in Glasgow amends
    450
    the law relating to local government. I submit that he has not set out to prove that an increase of rates in Glasgow amends the law relating to local government. That is what he must prove, and he has not done it. He seeks to say that the Amendment which was ruled out of order yesterday was ruled out because it was a question of an increase of rent, but may I remind you, Sir, that that was not the ground on which Mr. Deputy-Speaker ruled it out of order? What we are here discussing is not the Lord Advocate's ground for ruling it out of order, but what Mr. Deputy-Speaker took as his ground for ruling it out of order, namely, that it did not affect the law relating to local government in Scotland or grant relief from rates. The Lord Advocate says that it is out of order to deal with rent, but that increase of rent is an increase of rates, and, therefore, if it is out of order to deal with an increase of rates that is added to rent, surely it is out of order to argue about another increase of rates that is to be added to rent. I submit that the proposal which is now before us is the same as that which is ruled out of order. If this proposal be regarded as being in order, it immediately becomes an increase of rent, and, therefore, we say that by no strentch of imagination can this Clause, which provides for an increase of rates to house factors in Scotland, be termed an amendment of the law relating to local government. It does not make for wider boundaries, it does not make for efficient collection. Therefore, we ask you to rule it out of order.
    Mr. MAXTON: Further on the point of Order. I wish to offer this further suggestion, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration before you give your Ruling. The essence of this Clause is not a proposal with reference to rates at all, but a proposal as to the way in which the collectors of rates shall be remunerated, and I suggest to you, Sir, that it is as much out of order as if I attempted to come in here and move a Clause fixing the rates of scavengers in the City of Glasgow.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) for having given me notice that he was going to raise this point. It certainly seems to be one of some difficulty. Strictly speaking, I should be entitled not

    451
    to deal with this as a question of Order at all at this stage, because this is the Report stage of the Bill, and presumably, these questions would have been gone into during the Committee stage, and no Clause would be allowed to be in the Bill now if it were not strictly in order. The fact of the Guillotine being in operation might prevent hon. Members from raising the matter with the Chairman of the Committee as a definite point of Order if the Clause in question were not reached, but, at the same time, it would be understood that the Chairman would not have allowed the Clause to be put into the Bill if he had decided in his own mind that it was out of order and should be removed from the Bill. The circumstances being as they are, however, I am quite prepared now to give a Ruling on the question.
    I understand that the point raised by the hon. Member for Camlachie is whether a Ruling which was given with regard to a new Clause proposed yesterday ought not to apply to this Clause in the same way. I consider definitely that it ought not. The new Clause proposed yesterday, in my judgment—and I think that that will also be the judgment of the hon. Member if he considers it—was outside the scope of this Bill, in that the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act deals entirely with the fixing of rents. This particular Clause, in my judgment, is a matter of administration of local government, and, being purely a local government matter, is within the scope of this Bill, as opposed to the new Clause proposed yesterday. As I understand it, without going in any way into the merits of the Clause, which it is not my business to do, this Clause allows the landlord something extra because he compounds to pay the rates, and it does so by allowing a deduction from the assessment to cover the cost of collection. That, as I read it, would be purely a matter of local government, as the rates would have to be collected in any case, and, therefore, it is entirely within the scope of this Bill.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    I desire to thank you, Sir, for your Ruling on this matter, which, of course, I accept. The circumstances in which the
    452
    factors in Scotland, and more, especially in Glasgow, have sought to persuade the Government from time to time to accept this increase in their percentage for collecting rates, is possibly very praiseworthy so far as they themselves are concerned, but at the same time, of all the attempts that they have made, I think the present attempt is the one which should meet with the greatest amount of reprobation from Members of this House. The local authorities concerned were given no opportunity of knowing that the Government were going to deal with this matter, and, if the factors had to depend upon the support that they could get in this House from Members of either party, apart from the Government, I do not think they would have very much chance of getting this alteration made in the law. But the Government at the eleventh hour agreed to the representations that had been made to them by those people, and the convenience of the local authorities from one end of Scotland to the other has been entirely lost sight of.
    It may be that the Government, having put this Clause on the Order Paper during the Committee stage, may hold that the local authorities then had an opportunity of making their representations between the Committee stage and the Report stage; but we all know that it is a very difficult matter for a Government to take a decision and then to alter that decision. Such a case did occur the other day, but it was only after a tremendous rebellion on the back benches of the Conservative party which threatened the very existence of the Government, and it was only the widespread character of the revolt which made the Government on that occasion give way and alter their decision. The Government had no right to come to this decision without giving the local authorities an opportunity of expressing their mind. This is for the local authorities a very important question. It does not apply only to Glasgow, as might be thought from the appearance of the Clause with its reference to Glasgow. It applies to every part of Scotland where the 1911 Act is in operation. Consequently, it is a matter of importance not only to Glasgow but to all the other big cities and towns. The number of factors concerned in Glasgow is 230, according to

    453
    an answer which was given by the Secretary of State. I propose to deal directly with the Glasgow case, and I have no doubt some of my colleagues from other parts of the country will be anxious to state how it is going to affect their districts.
    The 230 factors in Glasgow are responsible for the collection of rates amounting to £1,062,582. You may say that is a lot of money. How much do they get for collecting it? At present they get a fixed percentage of 2½ per cent., which allows them to draw £26,499. Look at the collection of rates by the City collector. He is responsible for collecting practically £7,500,000. In addition, he is responsible for the collection of other accounts, such as gas and electricity. He is responsible for a total collection of £11,474,683. So that, on the one hand, you have the collection of money amounting to practically £11,500,000 as against £1,000,000, and the whole cost of the city collector's office for collecting this £11,500,000 is £53,861, which is practically twice the amount that is taken by the house factors for the collection of one-eleventh of the amount. So that these people are getting five times as much for their work as is paid in connection with the other accounts of the various municipal departments, and the proposal of the Government is that they can go to the sheriff and, if he agrees, they can get the amount doubled. That is to say, instead of getting five times as much as the City collector requires, they are going to get 11 times as much, if you measure it by the amount of money collected. For the rest of the country the figure is fixed at a maximum of 2½ per cent. With regard to the other districts, the parties concerned had a right to appeal to the sheriff, and if they could persuade him they might get up to 2½ per cent. but not more. In Glasgow the 2½ per cent. is to be changed to a maximum of 5 per cent. at the discretion of the sheriff, and the whole of Scotland is going to be put into the same position. I think I have correctly stated the facts in connection with the alteration that is involved in the Clause.
    To come back to Glasgow again, a penny rate raises before the Bill passes into law, £45,800. It is estimated that when the Government's de-rating proposals are passed, a penny rate will produce
    454
    £41,400, so that we are going to have an additional rate levied upon all the people in Glasgow amounting to 64d. in the £ if this proposal is carried.
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: And if the Sheriff allows.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I accept the correction. I will come back to that later. That is a very serious position. Take the work that house factors do in the matter of rates. You may say it is difficult work and it costs so much to do. Apart from some little book-keeping operations, there is no additional work necessary at all. The rates are collected along with the rent. The rent collector goes in monthly and gets a definite amount month by month. There is no additional charge. He has to be there for the rent anyhow. He has not to explain anything to the people in connection with their rents. They know what they have to pay. There is no additional work involved in the collection of the rates as far as visiting the people is concerned, so that any difference in this matter arises from the fact that in making up his accounts he has to make the difference in his accounts, but that is all the work that is involved, and for this he is paid to the extent of £26,499.
    Then, again, I want to make it clear that if this is granted, and if the Sheriff allows the increase to take place, every ratepayer in Glasgow is going to be put in the position of having to pay a contribution in connection with it. I think of my own division. The house factors go to the tenants and collect the rents. In the future I see in my mind's eye a long street, Duke Street, in which there are so many shopkeepers who are passing through a difficult period. They are getting no relief whatever in connection with this Measure. There is the other main thoroughfare in my division, and every shopkeeper in it has to pay a certain increase in rates to pay the house factors for going round collecting the rates in those small dwellings that are affected by the 1911 Act. Every other citizen in Glasgow has to pay a contribution towards this expensive method of collecting rates, because it is much more expensive than the other method that is in operation. I do not want to be unfair in presenting my reasons for suggesting that the Government should

    455
    accept the Amendment, and should put the matter back for further consultation. It may be said that it would be a very difficult and expensive matter to collect the rates from those small houses in any other way than along with the rents; at the same time, the great majority of these small dwellings that come under the 1911 Act at this time of day have gas, and the authorities are able to collect their gas account, and it all comes into this £11,500,000. So that practically every one of these houses to which the house factor goes is also visited by the gas collector, and the expenses in that connection are met by expenditure of £53,861. There is no case at all for the Government giving this increase to these 230 men in Glasgow. In the past they got £115, but if the Sheriff agrees, in the future they will get £230 a year. It would pay the City far better to take over this business for themselves. There is no suggestion on the part of the Government to allow the local authority the option of taking this matter over.
    I should like now to deal with the other point, that it is only going to happen if the Sheriff allows it. The house factors have to make out their case before the Sheriff, and there is an arrangement for revision at various periods under the 1911 Act. That, in itself, is going to involve the corporation in so much more expense. I cannot see how the Sheriff is a person who is likely to be able to give a satisfactory decision. He may be learned in the law, but he may be a very poor accountant. If you are going to have an authority, that authority should be a person who is accustomed to dealing with accountancy and used to collecting accounts. This matter is being handed over to the Sheriff, who will decide, whereas it is something which requires decision by people who are skilled in accountancy. It is not a question of law, but a question of accountancy, and consequently the wrong person is to be the arbiter in a dispute between the factors. I do not believe that the Government could get a thousand people in the City of Glasgow who would be likely to agree with the justice of this proposal. I do not believe that they could get a thousand people in the City of Glasgow who do not believe that the factors are very well off at the present time. It
    456
    may be said that it is not, the factors who are going to get this money, but the owners of property. In a discussion with one of the Glasgow Corporation people, it was said that this is going to mean an additional charge on the owners as well.
    I submit that, if the Government want to deal with this question, they should deal with it in a straightforward manner. They ought to have put this proposal into their Bill at the beginning, or they should have put it down on the Paper early in the Committee stage. If the Government's intentions in regard to this matter had been made known, it would have allowed, not only Glasgow, but Dundee, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Motherwell, and the other towns in the country an opportunity of putting their views before the Government. I have not the figures as to how the local authorities in other parts of the country will be affected, but I would like the Lord Advocate, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, or whoever is to reply, to tell us the position with regard to the other local authorities. How many of them are paying on the maximum rate of 2½ per cent.? How many cases were taken to the Sheriff by other authorities for decision? In the case of Glasgow, there was no option. The 2½ per cent. was fixed. I would like to know how many authorities went to the Sheriff, or how many of the property owners had to go to the Sheriff in connection with the rate that was being allowed? What is the total amount of rates collected by these people in Scotland and what is their total charge for collection?
    I am quite sure that, of the many unpopular things in this Bill, this will be the most unpopular. People in the poorer districts such as represent are at their wits' end to find the rent for the factors. If the Lord Advocate would pay a visit to the rent Court in Glasgow, he would see the tragedies that are being enacted there. He would see poor people in the most miserable circumstances making the most desperate efforts to find the money with which to pay their present rent. There is to be no relief for them, but relief for the people who collect the rents—a present to them of £26,000 if they can get the Sheriff to agree to the proposal. Local authorities throughout Scotland are going to have

    457
    to face not only all the difficulties connected with these readjustments but all the trouble of having to go to the Sheriff and of having an inquiry in order to bring out this figure and that figure. This is an intolerable action on the part of the Government, and I hope that, if the proposal is embodied in this Measure, the new Government which will come in in June will take speedy measures to prevent these people from sucking the blood of the people in the way they are doing at the present time owing to the amount of money they receive for collecting rates.
    Mr. J. STEWART: I beg to second the Amendment. I hope I shall be in order in calling attention to the fact that this is an example of legislation supposed to be for the benefit of the people. A Bill in connection with this matter was before this House for a number of years before it became law in 1911. It was known in Glasgow as Mr. Cross's Bill, Mr. Cross being then the Member for Camlachie. The idea of the Measure was that its provisions should be beneficial to the people who lived in houses at small rents and had short lets, that is to say, weekly or monthly lets. It was provided that the landlords should be responsible for the collection of the rents of these houses. Subsequently we had a rent Act which altered the situation, while later on we had an Amendment of the Rent Act which again altered the situation. As has been mentioned to-night, additions were made to rent by reason of the Act of 1920 which transferred the burden, as it was called, that had been put on the landlord in 1915. In the amending Act rates became part of the rent. Part of the increase of 47½ per cent. in rents was in respect of rates. Later on, we had another Amendment decontrolling houses, and under that we had an addition made to the landlord's income.
    Since 1914, the rates of Glasgow have more than doubled, and, although the rate of commission has remained the same, the amount received for collection has more than doubled, first, because of the increase of rent, and then because of the increase of the rates per pound. In 1914, the rates for the City of Glasgow were 2s. in the £, and to-day the corporation rate, apart altogether from the parish council and education rate, is 4s. in the pound. In 1912, they collected £54,080 of
    458
    rates and the commission received in connection with the same was £13,520. To-day, they are collecting £1,062,000, for which they will receive £52,900 if the sheriff permits the percentage to be doubled. [Interruption.] I have said: "If the sheriff permits it." The percentage may be increased from 2½ per cent. to 5 per cent. The factors of Glasgow, whom I know, and some of them, like the rest of us, are quite decent fellows, are alive to their own interests; much more so than are some other people. If the tenants were as much alive as they are, the Government would not be doing what they are doing to-night.
    Sir R. HORNE: It is not the tenant who is making a protest. It is the corporation, with all the power behind it which enables it to employ the best advocates before the sheriff.
    Mr. STEWART: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his interruption. That is just what the Corporation of Glasgow have not had an opportunity of doing.
    Sir R. HORNE: That is what they will be able to do under the Bill.
    Mr. STEWART: Yes, they will, perhaps, be able to make an appeal against a decision.
    Sir R. HORNE: Oh, no. The hon. Gentleman is mistaking the purport of this legislation. This Bill enables the corporation to appear before the sheriff in order to prove that it does not cost the householder as much as he is claiming to collect his rates, and to have it reduced to the minimum. The corporation will be in a position to employ counsel, as it has frequently done in the past, for its own benefit.
    Mr. STEWART: Yes, I will concede that point at once. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman has received the same communication from the Glasgow Corporation as have all Glasgow Members.
    Sir R. HORNE: Yes, I have, and I will deal with it later.
    Mr. STEWART: It is quite apparent that that expresses the opinion of the 113 members of the Glasgow Corporation as far as we know—there has been no information to the contrary—and shows what they feel in regard to the Government

    459
    not giving the Corporation of Glasgow any opportunity of making representations before the Bill is passed through this House.
    Sir R. HORNE: I have got the representation.
    Mr. STEWART: I think it would be proper to allow them the opportunity of making their representation before this Bill becomes law.
    Sir R. HORNE: They have done so.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. STEWART: I am certain the right hon. Gentleman will be perfectly well able to deal with that when he replies. I was speaking about the question of this increase. The rates of Glasgow have doubled and, instead of getting £13,000 now, the factors are getting £26,000 or slightly more than double what they got when it originally commenced. They are getting more than that, because in 1912 there were over 18,000 empty houses in Glasgow, and to-day one can say with absolute accuracy that there is not an empty house of that kind within the confines of the city. That means that they are now getting commission for collecting rates on about three-fourths of that number of houses. They are now getting commission for collecting rates on those houses which were formerly empty. Altogether the landlords of Glasgow have not done so badly. Under de-control the landlords have been able to increase rents very considerably and their account is very well on the credit side. The only people who are going to lose are the tenants and the Corporation of Glasgow. A penny rate yields £45,000 in Glasgow at the present moment, but when de-rating is in force it will yield only £41,000. That means that when de-rating is accomplished the tenants and landlords of Glasgow—for the landlords will have to pay their proportion—will have to bear their share of the burden caused by this decrease in the yield of a penny rate.
    Can anyone show us a reasonable justification for this action at the present time? We are being assured that the Sheriff will have to give permission, and it is suggested that, when the Corporation of Glasgow presents its case, the Sheriff will not give the increase. I have no confidence in any such assurance. I am
    460
    convinced that the people of Glasgow will resent what is being done by the Government. I would remind the House of what happened in 1922. Members sitting on the Government Benches have at various times castigated the Members on this side on that account, saying that we represented in 1922 that the rents would be increased under the Rent Act, and that by not playing the game we won our 10 seats in Glasgow through those representations. I assure the Government that, just as in 1922 the fact that there was a probability of the landlords getting the opportunity to increase their rents by 47½ per cent. had that effect on the representation of Glasgow, so when the people of Glasgow learn that, besides the burden which de-rating is going to throw on the mass of the tenants of Glasgow, at this moment, when trade is bad, wages are low, rents are high and houses throughout the country are fully let, the Government have thought it opportune to add this burden, they will then know that once again they have been tricked by those who claim to be the friends of the working class-. This burden must come back to the tenants, and I would point out that over 82 per cent. of the rates are paid by householders and shopkeepers, and only 18 per cent. by those who are getting the benefit of de-rating.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I confess frankly that I amazed at the justification of the Amendment, and I am surprised at the attitude which the Glasgow Corporation have taken up in this matter. I would remind the House that the view of the Government was made clear in the Amendment which was tabled to the Bating Bill of 1926, and the intention of the Government has never altered since that date. The Corporation of Glasgow have been fully aware of the attitude of the Government, and I received a deputation from them at the end of last week on this matter among other matters. Whether that is so or not, I am perfectly prepared to defend the Clause. In 1911, before the War, it was found convenient, mainly in the interests of the local authorities and particularly of the Glasgow Corporation itself, to have a particular class of the rates collected for them by means of the compounded rate and it was necessary, in order to adopt the compounded rate method which had been

    461
    optional in burghs up to that date, to put the burden compulsorily upon the landlords not only to pay their own rates, but to recover the tenants' rates and account to the Corporation for the rates so collected. It was obviously right that the landlords, having that compulsorily put upon them, should be paid for the cost of collection.
    That was the provision in the Act of 1911 with regard to all the country except Glasgow. With regard to Glasgow, a flat rate of 2½ per cent. was paid at that time before the War. In the rest of the country it was a maximum of 2½ per cent., but such amount under 2½ per cent. as could be proved before the Sheriff to be the actual cost of rate collecting. I have not been able to get much information on that point about the rest of the country. I know that in one case, in Dunfermline, in 1916, the actual percentage? allowed was 1¼ per cent., and in another case it was an identical figure, about half the maximum allowance. The value of money has changed since then and many factors have changed. I concede entirely what the hon. Member has said about getting a larger sum for collecting one person's rate. That is exactly the factor that the Sheriff should consider. Are the corporation of Glasgow unwilling to pay the actual cost of collecting to the landlord on whom by this House has been placed the duty of collecting these rates for the corporation? It can only be because they think a just payment for this collection is more than 2½ per cent., and they do not want to pay it. Certain figures have been given by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), who said that Glasgow could do its own rate collecting much cheaper. He admitted very fairly that the class of rate collecting with which we are here concerned was probably more difficult. But, if the corporation thinks that its proof before the Sheriff of what it costs a landlord is going to produce a heavier figure for commission than it would cost the corporation to do the work, then the corporation should be freed to collect its own rates. On the other hand, some of the other arguments which were put forward by hon. Members who have spoken were excellent arguments to put before the Sheriff for a reduction to less than 2½ per cent., and it is perfectly open to the corporation to do this. If the hon.
    462
    Member for Camlachie were qualified in Scotland as he is in England, he might be employed by the corporation to apply before the Sheriff for a reduction.
    I take my stand on this even at the risk of repetition. This duty of collecting is forced on the landlord by Parliament for the benefit of the corporation, and I cannot see why they should not pay the actual cost of collection to those on whom that duty is forced. We provide in this Clause that the actual cost of collection, as proved before a Judge, shall be repaid, or rather allowed to be taken out of the money collected. What is the other proposal To stick to a flat-rate of 2½ per cent., the old flat rate. I repeat that, if that 2½ per cent. is too much, they should not be paying it, and should be saving the ratepayers of Glasgow the extra cost. If it is too little, then it is not fair or just to say that the Glasgow Corporation should pay less than the actual cost of what the landlord is bound to do for the benefit of the corporation of Glasgow. I would add that, as far as I know, we have received no representation against this Clause from anybody except the corporation of Glasgow.
    Mr. HARDIE: The last words of the Lord Advocate explained a great deal to me. He says that no representations have been made. What time has anybody had to protest against this, owing to the way it has been done? The Government should not do a thing like this to the corporation. A local authority has the power to levy rates. Why should the Government compel the local authority to increase the rates, as is being done in this case The Government are compelling the Glasgow Corporation to increase their rates in order to pay for the collection of rates.
    Sir R. HORNE: Only if the Sheriff allows it.
    Mr. HARDIE: I understand all that parrot cry. This Clause is infringing upon the right of the local authority, and it is a very serious matter. Even to give the power as it stood was something of an innovation. When the Lord Advocate spoke about the corporation of Glasgow collecting the rates, he ought to have known that certain classes of rates must be compounded. Therefore, the corporation

    463
    were not allowed to collect these rates. This proposal will not only impose a new rate upon the local authority, but it means imposing that new rate upon a depleted area so far as rates are concerned. Practically the whole of this rate will have to be put upon the house occupier and the shopkeeper. I want to deal with the position which arose in 1926 when we were dealing with the Rating (Scotland) Bill in Committee. On that occasion, the Lord Advocate said that a very leading association of property owners only requested an increase in the commission if the £4 house was left in. He tells us that this question has been before us ever since we discussed the Rating Act in 1928. He said in Committee that those Members of the Committee who were not asking for the increase would agree that the fair attitude was that those who asked it must satisfy the Committee on the point. Will the Lord Advocate tell us whether, since we finished that Bill in Committee, any bodies have been consulted, and, if so, will he tell us the names of those bodies? He has not informed the House what steps have been taken in the meantime. In Committee on the Rating Bill he said that those who desired an increase must prove their case, and he went on to say:
    "I am not expressing any view on this. The Committee are entitled to say that if more is asked it is for those who ask it to prove the necessity for the advance. That is the position of the Government, and I think it is the position which the Committee ought to take up."
    We have not had a single word in this House to throw any light upon that particular sentence from the statement of the Lord Advocate. There has been so evidence of any kind since the Scottish Committee discussed that Bill that the Government have had meetings with anyone on the subject, that they have had conversations with property owners or with anyone representing the house factors. We have never been informed of any investigations that have been made by the Lord Advocate or any of the representatives of the Scottish Office in regard to what the Lord Advocate said was essential before the Government would move, namely, that the necessity for any advance must be proved. The Lord Advocate said to the Committee: "That is the position of the Government."
    464
    If he still says that that is the position of the Government, why has the House been left without a single word on this particular point? The Lord Advocate also said:
    "I do not propose to say anything more except to point out what is the view of the Government. If the Committee are satisfied that an increase is necessary, then it would almost necessarily follow that we must amend the amount in the House Letting Act as well. One knows that in Glasgow the payment of this commission means a very substantial sum and an advance of one per cent. on it would be a substantial sum. Those Members of the Committee who are not asking for the increase will agree that the fair attitude is that those who ask it must satisfy the Committee on the point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, 8th July, 1926; col. 2897.]
    Here we find the Lord Advocate emphasising the point that there was no need for legislation until, first, a case had been made out as the basis for that legislation. We have not been given any information during the Second Reading, the Committee stage, or the Report stage of this Bill on this most definite statement which was made by the Lord Advocate in 1926, when the Bating Bill was before the Scottish Grand Committee. The inclusion of this proposal in the Clause can only be likened to the last cart leaving the last town to be evacuated. The Government are throwing everything into the cart that they possibly can, because they realise that they are not likely to be coming this way again. This proposal has no relation to de-rating. Reference has been made to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and to his various abilities. To-day the hon. Member has, once more, shown his legal mind. It does not matter whether a man is qualified in English law or Scottish law so long as he has logic and he can deal with things in an intelligent way. Common sense is common sense the world over.
    When the Lord Advocate made reference to the Glasgow Corporation he was forgetting that under compulsion these rates were compounded with the rent. I would like to emphasise the statement which was made by the Lord Advocate that a very leading association of property owners only requested an increase in commission if the £4 house was left in. If we had been dealing to-day with the question of rent or rates it

    465
    might have been possible for the legal luminaries to have explained matters better, but what we are dealing with is neither rent nor rates; it is simply a question of a sum of money called commission for collection of the rent which is compounded with the rates. I am no lawyer, but I know that when one deals with a question which is complicated, the first thing that a reasonable man seeks to do is to try to put the different things into the different compartments to which they belong. We cannot separate the rates from the rent when by law they are compounded, but we can definitely separate commission for the collection of the compounded rents and rates. It does not matter how much the rates are or how much the rent is, the question involved is the amount to be paid for the collection of rents and rates by the factor of the property. In Scotland the owner is seldom the factor of his property. He generally employs a factor. That is where the commission basis begins. In the old days, before compounding, the factor was simply paid a varying commission according to the conditions and a sum per pound for the collection of rents. When there came the compounding of rates following upon that, it was agreed that that collection had to be paid for. No one wants to quarrel about the payment, but no one wants power from Parliament to compel a community to do something that it does not want to do. You are not compelling the house-owner under this Clause to pay; what you are doing is to say that a commission of 5 per cent. is to be paid to the factor, if the sheriff admits it. We know what that means. A visit to some of the courts of Glasgow and other cities in the early mornings would reveal what is meant when rates are compounded with rent.
    The full meaning of this Clause is that property is having another security, small as it may seem, placed upon it. It is not content to have the law as it stands on its side. It is not content with all the rights which the law has given it in relation to rents, most of which is robbery, but it comes along with the idea that even in regard to money that is to be spent upon public improvements, money which the citizens through their town councills collect in order to apply it for social advancement, has to be subject to a Clause in an Act which has no
    466
    relation to the subject of commission. For these reasons, I hope that the Government will see their folly in proposing such a Clause.
    Sir R. HORNE: This subject is one which we can and which we ought to discuss without heat, animosity, prejudice or bias of any kind, and I hope that it will be possible for us, on both sides, to regard this problem entirely apart from the question of the particular individuals involved. It may be that the renting system is all wrong and that at some time we shall get rid of it, but up to now we have allowed private individuals to provide the houses for people to live in, and we cannot expect that that provision should be made without any return. Therefore, do not let us think whether the person who is involved is a house-owner or not. Let us look upon him as a person who has done something to serve the community. Without the provision that he has made, how would the community have had their heads covered?
    Let us look at the origin of thus question. It has all arisen out of the change which was made in the year 1911. Up to then much as we in Scotland may dislike it, we had fallen behind England in the matter of providing short-term lets for people who required them. Undoubtedly, the people in Scotland suffered from severe and great embarrassment as a result of that state of things. Hon. Members opposite will remember, as I do, the missive system which compelled the workman, long before he knew where he was going to work, to sign for a rent or for a lease months ahead of the time when he could say where he would be employed. He was placed in this further awkward position that, being in a house with a long-term let, he was in difficulty in regard to taking employment elsewhere which might have suited him very much better. England was ahead of us in these matters, and in 1911 the House Letting Act for Scotland was brought in, to establish the system of short-term lets. Immediately you had short-term lets the question arose as to how you were going to collect your rates. Rates in Scotland were collected at one period of time in the year, and if you had people in tenancy for only a month, or two months or three months, the question was how the local authorities were going to collect

    467
    the rates from these particular tenants unless they had an enormous army of collectors constantly going about to discover how long a particular tenant was going to stay. That is the reason why we are in this particular difficulty.
    In that crisis the Government decided that the only practicable way wag to put upon the landlord the duty of collecting the rates, because he alone knew how long the tenant was going to stay. The landlords, and especially the Glasgow landlords, fought most determinedly against this proposal, but Parliament, in spite of their opposition, determined to impose this duty of collecting the rates upon them. In order to reinforce my point, I have taken the trouble to look up the Debates on the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill of 1911. The Lord Advocate then was Mr. Ure, who afterwards became Lord Strathclyde, and on the Second Reading of that Bill he said this:
    "The result will be that there will be a system of short lets in Scotland as in England. If that be so it is obvious that some readjustment of the present system of collecting rates is necessary. Rates in Scotland are collected at one time, and that the most inconvenient time for the tenant.
    There are two ways in which a readjustment may be made; the owner may be asked to collect the occupiers' rates, or the local authority may be asked to make more frequent collections. The Government prefer the former method because it is the simpler and more convenient."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1911; col. 393, Vol. 27.]
    In one portion of his speech he indicated that there might be an option to the local authority to determine whether they would collect the rates or impose the duty on the landlord. In the Debate which followed Mr. Scott Dickson, the then Member for Central Glasgow, whom many hon. Members will remember, strongly protested on behalf of house owners against the duty being imposed on the landlords, and the question was really determined by the speech of the then Liberal Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Price) who said this
    "I am not at one with the right hon. Gentleman as to what he says with regard to allowing the local authorities the option to collect the rates. I am quite sure if that is adopted that it will affect very materially the value of this Bill, and that if he will consult the working classes of Edinburgh and Glasgow that that option will not be given because it will be simply impossible."
    468
    Then he revealed a particular political object. He went on
    "Take, for instance, the Poor Rate on which the qualification for the Vote is based. If that small rate can be collected at frequent intervals then practically speaking the local authorities will strike out the names."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1911; col. 394, Vol. 27.]
    In the interests of keeping people who would not be able to pay their rates from being disfranchised Parliament, at that time a Liberal Parliament, came down in favour, apart from all other considerations, of imposing this duty against their will on the householders of the country because of this particular political object. If we regard this as a matter of justice every hon. Member will agree that to impose this duty against their will on people who are not responsible for the collection of rates—that is the duty of the municipal authorities—then obviously you must pay them what it costs for the collection. Surely that is fair and just. What are we doing by this Bill? The Lord Advocate in this proposal is getting much nearer to justice in this matter than the old Act did, because the old Act provided a stereotyped rate of 2½ per cent. It is quite possible that it does not cost the householders 2½ per cent. to collect these rates, and if the view of hon. Members opposite is correct, it may be that they are getting far more out of the municipality than they are entitled to. The rate originally fixed may be too high to-day, and if it is too high, the Bill gives the Corporation of Glasgow the opportunity of appearing before the Sheriff and saying that it is too high, and proving what it costs to collect as against what the householder is charging the corporation.
    As far as I know the corporation of Glasgow have always been able to employ the most expensive counsel in matters concerning the corporation, whether the case is heard in Edinburgh or in the Courts in Glasgow. At any rate it is quite certain that the corporation of Glasgow will not be inadequately represented when this argument takes place. It has been said, "What do the Sheriffs know about these accounts? "It will be made very plain to the Sheriff by the advocates who appear before him what is the nature of the issues upon which his judgment depends, and I cannot imagine

    469
    that the Sheriffs, who are entrusted with the decision of grave questions involving large sums, will, under these circumstances, be moved by any extraneous considerations on this matter and will not judge as they find the facts to be and give an absolutely just decision on the points put before them. It has been said that the householders may take a considerable risk in this matter; but they are taking this risk and it is now for the corporations in Scotland to put before the Sheriffs adequate reasons why the amount should be less than 2½ per cent. or such amount as the houseowners claim. Questions of prejudice should really fall outside this discussion. We should see that justice is done. When the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) was speaking he seemed to me to roll the word "factor" round his tongue. He reminded me of a school in the Highlands where factors are not popular. A pupil was reading an examination passage from the Bible, and the passage happened to be concerned with the crucifixion of our Lord—
    "There they crucified Him, and the 'male factors,' one on the right hand, and the other on the left."
    Upon the present occasion, we should get rid of prejudices of that kind, and determine the matter on the pure justice of the case. I cannot imagine that justice can be better served than by the proposal of the Lord Advocate.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: The right hon. Gentleman for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has appealed to us to approach this matter without prejudice and without bias, but it is a remarkable thing that the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure always speaks without prejudice and without bias, has never once delivered a speech in this House in favour of a claim by the tenants or the workers. It must be that with our prejudiced minds we think the tenants are always wrong.
    Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member must remember that I have not had an opportunity of speaking upon any question affecting tenants up to now.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has had more experience of legislation in this House than I have, but during my comparatively brief period many questions affecting landlords and tenants have been discussed, and I am
    470
    sure that I could search the official records of this House in vain for a speech by the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the interests of the tenants. To-day we have had a characteristic speech from him. He has once more appealed to us, not on behalf of the people of Hillhead, not on behalf of the people of Glasgow, but on behalf of a handful of people who, according to him, have the most unmentionable names. The only argument he used was that the Government, having imposed the duty on house factors, or house-owners, of collecting these rates, these men have a moral right to go to a Judge and get a judgment on what would be equitable remuneration. The right hon. Gentleman has been Chancellor of the Exchequer and he has imposed on certain people the duty of collecting Income Tax and insurance contributions, but I have never heard of him pleading that the employers of this country, or the secretaries of limited companies, should have the power and right to appeal to a Judge for a reasonable commission on the collection of Income Tax.
    The right hon. Gentleman followed the example of the Lord Advocate in one respect. Neither of them attempted to prove even a prima facie case in support of this amendment of the law which we are discussing this afternoon. One would have thought that they would have submitted some figures to show that there was a case for inquiry, but not a single scrap of evidence has been submitted to the House at all. The only point put forward by the Lord Advocate was that the value of money has changed since 1911 when this maximum contribution was fixed. But the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) pointed out that the amount received by the house factors for the collection of rates is exactly double what it was in 1911. The rates have doubled. Therefore the 2½ per cent. to-day represents 5 per cent. on the sum that was collected in 1911. There can be no claim that there is an additional amount of work there. If you give them this additional 2½ per cent. and make the amount £53,000 instead of £26,000, it does not follow that an extra clerk will be required, that an extra sheet of paper will be used, or an extra drop of ink consumed. It is the same amount of labour calculating commission at 5 per cent. on a given sum as it is in calculating

    471
    a commission of 2½ per cent. on the same sum. I submit that there has not been the slightest word put forward as evidence in support of this very drastic proposal. But there is here evidence of something else. How easy it is for a certain section of the community to move the Government! The right hon. Member for Hillhead threw out sneers and jeers at the Corporation of Glasgow.
    Sir R. HORNE: Not at all. The right hon. Gentleman must justify that statement. I made no jeers. There is not a corporation in the country for which I have more respect, and language of that kind must not be used by the right hon. Gentleman without justification.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: The right hon. Gentleman told us that this matter had been before the Corporation of Glasgow and the public since it was mentioned—
    Sir R. HORNE: I said nothing whatsoever about that in my speech. I do not know to what the right hon. Gentleman is referring. There is not a word that he is uttering now that represents what I said. I certainly said the corporation would protect themselves. They have always been able to do so.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sorry if I misquoted the right hon. Gentleman, but he said that in 1926 this matter was mentioned in the House.
    Sir R. HORNE: I never said anything of the kind; I never mentioned such a fact.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: It may have been the Lord Advocate who made the point.
    Sir R. HORNE: What I take exception to is the right hon. Gentleman's statement that I jeered at the Corporation of Glasgow. I did nothing of the kind.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Other people may put a different interpretation on it, but the right hon. Gentleman certainly told the House that the Glasgow Corporation needed no sympathy, because they could employ the best and most expensive counsel to put their case.
    Sir R. HORNE: That is not jeering at them.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Surely it is jeering at people to impose an injustice on them and to justify it by the argument that they can protect themselves by employing the most expensive counsel in a court of law? My point is that it is quite easy for some people to move the Government, however difficult it may be for the masses of the people to do so. As far as this Bill is concerned, the secret history of this particular Clause it will be most interesting to hear if we could have it. All that we know is that two or three Conservative Members put it on the Paper. It is a remarkable fact that not one of those who put it on the Paper has risen in the House to-day to support the proposal, and I am not sure that one of them is present in the House.
    Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: Oh, yes, I am here.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I am glad that one of them is in the House, and I hope he will rise to justify the Clause. I hope that when the hon. Member for the Cathcart Division of Glasgow (Mr. R. MacDonald) goes down to his constituents he will be ready to justify to them the proposal that he is advocating here. The Corporation of Glasgow represents over 1,000,000 people. The corporation has unanimously opposed this proposal, and the political friends of the right hon. Member for Hillhead, who are the majority in the Glasgow Corporation, have unanimously condemned the proposal. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to ask me to believe that the house-owners and factors of Glasgow cannot hope for justice from the Conservative members of Glasgow Corporation? These members are coming to us—
    Sir R. HORNE: We are not delegates here. We have a right to our own, opinions.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not want to deny that the right hon. Gentleman is expressing his own opinion, but I am sure that if it were possible to take a plebiscite in Hillhead I should find that he was not expressing the opinion of the majority of people in Hillhead, which is a Conservative constituency. I even go to the length of saying that if there were not one or two influential house factors in his Division he might not be so prominent in these discussions. At any rate, I do not think that the right hon.

    473
    Gentleman is justified in talking about this as a concession to the house-owners. I have very grave doubts as to the £26,000 ever reaching the house-owners. It will go to the house factors, and the factors are not always the owners; the right hon. Gentleman knows that they are very seldom the house-owners. In actual practice, things are being arranged in order that the incomes of the house factors may be increased.
    Sir R. HORNE: My information is exactly the contrary.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: If the right hon. Gentleman has the information, he has carefully concealed it from the House.
    Sir R. HORNE: I will make another speech if the right hon. Gentleman likes. In any case, I will interrupt to say that all my information is to the effect that factors get more from the collection at the present time than the house-owners get from the Corporation.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I submit that the evidence that has been produced here is just as weak as the evidence that has been submitted by the Lord Advocate and the right hon. Gentleman to support their action in raising this question at all. Really I hope that the best and most expensive council who represent house factors before the sheriff, if ever a case under this Bill gets there, will be more successful in their pleading than the right hon. Member for Hillhead has been this afternoon. It is a remarkable fact that some Members representing Glasgow have so little consideration for the opinion of Glasgow. This question affects vitally the corporation and the business with which it has to deal.
    Sir R. HORNE: So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly prepared to appear before any audience in Glasgow to defend the action which I am taking now.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: I think that is a challenge. Will the right hon. Gentleman come out to my Division and support his action there?
    Sir R. HORNE: I shall be delighted to speak in your Division.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: With myself on the same platform?
    Sir R. HORNE: Certainly.
    Mr. WHEATLEY: Then I shall arrange the meeting. It is very difficult to sustain a connected argument with all these interruptions, but, now that pistols for two and coffee for one have been arranged, perhaps I may proceed in a more orderly way with the discussion. My point was that it was not entirely fair to say that this is a concession to house-owners. In the district that I represent, the house factors own very little if any of the property from which they collect rates. I think that that applies to nearly every working-class district in Glasgow. It would be interesting to know how much property is owned by the 230 gentlemen who are to benefit by this gift from the Government. The house factors are simply agents employed in the collection of rents. As agents they got added this side-line of collecting rates. The amount that they are getting from rate collecting is £26,000, but if this proposal is carried—as no doubt it will be, with the present majority in the House—however unjust the proposal may be, they will get in future a sum approximating to £53,000, and if they have any feeling of generosity left there will be at any rate one section of the community on which Conservative candidates in Glasgow can rely absolutely at the forthcoming General Election. I submit that there was never a proposal put before this House with less justification and support behind it. There is a very old and hackneyed saying, that "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad." There never has been stronger evidence of the wisdom of the author of that statement than we have in the action of the Government to-day.
    Sir S. CHAPMAN: It is not often that I trouble the House even with a few words, but as I put my name to this now celebrated Amendment, and as the right hon. Gentleman said that none of those who sponsored the Amendment were in the House, I immediately stepped to the front to show him that there was at any rate one individual who was prepared to stand up and defend his action. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that if the Amendment became law the factors would in future get a certain amount. That is an entire misrepresentation of the Amendment. They will not

    475
    in future get anything unless the Sheriff judicially decides that they are entitled to get it. Why misrepresent a very simple Amendment by exaggerating it in such a way as the right hon. Gentleman has done? I do not know the rights or wrongs of this particular claim on behalf of the factors, but I have been told that they are losing money. Some hon. Gentlemen think that they are not losing money. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) evidently thinks so. He has been in many parts of the world, and he knows a great many curious people. I daresay his opinion may be accurate, but, at any rate, I know my hon. Friend sufficiently well to know that he is a man who loves justice, a word which we often hear from those benches.
    8.0 p.m.
    If that is so, let the owners go to the Sheriff and state in truth that they are not getting sufficient remuneration. The labourer is worthy of his hire. If the Sheriff says, "I think you are doing very well, I will turn you down," there is an end to it. When the corporation of the City of Glasgow collected these rates themselves, they did not collect them very well; they did not know how to do it. Perhaps one reason why hon. Members on those benches object to the system is that they think the rates are being collected too well. I am going to tell them what the corporation of the City of Glasgow lost. The evidence was given before Lord Guthrie's Commission that they lost £25,000 in ordinary collection of rates in 1905–1906, and in addition they lost to the Glasgow Parish Council £8,000. That is to say, they did not collect £33,000 worth of rates which might have been collected, had they been collected by men who knew their job.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what proportion of these rates lost were relieved on account of poverty by the corporation?
    Sir S. CHAPMAN: That does not enter into the question at all. They were rates that ought to have been collected by the Glasgow Corporation. Sometimes, these men have to make as many as 52 calls in a year for a comparatively small sum.
    Mr. MacLAREN: That is once a week.
    Sir S. CHAPMAN: That is perfectly accurate. It is very brainy of the hon. Member. It amounted to 18s. 11d. per £100. To-day, under the present system all that the corporation of Glasgow loses in the collection of these rates is 2s. 4d. per £100, so that owners of Glasgow have saved the corporation a very great deal of money, and it is the least the House can do, if these people come forward and say that they are not getting fair remuneration for their work, to let them go before the sheriff and present their case. I for one, who place justice before everything else, will vote in favour of that.
    Mr. CLARKE: I rise to support the Amendment so effectively argued by hon. Members on this side of the House. I listened very carefully to the reasoning of the Lord Advocate, and I feel that he left us unconvinced. He was unable to justify his contention that in the last analysis, as the 2½ per cent. has come to be stabilised, so ultimately will the 5 per cent. be stabilised for the collection of rates that have been compounded. Personally, I feel that the issue lies in this particular direction. Is there a reasonable sum that can be paid to the factors for the collection of rates which can be contained within the 2½ per cent. already provided? I submit that there has been no case that would justify us in saying there is not a reasonable and adequate sum for the collection of rates within that 2½ per cent. where the rates are compounded in towns and villages. I come from a town where the majority of the rates are collected by factors, and I recall the fact that, when this 2½ per cent. was imposed for the collection of these rents, the ordinary rent ran from £8 and £9 to £10 a year. To-day, these rents represent a sum from £14 to £15 and £16 more, although in some cases owing to the occupation of individuals—miners who have had to shift from one district to another—the houses became de-controlled, and the landlord was in a position, to exact whatever rent he was able from the new tenants owing to the scarcity of houses. But that increase on the rent carried with it a proportionate increase of taxes. If, when the rent was £9, 2½ per cent. was the sum that was adequate for the collection of these rates, then obviously when the rent went up to £15 to that particular tenant, there was an increase proportionately for each £ on

    477
    the rate imposed on the tenant, and an increase to the factor on the collection of the rates. In the same way, it can be reasonably said that there has been another considerable increase in the factors' amount that he is able to collect for the collection of the rates.
    It is well known that the rates even on the present increased rent have steadily increased, and so they have reached a sum in the district from which I come of 5s. 6d. to 6s. per £. It may be true to say that unless a case can be made out the sheriff will not agree to an increase beyond the present evidently stabilised 2½ per cent., but I submit that, just as when there was an attempt to increase it at one time when 2½ per cent. was found to be enough and when the much lesser percentage which was given was ultimately increased until the 2½ per cent. became the stabilised amount, so proportionately there will ultimately be 5 per cent. exacted by the factors for the collection of these rates. I submit that these same tenants together with other tenants and ratepayers throughout the burgh will have their assessments increased in proportion as the difference between 2½ per cent. and 5 per cent. will be ultimately imposed. From any point of view that we care to examine this question, it will be admitted that, taking all these factors into consideration, there is no doubt of the fact that the factors are amply remunerated for any service that they give for the collection of the rates in any particular burgh.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland one question which I hope he will answer when he replies to the Debate. It is a question that affects also some of the statements made by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). Was he approached, or was the Scottish Office approached, by any deputation from the Factors' Association in Glasgow or Scotland or by representatives on their behalf, and, if so, was a case stated to warrant the introduction on the Committee stage of an Amendment to the Bill proposing to do certain things which were not in the original Bill? If such representations were made, why has not the Lord Advocate, in making the speech he did to-day, which was the first speech by the Government on this particular proposal, taken the House into his confidence
    478
    and made us aware of what was stated on behalf of the house factors? We are told by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) that the factors are losing money. It seems rather peculiar that it should be the Member for South Edinburgh who should have put his name to an Amendment which was going to affect the city of Glasgow. One hears a lot of the hostility between Glasgow and Edinburgh, but it is carrying such hostility to an extreme point when an Edinburgh Member wants to impose an extra 2½ per cent. on the Corporation of Glasgow and leave the Corporation of Edinburgh free. Was that one of the statements made by the house factors' representatives to the Secretary of State for Scotland, that they were losing money, and that the 2½ per cent. did not amply remunerate them for the collection of rates? Did the Secretary of State for Scotland or any member of his staff in the Scottish Office ask the factors or their representatives to prove it, and was the point proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State and his staff?
    These points have not been submitted to the House. We have not been taken into the confidence of the Secretary of State or the Government. We are told by the Lord Advocate that this proposal is nothing new, and that it was suggested in 1926. I am not disputing the fact that this proposal or something of this character was in the Bill of 1926. But I ask why the Government, if they had this proposal in mind, did not include it in this Bill as it was originally placed before the House? Why did they include it as a new Clause brought in by Members of their own party? Why did they wait until it appeared on the Order Paper in the form of a new Clause and then suddenly discover that it was something which ought to be in the Bill but which they had forgotten? It appears now in the Bill, but we had no opportunity of discussing it during the Committee stage owing to the Guillotine. The factors are going to get 5 per cent. instead of 2½ per cent., but it is only now, on the Report stage of the Bill, that we have an opportunity of debating the proposal. The House should have had an opportunity of dealing with this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill if it was in the minds of the Government.

    479
    The House should have been informed of the arguments in favour of the claim that the factors are losing money through making this collection. The Lord Advocate talked about this proposal as a measure of justice. We should all like to deal out to others the justice which we expect to receive ourselves, and, in this case, we want to see that the other people concerned get justice as well as the factors. We want justice, not merely for the factors, but for the Corporation of Glasgow.
    When the Secretary of State accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh and his colleagues, did he notify the Corporation of Glasgow and give them an opportunity of putting their case before him as against the factors' case, or did he merely accept the Clause and leave the corporation to get their first knowledge of it from the amended text of the Bill when it was printed? These are matters which ought to be stated in this House. The Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate are not treating the House fairly in this matter. Neither are they treating the corporations fairly. They are dealing with this question, as they have dealt with many other questions during the past two or three years, in a most slovenly fashion. This Bill is going through in the same manner. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead spoke about what the Corporation of Glasgow could do. He said they were not going to be placed at any disadvantage; that they were a wealthy corporation, and, that if the factors applied to have the percentage increased to 5 per cent., the corporation could brief the most expensive counsel. Why should the citizens of Glasgow be expected to spend money on legal costs because of the caprice of the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate in accepting this proposal? Why should the citizens be fined in thousands of pounds in order to justify their position against the claim of the factors?
    No reason has been given. We are told that the factors lose money. How much have they lost? Surely 2½ per cent. is a pretty fair percentage for this work. It is only a bookkeeping transaction. They go round and collect the rents and so much of the amount which they collect
    480
    and bank has to be transmitted to the Corporation by cheque. There is no extra work. They would have to collect the rents in any case. In what way do they lose? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) pointed out that if they got this extra 2½ per cent. there would not be any additional work. I think the Secretary of State has been badly misled in this matter. He has accepted this Clause rather hurriedly and without proper consideration. If he had listened to representations made on behalf of the side which is going to benefit, then he should, in common justice to the corporations of Scotland, and particularly the Corporation of Glasgow, have given them an opportunity of stating their case and giving their reasons for opposing this Clause.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: As one having some knowledge of factors, I should like the House to understand who it is we are dealing with here, and to whom it is proposed that we should give this increase of remuneration. I would like to point out the attitude taken by this body of men, particularly since the War. This question affects not only Glasgow but my constituency and my constituency has played a particular part in fighting the factors. They fought the factors because the factors dealt very harshly with the working class in Scotland generally, and in the West of Scotland in particular. This is the body of men on whose behalf the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) and the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. R. MacDonald) put down the original proposal. Why did they put their names down? Why did they not put down the name of the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper). Their names were put down—with all due respect to them—because their seats are considered safe. [Interruption.] Sir Samuel, you know not what a day may bring forth.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I would point out to the hon. Member that my name is not "Samuel."
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I never accused you of anything of the kind Mr. Hope. I will say of you that hope springs eternal to put me down, but it is individuals whose seats were considered safe by the Government—
    Sir S. CHAPMAN: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend—I am sure I can call him so—but will he allow me to say that I did not consult the Government? I never consult Governments at all. I acted on my own responsibility when I put down that Amendment.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Well, I will not pursue that any further, but time will tell whether the working class in Scotland will accept this slight that the Government are giving them. I am sorry the right hon. Member for Hillhead is not in his place, because he has taken a deep interest in this Bill, but on every occasion on which he has risen to speak it has been to down my class, just as on every occasion on which the Secretary of State for Scotland has risen it has been to do the same thing. If ever there was a class piece of legislation, it is this that we are now discussing. We are being asked to give an increase to a body of men who are fairly well paid at the moment, as pay goes. When the working class had to accept reductions in wages, when they were up against it, when they were away fighting for their country, the Government of the moment are proposing to convey great favours to these same factors, namely, to give them double their wages. It is not a case of another two shillings a week here, but they are going to get double their wages. Just fancy any section of the working class having the audacity to make application for double the wages they are getting now! I would like to see the part which the right hon. Member for Hillhead or the Secretary of State for Scotland would play in that event.
    But that is exactly what is happening now, and those same factors, when the war was on, took advantage of the men being away fighting on the fields of Flanders to increase the rents. They brought up before the Rent Court in Glasgow 400 cases to be tried, because they could not pay increases in rent, and out of those 400 cases 200 had either their son or their father fighting on the bloody fields of Flanders to defend them from the Germans, from the enemy. Here was their enemy at that time—the factor. The case was so very bad that we stopped work. I led a thousand men in from Parkhead and defied Sheriff Fyfe in the Court in Glasgow to give a decision against those poor people, with
    482
    the result that Sheriff Fyfe asked the representative of the factor—Mr. Gunn was the lawyer's name—if he was prepared to take the responsibility for stopping the Clyde, and Mr. Gunn said "No." The Sheriff said "Well, neither am I," and he dismissed the case. But that could not continue. That meant that we in Glasgow were defying the law. Lloyd George was then the Commander-in-Chief.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is hardly relevant to the question of increasing the percentage to the factors.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I hold, with all due respect to you, Mr. Hope, that I am showing the type of individuals and the part that they played in this country, and its relation to this increase. I am giving their history—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite in order in speaking about the factors, but he mentioned by name the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, which seems hardly relevant.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I beg your pardon. If that is all the crime that I have committed, it is the easiest thing in the world to remedy it, and to say the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. I am sorry I called him by his name. He will be known in another world by some name, and he himself will know it when the mists have rolled away. As I was saying when you put me down or corrected me, Mr. Hope, the fact that we were defying the law of the land could not be allowed to continue. We had defied the Sheriff to put into operation what he considered the law, because we had the whip hand at that time, and we were defending the working class, the women and children of the men who were out fighting the battles in Flanders, and we got maligned all over the country as a result of it. The Government sent down Lord Hunter to make an inquiry into the situation regarding the factors, and Lord Hunter came down, after having a consultation with another gentleman regarding single apartment houses in Glasgow. Who was he? He was Lord Salisbury. What knowledge had he about the factors' business in Glasgow and single apartments? It is true that Lord Salisbury was born in one apartment, because he could not be born in more than one

    483
    at a time, but he was born at Hatfield House, where there are nearly 300 apartments.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That again is hardly relevant. I do not see how the question of the payment of factors depends on where Lord Salisbury was born.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: That may be, but I am drawing the attention of the country to the part played by the actual individuals, not their grandfathers, nor their fathers, but the actual factors now, during the most trying period of the War, during the most trying time that this country has ever passed through. The factors, these bloodsuckers, played that part. This Commission came down, and Lord Hunter reported the state of affairs to the then Coalition Government, with the result that an Order-in-Council was passed which stated that for the duration of the War and six months afterwards there would be no increase in the rent. That was because of the part played by the working class in my part of the world. It was not a kind, Christian, Coalition Government that gave Britain that, but it was because the workers on the Clyde fought for the whole of the workers in Britain, and we were slated by everybody all over the place and called traitors to our country. These factors are the individuals who forced us into that position. Then, when the War was finished, the factors made application for increases in rent. They said then that they claimed an increase because tradesmen's wages had increased, etc., but the fact remains that the houses for which they were asking higher rents had been built long before the War. They got 50 per cent. increase in rent. That means they are getting double the amount of money, and they get 2½ per cent. on that, plus the 2½ per cent. on the rates, which again, have been doubled.
    The House is making a great mistake when it talks about the factors going round and collecting the money. That is a serious mistake. The factors, particularly in the West of Scotland, of which I can speak authoritatively, have so tyrannised my class that it is no longer necessary for them to go round to collect the rents. The working folk go to the office and pay the rent. That has now become part of the system. If they
    484
    send anybody it is the sheriff officer to "poind the gear." I do not want to be in the position of simply calling them names which I am not able to substantiate, and I want to point out these further facts to the House. Prior to the War the factors had to whitewash the houses, because all the old houses in Glasgow were whitewashed. Those who had rooms had the rooms painted, because rooms were painted half way up the wall; though in the more classical parts, where my class live, rooms were papered. All those things were done once a year—whitewashing, painting or papering, and the factors paid for it. The system gradually tapered off until they only gave the people the paint or the paper, leaving them to put it on, and now they give them sweet nothing. They also used to have to whitewash the wash-house, and keep everything there in order, but now they do nothing of the kind. There is no factor within reach of my voice—and some of them are here—who does not know that what I am saying is the absolute truth. That is the part that those individuals have played.
    Let us come to what is being discussed at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) says that all they are asking for is justice, and if my memory serves me aright, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) said the same, proving once again that like goes with like, like an auld horse with an auld stone dyke. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead said all they wanted was justice, and that we were making a mistake; that we were not to run away with the idea that the Government were out to give them 5 per cent. If we did not know them, it would not be so bad for hon. Members like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead to rise up there with a face of brass—I am sorry he is not in his place; but of course he will know of it all right—and to say that. He can go to Clydebank, never mind Shettleston, and discuss that. He said we were running away with a mistaken idea in saying that the Government were out to give them an increase, and that he was rather of the opinion that the factors were possibly taking a risk here, because it was going to be left to the Sheriffs, and that by the learned counsel that Glasgow would be able to employ we might be

    485
    able to prove our point. Bui Clydebank may not be able to employ such learned counsel. I would draw attention to the introduction again of these learned gentlemen, because with them it is a case of pounds, shillings and pence. I can see that there is an idea here that the legal fraternity are going to get some bones to pick. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead and the Lord Advocate are looking well after the legal fraternity.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be left with the Sheriff. I do not know about that. It has been said repeatedly across the Floor of the House that they would rather deal with the Sheriff than with members of my class. I differ there; I am all out for democracy. We have to pay a price for democracy, and we are paying for it in Glasgow at the moment in the matter of the licensing court, etc. But I am still prepared to pay a big price for democracy. It is the best thing we have yet evolved for the government of any country, and I am not in favour of handing away our rights to the legal fraternity under the name of Sheriff. But, apart from that, we must remember that the Sheriff will naturally say, "If the House of Commons had considered that 2½ per cent. was sufficient, they would never have remitted the matter to me." If the Government put this on the Statute Book, then it follows as night follows day that they are giving a lead to the Sheriffs to grant an increase.
    The factors in Glasgow are now collecting £1,000,000, and they are getting £26,000 for collecting it. I ask Tory Members to watch what is happening, and I warn them that we shall make the welkin ring if they put this proposal on the Statute Book. I want hon. Members clearly to understand that the factors are collecting £1,000,000 and the cost of that collection is £26,000. The head of the collecting department of the City of Glasgow is Mr. Lawrence Mitchell, who is a very fine man. That official and his staff collect over £11,000,000, and the whole of that operation costs £53,000, or just about double the cost of the collection of £1,000,000 by the factors. The Government are now proposing to give the factors in Glasgow the same amount for collecting £1,000,000 as is paid to the collecting department of the Glasgow
    486
    Corporation for collecting £11,000,000. That is what this proposal really means.
    Sir J. GILMOUR indicated dissent.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Secretary of State for Scotland shakes his head, but the amount is really twice £26,000 for collecting £1,000,000. This means that the advocates of private enterprise are again playing into the hands of their friends. When it is worked out, this proposal really moans that the cost of collecting £1,000,000 by the factors will be eleven times the amount which it would cost if the collecting of the money was done under a Socialist regime. The working classes are the actual producers of the wealth of this country. Remember that the factors produce absolutely nothing; all they do is to take. The factors are not satisfied with what they are getting, and they want more. All the time it is a case of "Give, give, give," and they are never satisfied. On every occasion, when the working classes have made any attempt, not to obtain an increase of wages, but simply to maintain their standard of life, the Tory Government have used all their power against them. The most powerful Government in the world have used all their machinery to smash the working classes, who are the actual producers of the wealth of the country. Did the Government come to the assistance of the miners? I think we have proved across the Floor of the House that the Government never did anything for the miners, and yet they have gone out of their way to bring in a proposal like the one we are discussing, and they are trying to rush it through. What did the Government do when the miners were up against them? Lord Hailsham at that time introduced a Bill to increase the working hours of the miners—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member was in order in talking about the factors, but he is going beyond that now.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want the working-classes to understand what the Government are capable of. I have tried to show what the Government have done, and I think I have done so.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to support the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). I want to point out, in the first place, that before you alter an Act

    487
    of Parliament you ought to make out a prima facie case for the alteration of the law. Any person who wishes to alter an Act of Parliament ought to show that the particular Act he is dealing with operates partially and unjustly on the persons who are working under it. It is a very ordinary political principle that when you are going to alter an Act you should come to this House and show that that Act is working in a way which causes undue hardship to certain of His Majesty's subjects. Up to the present, we have not had a single argument either from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) or the Lord Advocate, to show that the Act has deprived a single house factor in Scotland of anything that was necessary to enable him to lead an essentially clean and happy life. It has not been shown that this Act deprives any of the factors of their legitimate income.
    The Lord Advocate said that the case could be proved before the sheriff. The Tory Members of this House are constantly telling us that Parliament should be allowed to decide these questions. I quite agree that Parliament ought to decide these questions and that they ought not to be left to somebody outside Parliament to decide. Let me give as an illustration the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. At the present time, power is placed outside the Minister of Labour to say who is to receive and who is not to receive unemployment benefit. The result is that we cannot criticise the Minister of Labour in cases where unemployment benefit is refused. Instead of the Secretary of State for Scotland being obliged to come to this House to be subjected to criticism, he delegates his job to a sheriff, because he knows that the sheriff cannot be criticised for the action which the Secretary of State for Scotland knows that he will take. It is true, of course, that the sheriff might not do it, but let us be perfectly frank about this business. Who has pioneered this proposal through the House? Let the hon. Member for South Edinburgh be honest, straightforward; let him tell the truth. Where has he been spending his time during these debates? He has been spending his whole time in personal conversation with the factors; they are his driving force.
    Sir S. CHAPMAN: I do not know whether I am quite in order in interrupting, but I go for information where I can get it. The Government sometimes have to go into the gallery behind the Chair, and, when I want facts, I go and get them from people who can give me those facts.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: That is true. The people from whom the hon. Member has been getting his facts are the house factors; they are the people who have been priming him for his case. That proves what I say, that all his information, his whole force, has come from the factors. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) has given us some history, and I, too, may be excused if I go back, not so far as he did, but to 1926, when my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie and I played a fairly prominent part, and when, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I may say so in fairness to you, you played a part well-becoming the Chair. You exercised your discretion with fairness and justice, and showed yourself to have no bias in any way. I say that in passing. In 1926, my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie raised first the point of order which ultimately led to the decision, and I assisted him in whatever fashion I could, as I generally do. Some people criticise this group, but at least they are loyal to each other.
    9.0 p.m.
    I then went back to my constituency in Glasgow, my native town. I wish that, particularly, the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. R. MacDonald) who pioneered this proposal, would go back to his Division as often as I go to mine. If he had done that, he would never have put down this proposal. When I went back, what did I find? I have in my Division possibly the most prominent house factor in Scotland—a man named Gilmour. He is no relative of the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State knows him very well. He is, perhaps, the most famous factor in Scotland. When I got back, I found a letter from him written in very cruel language. As many hon. Members know, I live in my Division, and I have to go to house factors, not because I like them, but because I have to choose between families being in the street and being in a house; I have to plead with the factors for justice. He wrote to me

    489
    saying that in the past he had always been fairly decent to me, but that my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie and I had been the means of smashing this Amendment in the 1926 Act, and it might interfere with the happy relationships that had formerly subsisted.
    Did that show that the factors were not going to get an increase from the sheriff? Why did he write that letter? Was it because he thought that no increase was to be given? Not a bit of it. He wrote that letter because he knew that our action was keeping him from getting the increase, because he knew that, if this matter goes to the sheriff, an increase is bound to follow. The factors are up in London to-day. I will plead guilty to having this in common with them, that, to some extent at least, they are Scotch. I do not like, nor do they like, to spend any money if it is possible to keep from spending it. They have paid first-class sleeper fares to come down here, and are staying in good hotels—not the Shaftesbury, I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton, but good hotels. That is because the sheriff will give them that 2½ per cent. They have done it because they know their sheriffs. I know the sheriffs, and they have done it because they know that the sheriff will grant this request.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead rises to support this proposal. I must say that those who have done so have shown, not political wisdom, not even political madness, but almost, as I said once of the Home Secretary, stupid honesty. But as for the hon. Member for Cathcart who has said not a word to ventilate his opinions, but has run away whipped and not come near the House, contempt even is too much to give him. I come here because I want to prove what I am now saying. This, as I have said, means an increase of rates, and, as everybody knows, someone has got to pay for it. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead would not disagree with me in this, that someone has to find the £26,400. No one would say that the extra £26,400 drops from the clouds; it has got to be found, and it must be found from rates.
    A fundamental theory which I have tried to practise, and to put into my political life, is that, if I have a pound
    490
    to spend, being a man of narrow income, I have to choose how I shall spend that pound. There may be eight or nine things that I would desire, but I must choose the thing for which there is the greatest need. If the Glasgow Corporation can raise an extra £26,000, they ought to choose what is the greatest need, and how they can best spend the money. I would put this to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh: Would he say that the greatest need for £26,000 in Glasgow at the present time is that of the 230 house factors? I put that to him as a business man. Everyone who has been on the Glasgow Town Council knows that, at every meeting one went to, there was always this need of money. My hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson), and other Members who were on the Council with me, know that the choice had constantly to be made as to what was the greatest and the most urgent need. Even if I went further than my colleagues and granted that a case could be made out, it does not come within the first twelve needs that ought to be satisfied. There sits the Secretary of State, and the Under-Secretary beside him. I can tell almost every street and every close in their Divisions. What is a greater need? Last week the Secretary of State, with a cruelty and a brutality that he ought to be ashamed of, wrote to the Govan Parish Council refusing to allow them to pay 1s. 6d. more in order that the children might be fed. Was it not a greater need that the Glasgow Corporation should spend this £26,000 in feeding the children than in giving 230 house factors this extra money? You must justify this as a business proposition.
    The Lord Advocate tried to answer the hon. Member for Camlachie by saying the £11,000,000 that the corporation collect is not equivalent to the £1,000,000 that the factors collect, because it is tenement property and they are a poorer class of people. Let me take it even on that ground. He has no defence. The Secretary of State ought to know, if he knows his business, that the Glasgow Corporation do other work than that. There are altogether 3,800 slum clearance houses in Glasgow. Every one of them pays rates and rent combined. In addition to that they are the very poorest section of the community. Eighty per cent. of the occupants

    491
    have not worked for years and are living entirely on parish council relief, which is less than unemployment benefit, and yet the Glasgow Corporation collect from their slum clearance houses and they pay their collectors better than the private factor does, and give them houses and give them better conditions, and yet, collecting from the very poor, it does not cost them the 2½ per cent. that is now being demanded by the factors.
    What is the answer? There is only one answer. The Secretary of State ought to take the responsibility himself. He ought to say, "I will make inquiries. I will take the responsibility for the issue. I will get to business and defend it." But he knows that he could not defend it before a working-class audience. With that lack of courage which is so characteristic of him, he shoves the duty on to others. He shoves it on to the Sheriff, who cannot meet criticism in the-House of Commons. Some of us are criticised for usurping the authority of the House, for not liking Parliament and for wishing to throw away democratic institutions. It is we who want to preserve the right of Parliamentary control to-night, the right of Parliament to say what is not and what is to be granted to these people.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead only speaks in the House on one subject—I was almost going to say when his paymasters are asking him to call the tune—when he is speaking for some vested interest. He has poor people in his Division. There are poor people in the Cathcart Division. The hon. Member has never once in the House raised his voice to ease the conditions of the unemployed in his Division. Neither has the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman). Every time he intervenes it is on behalf of the rich, powerful vested interests, leaving the poor utterly defenceless and without a voice. I often wonder what is wrong with the House. I wonder whether it is incapacity, stupidity, lack of knowledge, or cruel heartedness, whether it is a desire to rob and plunder or whether it is foolishness. I had a majority at the last election of, I think, about 9,000. It is so great that I sometimes forget to count. As the result of the Government action it will be at least doubled.
    492
    I would prefer that the Secretary of State should withdraw his proposal. It is wrong and defenceless. Do not tell us the sheriff has to decide it. The factors know they will get it. The Glasgow Corporation is against the increase, but that does not mean that they will continue against it. The house factors know their Glasgow Council and they think if they get time, they can organise their forces so that even the council will not brief a lawyer to fight this proposal. That is behind their minds. They know the value of political agitation. This is a wrong proposal. For the Secretary of State on the one hand to refuse small children, the weakest and most defenceless section of our community, 1s. 6d. to feed and clothe and comfort them, and on the other hand to give to a class that is doing no useful service an extra £26,000 is an outrage which only a man devoid either of social decency or knowledge would care to defend.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The first aspect of the case concerning this proposal which, I think, is particularly objectionable, is the procedure that has been adopted in order to get it put through. We have a very clear recollection of the circumstances surrounding it, and therefore it is not necessary for me to traverse those points. In view of what has taken place, the honourable course for the Government to have taken would have been to have placed this proposal in the Bill at the outset if they were convinced that the matter was perfectly in order. The Lord Advocate said that the Government had had no representation from any other council. I want to say, that as far as the Dundee Town Council are concerned, they telegraphed their opposition to this course being adopted. They were decidedly opposed to it, and I must say on behalf of the council that we are not getting the treatment that we as an important body ought to receive. Undoubtedly Glasgow holds the pre-eminent position, and the strength of their case has been fully submitted. When I was asked to meet the factors in my own city, I was not impressed with the figures which they put forward. When one considers that one of the strong points made to-night is that facts and figures have proved to be sufficiently effective in support of the proposal, it is remarkable

    493
    that no one standing at the Treasury-Box has presented any such evidence to substantiate the insertion of this Clause. I am all the more convinced of the inadvisability of this plan being adopted when I recollect that those people whose rates are being exacted in this particular matter are having to pay proportionately heavier rents even than people in comparatively good circumstances.
    It seems very strange that such a proposal, which unquestionably will involve an increase of rating upon the general body of ratepayers, should be adopted in order to benefit those who will carry out their accustomed duties without any actual increase of effort or labour. I submit that if there is a case for payment being increased, such increase should go to the house factors or, perhaps, to those who represent the house factors in the collection of the rates. When we have these factors engaged regularly in the collection of rents, and at the same time collecting the rates without any extra expenditure involved, how does this other phase of the matter arise concerning an appeal to the Sheriff? Why should the Sheriff be called in to adjudicate upon the question as to the amount which a town council consider advisable to pay in respect of given services? This seems entirely extraneous. Without making any criticism whatever concerning the Sheriff, I think he would be likely to say: "We will grant the additional money." Why should there be this legal jurisdiction upon a simple question which is regularly dealt with by the town council? If a corporation engage any official or any servant to undertake a given duty, there should be no question of an appeal to any outside personality either on the legal bench or elsewhere in order to determine whether or not the council are giving the requisite salary or wage.
    The real reason for the introduction of this Clause is, that it derogates a duty to the Sheriff, and it represents an endeavour on the part of the Government to secure relief from the onus of responsibility. I submit that if the procedure, which was adopted towards the end of the War of preventing rents being unduly increased had been adopted earlier in the War, and arrangements had been made for ratepayers and tenants to pay in proportion to the wages that they were
    494
    receiving at the time, matters might have been even more advantageous to those house-owners and rent contributors. The increased rents allowed included a provision for repairs, which are not being effected. The landlords, whether they retain any portion of this increased allowance or not, are not doing justice by the people in the matter of the rents which are now being exacted.
    The fact that this matter is being slipped through in such an insidious fashion fashion reflects very great discredit upon the Government, especially when they have not given a fair opportunity to public bodies to examine the situation. I believe that if we had had a fair opportunity, facts and figures would have been presented from the point of view of householders and the ratepayers generally. I think the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) was pretty well knocked on the head. We all recognise the position of the right hon. Gentleman. He is, perhaps, one of the most outstanding representatives of class interests to be found sitting on the other side. What is being proposed on behalf of the factors shows how a numerically small force can bring powerful influence to bear upon the Government. I believe that this particular proposal will accentuate the feelings of the many who are concerned with the payment of heavy rents and will cause them to express their views in the way that we should like to see them expressed at the General Election.
    Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I have listened to the major portion of this Debate on a subject which undoubtedly raises keen interest among people in Scotland. I think that the onus for the change rests upon the Government, who must prove their case. I listened carefully to the speech of the Lord Advocate, and I am unable to recollect from his remarks that the actual cost of collection in the various burghs was higher than that which is presently allowed in the 1911 Act. But I am bound to say, that if the cost of collection is higher than that which is presently allowed, the factors have a case to submit their point of view to the Sheriff for this reason. There is a bargain between the factors and the Corporation which is not one between a willing buyer and a willing seller. A duty is laid upon the factors to collect

    495
    the rates, and this House is always tender to the interests of those upon whom it places a responsibility. At the same time, it does place responsibility upon members of the Government who come to this House to make quite clear to hon. Members that they have studied the figures and to mention those particular figures to the House so that the House itself can judge the broad issues of the case. If they could substantiate their point of view by accurate facts gleaned, not from small burghs such as have been mentioned this evening, but from large burghs throughout the length and breadth of Scotland, then, as this bargain is not one between a willing buyer and a willing seller, I would support the Government in this matter.
    Mr. MAXTON: I would be ashamed to face my constituents in Bridgeton if I did not associate myself with the protests that have been made by my colleagues. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) back in his place, but I regret very much that on his first intervention in debate that I have heard for a very considerable period, he should have felt it necessary, representing, as he does, a constituency with all the poverty there is there, to enter a plea on behalf of this very comfortable section of the community. I do not know whether he is voicing the official policy of his party or merely his personal point of view, but I can assure him that, as far as the West of Scotland is concerned, this will be a more vital issue in the General Election than Free Trade or Protection.
    The ruling that the Chairman gave on this matter is one that we, of course, accept, and is right according to House of Commons rules, but I want to ask the representatives of the Government if they think they are playing the game in dragging in an issue of this sort into a Bill of this description? This Bill is said to be the great Governmental contribution to the rehabilitation of Britain's trade and commerce. It is said they have the intention in Scotland to raise our whole educational and humanitarian standard. It is the great keystone of Tory policy for the rehabilitation of this country, and yet just because a very few property owners from Glasgow have brought a little pressure upon them, the
    496
    Government are prepared to shove into the middle of this great policy a trivial question of how a couple of hundred people are to be remunerated. It is a question of piece-work that is raised, and that is the essence of it. In this Bill the right hon. Gentleman upsets the ordinary method of employment of town clerks, parish clerks, sanitary inspectors, medical officers, tramway conductors and drivers, street cleaners, lamp lighters, electricians, and gas workers. Is there any suggestion in any Clause of the Bill that all the employés, whose normal methods of employment are upset and changed by this Bill, are going to have their remuneration especially laid down by Statute? I can imagine that the kind of argument is: "Well, we have given something to the great brewery companies, and tobacco combines and we have given a present to the Scotch landowners. Why should not we give a little present to these humble millions that serve these various interests so well?" That is the only argument of which I can think for singling out the house agents and factors for special consideration in a Bill of this description.
    I am closely associated with a special political organisation in this country that stands for a living wage for all, but I never dreamed in my consideration of how that would progress in British politics, that a start would be made by giving statutory rights to house factors. The one argument that I can see for it is this: We have always tried in this country to treat our heroes with special kindness, and lavishness, and, as far as my constituency is concerned, the men who are prepared to go round week after week and take money from the people for the houses they are letting to them are heroes of the highest type. I was at a house last week in Rumford Street in the Dalmarock Ward of the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow. It was a shocking hovel that was tumbling down about the ears of the poor woman who was struggling with her children to live there, making a tremendous battle against poverty. It was a house that was condemned as insanitary by the sanitary authorities, and waiting for demolition. Every week the factor of the City of Glasgow walks along and puts out his hand for the rates, and it is said that you must pay him more for doing it. This Tory Government in the House of

    497
    Commons say: "This is a man that deserves well of his country. He is prepared to do this week after week. He is a hero, and we are prepared to do for him what we do for no other public employé under this Bill. We will guarantee him an opportunity for a rise of wages at a time when wages in every other direction are going steadily down." I was looking at the Ministry of Labour figures, and again there is a downward tendency in wages at a time when the cost-of-living is going up. Yet the Government come forward and say: "We will allow this body an opportunity of having an increase of 100 per cent. on their present standard."
    The right hon. Gentleman also is a man of courage, because he has stood at the Treasury Box day after day on this
    Bill and defended the most indefensible propositions, but I hope that he will not persist in attempting to do what he knows is a trick on the House of Commons, and nothing more. The Lord Advocate knows it is a trick, and the Under-Secretary knows it. It is not playing the game by the House of Commons to drag this in from nowhere, and shove it into the middle of this Bill that they regard as an important Measure. I protest against such a trick being played upon me, and I shall protest very loudly in the City of Glasgow.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 81.

    Division No. 256.]

    AYES.

    [9.37 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Apsley, Lord

    Fermoy, Lord

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Atkinson, C.

    Fielden, E. B.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Balniel, Lord

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Gates, Percy

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Berry, Sir George

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

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Bethel, A.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Betterton, Henry B.

    God, Sir Park

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

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

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Braithwaite, Major A. N.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

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

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hacking, Douglas H.

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

    Brittain, Sir Harry

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

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Oakley, T.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Harrison, G. J. C.

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

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Owen, Major G.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Burman, J. B.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Cassets, J. D.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Preston, Sir Walter (Cheltenham)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Radford, E. A.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Christie, J. A.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Rice, Sir Frederick

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

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

    Colfox, Major William Phillips

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

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stratford)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Ropner, Major L.

    Couper, J. B.

    Hurd, Percy A.

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

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Rye, F. G.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Salmon, Major I.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

    Sandon, Lord

    Ellis, R. G.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Savery, S. S.

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

    Lumley, L. R.

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

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

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Withers, John James

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Womersley, W. J.

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

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

    Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

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

    Wright, Brig-General W. D.

    Streatfeild, Captain S. R.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Styles, Captain H. W.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Wells, S. R.

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    NOES.

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Purcell, A. A.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Riley, Ben

    Barnes, A.

    Hollins, A.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Barr, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Batey, Joseph

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Shield, G. W.

    Bellamy, A.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Kelly, W. T.

    Shinwell, E.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Kennedy, T.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Kirkwood, D.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stamford, T. W.

    Broad, F. A.

    Lawson, John James

    Stephen, Campbell

    Bromfield, William

    Lowth, T.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Bromley, J.

    Lunn, William

    Sutton, J. E.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Buchanan, G.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Viant, S. P.

    Cape, Thomas

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Clarke, A. B.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Cluse, W. S.

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

    Westwood, J.

    Cove, W. G.

    Maxton, James

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Whiteley, W.

    Gillett, George M.

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

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Windsor, Walter

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Groves, T.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hardie, George D.

    Potts, John S.

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Provision as to borrowing by county or town councils.)
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 32, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:
    "or shall affect the common good of a burgh or the revenue thereof or any existing power to borrow on the security of such common good or revenues.
    (2) Every enactment authorising a county or town council to borrow money for the purpose of meeting any expenditure of a capital nature shall have effect as if it provided that the council shall not without the consent of the Central Department so borrow unless the resolution to borrow has been agreed to by two-thirds of the members of the council present and voting at the meeting at which such resolution is passed."
    The House may remember that on this Clause I undertook to consider a point that was raised as to whether the spreading of the security in regard to any money borrowed for the benefit of one particular department should be spread over the whole of the rates; whether the common good should be included in the
    500
    catholic security or whether it was not more convenient and better finance that the common good should be kept outside. I came to the conclusion that it was better that the common good should be kept outside the scope of this security. The first part of the Amendment is to make this quite clear. The second subsection deals with another point. Under Sub-section (2) in the original Bill it was provided that borrowing for capital expenditure could only be done where there was a two-thirds majority. We agreed in Committee that we would substitute for the two-thirds majority the consent of the Central Department. We think it better that consent should only be required where there was less than a two-thirds majority. That is a much more practical and businesslike proposal. Unfortunately, the House will notice that in printing this Clause the printers have omitted the whole of Sub-section (2) and, therefore, we have had to put in Sub-section (2).
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 24.—(Mitigation of liability of county councils and town councils of large burghs for temporary loans raised under 11 & 12 Geo. 5, c. 64.)
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 33, line 2, to leave out the words "or the Department of Health."
    The dropping out of the words "the Department of Health" is due to the fact that these loans would have been made before the Department came into existence. All the Amendments to this Clause are purely drafting.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In line 11, leave out the words "or the Department of Health."
    Leave out from the second word "the," in line 23, to the word "five," in line 25, and insert instead thereof the words
    "said board, and had interest been payable thereon at the rate of."
    In line 33, leave out the words "or the Department."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

    CLAUSE 27.—(Provision for treatment of sick persons.)
    Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in page 39, line 11, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(9) Nothing in this Section or in any scheme shall diminish or otherwise affect the duty of the council to provide relief for the poor."
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Major ELLIOT: It is not necessary to have these words in the Bill. The hon. Member will realise that any such specification as this will weaken the rest of the Clause. All the residual liabilities on the parish or Poor Law authorities remain unchanged, and any specification of certain duties would merely weaken the responsibility which falls on them for all these residual functions.
    Mr. HARDIE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 29.—(Religious instruction in schools.)
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. BARR:
    To leave out the Clause.
    Mr. BARR: We entertain certain objections, which I do not propose to state now, to the plebiscite set up in this Clause, but as there is a desire to get forward with business I do not propose to move.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 39, line 37, to leave out the words "the provision of."
    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 33.—(County medical officer of health and sanitary inspector to act for small burghs.)
    Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 42, line 7, at the end, to insert the words:
    "(2) Except with the sanction of the Department of Health no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, be appointed sanitary inspector of a county or burgh unless he possesses such qualifications as may be prescribed by the Department of Health."
    This is further to the discussion we had when the Committee decided that the sanitary inspector of a small burgh should not necessarily by the county sanitary inspector. We have received representations from various local authorities to the effect that the Clause, as originally introduced, should be restored, but we consider that, having discussed the matter in Committee and having come to an agreement, we could not in any way attempt to minimise the agreement arrived at, but that we should require to reserve the right to take some further steps to preserve the intention of the Government to raise the status of sanitary inspectors. Consequently a provision that they should have certain qualifications has been inserted. I understand that this meets with the approval of the House.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 34.—(Repeal of 5 Edw. 7, c. 18.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 42, line 10, leave out the word "Board," and insert instead the words "Department of Health."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

    CLAUSE 39.—(Rateable value of industrial or freight transport lands and heritages.)
    Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 44, line 36, after the word "providing," to insert the words "police or other."
    I am moving this in order to get a statement from the Secretary of State. This is an important matter from the point of view of four statutory dock authorities: Leith, Dundee, Aberdeen and Greenock. I will put the case from the point of view of Leith, which really illustrates the difficulty. I gladly acknowledge the intentions of the Government in the insertion of the Sub-section in the Clause, and the House will see that it is intended to meet the special difficulty of certain statutory dock authorities. The position may be viewed from three points of view; the point of view of the State, the point of view of the local authorities and the point of view of the statutory dock trusts. The difficulty arises in this way, that under various Acts of Parliament these dock authorities provide certain services which are normally provided by the local authorities, the cleaning of streets, lighting and policing, but because these statutory authorities are not recognised by the State as local authorities in the ordinary sense the police expenditure does not rank for grant.
    Our position is this. Under local Acts, because these dock authorities provide these particular services, there is already a remission of rates amounting at the moment in the case of Edinburgh and Leith to 75 per cent. of the normal assessment. There is a double difficulty to be rectified. The Government have power under the Clause by Order to
    "make such modifications of Amendments of the provisions of the local Act as are equitable in the circumstances."
    The words are vague. What we desire is a definite statement from the Government as to their intentions. There is perfect good feeling between the Edinburgh Corporation and the dock authorities at Leith. If they could make arrangements to meet the difficulty, they would do so. Since the docks are presently de-rated, the total assessment of the Leith dock will not rank for grant for loss of rates on the standard year under the Bill; and since the State does not recognise the police service—amounting to £13,000 a year in Leith—as undertaken by the local authority, that does
    504
    not rank for grant. So that even if there were an arrangement now inside this year, unless something special is done by the Government, neither the sum granted for the police on the one hand nor the loss of rates on the other will rank for the purposes of the Bill.
    I would like to argue the whole case as to what I believe is the double reason for the present situation. It is first based, I believe, on an official fallacy that these particular dock undertakings are private profit-earning undertakings. They are nothing of the kind. They not merely do the watching and lighting and cleaning within their own boundaries, but actually have some streets that are used by the public outside those boundaries. Secondly, I believe the real problem has been the view of the Treasury from the point of view of Treasury stringency.
    Mr. BENN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The position as regards Aberdeen is this: Certain services are rendered, in the way of police, which do not rank for grant, and if we do not get our way this proposal will cost Aberdeen £3,000 a year. Moreover, these same services, although exactly the same as ordinary police services, do not rank for police grant. It is too late for us to readjust matters, because the standard year is drawing to an end. Will the Secretary of State consider the question of an equivalent grant, and under Sub-section (2) will he make an adjustment which in equity is right although technically wrong?
    10.0 p.m.
    The LORD ADVOCATE: Either the Amendment adds nothing to the Clause, or else it is out of order, because it will alter the amount of the compensation. If it is merely useless, which I think it is, we certainly cannot accept it. I understand, however, that the purpose in moving the Amendment is to ascertain what is the intention of the Sub-section. It is quite clear, in the first instance, that it cannot affect the standard year. Secondly, it gives power in effect to rewrite the local Act. As I understand the Sub-section, it gives the Secretary of State power to re-write the local Act so as to express in full what is really the truth of the transaction, that is to say, that a service is provided or paid for which the local authority would otherwise provide, and

    505
    the cost of that service is reflected in a reduction of the rates.
    Mr. BROWN: Is it the intention of the Government to make this order to rewrite before the end of the standard year?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not think that is possible.
    Mr. BROWN: Then from the point of view of the authorities it is useless.
    Mr. BENN: Will the Government use all their powers, so far as Aberdeen is concerned, to remedy what is admitted to be an injustice?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: The powers will certainly be used in fair cases, but there are cases, of course, where it does not necessarily follow that the service which is provided is one which the local authority would either be bound or likely to supply itself.
    Mr. BROWN: In view of that explanation, which I do not regard as very satisfactory, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 40.—(Adjustments as to rating relief between landlords and tenants.)
    Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in page 45, line 43, to leave out the word "three," and to insert instead thereof the word "four."
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, the Government cannot accept this Amendment. As I understand it, it seeks to provide that the industrial occupier shall recover from the owner four times his share instead of three times his share as provided under the Bill; in other words to recover more than the owner's share. That, of course, is quite inequitable.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 42.—(Amendment of Section 14 (1) of Act of 1926.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 46, line 37, at the end, insert the words:
    "(2) Where a domestic water rate is leviable within a district under the Public Health (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1891, in respect of any agricultural lands and heritages, then either the valuation roll for the district, made up in accordance with the
    506
    provisions of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, shall, in addition to the other particulars required, show what would have been the rateable value of the said agricultural lands and heritages if this Act (other than Sub-section (5) of Section thirty-eight) had not passed, or a supplementary valuation roll in such form as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe shall be made up, showing what would have been the rateable value of such agricultural lands and heritages if this Act (other than as aforesaid) had not passed, and the provisions of the said Act of 1854 shall apply accordingly with respect to the further particulars included in the valuation roll or with respect to the supplementary valuation roll as the case may be.
    (3) The assessor of a county in making up the valuation roll of the county shall distinguish in the roll lands and heritages situated within the boundaries of each district of a district council."—[The Lord Advocate.]

    CLAUSE 54.—(Additional Exchequer grants to large burghs.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 56, line 6, leave out the words "this Section," and insert instead thereof the words "Section fifty-four of this Act."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

    CLAUSE 55.—(Payment of supplementary Exchequer grants to large burghs.)
    The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 56, line 37, to leave out the words "a sum equal to one-half such aggregate after deducting therefrom," and to insert instead thereof the words "such additional sum as together with."
    I would like to move this Amendment in somewhat different form from that in which it is on the Paper. This Amendment and the following one are really drafting Amendments. The purpose of paragraph (b, i) is to get at a sum for the purpose of making up the losses and gains of separate rating areas within one local authority's area towards which the Exchequer makes good half the loss and the other half has to be contributed by the winning or gaining authority. The words in the Bill are: "a sum equal to one-half such aggregate after deducting therefrom." The word "therefrom" means that the deduction must be taken from the one-half, but it might be suggested to mean deduction from the aggregate, and we attempted another draft which I am moving in the amended form. It is putting it the other way, and I will ask the House to take it on trust.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made:
    In page 56, line 40, at the end, insert the words:
    "is equal to one-half of the said aggregate amount of such losses."—[The Lord Advocate.]

    CLAUSE 58.—(Power to reduce grants for inefficiency.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 58, line 5, after the word "efficiency" insert the words "and progress."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Sir R. HAMILTON: I beg to move, in page 58, to leave out from the word "that," in line 25, to the word "to," in line 26, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "the Secretary of State shall not make such a reduction until he has made and caused."
    Sir J. GILMOUR: We accept this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 59.—(Application of Exchequer grants to county and town councils.)
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 58, line 34, after the word "education," to insert the words "or police."
    This is a drafting Amendment, so that the authority will be dealing not only with education but police.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 64.—Investigation of working of rules of Sixth Schedule, Parts III and IV.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 62, line 22, leave out the words "Department of Health," and insert instead thereof the words "Secretary of State."
    In line 25, leave out the word "them," and insert instead thereof the word "him."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Consequential Amendment made.

    CLAUSE 65.—(Interpretation.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 63, line 9, after the word "men," insert the words "or women."
    In page 64, line 7, after the word "parish," insert the words:
    "so far as within the district of one district council."
    Leave out from the word "who," in line 36, to the end of line 39, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "are for the time being recorded as being unemployed for the purpose of the returns of unemployment made by the Minister of Labour."—[Major Elliot.]

    CLAUSE 68.—(Orders.)
    Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
    I move this Amendment in order to see that fair play should be obtained. If the Clause had been clear as to what the Bill was to do, there would have been no need for a governing Clause such as this. Sub-section (3) reads:
    "The Secretary of State may by order make such adaptations in the provisions of any local Act as may seem to him to be necessary in order to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act or in order to make an equitable adjustment or apportionment of any expenditure or payment under the local Act consequent on the carrying into effect of the provisions of this Act."
    This is a very big power to give to any person. We talk about Mussolini and about dictators but we propose to give to the Secretary of State for Scotland power to make such adaptations in the provisions of any local Act as may seem to him—not to Parliament—to be necessary in order to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Measure. We on this side who have been used to practical administration and to the drafting of rules for practical purposes hold the view that unless you can see things clearly before you you cannot put them down in practical words. This Clause simply means that the preceding Clauses are not clear and that they do not hang together. They cannot be left as they are. It is necessary to put in this Clause because it is felt that the other Clauses may not work. You insert this Clause in order to protect yourselves against your own inefficiency. I do not blame the draftsmen so much as those who put forward these inadequate ideas. These matters call for real vision such as an engineer uses when he can visualise a machine working before be begins to draw a plan of it. But here we have the dullards of the Tory party, in their last year of office, trying to do something spectacular. Well, it may be spectacular but it is very impracticable. This Clause, in effect, says that if the Bill does not

    509
    work in the ordinary way powers are to be taken to make it work. All the traffic is to be set aside in order to allow this Juggernaut to pass along.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    This Clause is a specimen of the legislation which the Government tell us is progressive. It is nothing else but a reversion to mediaevalism. It is the sort of thing against which our forefathers fought when Kings in former days attempted it. Now the servants of the King are asking for powers which the Members of this House have withheld from their Masters in the past. This Clause includes the power not only to vary the provisions of this Act, but to vary the provisions of other Acts. The English Members did not put up a very good fight, generally speaking, on their Bill, but all honour to them for the fact that, at any rate, they fought well against the proposal to give the English Minister power to vary any provisions in the English Measure which he thought necessary. This proposal goes much further. It enables the Secretary of State
    "to make provision for any matters incidental to or consequential on any provision of this Act including any incidental or consequential adaptations of the provisions of any Act of Parliament."
    I do not believe that any Minister in the last 50 years has demanded powers as wide as that. The Secretary of State may also make such adaptations in the provisions of any local Act as may seem to him necessary, in order to make those provisions conform with this Measure. It is time we protested against legislation of this sort, and I hope we shall be joined by Members of all parties and by representatives of all the nationalities in these islands who are represented in this House in objecting to it. I hope if the right hon. Gentleman does not withdraw the Clause that it will be rejected by the House.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), who moved the Amendment to delete the Clause, did not make any mention of the numerous Amendments which are on the Paper in my name in regard to the Clause as it exists in the Bill, and the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), who seconded and who spoke so dramatically, seemed to have
    510
    forgotten the past history of his party, who, in fact, are as much responsible as any party in the House for the inclusion in Measures of such Clauses as are under discussion at this time. I would say to the hon. and gallant Member that, at any rate, he also has apparently failed to observe any of the Amendments which are down in my name dealing with this Clause, and I would say to the House at once that I agree with most of my colleagues that it would be very undesirable that these powers should be so far extended as to become in any sense a menace, an engine to be used, either by the Minister or by the officials in his Department, against the considered view of Parliament. But everyone who has had experience in the administration of Measures dealing, as this Measure deals, not only with Acts of Parliament governing the concerns of these local authorities, but almost infinitely more with the numerous private Acts affecting these local authorities—Acts of which, I may point out, there is no codification, and where it is only after a course of time that even the local authorities concerned can themselves become aware of the circumstances—everyone with this experience knows that it is essential that, for a limited time, there shall be some power given to the Minister. All I would say is that we have, in the earlier part of the day, dropped out one of the Clauses giving powers to deal with this matter, and, in concentrating the remaining powers in this Clause, we have accepted exactly all those Amendments which were accepted on the English Bill dealing with a similar problem. In practically every case these Orders will have to be laid upon the Table of the House; and I think, in view of that fact and of the great modifications on the original Clause, the House need have less anxiety than it has had hitherto on this subject.
    Sir R. HORNE: Will my right hon. Friend read the Clause as it would read with his Amendments inserted?
    HON. MEMBERS: No time!
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I am exceeding reluctant, even by a momentary intrusion upon this Debate, to offer to my hon. Friends opposite any sort of argument in favour of Home Rule for Scotland, but this is a matter on which, I think, there can be no distinction whatever

    511
    of nationality. It is a matter which goes to the very root of our constitutional procedure in this House. I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir. A. Sinclair) into those very interesting discussions of the constitutional issues of the 17th century, but, if I may respectfully say so, he is absolutely right in suggesting that we are attempting to go back upon issues which we did think had been settled for all time as between the Crown and the individual subject in this country. After all, what the Minister is asking for in this Clause is that dispensing power which we abolished by the constitutional struggles of the 17th century, for it is a dispensing power.
    The Minister has said he is going to move Amendments which will bring this Clause into conformity with the corresponding Clause in the English Bill. I am sure everyone will recognise the most conciliatory temper in which the right hon. Gentleman has approached the consideration of this Clause, and in which he is going to propose his Amendments, but although many of us recognise that some such Clause as this is a necessity under the complexities of a Bill like this, yet few of us who took an active part in the discussions on the English Bill were at all satisfied with the Amendments
    which the Minister of Health put into that Bill. Therefore, it is no recommendation to us for the Secretary of State for Scotland to assure us that his Amendments will bring this Clause into conformity with the corresponding Clause in the English Statute—or, rather, Bill, because it has not yet become a Statute, and I hope very much that it will not find it way on to the Statute Book until the Clause is again and drastically amended. There may be others who de sire to speak on this subject—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"]—but it is a question on which I have the strongest possible convictions, and I do not think any considerations of party ought to prevent one from giving expression to his views on it. I should oppose this Clause, I say frankly, quite as strongly, and perhaps a little more strongly, if it came in one of the Bills from the opposite Benches, but none the less do I welcome any help which we may obtain from hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether above or below the Gangway, in order to defeat a proposal which, in its details, is still, to my mind, exceedingly objectionable on the broadest constitutional grounds.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'by' in line 37, stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 96.

    Division No. 257.]

    AYES.

    [10.28 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Christie, J. A.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Apsley, Lord

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Atkinson, C.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Balniel, Lord

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Cooper, J. B.

    Hamilton, Sir George

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Bethel, A.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

    Fielden, E. B.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

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

    Ford, Sir P. J.

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

    Burman, J. B.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Gates, Percy

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Cassels, J. D.

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

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Goff, Sir Park

    Lamb, J. O.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Loder, J. de V.

    Oakley, T.

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

    Looker, Herbert William

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

    Skelton, A. N.

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Pennefather, Sir John

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

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Radford, E. A.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Templeton, W. P.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Remer, J. R.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

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

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Ropner, Major L.

    Wells, S. R.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Rye, F. G.

    Withers, John James

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Salmon, Major I.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Wright, Brig-General W. D.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

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

    Sandon, Lord

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

    Savery, S. S.

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

    NOES.

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Potts, John S.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Purcell, A. A.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Barnes, A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Riley, Ben

    Barr, J.

    Hollins, A.

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bellamy, A.

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Shield, G. W.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Shinwell, E.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Bromfield, William

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)

    Bromley, J.

    Kennedy, T.

    Snell, Harry

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawson, John James

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lowth, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Clarke, A. B.

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cluse, W. S.

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

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Townend, A. E.

    Cove, W. G.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Viant, S. P.

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

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

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Day, Harry

    Maxton, James

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gillett, George M.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)

    Morris, R. H.

    Westwood, J.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Groves, T.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Owen, Major G.

    Hamilten, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hardie, George D.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

    It being after half-past Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12 th December, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given.
    Amendment proposed:
    In page 65, to leave out from the word "may," in line 37, to the word "and,"
    514
    in line 39, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "make such order for removing the difficulty as he may judge necessary for that purpose."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment he made."
    The House divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 94.

    Division No. 258.]

    AYES.

    [10.38 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

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

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Goff, Sir Park

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

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Apsley, Lord

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Oakley, T.

    Atkinson, C.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Pennefather, Sir John

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

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Bethel, A.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Power, Sir John Cecil

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

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Radford, E. A.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Remer, J. R.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Ropner, Major L.

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

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

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

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

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Burman, J. B.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Rye, F. G.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Salmon, Major I.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Casseis, J. D.

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sandon, Lord

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Savery, S. S.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Iveagh, Countess of

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

    Chapman, Sir S.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Skelton, A. N.

    Christie, J. A.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

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

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Loder, J. de V.

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

    Collox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Looker, Herbert William

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Couper, J. B.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Styles, Captain H. W.

    Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Templeton, W. P.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    MacIntyre, I.

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

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Ellis, R. G.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

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

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Wells, S. R.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Withers, John James

    Fermoy, Lord

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Womersley, W. J.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Wright, Brig-General W. D.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Gates, Percy

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.

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

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

    NOES.

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

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Cove, W. G.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Barr, J.

    Day, Harry

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Batey, Joseph

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Bellamy, A.

    Gillett, George M.

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Benn, Wedgwood

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

    Kelly, W. T.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Kennedy, T.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Broad, F. A.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Lawrence, Susan

    Bromfield, William

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Lawson, John James

    Bromley, J.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Lowth, T.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Lunn, William

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Buchanan, G.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Clarke, A. B.

    Hirst, G. H.

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hollins, A.

    Maxton, James

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Morris, R. H.

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Tomlinson, R. P.

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

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Townend, A. E.

    Mosloy, Sir Oswald

    Shield, G. W.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Oliver, George Harold

    Shinwell, E.

    Westwood, J.

    Owen, Major G.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Whiteley, W.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Potts, John S.

    Snell, Harry

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Riley, Ben

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Sutton, J. E.

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

    Further Amendments made:
    In page 66, line I, leave out the words "him necessary or expedient," and insert instead thereof the words "the Secretary of State necessary."
    In page 66, leave out lines 3 to 5.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Amendment proposed:
    In page 66, to leave out from the word
    "order," in line 6, to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "make any adaptations or modifications of the provisions of any Act necessary to bring those provisions into conformity with the provisions of this Act."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 91.

    Division No. 259.]

    AYES.

    [10.46 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Herman

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Apsley, Lord

    Fermoy, Lord

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

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

    Fielden, E. B.

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Atkinson, C.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Balniel, Lord

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Gates, Percy

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

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

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

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Bethel, A.

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Golf, Sir Park

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

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

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hamilton, Sir George

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

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

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Nuttall, Ellis

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

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Oakley, T.

    Burman, J. B.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

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

    Campbell, E. T.

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Cassels, J. D.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

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

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Radford, E. A.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Christie, J. A.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Remer, J. R.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

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

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)

    Couper, J. B.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Ropner, Major L.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Iveagh, Countess of

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Rye, F. G.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Ellis, R. G.

    Loder, J. de V.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

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

    Looker, Herbert William

    Sandon, Lord

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

    Savery, S. S.

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

    Templeton, W. P.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Withers, John James

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

    Womersley, W. J.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Wright, Brig-General W. D.

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

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

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Wells, S. R.

    NOES.

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

    Hardie, George D.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Potts, John S.

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Batty, Joseph

    Hollins, A.

    Riley, Ben

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Bellamy, A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Shield, G. W.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Bromley, J.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Kennedy, T.

    Snell, Harry

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lawson, John James

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Clarke, A. B.

    Lowth, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

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

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Day, Harry

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Townend, A. E.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gillett, George M.

    Maxton, James

    Westwood, J.

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

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Morris, R. H.

    Whiteley, W.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Owen, Major G.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

    Amendment made:
    In page 66, line 18, at the end, insert the words:
    "(4) An order under the foregoing provisions of this Section shall not be made after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-one."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Amendment, proposed:
    In line 20, after the word "section," to insert the words:
    "or under Sub-section (2) of Section two or Sub-section (1) of Section seventeen or Subsection (2) of Section sixty-three of this Act."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Question put, "That the Amendment be made."
    The House divided: Ayes, 179; Noes, 91.

    Division No. 260.]

    AYES.

    [10.54 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Burman, J. B.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Ellis, R. G.

    Apsley, Lord

    Carver, Major W. H.

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

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

    Cassels, J. D.

    Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

    Atkinson, C.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Balniel, Lord

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Fermoy, Lord

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

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Fielden, E. B.

    Bethel, A.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Christie, J. A.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

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

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Gates, Percy

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Gilmour, Lt Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Goff, Sir Park

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Couper, J. B.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Rye, F. G.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Macmillan, Captain H.

    Salmon, Major I.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

    Sandon, Lord

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Savory, S. S.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

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

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Murchison, Sir Kenneth

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

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

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

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

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

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

    Styles, Captain H. Walter

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Templeton, W. P.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Oakley, T.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

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

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Tinne, J. A.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Pennefather, Sir John

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

    Iveagh, Countess of

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Power, Sir John Cecil

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Wells, S. R.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Radford, E. A.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Withers, John James

    Loder, J. de V.

    Remer, J. R.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Looker, Herbert William

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Wright, Brig.-General W. D.

    Lougher, Sir Lewis

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

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harmon

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen

    Ropner, Major L.

    Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.

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

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

    NOES.

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Owen, Major G.

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hardie, George D.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Barnes, A.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Potts, John S.

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hollins, A.

    Riley, Ben

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

    Bellamy, A.

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Shield, G. W.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bromfield, William

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Bromley, J.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Kennedy, T.

    Snell, Harry

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stamford, T. W.

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lawson, John James

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Clarke, A. B.

    Lowth, T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lunn, William

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

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

    Tomlinson, R. P.

    Day, Harry

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Townend, A. E.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gillett, George M.

    Maxton, James

    Westwood, J.

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

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Morris, R. H.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Mosley, Sir Oswald

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Oliver, George Harold

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 70.—(Declaration of intention as to future increases of local expenditure.)
    Mr. JOHNSTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In regard to
    522
    Clause 70, an Amendment was on the Order Paper which was never reached during the Committee stage. It has been on the Order Paper on the Report stage, and I should like to ask for your Ruling as to whether a Clause, which

    523
    is a declaration of intention as to what should happen in future Parliaments under certain hypothetical conditions, should not be ruled out of order altogether?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Resolution which was come to in regard to the allocation of time allotted to this Bill precludes me from dealing with points of Order in regard to questions arising on certain Clauses.
    Mr. BENN: But, inasmuch as it is the function of the Chair to see that questions are not put which are out of order, would it not be right, under the Rules of Order and despite any Guillotine Resolution, for the Chair to see that no question is put from the Chair which infringes upon the Rules of the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am not putting any Question from the Chair, except Government Amendments, which the Resolution of the House lays it down that I am to do.
    Mr. BENN: Nevertheless, and with great deference to you, I still submit that it is the function of the Chair to see that no matter is passed which infringes the Rules of Order and which is an outrage on the traditions of legislation in this country.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am putting no Motion from the Chair.
    Captain GARRO-JONES rose—
    HON. MEMBERS: Sit down!
    Captain GARRO-JONES: I am entitled to put a point of Order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Is it the same point of Order or something different?
    Captain GARRO-JONES: I wish to put a different aspect of the same point of Order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot deal with it.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Then I wish to ask you a question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must remain seated when I am standing. I have already told him that I cannot deal with that point of Order.
    524
    I am precluded from doing so by the Resolution that the House has passed.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: I wish to ask you a question on that point of Order. I am fully within my rights in doing so. I know what I have a right to do.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot deal with the point of Order now. Sir John Gilmour.

    THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Audit of Accounts of County and Town Councils.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 72, line 27, at the end, insert the words:
    "The auditors of the accounts of the corporation of the City of Glasgow shall not be fewer than twenty without the consent of the corporation, and the tenure of office of such auditors shall not be less than five years from the date of appointment unless otherwise agreed with the corporation."
    In page 73, line 8, after the word "the," insert the words "procedure and the."
    In page 74, leave out from the first word "the" in line 29, to the end of line 32, and insert instead thereof the words:
    "amount of any illegal payment or of any loss or deficiency due to failure to bring a sum into account upon any person or persons by whose negligence or wrongful act that payment has been made or authorised or that loss or deficiency has been incurred."
    In page 75, line 33, after the word "newspapers," insert the words "published or."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

    EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 84, line 34, column 3, after the word "words," insert the word "from."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Ordered,
    "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Secretary Sir John Gilmour to Clause 17, page 27, line 31, and in respect of the New Clauses relating to Amendment as to disqualification for pensions under 9 and 10 Geo. V, c. 102, and 15 and 16 Geo. V, c. 70, and Power of councils to expend money on public health propaganda."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
    [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

    CLAUSE 17.—(Payment of travelling expenses by county councils, etc.)
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 27, line 31, after the word "incurred," to insert the words "and time necessarily lost from ordinary employment."
    It will be recollected that in Committee we had a very full discussion on this question, and I undertook to consider it. This Amendment is moved as a result of that consideration.
    Mr. STEPHEN: I would have been better pleased if the Amendment had been wider, but I recognise that I cannot get everything, and at least I have got a concession which goes some way to meet what we asked, and I am grateful for that. I hope it will lead to an Amendment in the future by a Government representing this side of the House.
    Sir BASIL PETO: Is the amount of remuneration to be paid in these circumstances to be limited to an ordinary weekly wage, or would somebody in receipt of a salary of £10,000 a year be given an exact amount in proportion to every hour?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; I can say at once that it is on a restricted scale.
    Amendment agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment as to disqualification for pensions under 9 and 10 Geo. V., c. 102, and 15 and 16 Geo. V., c. 70.)
    "(1) A person who has become an inmate of any Poor Law institution for the purpose of obtaining medical or surgical treatment shall not, so long as he continues to require such treatment, be disqualified on the ground only that he is such an inmate, for receiving or continuing to receive an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, or under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and accordingly Sub-section (1) of Section three of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1919, and paragraph one of the Third Schedule to the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, shall have effect as if the words 'during a period of three months from the date on which he became such an inmate if he,' were omitted therefrom, and as if after the words 'so long,' there were inserted the words 'as he.'
    (2) This Section shall come into operation on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty."—[Major Elliot.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause sweeps away a certain disqualification on sick persons in Poor Law institutions. At present they are allowed to receive pensions up to a period of reeidence of three months, but after that they are disqualified.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of councils to expend money on public health propaganda.)
    "It shall be lawful for any county council or for the town council of a large burgh to incur expenditure in making contributions to the central council or committee of an organisation approved by the Department of Health which provides services of the nature of publicity or educational propaganda for any purpose relating to public health, or in the provision by themselves of such services."—[Major Elliot.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause is put down in consequence of an interesting discussion that we had when the Bill was in Committee before, as to the power of local authorities to spend money on propaganda in connection with venereal disease. I then undertook to go into the matter again with my right hon. Friend, it being understood that any proposals made would deal, not solely with that disease, but that general powers would be given for propaganda publicity in respect of health education as regards any kind of disease, and this proposed new Clause meets that undertaking. It is an interesting proposal, and one that I can confidently recommend to the Committee, more particularly as it allows local authorities themselves to undertake this expenditure, and I understand that it is particularly desired by the City of Edinburgh.
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I am very glad that we are to have this New Clause, as far as it goes, though it is not quite what was asked for in the Amendment on which the discussion arose. I would have liked some national effort either by

    527
    the Department of Health, or some central organisation whereby national propaganda would have been effectively carried out. It has not been proved that to depend on the efforts of local authorities in this matter is satisfactory. However, I welcome the word "propaganda." I think it is right that it should not be confined to any disease. We know that in regard to cancer, for example, there is a great deal of ignorance and if public health propaganda as to the importance of the early treatment of cancer were carried out, many lives would be saved. While in this, as in other respects on this Bill, we have not got all we want, I welcome this concession as bringing in the principle that public health propaganda is the duty of public authorities.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended (on Recommittal), be reported to the House."
    Mr. BENN rose—
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite see what question can arise.
    Mr. BENN: The question you put from the Chair is: "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House." Before the Bill is reported to the House, I wish to direct your attention to a Clause which I allege is out of order.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is not in order to do that. Nothing can arise on the Question that I report the Bill, as amended, to the House. I presume that hon. Members can divide against it. Everything
    528
    in the Bill now has gone through. I think hon. Members in the past have attempted to raise points on this question, and invariably it has been ruled that it is not in order to do so.
    Mr. BENN: May I submit that on this Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House," it is very important that these points should be raised. The matter which I am raising is not really the function of a Member of the House, but the function of the Chair, and I am drawing your attention to the fact. Recently, I may inform you, that in the House itself Mr. Speaker drew attention to the fact that a question of this kind should have been raised in Committee. We are now in Committee.
    The CHAIRMAN: We are in Committee for certain specific purposes and no others. Now our function is discharged by having dealt with the business for which we have gone into Committee, and there can be no possible point of Order on any Clause now.
    Bill reported; as amended, on recommittal, considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

  CHINA (ARMS EMBARGO AGREEMENT).
  CHINA (ARMS EMBARGO AGREEMENT).
POOR LAW RELIEF.
  REPAYMENT, DARLINGTON.
  REPAYMENT, DARLINGTON.
  ENGLAND AND WALES.
  ENGLAND AND WALES.
  SCOTLAND.
  SCOTLAND.
HOUSING.
  SUBSIDY (FOREIGN MATERIALS).
  SUBSIDY (FOREIGN MATERIALS).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  LUNATICS.
  LUNATICS.
  SLUM CLEARANCE SCHEMES.
  SLUM CLEARANCE SCHEMES.
  MIDWIVES (EMERGENCY CASES).
  MIDWIVES (EMERGENCY CASES).
  COAL INDUSTRY (FIVE-COUNTIES SCHEME).
  COAL INDUSTRY (FIVE-COUNTIES SCHEME).
POST OFFICE.
  STAMPS (SALES).
  STAMPS (SALES).
  BROKEN LEAVE, DORCHESTER.
  BROKEN LEAVE, DORCHESTER.
  NAVAL DEFENCE (DOMINIONS AND COLONIES, CONTRIBUTIONS).
  NAVAL DEFENCE (DOMINIONS AND COLONIES, CONTRIBUTIONS).
  INSURANCE.
  INSURANCE.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  MINERS, NORTH WALES.
  MINERS, NORTH WALES.
  JUVENILE CENTRES, SOUTH WALES.
  JUVENILE CENTRES, SOUTH WALES.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  TRADE BOARDS ACTS (INSPECTIONS).
  TRADE BOARDS ACTS (INSPECTIONS).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  TEMPORARY CLERKS.
  TEMPORARY CLERKS.
  SICKNESS INCIDENCE (MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE).
  SICKNESS INCIDENCE (MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE).
  PERMANENT SECRETARIES.
  PERMANENT SECRETARIES.
  GOVERNMENT PRINTING WORKS (PROFIT).
  GOVERNMENT PRINTING WORKS (PROFIT).
  SILK DUTIES (WEARING APPAREL).
  SILK DUTIES (WEARING APPAREL).
  INCOME TAX (DEDUCTIONS, CHILDREN).
  INCOME TAX (DEDUCTIONS, CHILDREN).

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Cloncurry—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

NEWPORT (SALOP) URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands upon the Paper in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2a accordingly. Bill committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

PACIFIC CABLE BOARD. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CORN EXCHANGE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SHEFFIELD GAS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, with reference to a conversation that passed between two or three noble Lords and myself yesterday, the Government have had under their notice the large number of Amendments to the Local Government Bill that are upon the Paper. I need not say that I have no complaint to make whatever as to the

83
discussion yesterday, which was eminently characteristic of your Lordships' business-like methods, but undoubtedly we did not get very far. Some very important matters were dealt with, but we reached only the end of the sixth clause. In those circumstances, as I ventured to suggest to your Lordships yesterday, we shall ask the House to sit after dinner to-day. I would propose, with the consent of the house, to adjourn for dinner some time between half-past seven and a quarter to eight, and to come back about nine o'clock. If that were convenient, then I presume that your Lordships would wish to pursue a precisely analogous course to-morrow.
It may be that, even with those efforts, we shall not get through the Committee stage by Thursday night. I earnestly hope that this may not turn out to be the case, but it is possible, and in that event I see no alternative but to ask your Lordships to sit on Friday. The proposal that we would make is that, in the event of our not being able to finish the Committee stage by to-morrow night, we should have a morning sitting on Friday, meeting at noon, and should sit until such hour as your Lordships thought fit to adjourn—I hope until the completion of the Committee stage. I think that would be mostly for the convenience of your Lordships. The other alternative would be to leave Friday alone and to sit on Monday. That would, however, bring us several days later, and would interfere to some extent with the time-table to which your Lordships have up to now given me a sort of tacit assent. Of course I only desire to suit the convenience of the House.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for telling us his proposals, with which I generally agree. I am also grateful to him for his recognition of the businesslike way in which matters were dealt with yesterday. I cannot myself see that any time was wasted anywhere. The question is, I think, between Friday and Monday, assuming we do not finish on Thursday. I rather hope that the noble Marquess may reconsider his view there. Of course, we are always willing to do what is most convenient to the House, but personally Friday is rather a mortgaged day, and if Monday would do as well, we should prefer to sit on Monday.
84
I do not think that it would make much difference from the point of view of delay, but I will leave it to the noble Marquess after ascertaining the general view of the House.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I would like to point out that the proposals of the noble Marquess would mean the postponement of the judicial sitting and there may be cases of importance to come on.
LORD PARMOOR: That would be a further reason for sitting on Monday.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course I will ascertain before the end of to-day's sitting. I only rise to say that no one in my position ever forgets the difficulty of the judicial sittings which always wait upon us so that we have to conform as far as we can to their immense importance. I need not tell the noble and learned Lord that I made some inquiry upon that head before I made that announcement.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am rather inclined to agree with the noble Marquess that it is rather more important that we should have time in which to consider the Bill between Committee and Report. I have never felt that the constitution would be wrecked if the Law Lords were to sit sometimes in the Moses Room, but there are apparently some of them who think that if that happens there would be an end to the House, and therefore I shrink from making the suggestion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, I feel that the constitution would be shaken if not wrecked if that were to happen, and it is a very revolutionary proposal coming from so staunch a supporter of law and order. I did make some inquiries in response to information which I received from the noble Marquess, and I think I can assure my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster that the judicial business really will not be interfered with by the House sitting on Friday rooming. No doubt the judicial side will adjourn from Thursday until Monday instead of until Friday, but I understand that the state of business is such that that can be done without detriment either to the parties or to the judicial business of this House.

WILLS AND INTESTACIES (FAMILY MAINTENANCE) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to secure that proper provision be made for the surviving spouse, issue and dependants of a deceased person; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order): The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.
Clause 7:
Guardians committees and sub-committees.
7.—(1) In the case of a county the administrative scheme shall provide—
(c) for the discharge, subject to such general or special restrictions or conditions as the county council may from time to time impose, by each guardians committee or a sub-committee thereof of such of the functions transferred to the council under this Part of this Act as relate to the following matters—
(iii) the determination of the amount to be paid by any recipient of relief, or the persons liable for his maintenance, towards reimbursing the council the amount expended by them or his relief;
so, however, that the functions to be delegated under this subsection shall not include the appointment or dismissal of any officer:
Provided that upon representations made by the council of any county that special circumstances exist in that county or in any part thereof the Minister may, if he thinks fit, direct that the provisions of this section shall not apply as respects that county or part.
(5) The scheme shall determine the place where a guardians committee shall sit, and any local authority shall allow a guardians committee to use free of charge for the purposes of their meetings, at any time when not required for the use of the local authority, any premises belonging to the authority.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The first four Amendments, which are in the names
86
of Lord Hemphill and Lord Balfour of Burleigh, are consequential upon Amendments which have already been disposed of and therefore the first Amendment to be dealt with is that in the name of Lord Parmoor:
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (1) (c) (iii), after "the determination of," to insert "whether any payment should be made," and after" amount "to insert" if any." The noble Lord said: This is, I think, an important matter, although it does not arise in acute form at this stage. We shall no doubt have a discussion later as to what payments are to be made and in what way they are to be made, but as the matter stands in the Bill, the words are:—
"the determination of the amount to be paid by any recipient of relief."
I want the question also to come before what I may call the committee of guardians, who have special local knowledge, not only of the amount but whether any payment should be asked at all. I have a very strong view that the whole question of payments, whether for hospital treatment or for so-called paupers, should only be allowed within narrow limits. As a preliminary I should like the question whether payments should be made to be determined by a body which alone would have intimate knowledge of the matter—namely, the guardians committee, which supersedes the old board of guardians. I hope the noble Earl will consider this Amendment, which it appears to me for administrative purposes would distinctly improve the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 39, after ("of") insert ("whether any payment should be made"), and after ("amount") insert ("if any").—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): Really I think this Amendment is only a question of drafting and not a question of substance. I do not hold myself out as an expert draftsman, but I am advised that this Amendment is really merely verbal, and would not alter the effect of the paragraph which it purports to amend. In those circumstances I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider that his point is met.
EARL BUXTON: I am entirely with my noble friend in reference to this matter, but on the next clause we shall have an opportunity of discussion upon it. I do not think it would really alter the substance of the clause.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Earl says my Amendment would not alter the effect of the clause. If so, surely this is a case in which lucidity of drafting might be indulged in, because I read this with extreme care and as a jurist I do not think that the interpretation which the noble Earl has put upon the clause is really expressed.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: What I said was that the words would not alter the effect of the paragraph. I do not know whether the noble Lord intended to alter its effect. Perhaps he did. My point is that a simple form of drafting should be left as it stands.
LORD OLIVIER: Does the noble Earl think that "the determination of the amount to be paid" can mean that no amount may be paid?
THE EARL or ONSLOW: That is what I am advised by the learned draftsman.
LORD OLIVIER: Then "the amount" may mean "no amount."
LORD PARMOOR: The words "the determination of the amount to be paid" surely mean that some amount is to be paid. What I want to make quite clear is that the two considerations should come forward—whether any amount should be paid and what the amount should be.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Of course, I will look into the matter, but our contention is that the effect of the paragraph would not be altered and we are disposed to think the drafting is correct as it is. It is not very wise to try to deal with details of drafting across the floor of the House, but if the noble Lord wishes me to look into a drafting point I will willingly do so.
LORD PARMOOR: I accept what the noble Earl has said.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I cannot promise to look into it as a point of substance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, immediately before the proviso in subsection (1), to insert: "Provided that any person aggrieved by a decision of a guardians committee shall have the right of appeal to the Public Assistance Committee." The noble Earl said: If your Lordships will look at the last part of subsection (1) you will observe that part of the duties of the guardians committees will be the consideration and examination of applications for relief, the determination of the nature and amount of the relief to be given, and the determination of the amount to be paid as a contribution by any recipient of relief or by the person liable for his maintenance. I imagine that the cases in which the appeal that I propose will be exercised will probably not be very numerous, but there might be cases where there has been a feeling that there was perhaps some local prejudice, or some too hasty consideration of the circumstances, and where it would be desirable that a person who really felt a grievance of that kind should have the opportunity of going to the central committee, presenting his case, and getting it considered with at any rate sufficient dilution of local prejudice. It seems to me that probably the proviso might be useful in another respect—in the matter of standardising such things as rates of relief and so on, and providing some sort of general scale which would be for the guidance of guardians committees. I do not know that there is any administrative objection to it, and I hope the Amendment may be accepted, because it would lead to the removal of any feelings of injustice.
Amendment moved
Page 7, line 7, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The system which we have sought to set up under this Bill is that the area of charge should be widened to an extent which makes it fair for the whole area of Poor Law authority to bear charges equitably, and to detail the local administration to local bodies—the guardians committees, which represent to a certain extent the old guardians of the Poor Law unions. The noble Earl says that these appeals would not be very many. I think it is very difficult to be sure of that. There might be a very large number of appeals, indeed, I think it highly possible that

89
appeals would be frequent, if not constant; and if we are to secure the proper working of the machinery, it would be very difficult indeed, if not impossible, to contemplate a series of appeals from the guardians committees to a superior body. After all, the members of the guardians committees in the first place have local knowledge, and, secondly, they are local people living on the spot, and it is their business to go into the cases in detail, and to deal with them. At present there is no appeal from the boards of guardians to any superior body, but there is a power now, which will still continue, to address a complaint from anybody who feels himself aggrieved to the Minister. If the cases are not very numerous and if they are cases of real substance, that would be a method of dealing with any possible grievance. But under the Bill there is another course that an aggrieved person can take. He will be able to make a complaint to the Public Assistance Committee. Now, a complaint and an appeal may sound much the same, but they are not really the same, and they will not entail so much work upon the Public Assistance Committees.
EARL RUSSELL: What clause is that about the complaint?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Anybody can make a complaint. That exists at the present moment. If you introduce the machinery of appeal it will complicate the business very considerably, and I hope that your Lordships will not add this duty to the duties of the Public Assistance Committees.
EARL RUSSELL: When the noble Earl spoke about making a complaint I thought he meant making a complaint in some formal manner recognised by the Bill, or by some Statute. I do not know what attention he supposes is likely to be paid by the Public Assistance Committee to a casual letter from a person complaining of something that the guardians have done. They will probably say that it is a matter for the guardians, just as I should imagine the Minister would probably say that it was a matter for the discretion of the guardians if a complaint was made to him. I recognise that you are spreading the area of charge and I recognise that the old board of guardians could not
90
be interfered with in their decisions in their own areas; but I thought it was desired to create uniformity by this new scheme, and uniformity of administration as well as mere uniformity of area of charge.
If in one union there is a certain scale of relief and in another union there is a higher or lower scale of relief, that would obviously lead to a feeling of grievance and there might be numerous appeals at first. That would very soon come to an end if some simple machinery were laid down for dealing with it. Those who think there would be any harm in allowing an appeal from the decision of a guardians committee are, I believe, mistaken. I take it that if the complaint were frivolous or groundless it would be turned down out of hand. It seems to me there may be substantial cases which might well go to some tribunal which is not so entirely subject to local influence, and it may be an advantage from that point of view to have an appeal.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think the noble Earl has rather changed his argument from what I understood it to be. From what he said at first I gathered he was referring to the appeals from individuals that they had been harmed by a decision of the guardians committee.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: But in his second speech he said that they would deal with the general rate of relief in one area differently from the rate of relief in another area. That would be dealt with by the Public Assistance Committee, upon which, I imagine, the particular guardians committee would be represented. It is not the same thing as an individual appeal from some person who thinks he ought to have more relief than he has got. The guardians committee would deal with that and would make such arrangements as were necessary. If a person who says: "I ought to have some more relief," could go to the Public Assistance Committee, any system which would permit that would involve, a very large amount of work. I do not think you could help having a constant series of appeals from people who thought that they ought to be rather better treated by the guardians committee. I think probably all of us would be in that position if we were given assistance from any public body.

91
We should imagine that they had not given us as much as they ought to have done—for instance, the Income Tax Commissioners or any one else. I think we should all feel like that. Supposing you have a really bad case, the person who is aggrieved complains and says that so-and-so has happened, it becomes public property and the newspapers take it up. I think that would be a safeguard against any real abuse or injustice.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Earl rather disarms me with his last argument, but I understand that the matter in that case will be left like this—that if A. B., an applicant, does seriously and honestly think that he has been treated with gross injustice the only remedy left to him is to write a letter to the Minister.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Or to the Public Assistance Committee.
EARL RUSSELL: Or to the Public Assistance Committee. I am sure the noble Earl does not represent to your Lordships that that is a remedy which will be of very much use to him.
THE EARL or ONSLOW: It is more than he has at present. At present the guardians have the last say unless there is a complaint to the Minister. Now a person will be able to complain to the Public Assistance Committee, and if he does not get satisfaction there he cancarry it further to the Minister.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes; my only suggestion is that they are both loaded with blank cartridge. However, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (5), after the first "committee," to insert "and any sub-committee thereof." The noble Earl said: This is not quite a drafting Amendment. The effect is to require the local authorities to allow the free use of their premises for meetings not only of the guardians committees but of their sub-committees. It is very important that these facilities should be available. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 38, after ("committee") insert ("and any sub-committee thereof").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (5), after the second "committee," to insert "or any sub-committee thereof." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is not quite drafting. Its object is to make it necessary for a scheme to determine the place of meeting not only of guardians committees but of their subcommittees.
Amendment moved
Page 7, line 39, after ("committee") insert ("or any sub-committee thereof").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Approval of schemes.
8.—(1) As soon as an administrative scheme has been submitted to the Minister, the council submitting the scheme shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in their area a notice stating that the scheme has been so submitted and that a copy thereof is open to inspection at a specified place, and that representations thereon may be made to the Minister within four weeks after the publication of the notice, and in the case of a scheme submitted by a county council shall send a copy of the scheme to the council of each district wholly or partly within the county.
(2) No scheme so submitted to the Minister shall be of any effect unless and until it is approved by the Minister, and the Minister, after considering any representations with respect to the scheme which may be submitted to him within four weeks after the publication of such notice as aforesaid by any local authorities and other parties who appear to him to be interested, and after consultation (if and so far as the scheme relates to education) with the Board of Education, may approve the scheme with or without modifications.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert in subsection (2):—
"Provided that where the Minister proposes to modify a scheme the modified scheme shall not be approved except after a local inquiry unless all the local authorities concerned consent."
The noble Viscount said: Clause 3 is somewhat similar to Clause 8. In Clause 3 there is a proviso similar to the one I have placed on the Paper. It may be that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has some good explanation of this, in which case I should not trouble your Lordships any further. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 41, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If your Lordships accept this Amendment and add it to the Bill it will prevent the Minister from modifying a scheme which has been submitted for his approval, until he has held a public inquiry. The noble and learned Lord behind me told your Lordships, I think, yesterday, that one of the great difficulties we have to contend with in bringing this Bill into force is that of time. County councils have to submit their schemes not later than six months after the passing of the Bill; that is to say, some time in September or October probably of this year. If there is any exceptional case where it may be necessary that the time shall be extended the clause referred to in the Bill provides for four weeks' delay during which representations can be made to the Minister. It is only after these representations have been made and after everything has been received by him that the scheme can be approved.
It will be clear to your Lordships that it would be an absolute physical impossibility to undertake to hold local inquiries in all cases in which there may be some prima facie ground for modification suggested in the representations the Minister will receive during those four weeks. It is necessary to get the schemes approved so as to enable the county councils to prepare their arrangements in order that the Bill may be brought into operation on the appointed day, that is to say, on April 1, 1930. If necessity should arise and it should be obviously desirable that it should be pressed and, indeed, that the Minister should agree—I imagine that if it was really necessary the Minister would not withhold consent unreasonably; I cannot imagine that he would for a moment—there is nothing whatever to prevent a local inquiry being held. But, generally speaking, for the chronological reasons I have given your Lordships such procedure as is suggested by the noble Viscount in his Amendment would not really be possible. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will accept the Bill as it stands.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Disqualifications]:
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to add the following subsection:—"(4) for the pur-
94
poses of this section, poor relief shall not include relief on loan." The noble Earl said: Clause 10 deals with the point of the disqualification of paupers from sitting on county councils. In that clause there are a certain number of exceptions and this Amendment proposes to add another. It is generally known, of course, that a great number of unemployed men to-day have, during certain periods of the year and owing to gaps in the present unemployment insurance system, to go temporarily on to the rates. A great number of those do not receive a permanent gift of relief; they receive relief on loan; and it is proposed by this Amendment to exempt these men from the disqualification of sitting on county councils and on the sub-committees of county councils. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a very reasonable Amendment in view of the fact that the vast majority of these men are not paupers at all, but are simply men who are temporarily hard-up, have borrowed money from the local authorities end are liable to pay those local authorities back. Those men who have had a short term of ill-luck are just as suited to sit on public bodies as any one else. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 17, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment. Clause 10 is designed to reproduce towards members of county councils and other bodies which are now going to be responsible for the administration of poor relief the existing disqualificaton which affects boards of guardians. The principle, as I understand it, is that it is undesirable that persons should be qualified to sit on public bodies when they have been in the immediate past, or when they may at the time actually be, in the position of receiving relief from those public bodies. That objection is just as strong whether the relief is given by way of gift or by way of loan, which may, or may not, ever be repaid. With regard to what the noble Earl has said that the fact that they have received relief ought not to disqualify them, of course it does not disqualify them permanently. All that the clause provides is that if they are actually receiving, or have been

95
in receipt of within twelve months before the date of the election, Poor Law relief then they cannot become members of the county council. Whether they receive the relief by way of loan or by way of gift seems to us to make no difference in principle, and therefore we ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to call the attention of the noble and learned Lord to one matter. At the present time Poor Law relief does not affect in the sense of disqualification a person wishing to become a county councillor. If noble Lords will look at the proviso in subsection (1) they will see it is in these words:—
"Provided that a person who is at the date of the commencement of this Act a member of any such council and has received poor relief before that date, shall not be thereby disqualified for being such a member."
Therefore, this is a new disqualification so far as the county council is concerned. I very much object to any extension of disqualification on the ground of poverty. I agree with the noble Earl who moved the Amendment that poverty is the result of misfortune. Misfortune is the ordinary cause which produces poverty, and should not in itself be a disqualification. It is no longer a disqualification in many directions. Of old it was always a disqualification when we had a property basis for our electoral system. Now that time has gone by, and there is no reason why poor men should be in any different position as regards the county council from a rich man; in fact, in my view, every inducement should be given to him to become a member of a county council.
The basis of the noble and learned Lord's argument is this. He says that the county council will now take part—it only takes a part—in the distribution of Poor Law relief, and it is only extending the present disqualification which applies to boards of guardians. Surely that, is not so. The county council's business is a great deal different from that of the board of guardians. It includes tens and hundreds of subjects with which the board of guardians have nothing whatever to do—some of them most important questions of local government. What the noble Earl who proposed the Amendment has said is that in those circumstances, having regard to the fact that the change that is being made is to the disadvantage of a poor man
96
who otherwise could become a county councillor, any one who only receives relief in the nature of a loan ought not to come under the disqualification. That seems to me to be reasonable.
The noble Earl is quite right, as everyone knows who is accustomed to these matters; the relief is very probably only temporary, and is something which has been brought about by bad conditions of employment or by something quite outside the control of the particular working man. Many a person of that kind may be a most excellent county councillor. I am, sure in many cases he would be and would do admirable work for the county; yet, if he gets temporary relief in this way, he is to be disqualified. It is a new disqualification and I very much object to the extension of the old disqualification to this class of man. While I dislike disqualification altogether, it would be very much mitigated if the noble Earl's Amendment were accepted. I hope the Lord Chancellor will reconsider the decision he has come to.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Repeal of 5 Edw. 7. c. 18.
12. The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, shall, as from the appointed day, be repealed, but the Minister may, on such repeal taking effect, make such orders as were by section eight of that Act authorised to be made on the expiration of the period for which that Act as originally enacted was to continue in force, and any such order may provide for applying, subject to the necessary adaptations, to officers appointed under the said Act the provisions of this Act as to the transfer and compensation of officers.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out all words after "The Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, shall, as from the appointed day," and to insert "have effect as if in the Act the London County Council were substituted for the London Unemployed Body as the authority under the Act for the County of London, and as if the council of a county or county borough had been made the authority under the Act for a county or county borough, respectively." The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will recollect that some discussion took place yesterday about the Unemployed Workmen Act of

97
1905, which it is proposed by Clause 12 to repeal. The principal object of this Amendment is to object to that repeal and to substitute for the repeal provisions which might take effect under that Act. It is to strike out all the words after "day" in line 36 so as to insert the words on the Paper. We do not think that the value of the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905 is entirely spent, as the noble Earl seemed to think yesterday. We think it may be of some useful purpose in this matter. Therefore I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 36, leave out from ("day") to the end of the clause and insert the said words.—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: As the noble Earl said, we did have some discussion upon this particular point yesterday. I need not elaborate the arguments which I ventured to submit to your Lordships on that occasion. After we had discussed the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, yesterday, we came to another Amendment with reference to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, used language which made me rather surprised that he should have continued with this Amendment. I ventured to suggest to him that it was very desirable that the functions of all the authorities should be co-ordinated, and on an Amendment which dealt with the payment of expenses in certain cases I ventured to use the argument that it was very desirable that these powers should be worked through one body like the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, and so on. This Amendment proposes to retain the functions under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, and I suggest to your Lordships and to the noble Earl, if he will forgive me for doing so, that by maintaining that Act he would simply be creating duplicate machinery.
The bodies working under the Act of 1905 had two main functions—one, the measurement of the existence and extent of unemployment at any time; and the other, the provision of relief works. That, I think, we discussed yesterday. Now the first function has been taken over by the Ministry of Labour. Of course, the Ministry of Labour did not exist when the Act of 1905 was passed, but before the Ministry of Labour was created, as your Lordships will remember, the Board
98
of Trade created labour exchanges and those particular functions under the Act were performed by the Ministry of Labour and the labour exchanges. The second function is replaced by a system of giving grants directly to councils which are able to put relief works into operation. Then there was another body which was also referred to yesterday, which had the power of assisting emigration, and those powers included training men for the careers they were likely to follow abroad. The councils of counties and county boroughs had limited powers under the Act of 1888 of assisting emigration. The whole of these powers under the Unemployed Workmen Act and the other powers I have mentioned will be centralised in the hands of one body, and I venture to think that that is really the best solution of this problem. The noble Earl did not mention it, but perhaps he had in mind the work of the Hollesley Bay Colony. That is the only surviving activity of the Central Unemployed body that will be transferred en bloc to the county council. In the circumstances I venture to hope that your Lordships may consider that the scheme proposed in the Bid will really meet the case.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not quite know why the noble Earl should accuse me of objecting to co-ordination, because if he looks at the Amendment he will see that it proposes that the whole of these powers should be transferred to the county council. I only suggested that the powers might be worth preserving. I understand the noble Earl to say now that county councils will have these powers as to relief work, and such grants as are proper for carrying them out.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.
EARL RUSSELL: Of course, if that is so I shall withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I did not wish to misrepresent the noble Earl.
EARL RUSSELL: I am sure you did not.
THE EARL 0F ONSLOW: Might I just add that as I understand the Amendment he would drive a horse in each hand instead of driving a pair.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause:—
Consultation by councils of counties and county boroughs with bodies representing voluntary hospitals.
".The council of every county and county borough shall make such arrangements as they think desirable for securing that the functions transferred to them under this Part of this Act with respect to the provision of hospital accommodation will be discharged after consultation with such body, if any, within the county or county borough as they consider to represent the voluntary hospitals in the area."
The noble Earl said: In accordance with the undertaking I gave to the noble and learned Marquess last night, I beg to move the clause standing on the Paper in my name. There was a mistake in the Marshalled List of Amendments as printed, and words which the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, had put down were attributed to me. The Amendment has been corrected in Papers which are at the disposal of your Lordships. I only mention that in case any of your Lordships should be under a misapprehension. I beg to move the Amendment as it stands on the Paper, subject to the undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, that on the Report stage I would add words to provide for consultation, not only with the representatives of voluntary hospitals in the district—that is, in the county or county borough—but also with the medical and surgical staffs of the voluntary hospitals. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that we might deal with the Amendment to-day, but that, I think, would be rather hurrying matters. The noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, suggested yesterday that he had had very little time for considering it and I should like this Amendment to have the fullest consideration. Therefore, I would beg your Lordships to allow me to postpone any further observations until the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, after Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: There is one observation I should like to make, and that is that during the discussion yesterday it was made quite clear that there were words which required further consideration. The noble Earl said at
100
the end of that discussion that he would consider it before the Report stage. I am not asking for anything more. The clause was only put down yesterday, and I made one suggestion in particular, which was that the words "consider to represent" are very unsatisfactory, and that it might be better to put in words such as "as represents the voluntary hospitals" or "representative of the voluntary hospitals of the area." The point that I am a little anxious to make clear is that it must be a body that is representative. I am quite satisfied if the noble Earl states that he will undertake to consider the language of the clause between now and the Report stage, but it is a little difficult to accept it as it stands.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: One of the objects I had in suggesting postponement was that I had not had time to consider the clause. Of course, any observations which have fallen from your Lordships to-day or yesterday will receive most careful attention.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: One point that I would ask to be taken into consideration is in regard to the words "within the county or county borough" and also the words "represent the voluntary hospitals in the area." I would suggest that these words "within" and "in" would hardly carry out the intention of the clause. Hospitals, particularly those with medical schools attached, have fairly definite spheres of influence, but they very seldom march with the boundaries of a county or of a county borough. I would ask that in reconsidering the wording of the clause these words should be taken into consideration.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN LORD DAWSON OF PENN had given Notice to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add the words: "and with any body existing in the area which is so constituted as to be representative of the duly qualified medical practitioners and of the medical and surgical staffs of the voluntary hospitals in the area." The noble Lord said: The noble Earl opposite has brought forward a new clause in order, as I understand, to meet the widely expressed wishes of your Lordships in regard to the representation of voluntary hospitals in cases where reorganisation is going to take

101
place. It will be within the memory of your Lordships that the noble and learned Lord opposite showed pretty clearly that the words of the clause were worth very little. The noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, has stated that he wishes to reserve his approval of the language. It seems to me perhaps a little illogical to proceed with a clause which does not satisfy those whom it is designed to satisfy. As the noble Earl opposite has stated that he has not had time to reconsider the language of this clause, I would suggest to your Lordships that it is unwise to commit yourselves to a wording which admittedly does not meet the wishes of those who desire the voluntary hospitals to be taken into account. Would it not be better to reconsider the whole matter? If the noble Marquess thinks otherwise, I am prepared to defer to his greater experience.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to say that I would prefer to have the clause inserted now in accordance with what was said by the noble Earl. I am quite content with the statement of the noble Earl that he will reconsider the language of the clause before we get to the Report stage. When the Bill comes up for that stage the clause will be in it and it will be open to us to make any suggestions that we desire with the object of strengthening or clarifying it. That seems to me to be the best course to take in regard to this particular clause, though I quite agree that it does not touch the Amendment of the noble Lord who has just spoken.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I was under an obligation to the noble Marquess to bring this clause in. Your Lordships thought that the clause required reconsideration, and I gave an undertaking that it would be reconsidered, but I have not yet been able to reconsider it, and therefore I cannot offer any further opinion at present. I am in your Lordships' hands.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I quite accept what the noble Earl has said. I do not' think that there is any difference of opinion between us. This is really a question of procedure, and it seems to me that it would be much better and more convenient that the clause, as now drafted, should be in the Bill and should
102
be considered with the Bill on the Report stage. We can then reconsider any questions that arise upon the language or upon the extent of the powers given. There is no danger that it may be said that I had accepted the clause and had therefore debarred myself from any futher comment upon it. That is impossible now, in view of what took place yesterday and of what the noble Earl has told us to-day.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: I fully accept the judgment of the noble Marquess in this matter. I will pass on to the concluding remarks which the noble Earl opposite was good enough to make. He told us yesterday that ho would try to find words which would meet the words of my Amendment. I would only remind him, since he said just now that he would try to meet me on the question of the representation of the medical and surgical staffs of hospitals, that this is not all that is wanted. We want a body "representative of the duly qualified medical practitioners and of the medical and surgical staffs of the voluntary hospitals." I point that out as a reminder to the noble Earl. I would only add that the people who are concerned with hospitals in this connection and have experience of them number something like 30,000, whereas those who are concerned with whole-time administrative duties, the medical officers of health and other whole-time officials, number only something like 1,700.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Dawson of Penn, does not move his Amendment to the Amendment to-day.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Consequential amendments to certain Acts]:
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to insert as a new subsection:—
"(6)Subsections (1) (2) and (3) of section 29 and section 31 of the Poor Law Act, 1927, which confer upon the Minister powers with regard to the appointment, payment and tenure of office of Poor Law officers, shall as from the appointed day cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment on behalf of the County Councils Association. I may say, on behalf of that association, that we very

103
much appreciate the conciliatory way in which the Minister met us on a good many points, but there are certain points in this Bill which could not be discussed in the House of Commons on account of the "guillotine" and we think that they should be brought before your Lordships' House. This Amendment proposes that certain sections of the Poor Law Act, 1927, shall cease to have effect. Without consulting that Act, one might be under the impression that it is a piece of recent legislation and is applicable to present conditions, but, as a matter of fact, it is a consolidating Act referring to many old Acts of Parliament dealing with boards of guardians.
I venture to say that it is a very different thing to apply these restrictions to county councils and to apply them to boards of guardians. I will not trouble your Lordships with the whole of Section 29 of the Act of 1027, but I will quote from it certain of the words which we particularly dislike. It says:—
"The Minister may define the duties to be performed by officers, and the limits within which officers are to act in the performance of their duties, and direct the mode of appointment and determine the continuance in office or dismissal of officers and…may, if he thinks fit, regulate the amount of their salaries and the time and mode of payment thereof."
This may have been very proper for boards of guardians but I venture to think that the many noble Lords in this House who are members of county councils will agree that it would hardly be the right way to treat those councils. It would put them in a very inferior position and would leave them very little power over the payment and dismissal of their own officers. It would be quite contrary to the present position enjoyed by the county councils. I pass on to Section 31 which says:—
"The Minister may, by order, either upon or without any suggestion or complaint in that behalf from the board of guardians, remove or suspend any paid officer of the board whom he considers unfit for or incompetent to discharge his duties, or who at any time refuses or wilfully neglects to obey and carry into effect any rules, orders…"
and so on. That is hardly a right obligation to put upon the members of county councils, which are large and important bodies and ought not to be put in the same position as small boards of guardians.
Perhaps the noble Earl will say that the Minister ought to have some power. He will have a great deal of power, because I do not propose to touch Section 30 of the Act of 1927. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read that section, which gives great power to the Minister and will now become applicable to the county councils. It runs:—
"If a board of guardians fail for a period of twenty-eight days after receipt of a requisition from the Minister in that behalf to appoint…any officer whom they are lawfully required to appoint, the Minister may, at any time after the expiration that period, by order, appoint a fit person to be such officer, and determine the salary or remuneration to be paid to him by the board."
I venture to think that, even if Sections 29 and 31 are struck out, the Minister will still have very great powers and will be able to control the county councils if they do anything that is unreasonable. As regards the general principle that county councils should be masters in their own house, I am sure that those of your Lordships who are members of county councils will agree with me that it would not be very dignified for great bodies like county councils to be put in the position in which they will be if the two sections to which I have referred remain in force. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 42, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: On the Second Reading debate I ventured to lay some stress upon the principle or principles which had guided the Government in drafting this measure. One of those principles was that we should not attempt at the present moment to reform the Poor Law as it stands in the Consolidation Act of 1927, that we should not attempt to deal with it in detail but only to deal with the transfer of the existing Poor Law powers and duties to the county councils and county boroughs. I ventured also to say to your Lordships that it had always been contemplated that when the new authorities had acquired experience of their new duties, and had thorough knowledge of the working of the Act of 1927, and the regulations which the Minister is under an obligation to issue, in order to fill in the general details of the scheme,

105
then would be the moment for discussing any Amendment of the Act of 1927 with the new authorities; but that we could not contemplate in this Bill an Amendment of the details of the Act of 1927.
The proposal which my noble friend Lord Strachie puts before your Lordships is scarcely one of detail. It is one of principle almost; it affects the principle of the Act of 1927. The noble Lord said that that was only a Consolidation Act, but when you have a Consolidation Act it represents the considered opinion of Parliament for many years—in this case something like 300. I now come to the difficulty which the Act of 1927 in this respect seeks to cover. The noble Lord has told us, and I agree with him, that county councils should be masters in their own house, but they should be masters to deal with those duties which Parliament has entrusted to them. In this case the Poor Law service differs from other services in the hands of county councils. In every other case except Poor Law the local authorities are responsible for the administration of the services entrusted to them.
Now the Poor Law services are entrusted definitely by Parliament to the Minister who, under the Act of 1927, is charged with the direction and control of all matters relating to Poor Law relief throughout En land and Wales. The Minister is responsible for seeing that the pauper is not ill-treated, and is responsible for the control or policy of the local Poor Law administration, and he does that by regulation, and the security of tenure of officers is assured by Section 29. The power of the Minister over officers is one which is necessary to him to enable him to carry out the responsibility which the Act of 1927 places upon him, and I do not think it is possible to accept the Amendment. If we did, we should be cutting at the root of the principle which guided the Government in drafting the Bill—namely, that we
should not interfere with the general principle of the working of the Act of 1927. Therefore I am unable to accept the Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: I cannot say that I am at all satisfied with the reply given by the noble Earl, who seems to think as regards this question of dealing with officers that it is the most important power that could be handed over to the county councils. He talks as if that was the only thing which mattered, but I would venture to remind him that under this Bill very large powers are handed over to the county councils and to the borough councils which I should have thought were a great deal more important than the question of salaries. I cannot agree with the noble Earl that we are justified in handing over to the county councils and borough councils the whole of the powers of the boards of guardians except these particular powers, and I must press my Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I must have entirely failed to make myself clear to my noble friend. I did not say that this was the most important matter. I said that it was a very important point to enable the Minister to undertake his duties and responsibilities to Parliament. If you accept this Amendment and alter the Bill in this way, you will alter the Act of 1927 in details which will affect the responsibility, or at any rate the security for carrying out the responsibility, which the Minister possesses, and that is a matter which we cannot accept on this Bill. As regards the other duties, I agree that they are very important duties, but they come within the general scope of the Bill, which is to transfer duties from the guardians to the county councils and the county boroughs.
On Question, Whether the said new subsection shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 78.

CONTENTS.

Fortescue, E.

Aberconway, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Lindsay, E.

Deramore, [Teller.]

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Malmesbury, E.

Forester, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Northbrook, E.

Hindlip, L.

Tenterden, L.

Treowen, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L, Chancellor.)

Yarborough, E.

Desborough, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Astor, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Faringdon, L.

Wellington, D.

Chaplin, V.

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

Churchill, V.

Greenway, L.

Bath, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Bristol, M.

Hood, V.

Harlech, L.

Exeter, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Harris, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Knutsford, V.

Islington, L.

Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Younger of Leckie, V.

Jesse], L.

Joicey, L.

Airlie, E.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Kylsant, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Marshall of Chipstead, L.

Clarendon, E.

Askwith, L.

Monson, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Avebury, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

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

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Carson, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Halsbury, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Iddesleigh, E.

Redesdale, L.

Iveagh, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Remnant, L.

Lovelace, E.

Cranworth, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cushendun, L.

Saltoun, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Danesfort, L.

Sandys, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Darling, L.

Sempill, L.

Onslow, E.

Daryngton, L.

Sinclair, L.

Plymouth, E.

Dawson of Penn, L.

Suffield, L.

Spencer, E.

de Clifford, L.

Templemore, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Wharton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Recovery of expenses.
15.—(1) As from the appointed day not shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough and of every other local authority to recover from any person who has been maintained by them in any institution, other than a person who has become an inmate of an institution for the purpose of receiving treatment for infectious disease, or from any person legally liable to maintain that person, the whole of the expenses incurred by the council or authority in the maintenance of that person, or, if the council or authority are satisfied that the persons from whom the expenses are recoverable cannot reasonably, having regard to their financial circumstances, be required to pay the whole of those expenses, such part, if any, of the expenses as they are in the opinion of the council or authority able to pay.
(2) Any expenses recoverable under this section shall, without prejudice to any other remedy, be recoverable summarily as a civil debt.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
"Institution" means any hospital, maternity home or other residential institution accommodation wherein is provided by the council of a county or county borough or other local authority under
108
the powers conferred by the Public, Health Acts, 1875 to 1926, or the corresponding enactments relating to London, the Local Government Act, 1888, as amended by this Act, or the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, 19l8.
The expenses incurred by the council or authority in providing for the maintenance of a person in an institution shall, in respect of each day of maintenance in the institution, be deemed to be a sum representing the average daily cost per patient of the maintenance of the institution and the staff thereof and the maintenance and treatment of the patients therein.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved to leave out subsection (1). The noble Lord said: The subject matter of this clause is very important. The clause deals with hospital treatment, and in my view you should encourage hospital treatment, and encourage the poor to resort to hospital treatment at an early stage, in order that they may get the full advantage of all that medical and surgical science can do for them. That is the effect of the present system of our great voluntary hospitals. The effect of this subsection is to impose upon the county council, who for this purpose are an administrative body, an obligation to recover from any person who has been maintained in any hospital the incidental expenses incurred. That is a very harsh measure,

109
and it is just the sort of thing which will prevent people who ought to go for hospital treatment, and for whom hospital treatment is really provided, from taking advantage of it.
May I remind the Lord Chancellor of the present position of the voluntary hospitals? They have no power to recover charges in respect of patients who have applied to them for medical or surgical assistance. That is a well known legal principle. All that they can do, when any one is brought into the hospital whose position in life is such that he can afford to make an adequate payment, is to ask him to pay. That is natural enough, but there is no compulsion of any sort. The hospital with which I am connected is St. Bartholomew's, one of the great hospital institutions of this country. I forget how many patients we deal with in a year—I think the number exceeds 100,000 at any rate. There is no question there of any payment being enforced. A man, however poor, comes in and receives exactly the same treatment as a millionaire; the whole of medical and surgical science is at his disposal, and there is no other way in which any person who is ill can get the same measure of scientific treatment. In those circumstances surely you ought not to put upon a local authority like a county council, which, after all, is the administrative authority and the authority immediately dealing with these matters, the obligation—because it is an obligation—to recover all charges (I do not see any limitation) from the patient; and not only from the patient but from "any person legally liable to maintain that person."
I have not the slightest notion what that means. Does it mean a Common Law liability? I do not know of any such Common Law liability, or, as regards any other liability, any power to make a charge of that kind. The person who is legally liable to maintain is not liable for all the expenses but only for some specified part of them. I should like to say, and the noble Earl will no doubt have it in his mind, that where this same matter is dealt with in the Public Health Act, 1875—it has been dealt with for a long time now—there is no possibility of making any person legally liable to maintain the patient also liable for the hospital expenses whatever they may be.
110
So far as I know this is novel with regard to hospital expenses. But my objection goes far beyond that. The object of this Bill is to improve the Poor Law. It does not mean to break up the Poor Law; it does not pretend to do that. But it ought to open all facilities and at least the same advantages as can be obtained from the voluntary hospitals, and all surgical and medical appliances known at the present time, for the advantage of the poor patient. Can any one really dispute that?
There is one rather curious exception in this case about which, perhaps, the noble Earl will tell me whether I am right? In subsection (1) these words appear:—
"other than a person who has become an inmate of an institution for the purpose of receiving treatment for infectious disease."
I think the only two infections diseases aimed at there are venereal disease and tuberculosis. Some of these matters are technical. I am sure the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know those are the only two exceptions. Why should there be those exceptions? I think the exception here is the right principle to follow throughout, and that the poor man should be encouraged and everything should be done to invite him to go to a hospital at an early stage of the disease, in order that the public health of the mass of the people of this country may be maintained at the highest possible level.
With regard to the further part of subsection (1), I am bound to say that I disagree with the whole principle of it and the words in which it is stated. It says—
"… if the council or authority are satisfied that the persons from whom the expenses are recoverable cannot reasonably, having regard to their financial circumstances, be required to pay the whole of those expenses…"
they are still to be required to pay such part, if any, as in the opinion of the council or authority they are able to pay. Just consider what that means. I happen to have been a member of a county council for twenty-five years, and I will assume that a question of this kind is coming before the council. There is no option. They may say: "This is a terrible case. The man ought certainly to have gone for hospital treatment when

111
he did and he ought to have been encouraged to go for it. It is for everyone's advantage and it is a blessing that the treatment has proved to be successful." "The poor fellow is without resources, so what are you going to do? Are you going to make him bankrupt, or take steps against him because he has taken advantage of hospital treatment, to which I think he is entitled, or are you going to do the same with regard to some other person who is said to be liable to maintain him? I take a very strong view indeed of this clause, and I say it is contrary to the whole principle of the treatment of poor people by hospital measures and ought to be deleted. That is the reason why I propose that the subsection shall be omitted.
As a matter of practice, this matter being in the hands of the guardians, there is never an attempt to recover expenses at the present time. Conditions are such that even to suggest such a thing in the circumstances is the very way to create misery and poverty. And so far from making this Bill a Bill of reform it would be in this respect a Bill of reaction of a cruel kind. I think that many provisions in this Bill are of advantage, because the enlarged areas and so on may allow of better administration. But why should this blot be introduced? I ask your Lordships to support me in getting rid of it. I ask your Lordships whether it is your opinion that a poor man ought to be put under a disability by a threat of having expenses imposed upon him which he cannot pay or for which some other person may be liable, when all the science and knowledge of the country ought to be open to him both for his own recovery and for what is still more important—maintaining at a high level the health of all persons in the country, especially including those of the poorer classes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, lines 6 to 20, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord wound up his impassioned appeal by asking your Lordships to say whether the poor man ought to be put under a disability by the threat of being asked for expenses which he cannot pay. If that was the question—which your Lordships had to determine, I imagine you would have very little
112
doubt as to the answer. But the question has no relation whatever to the Amendment. Let me explain to your Lordships in a few sentences the reason for the clause having regard to the existing law. Under the existing law guardians are under a statutory obligation to recover from persons to whom they supply relief and from persons who are legally liable to maintain those persons the cost of providing that relief. The noble and learned Lord said that he did not know who were the people legally liable to maintain others. The answer, of course, is their parents and grandparents. But that is only by the way. I think the noble and learned Lord will remember when he thinks for a moment——
LORD PARMOOR: What I referred to was not that, which is quite accurate; but the question of the liability to pay towards the expenses of hospital treatment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: the expression is not legally liable to pay for the expenses of hospital treatment, but legally liable to maintain that person.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes; they are not the people now liable.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord said that he did not understand the phrase. I am only reminding him that the phrase has a perfectly well known meaning in law. The persons who are legally liable to maintain are the parents and the grandparents. The noble and learned Lord said that those persons were not legally liable to pay their hospital expenses. That, if he will forgive me saying so, is not universally true. The position is this. To-day, if guardians provide relief to a pauper, whether it be in the form of relief in an infirmary or in a workhouse, the person who receives that relief and those legally liable to maintain that person are liable for the cost of the relief so provided, and the guardians are under a statutory obligation to recover that sum from those paupers and the persons legally liable to maintain those paupers. Your Lordships will remember that under a series of Acts, of which the Public Health Act was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, power is given nowadays to county councils to provide cer-

113
tain hospital benefits apart altogether from the Poor Law institutions. One of the main purposes of the Bill is to consolidate and centralise that provision, and to encourage county councils, where they have the power either to provide hospital treatment under the Poor Law or to provide it under the special Acts of Parliament which are set out in Clause 5, to use the powers of Clause 5 rather than the Poor Law power, but it is open to them to use the latter if they like.
If this clause were omitted, as is now suggested, the result would be this. Wherever a county council chose to exercise its Poor Law power—the power transferred from the guardians—to provide hospital treatment for poor persons, they would be under the same statutory obligation that the guardians are under now to recover the cost from the persons so treated in that hospital. On the other hand, if they chose to provide a hospital not under their Poor Law powers but under other Acts of Parliament, then, unless this clause exists, they would not be under any obligation to recover the cost. The result would be that, in two adjoining areas of two county councils, one sets up a hospital exercising the Poor Law power and is bound to recover the cost, while the other county council sets up its hospital under one of its other statutory powers and, unless this clause is retained, is under no obligation to recover the cost. That is the anomaly. It would not even stop there. Supposing a county council set up a hospital under its Poor Law power and sent there a destitute person—a pauper—then presumably it would be supplying relief to a pauper and it would have to recover the cost if possible. Next door, in the same hospital, in the same ward, perhaps in the adjoining bed, lies somebody who has ample means to pay. Because he was not a pauper the county council would be under no obligation to recover any part of the cost. That seems to me an indefensible, anomaly.
It is not true to say that under this clause county councils are bound to threaten destitute persons—threaten the poor people—in order to recover expenses which they cannot pay. The provision in the clause is not that the county council shall in all circumstances exact the cost of the maintenance of any one
114
who goes into any one of their hospitals. The provision is that they shall recover the cost, but if they are satisfied that the persons cannot reasonably, having regard to their financial circumstances, be required to pay the whole of their expenses, then they have only to ask for such part, if any, of the expenses as they are, in the opinion of the council or authority, able to pay. Careful provision is made that the council is not to ask from poor people that which they cannot pay, but only that which they can reasonably be expected to contribute. I submit it is in the last degree unreasonable so to arrange the law that the pauper shall be liable to pay the whole cost and that the better-off man should be relieved from liability merely by the accident of the fact that he is better off. So far as the Public Health Act is concerned, which is the one Act that I think the noble and learned Lord specifically referred to, if he looks at Section 132 of that Act he will find that the county councils already have the right to demand payment from those to whom they provide assistance under that Act, and, therefore, this merely makes it obligatory for them to do that which they have already the power to do independently of this clause altogether.
LORD PARMOOR: That was not the point I made. I said they had no power under the 1875 Act to recover from other than a patient. The patient was the only person.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg the noble and learned Lord's pardon, I thought he said they had no power to recover. Under Section 102 they have the power to recover from the people who get the treatment, and under Clause 15 which we have here they will have the power. The obligation already exists in the case of persons who come within the Poor Law to recover from those Who are legally liable to maintain such people the reasonable costs of their hospital provision—provided always that they are able reasonably to pay. There is only one other observation. The noble and learned Lord said that the reference to infectious disease meant only tuberculosis and venereal disease. I hesitate to differ from him without having looked into it more carefully. I do not at present understand where he gets that from. I should have thought,

115
whether you sent a man to a scarlet fever or a smallpox hospital, or to a tuberculosis or venereal disease hospital for treatment, and you treated him for an infectious disease, the exception would apply. The reason why infectious disease is differently treated from non-infectious disease is that it is in the essential interest of the public that the person should be treated in the infectious hospital in order to prevent his spreading the disease to other people, and therefore, inasmuch as he is sent there not so much for his own benefit as for the benefit of his fellows, and to protect his fellows from the risk of contagion, it is thought right, in those cases, that the public, which is gaining the benefit, should pay the cost. I hope for these reasons that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
EARL BUXTON: I cannot help expressing my regret that my noble friend has moved this Amendment. I had hoped that we should have an opportunity of discussing the first subsection on its merits. In my opinion, and in that of many of the House, it goes much too far in its obligatory character, and in its wording in regard to the question of the recovery of the cost of maintenance and of medical services. As I understand this Amendment, if it were carried it would prevent in any case, except in regard to paupers, any possibility of obtaining payment from any patient towards the maintenance cost to which the authority has been put. That is going too far. In moving his Amendment my noble friend has gone a good deal beyond any Amendment moved in another place. There the Amendments moved were directed to mitigating the severity of the subsection as it stands. I think everyone will feel that where persons are able to contribute something towards the cost of the medical treatment and maintenance they have received, they ought to contribute that amount for the public benefit and should not go scot free. If this Amendment is passed it will have that effect.
It does seem also, as pointed out by the Lord Chancellor, that if this subsection is left out the anomaly would be so intense and so grave that it really could not be defended. That is to say, if the Amendment is accepted you will be able to recover from a pauper but
116
you will not be able to recover from anybody who is not a pauper. Anybody who is not a pauper and who not only could but ought to contribute something would be entirely exempt from such contribution. I hope, therefore, my noble friend will not press his Amendment to a Division. Later on there are Amendments in the name of some of his noble friends to which I will give my strongest support, believing that the clause as it stands goes far beyond the Act of 1875. To that extent it is a retrograde step, and I think it would be a very severe penalty on those who attend these hospitals and a considerable deterrent in many cases to their attending. So far as this amendment is concerned I think the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has made it obvious that it is impossible to accept it because the resulting anomalies would be so great.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not intend, having regard to what has been said by the Lord Chancellor and the noble Earl, to press my Amendment to a Division. I am sorry I do not agree entirely with the Lord Chancellor in some of the law he has stated. I am sure he will realise that I do not say that in any antagonistic spirit because he wants and I want to come to what is an accurate statement of the law. After that, we have to consider, of course, what is the operation of the law. I do not follow the other matters to which the Lord Chancellor has referred because in the circumstances I propose to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "it shall be the duty of." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I move will make the operation of this clause optional for the local authority instead of compulsory. I think there are very strong reasons why that change should be made. A certain amount of discussion has already taken place upon the clause which reduces the task I have in speaking on this Amendment, but I would point out to the Lord Chancellor that whereas it is contended by the Government that the reason for this clause is to make uniform, or virtually uniform, the practice as between what is done in these matters under the Poor Law and what will be done under the Public Health Act, in point of fact

117
this clause does not establish that position. I will not go into the differences between its operation and the operation of the existing Poor Law, though they are substantial. They are complicated and they are substantial. But even supposing that this clause did effect this uniformity, the point which I should like to put to the Lord Chancellor is that, though uniformity might be legally established theoretically, in practice the result would be different.
Of course in practice, as has been stated, a very large number of those who are in Poor Law health institutions are paupers. They can pay nothing and they are not asked to pay anything. In some cases perhaps they are, but in the very large number of cases they are not. In public health institutions, speaking broadly—I am not laying down hard and fast rules—patients will be in a better financial position and under this clause it is not merely to be the option, as it is now, of the local authorities to ask for money towards maintenance of a patient in such an institution, but the local authority will be obliged to do it. They must do it. It is quite true that the clause was altered so that where the patient cannot reasonably be expected to pay there is power to remit either the whole or part of the sum alleged to be due. When the clause was first introduced that was not the case, and the local authority would have been obliged to have charged a patient, and perhaps to have taken from a working man his savings of several years, because he had the misfortune to be ill. That has been altered, and it is a considerable concession, but it by no means, I submit, makes the position satisfactory.
This clause does alter the existing position in several vital respects. Some of them were mentioned in the course of the discussion on the last Amendment. Apart from the fact that it makes it compulsory it also fixes the cost to be charged to the patient on a quite different basis from that of Poor Law practice. That is one of the differences I had in mind. Then there is the point—I have another Amendment dealing with that, but I will not speak of it now—that it is totally different from present practice, for not only is the local authority compelled to charge the patient but it is to go beyond that to those who
118
are liable to maintain the patient. Who exactly they are is in very grave doubt, as I shall point out when I come to my further Amendments. Again, there is a point with which the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, proposes to deal—that of treatment in maternity cases—and there is also the matter of infectious diseases. I have an Amendment dealing with that. At present the clause is most ambiguous and unsatisfactory. I am going to ask the Lord Chancellor or the noble Earl who sits beside him whether any public health authority has asked for this to be made compulsory. Is there a single public health authority that has asked for it? They have had optional powers and as far as I know they have been quite satisfied with them.
I would point out that as far as expenditure is concerned this clause has little or nothing to do with the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health is stopping the percentage grant system and substituting block grants. My noble friend Lord Olivier will deal with that in a later Amendment. That being the case, the Ministry of Health will not benefit by the operation of this clause nor will they lose by it. It really will not affect them. Therefore the financial consideration does not apply. One very important point on which I should like to have an answer—I think your Lordships will agree that it is worthy of an answer—is that in the Scottish Bill this power is left optional. Why should it be left optional in Scotland and made compulsory in England? I should like the Lord Chancellor to reply to that question. It is a perfectly clear question. What is the underlying principle, in experience or theory or anything else? Why should this clause be optional in Scotland and compulsory in this country? It is a definite question to which I should like a reply. The clause will act as a deterrent to certain people who ought to go to health institutions for treatment which they need and therefore, if it is put into practice in its present form, it will be inimical to the public health. That is the point we wish to press. I think there is a very strong combination of facts on which to urge that the clause should be made optional. We are not, if my Amendment is passed, taking away any power from local authorities. I wish to make that clear. They can do it and therefore I wish to submit to the

119
Lord Chancellor that the case will be met if it is left to their discretion in the future as it has been left to their discretion in the past.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 6, leave out ("it shall be the duty of").—(Lord Arnold.)
EARL BUXTON: I was unfortunately obliged to oppose the last Amendment, but I should like to give this Amendment my hearty support, because it seems to me that the great fault of this clause as compared with the existing law is its mandatory character. I cannot understand on what really material ground the Government have brought in a clause of this sort dealing with the question of recovery of payments for maintenance and medical treatment. The Act of 1875 says that any expenses incurred by a local authority in maintaining a patient in a hospital may be recovered from him at any time within six months of his discharge. That is to say, they are left the option of recovering costs where, in their opinion, it is a case in which some costs should be recovered. That system has worked very well, without friction or difficulty. The costs are recovered in a large number of cases, but it is not obligatory on the local authority to secure recovery. That is the difference between the present law and the new proposal. Under the clause as it stands the local authority must recover costs of treatment, instead of its being optional upon them to do so. They must recover the charges to which they have been put by the patient and they must recover the whole expenses. That is in the body of the clause.
It is true that there is a proviso, but it is a somewhat grudging one. It enables the authority in certain circumstances, after making careful inquiries in regard to each individual case, to remit a certain amount of the charges. That still leaves it more obligatory upon the local authority to recover costs than under the present system. I should say that in each case, unless they have recovered full costs from a particular patient, it will be the duty of the auditor to draw attention to the case and ask why they have not done so. Thus, instead of the elasticity of the present system in which a certain amount is recovered without any friction, each case will have to be considered and the cir-
120
cumstances, not only of the patient but of his relatives, will have to be investigated and a very invidious duty will be thrown upon those who have to make inquiries. This will certainly throw additional difficulties in the way of the patient. Under present conditions the ordinary patient knows that he will be treated with consideration. If he has no means, that fact will be taken into account, and if he has a certain amount of means he knows that he may be asked to contribute a certain proportion of the costs and that it will be done in a humane way. He knows that he will not be mulcted in costs which he cannot pay.
I will only say in conclusion that I am very much afraid that this clause will act as a deterrent in a large number of cases of persons who are not paupers—those are already provided for—but persons who have a certain amount of means. They will not be able to estimate what they will have to pay, and they will know that the local authority has to get out of them every sixpence that it can. The last thing that we desire is to provide any deterrent in maternity cases and cancer cases and so on, to prevent people coming to hospitals. It would be a serious public calamity if people came to hospitals for treatment less and less instead of more and more. My noble friend referred to a precedent for his Amendment in the Scottish Bill. I have not seen the Scottish Bill, but I am afraid that we cannot treat it as much of a precedent, for if, in a Scottish Act, the word "may" is used in relation to the persons who are to extract the money, it is exactly the same as if it were "shall." because they will certainly do it in every case. Apart from that, I feel that this clause will be a real deterrent in the way of patients going to hospitals. I cannot see any possible advantage in these compulsory powers of extracting the last farthing from these unfortunate patients. Under the system that has worked very well for fifty years there has been no friction or difficulty. Patients who could afford to contribute have to do so, but there has been no deterrent to prevent their attending hospitals.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The supporters of this Amendment have supported it on a ground which I cannot help thinking cannot be established if

121
one examines into the provisions of the clause. The law as it stands at present is that, in the case of the pauper, who will be, of course, among the people treated in these hospitals, the local authority is bound to recover such expenses as it reasonably can. The proposal put before your Lordships is that, in the case of a person who is not a pauper, the local authority may recover such expenses as it reasonably can but need not do so unless it chooses. The first observation that I have to make is that, although the anomalies caused by omitting this clause altogether would be very great, because you would have the pauper and the non-pauper in the same hospital differently treated and you would have the county council which exercises its powers on the one side and the one that did not exercise them on the other, yet, if this Amendment were carried, the anomalies would become even greater, because then you would have different county councils exacting payment, not according to the means of the patient, but according to the generosity of this or the other council. One council would say: "We will ask the man to pay". Another would say: "It is a popular thing not to ask people to pay; we are more likely to be elected if we do not, and we will not exercise our powers". That sort of anomaly is even greater than those which would be created by omitting the clause altogether.
It is said that this clause will discourage people from going to the hospitals. With all respect to the noble Lords who have urged that view, I cannot see how in logic it can hold. If the Amendment is carried the county council will have the right, if it chooses, to demand from patients in the hospital such expenses as they can reasonably afford to pay. If the clause stands as we have it, the county council will be under the obligation to exact from people who come to the hospital such expenses as they can reasonably afford to pay. Why should a person be encouraged to go to the hospital by being told that the county council can ask from him as much as he can reasonably afford to pay, and discouraged from going by being told that it is the duty of the county council to ask from him as much as he can reasonably afford to pay? If the county council exercises it option, the amount which
122
will be recovered is the same and I really do submit to your Lordships that in dealing either with a pauper or a non-pauper, whether in one county or in another, whether treatment is given in a Poor Law institution or in another hospital, the right test to apply is, not the caprice of the county council, not the category in which the man happens to fall of pauper or non-pauper, but the question how much that person is reasonably able to afford towards the expenses of his treatment. That is what the clause does as it stands.
The noble Lord who moved the Amendment said that it did not concern the Ministry of Health, because they gave a block grant. But it concerns the ratepayers whether or not the reasonable expenses, so far as the persons affected can afford them, are recovered from those to whom benefit is given. If you are going to leave it that they need not recover unless they choose, it will be quite uncertain, according to which sort of view a particular county council takes, whether a person is asked to pay or not. In one case the millionaire referred to by the noble Lord may get off scot free, and on the other hand a working man may be asked for the last penny he can afford. That is not a reasonable or a just distinction. I can see no ground why it should be left optional, and I think the right position is to make capacity to pay the test of liability to pay. I was asked one or two questions. I was asked why the Scottish Bill is different. In the first place I do not know what is in the Scottish Bill, but the noble Earl who spoke last seems to have given a very plausible explanation. Then I was asked whether the county councils had demanded an alteration. I have made inquiries, and although they have been fully consulted at all stages of the Bill, and before it became a Bill, I am told that no criticism has been received from any county council with regard to this proposal. I therefore ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: The Government have not accepted any Amendment to this Bill as yet and this, I think, might be a very good place for them to begin. The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has used a great many arguments, but I think on examination they will prove to be more ingenious than convincing, and

123
a good many of them are self-contradictory. At one moment he speaks as if the county councils are not to be trusted to take proper care of public money, and suggests that they would be influenced in their generosity to hospital patients by thought of the effect at the election. At another moment he has spoken of them as representatives of the ratepayers influenced by other considerations. He cannot have it both ways, and I think we must assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that the county councils and similar bodies would behave reasonably with regard to the position of trusteeship which they occupy in their care of public money.
Take the clause itself. I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord that whether you keep the clause in the form it is in now, or strike out the words "it shall be the duty of" and put it in the form which we suggest would be preferable, the ultimate amount of the proper cost that would be recoverable and recovered from any patient would very likely be the same. I quite agree, and I suppose I shall at once be asked: What then is the reason for the change? It is this. That the form of the clause is ungracious and deterrent, and the other form which we suggest gives a much freer hand to any local authority. The noble and learned Lord quoted several times the precedent of the Poor Law. The Poor Law is a very harsh law, founded long ago in very harsh times, and with very harsh rules about the recovery of expenses and the cost of maintenance, both from patients and inmates and their relatives. It is time, I think, that we departed a little from that ideal, and got on to something a little more modern.
It was suggested that there would be a difference between one county council and another, and I will put it to your Lordships that there may be cases in which it would be perfectly right and proper that it should be so. Each county borough will, I understand, be a separate authority under the clause. A large county borough with a large industrial population may think it well worth while, for the purpose of preserving the general health of the population, to give them hospital treatment at something under cost. They may persuade the electors who return them as representatives that
124
that is money well spent in the interest of public health, and if they think that, why should they be prevented by Parliament from doing it. Why is Parliament to say you must and shall recover all the expense which these people can possibly pay? Under this clause as it is drawn no honest county councillor can on any ground of that sort recover from any patient or his relatives less than he or they can reasonably pay. The only ground on which he can do it is the ground of financial distress and hardship. It cannot be done on grounds of public expediency.
Is it not perfectly right that they should be given this option? I am certain that many large industrial areas would think it well worth while to ensure for their population hospital treatment, in order to have a healthy population, and among other things healthy mothers for future generations—not at all an unimportant point. I cannot help regarding the form of this clause as unnecessarily and unreasonably harsh, and as unlikely to serve a useful purpose. I am unable to follow the arguments of the noble and learned Lord as justifying it, and we shall very likely have to divide the House upon the matter, and perhaps raise the matter again, because it seems to me that the Government and the Minister of Health, of all people, are doing something to discourage what is an opportunity of keeping up the standard of health and increasing the availability of hospital treatment throughout the country.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: It seems rather a pity that the Government should insist upon the provisions of this clause. I have listened to the argument of the noble and learned Lord, and at one time was impressed by it, but I cannot on consideration see that he has really met the point. Every lawyer understands the difficulty of inserting the word "shall" where the word "may" would achieve the object. Of course, those who practise in the Courts know that there is an important difference. The word "shall" is obligatory and there is no possible exception. I confess I was much impressed by the argument of Earl Russell, who seemed to me to put his finger upon the weak spot of the case for the Government. As I understand the situation, the object which the Government have in view is no doubt

125
right. I agree that there should be some provision by which they can recover from those able to pay, or a less amount from those who are in more difficult financial circumstances; but there are circumstances in which the decision might safely be left to the county councils.
Every industrialist, I think, will tell you that it is of the greatest importance that those who are employed by him should be able to go to the hospital when necessary. In fact it goes so far now that, as your Lordships are aware, the practice is spreading—and I rejoice it is so—of providing some kind of treatment in the great industrial establishments of the country. This, however, can only be for small ailments, and is perhaps really for telling the workman that he ought to go to the hospital because the matter is too serious to be treated in the establishment. If that is so, there should not be the slightest deterrent, and I suggest to the Lord Chancellor that the point should be met, unless it is to be assumed that the county councils are capricious. If we are to assume that, then the whole of the Bill is wrong, because the Bill places in the hands of the county councils greater powers than they have ever exercised before because it is thought that they will more efficiently exercise those powers than the authorities which have hitherto had the authority and influence. All that is suggested now is that, instead of saying "it shall be the duty of," you should say "the county council may." It will enable them, in every case in which they think it right, to recover the money; on the other hand there may be cases where they would like to recover a little less.
On the point of general policy I am myself desirous that you should give consideration to this important aspect. Where you have great masses of people employed it must be an advantage that they should be encouraged to go to the hospitals, encouraged to take advantage of the powers that the Government is giving in this Bill, and not discouraged. It is true the Lord Chancellor asked why should a person be discouraged because the county council is under a statutory obligation to recover either the full amount, or, in cases of financial difficulty, a less amount. The answer is we do not want to make it impossible; on the contrary, what we are seeking is
126
that the county council should have the power. The only difference between us is that we say it should be left to the discretion of the county council. It is hardly to the point to say that one county council may take one view, and another may take another, and it may be just a question of chance whether you get to one county council or the other. That, unfortunately, is true of everything we do. It is even true of justica—even true of Lord Chancellors. But surely what you ought to do is to entrust these authorities with full power. Do not make your Bill so stiff and so inelastic that the county councils, however much they may desire to follow a policy of public health—and that, after all, is most important, far more important than the recovery of money—will be bound by a statutory obligation. I would appeal to the Lord Chancellor to give consideration to the point, and see whether on the whole it might not be met by accepting the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Surely there is sufficient discretion and elasticity as the clause stands at present, be, cause if the council or authority are satisfied that the persons "cannot reasonably, having regard to their financial circumstances, be required to pay" then they do not have to proceed against them.
LORD SEMPILL: Some reference has been made this evening to the Scottish Bill, and I must confess that it passes my comprehension why in one case the thing should be optional and in the other compulsory. The noble Earl, Lord Buxton, has been very jocular at the expense of Scottish Peers, and I happen to come from a part of the country called Aberdeenshire, where they say there is a joke factory for manufacturing jokes against themselves; but if it is suggested that they are very stingy, and wish to extract every penny from the unfortunate people who go to the hospitals, I differ entirely. But it passes my comprehension why the law should be compulsory in England and voluntary in Scotland, and I shall have to support the Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: I join with those who ask the Government to accept the Amendment, and I base may appeal on one ground only—namely, that it is a matter of extreme importance that those who desire hos-

127
pital treatment should go to the hospitals as soon as possible, rather than delay till the last possible moment. Any one who has any knowledge of the hospitals in our large industrial districts will know that much suffering would have been avoided if only patients had gone there rather earlier. A clause like this one in its present form will be a deterrent. At the very commencement you insist that "it shall be the duty of the council"; later on, it is true, occasional exceptions may be made; but the general effect of this clause will be to put another deterrent on people going to the hospitals which they need so much. I recognise that there are many eases in which the cost should be recovered, but in the form in which the clause stands the demand is so imperative that it is bound to act as a deterrent.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Nobody would wish less than the Government to discourage people from going to the hospitals, but what I have so far been quite unable to appreciate is why the clause in the form in which it is proposed it shall stand is going to be any less of a deterrent than the clause as it stands now. If the question had been whether or not hospital treatment should always be provided free, which was the Amendment suggested by Lord Parmoor, then of course there might be a great deal of force in it; but I cannot see poor people, when they are thinking of going into hospital, sending for the Local Government Act, and looking to see whether the county council is bound to recover such expenses as they can reasonably afford, or whether the county council "may" recover such expenses as they can reasonably afford—and that is the only difference between us, and the noble and learned Marquess has given no answer to that point. There is no difference in the discouragement, if it be a discouragement, whether the county council has the right to recover all that the man can reasonably afford to pay or whether it is the duty of the county council to recover it.
Then it is said that our object is to enable the county council to recover these expenses. That may be true enough, but another object which we have is to assimilate and make consistent the law in different counties, and towards different categories of patients. If the
128
Amendment be carried, you produce the curious effect that if any person who is a pauper goes to a hospital, the county council is under an obligation to recover from him, and from those legally liable for maintaining him, all that they can reasonably afford to pay; whereas if the person is better off, and so does not, come under the category of a destitute person, if this Amendment is carried, the county council only has an option. So that in effect the richer the person is the less obligation there is on the county council to recover the cost. That seems to us an anomalous and unreasonable position.
LORD OLIVIER: I am quite sure that anybody with any common knowledge of the way in which working class people think and feel will have been devastated by the attitude of mind shown by the Lord Chancellor. If we on these Benches were not accustomed to that attitude of mind we should be surprised, but I am not surprised. Everybody knows that when a person is considering whether he should go into a hospital or not, it makes all the difference in the world if you say: "Oh, you go into hospital, and you will pay what you can, and they will not be too hard on you"; whereas if this Bill is enforced as the subsection at present stands everybody in the county will know perfectly well that if he goes into the hospital the county council will have to charge him. That is the psychological aspect. If the noble and learned Lord would look at it from the point of view of his human knowledge he would know that that is the case.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: It is just on the side of that human knowledge that the noble Lord opposite fails. He does not realise what is going on among the patients of the great voluntary hospitals. Everybody who has been connected with them at all—I remember it from my London days and I am glad to say I know it still more in the City of Worcester—remembers that there has grown up for years past a tendency to accept the situation that a poor person should pay in accordance with his ability. The great hospitals have their almoners, gentle, kindly, most unmandatory people, whose business it is to suggest to patients what they can reasonably pay.
Something else has gone on in recent times which the noble Lord, Lord Olivier,

129
has to bear in mind especially as he comes from Oxford—namely, that in connection with the great voluntary hospitals, people are now paying before they go in and even if they do not go in. We have learned in Worcestershire by the good example of the Ratcliffe Infirmary at Oxford, and a large number of persons in Worcestershire who, please God, will never go into hospital at all, are week by week giving something towards it. If you put in this mandatory clause you will be doing something to establish that which is already in their hearts, and they know by happy experience that when public bodies assess them to a certain sum they will only assess what is reasonable.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: The right rev. Prelate will remember that the voluntary hospitals have no power to recover. It is a voluntary gift.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: Yes.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: That is a very different position. It may interest your Lordships to know that in London alone to-day no fewer than 500,000 working men with below a certain standard of income subscribe 13s. a year so that when they do go into a hospital they may be able to pay those voluntary contributions. I cannot conceive why some such scheme of insurance should not apply to these new hospitals, so that if you do go in you will have to pay unless you are already an insured person.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I should like to say something on this matter from the Scottish point of view. I agree with what my Scottish colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, has stated, that it places Scottish Peers in the very difficult position that if they do not support the Amendment which has been moved to-day they will find themselves a week or two hence faced with an Amendment to the Scottish Bill which certainly will not find favour in Scotland. I listened to the arguments that have been put forward, and I agree with my noble friends on the other side that the Amendment is a fair and reasonable one. I cannot believe that if this clause is stated in an optional manner the county councils will not fulfil their function of obtaining the views of the patients who go to these hospitals. I
130
propose to support the Amendment because I should certainly resist any Amendment to the Scottish Bill which made this clause a mandatory and not an optional one.
LORD SANDHURST: May I make an observation with regard to the inconsistency referred to by the noble and learned Lord about the Amendment and the provisions of the Poor Law? I am not sure whether it was pointed out yesterday or to-day that this Bill does not deal with the Poor Law, but that when experience has been gained by county councils from the administration of this Bill it will be time to consider the Amendment of the Poor Law. My objection to the clause in the Bill is that it stereotypes a very harsh provision of the Poor Law to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has referred. When we come to discuss the Poor Law on some future occasion it will be said: "The Local Government Act provides that this clause shall be mandatory. If you now alter the Poor Law in the direction of making it permissive there will be an inconsistency between that Act and the Poor Law." This Bill stereotypes a bad system, and rather than imperil any alteration in the future I would beg the Government to reconsider their attitude in the matter.
LORD ARNOLD: Supplementing what has been said by the noble Lord on my right, is it not the idea of the Government, and is it not one of the underlying reasons for this Bill, that gradually and as soon as possible the Poor Law shall be done away with? I think the noble and learned Lord is overlooking that point. This clause in its present form, the justification for which he says is to make uniformity between Poor Law and public health practice, is a step backward and not a step forward. We are hoping before very long to do away with Poor Law institutions altogether. Further, as pointed out before, the clause does not make the practice uniform. The words are different and the practice would be different.
The noble and learned Lord asks how it can be a deterrent, and how is there any difference between its being compulsory for the purpose and being optional for the purpose? The difference will be in practice. These people will

131
not need to get the Act and look at the section; they will know what is done in the neighbourhood. If it is an optional clause it will be administered much less strictly, and more wisely and more in the best interests of the community than if it is compulsory. The present Bill must be brought to the notice of everybody, so how can the noble and learned Lord say that it is no deterrent? He went on to say that there would be some diversity between the practice of different county councils. There is now, and what does it matter? There ought, in some cases, to be diversity of practice. Is it the intention of the Government to say that the practice of Norfolk and of Sheffield shall be the same? Is that the position of the Government? There may be very potent reasons why there should be a difference.
Then there is the Scottish point which remains unshaken and unshakeable. The noble and learned Lord did not make the slightest attempt to deal with it except to say that he did not know. I can tell him that it is so, and perhaps he knows it now from his two colleagues behind him.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Oh!
LORD ARNOLD: It has been discussed already in connection with the Scottish Bill and it is perfectly clear. My noble friend Lord Buxton has a very fine sense of humour which has often given me much pleasure, but I do not think that on this occasion he was as happy as usual. And for the noble and learned Lord to take shelter behind that as a substantial reason, in fact the only reason why this extraordinary difference between the two Bills should be maintained, I think is a position which is unsustainable. I will only add what I said before. I asked for information and now we have it: not a single local authority has asked for this to be made compulsory.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: As I understand the intention of this clause,
the word "shall" is meant to compel the county council to consider whether if a person has hospital treatment he is able to pay. If he cannot pay it is in their power to relax payment to such extent as they think fit. By maintaining the word "shall" the Legislature keeps control over the question of policy. It seems to me that it is right for the Legislature to retain its power over local authorities. It is well known that there are certain public bodies in this country who believe in free treatment just as they believe in free education. If free treatment is a right thing—and that is open to argument—it is a policy which should be determined by the Legislature, but until the Legislature does decide that free treatment is to be given, parallel to free education, surely it is right to retain the word "shall," which ensures that every county council, whatever their private views may be on free treatment as a principle, shall be compelled to consider how far an individual can pay and see that he does pay; of course with every merciful consideration of the fact that they are not to ask for more than he can pay. For those reasons it seems to me conclusive that if the Legislature is to retain control over a big question of policy, they must retain the word "shall".
EARL RUSSELL: I do not think the noble Lord who spoke last could possibly have listened to the whole of this debate. It is perfectly clear that no council can give free treatment without a distinct breach of duty. That is perfectly clear in the alternative form of the clause.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord does not seem to appreciate that.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Exeter, M

Fortescue, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Halsbury, E.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Harrowby, E.

Airlie, E.

Iveagh, E.

Wellington, D.

Birkenhead, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Clarendon, E.

Lenven and Melville, E.

Bath, M.

Denbigh, E.

Lovelace, E.

Bristol, M.

Doncaster E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Macelesfield, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Islington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william.)

Jessel, L.

Mount Edgecumbe, E.

Joicey, L.

Onslow, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Kylsant, L.

Plymounth, E.

Cranworth, L.

Lamington, L.

Spencer, E.

Cushendun, L.

Lawerence, L.

Stanhope, E.

Danesfort, L.

Leigh, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Darling, L.

Monson, L.

Daryngton, L.

Newton, L.

Astor, V.

Dawson of Penn, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Deramore, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

FitzAlan of Dervent, V.

Desborough, L.

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

Hood, V.

Dynevor L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Knutsford, V.

Faringdon, L.

Saltoun, L.

Peel, V.

Forester, L.

Sandys, L.

Sidmouth, V.

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

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

Greenway, L.

Worcester, L. Bp.

Hanworth, L.

Suffield, L.

Harlech, L.

Templemore, L.

Askwith, L.

Hindlip, L.

Treowen, L.

Avebury, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wharton, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Olivier, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Aberconway, L.

Parmoor, L.

Buxton, E.

Arnold, L.

Redesdale, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Buckmaster, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Sempill, L.

Strafford, E.

Gainford, L.

Stanmore, L.

Gorell, L.

Strachie, L.

Allendale, V.

Hemphill, L.

Swaythling, L.

Elibank, V.

Meldrum, L.(M. Huntly.)

Tenterden, L.

Morris, L.

Thomson, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
EARL BUXTON EARL BUXTON had an Amendment on the Paper to move in subsection (1) after "has" ["has become an inmate"], to insert "received treatment in a maternity home or has." The noble Earl said: I want to raise the whole question of maternity treatment, and I think it would be better that the discussion on that should take place at a later stage. Therefore I do not now move the Amendment standing in my name.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), after "inmate," to insert "of a maternity home or." The noble Lord said: As my noble friend Earl Buxton desires to leave this matter to be dealt with on Report I will not move this Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment is one which was on the Supplementary list yesterday, in Clause 15, page 13, line 12, after "infectious," to insert "or any serious."
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (1), after "infectious," to insert "or any serious." The noble Lord said: This is a very important Amendment, because the clause in its present form is very ambiguous and I think quite unsatisfactory. I think I shall be able to convince your Lordships because this Amendment is not moved in any contentious spirit. We only want to get the Bill right in an important matter like this. The clause exempts from the operation of the subsection those who are receiving treatment for an infectious disease and the question is what is an infectious disease. There is a large variety of opinion about that, and a great diversity of views, and I contend that we need and ought to have in the Bill a further definition.
Discussion in another place about this matter centred upon three serious diseases—namely, venereal disease, tuberculosis and cancer. I understand that venereal disease is held to be infectious and, according to the view of the Ministry of Health, would be included. But then we come to tuber-

135
culosis. There are two kinds of tuberculosis. There is the kind with which we are mainly familiar, pulmonary tuberculosis, and there is another very serious form. I am rather affrighted to see my noble friend Lord Dawson here and I am glad he is not listening at the moment for fear I should make a mistake, but I think I am correct in saying that this other kind is called surgical tuberculosis. This is a very important point. Ordinary tuberculosis certainly would be deemed to be infectious. What I want to know is whether the Bill covers surgical tuberculosis as well. Surgical tuberculosis, I believe, is not in the ordinary sense of the word infectious. Yet it is a serious disease. This is a matter of very great moment to large numbers of children. The point was raised in another place, but I do not think it reached a very satisfactory conclusion there. Does the Bill, in the view of the Ministry of Health, cover both forms of the disease?
This Bill is founded, we are told, upon the Memorandum which was issued by the Ministry of Health. There the words "infectious disease" are used, and I believe it is stated that the expression does include tuberculosis, but it has never been definitely stated whether it can be held to include surgical tuberculosis as well as the other form. I think this is a matter which ought to be cleared up. It is all very well for the Ministry of Health to say that, in their view, it does include tuberculosis. Sir Kingsley Wood said, in another place, that in his opinion—he would not bind anybody else—it did include tuberculosis, but that was as far as we could get in ascertaining the Government's position. The point 1 wish to put is that in the last resort the matter might have to be fought out in the Law Courts, and the Courts would not be influenced by a Memorandum of the Ministry of Health or by a statement from Sir Kingsley Wood. They would only be influenced by their interpretation of the word "infectious," and I think they would not improbably come to the conclusion that surgical tuberculosis, not being infectious, could not be brought under this clause. If that is so, and at any rate there must be considerable doubt about the matter from the strictly legal point of view, what I would urge is that the form of the clause ought to be
136
altered so that it is made perfectly clear that both forms of the disease are included. So much for tuberculosis.
There are other diseases as well which I think ought to be brought quite definitely under the operation of this clause. The words which I propose to insert would make the clause read "infectious or any serious disease." I am quite aware that the words are not ideal—in fact, they are far from ideal—but they raise the point to which I want the noble Earl to address his argument. I think it would probably be better to state definitely the diseases which will come under the operation of the clause. There are not very many of them, and I think that might be the best thing to do, but I know the view may be taken that "infectious disease" has a definite meaning because the Ministry of Health may make an order interpreting certain Acts of Parliament in relation to infectious diseases. They can do that, and I think that hitherto that is the way in which the matter has been arranged, but I do not think that is very satisfactory because there might be dispute as to whether the Ministry of Health had legal power to do that. If they were to put surgical tuberculosis into an Order the Law Courts might take a different view. The point is one which I think needs clearing up, and I would like the noble Earl between now and the Report stage to consider putting down some form of words which in black and white will cover the matter I have raised and make the point perfectly clear beyond doubt.
There is another disease which I should like to mention, and that is cancer. It may be said that cancer is in no sense an infectious disease, but it is a very serious disease and in the interests of the community persons suffering from cancer ought, I think, to be treated properly. But the expense is very great and they ought not to be deterred from going to these institutions on any ground. They ought to go in and go in as soon as possible. After all, the underlying reason for the exemption of persons suffering from infectious disease from the operation of this clause is that it is in the interests of the community that they should receive treatment. I think that applies equally to cancer and certainly to surgical tuberculosis, because it may mean saving the lives of thousands of children and turning them into useful citizens instead of their

137
being a burden on the community. I think there is the strongest case for further consideration of the words in the clause. I do not expect the noble Earl to commit himself to-night, because it is a very involved matter, but I do ask him to say that he will look into it between now and the Report stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 12, after ("infectious") insert ("or any serious").—(Lord Arnold.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord at the outset of his speech said that this clause as we have drafted it was a very ambiguous one and I was rather tempted to rejoin that his Amendment would make it more ambiguous than it was already, but lie went on afterwards to explain that he put down the words with a view to raising the whole question. I think he will agree with me that the strict interpretation of the words will be a little difficult. It involves questions as to what are and what are not infectious diseases. He referred mainly to tuberculosis and venereal disease. With regard to the latter, so far as we are aware, it would be considered an infectious disease, and the same applies generally to tuberculosis, but, in regard to the point concerning surgical tuberculosis, I should not like to commit myself definitely as to whether, in the view of the Ministry of Health, it would be considered an infectious disease. The noble Lord's real object was to get a distinct definition of an infectious disease.
LORD ARNOLD: Not necessarily infectious diseases only. There are other serious diseases to which, in the public interest, treatment should be given quickly.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Let me deal with infectious diseases first. There are certain diseases which may or may not be regarded as infectious. I am afraid I cannot answer him very definitely on that point. Then he comes to the question of other serious diseases—that is, if I may put an interpretation into his mouth, diseases which are not infectious but which are dangerous to the public health. Would that be a propel way of interpreting him?
LORD ARNOLD: Since the noble Earl is good enough to ask me, perhaps that is not quite accurate, because there might
138
be some argument as to whether, for instance, certain forms of cancer were infectious. I think perhaps the simplest way would be to put the actual diseases in the clause.
THE EARL or ONSLOW: We have infectious diseases on the one side and serious but not infectious diseases on the other. The infectious diseases would form a certain list, which I will not attempt to enumerate in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Dawson of Penn, and on the other side we should have a list of serious diseases such as cancer. This is quite a new point to me and I must ask the noble Lord if he will allow me a little time to consider it. I cannot give any promise or commit myself or the Government in any way, but I shall be glad if he will allow me to leave it open for the moment and I will certainly attempt to meet him.
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: I very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, for raising this matter, for it provides a very fair example, which I hope will impress the mind of the noble Earl opposite, of the importance of having doctors who spend their lives looking after curable disease associated in some way with the medical officer of health from the very moment these councils undertake these difficult questions. It proves the point that I tried to raise yesterday. Turning to the noble Lord's Amendment, if he leaves it as it stands upon the Paper with the words "or any serious," I do not think that he could find anybody who would be prepared to say exactly what was or was not a serious disease. I am afraid that, left as it is, it would have the effect of changing the word "shall" to the word "may."
Turning to his point about tuberculosis, it would be impossible to draw up a list of what the medical profession regards as infectious diseases, because knowledge is ever growing and you might put something in the Bill to-day and find that you have to bring in an amending Bill next year. The present opinion would certainly he that there are a large number of cases of tuberculosis which are not in any way dangerous to the health of others. They may be very distressing to the children who suffer from them and to their parents, because of the length of the treatment required, but there are

139
many cases of surgical tuberculosis where the danger of the transmission of the disease to others is a very small one. The same may be said with regard to cancer. The prevailing opinion at the moment is that cancer is not an infectious disease. I am afraid that such words as "any serious disease" might be made to include the greater part of the diseases that are treated in the hospitals, and therefore they would have the effect, however remote it may be from the intention of the noble Lord, of 'altering the word "shall" into the word "may." On those grounds I think the Amendment is impracticable.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I should like to give an instance of the fact mentioned by the noble Lord who has just spoken that knowledge of the infectivity of disease varies with the growth of medical knowledge. I have good reason to remember the expressed opinion of a Royal Commission of some twenty years ago which sat to consider the relations between human and bovine tuberculosis. They made what would now be regarded as the strange statement that tuberculosis was of a markedly hereditary character. That is an opinion which, I understand, has been scrapped by all enlightened medical men for at least fifteen years. That only shows how important it is to leave it to the authority of the Ministry of Health to decide from time to time in the light of current medical knowledge what is an infectious disease and what is not.
LORD ARNOLD: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for saying that he will be good enough to consider this point between now and Report. I was quite aware that my words were not ideal, but they raise an important point and, if I may say so, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dawson, shows that the word "infectious" is open to great ambiguity. That is the point that I wanted to get at. The noble Lord has shown us that medical opinion is altering from year to year and the opinion that is held now may not be held five years hence. That is an additional reason for putting the clause in a more satisfactory form.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: When the noble Lord raised this point I said that it was quite new to me and I was not able to commit myself. I should like to make it clear that on the main point of
140
the clause we are committed. The reason for exempting infectious disease from the charge is for the benefit of the public rather than that of the patient. Subject to that proviso, I will willingly see if any consideration can be given to the various points that have been raised. That, however, remains the governing point of the clause. It is for the protection of other people rather than of the patient himself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or from any person legally liable to maintain that person". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put down with the intention of elucidating the position. In his remarks on subsection (1) the Lord Chancellor spoke of these words "liable to maintain" as if everybody knew what they meant. I speak with diffidence, not being a lawyer, but I submit that this is not so. It may be said that it means the Poor Law liability to maintain. If that is so, why does it not say so? There are two forms of liability to maintain. It may mean the Poor Law liability to maintain and it may mean the Common Law liability to maintain. They are quite different, and I think we are entitled to know which is meant. If it is the Poor Law liability, it means that any patient who goes into a public health institution for treatment not only must be charged in the first instance—because you have made the clause mandatory—for the cost of maintenance, but, if he cannot pay, you are then to go to those who, under the Poor Law, are legally liable to maintain that person; that is, to the father or mother, the grandfather or grandmother, the son or daughter, or the grandson or granddaughter. That is the position. That, as the Bill stands, if it is to be incorporated, is a Poor Law legal liability to maintain.
What does that mean? Take the question of some girl who goes into a hospital and is delivered of an illegitimate child. You have then to reveal her shame to her relatives—not only to her father and mother but even to her grandfather and grandmother, if they can contribute anything. Is that a position which you wish to be established under an Act of Parliament? I say that that goes altogether too far. Under the present public health law there is no liability of this sort. A charge can only be made on the patient,

141
either man or woman, and nobody else, and therefore this is making a very serious change indeed. If a change is to be made surely we are entitled to know what the change is, and I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor, definitely, whether in his opinion this does mean the Poor Law provision—whether the clause here is held to be uniform with the legal position under the Poor Law, and if that is so, would it not be better to put it in and make it clear? I do not want that done, because I say that it is going too far. On the other hand, if it is merely the Common Law liability, will he explain why that is not made clear?
Surely the words of the clause are very ambiguous, and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has repeatedly called attention to the desirability of getting our Acts of Parliament made quite clear. I think this is a real point and that it ought to be met. I think it will best be met by leaving the words out altogether; you ought not to carry this thing to the extent that you are doing. We were told on the last clause, by the Lord Chancellor, that it was no deterrent at all, but I say it is a great deterrent if a man or woman feels that if they cannot pay, the bill is going to be presented to their relatives. The poor are very good to each other, but it is bound to be a great deterrent and to lead to hardship if a man, while perfectly willing to pay if he can, feels that if he cannot do so his grandfather or even his grandmother may be called upon to pay. Surely it is a position which cannot for a moment be upheld, and I very much hope that as a result of this Amendment we shall arrive at a more satisfactory interpretation of the matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 12, leave out from ("disease") to the first ("the") in line 13.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord put two points. First of all he said that the phraseology was difficult to understand, and secondly, he said that the proposal was undesirable. Those are separate points and I would deal with them separately. As to the first point, that of the alleged ambiguity of the phraseology, I confess I can see none, and I shall be surprised if any lawyer in the House can see any. "Legally liable" means liable at law to maintain, and
142
whether it is by Statute or Common Law makes no difference. If there is a legal liability, whether it is created by Statute or by Common Law makes no difference, and so far from the words being something difficult to understand, and so far from their being an immense departure from existing practice, although, as the noble Lord said, under the Public Health Act of 1875, the liability of those "legally liable" to maintain a patient was not included; when it came to the London Public Health Act of 1891, the words were deliberately inserted, and you will find that persons liable by law to maintain are included, which is the same thing as persons legally liable. Then in the Children Act of 1908, the Mental Deficiency Act of 1913, the Midwives Act of 1918, and the Education Act of 1921—in all those Acts you have the words "legally liable" or "liable to maintain"; it is the same thing. I therefore cannot think there is any ambiguity in the use of words sanctioned in a whole succession of Statutes, extending over 37 years.
As to whether it is desirable or not, not only is it an amendment which was introduced when the London Act was passed in 1891, but logically it is quite right. Why should the fact that a man goes into an institution relieve those legally liable to maintain him of that liability? Why should they cease to be liable because he goes into an institution instead of staying outside? Whether or not a particular person ought to be responsible for another's maintenance is a matter of general policy. Of course the policy of the law has been to make people responsible for the maintenance of their children, or even granchildren, but once you have a settled policy of law, that liability is imposed upon particular persons to maintain another—not every relative but children and grandchildren——
LORD ARNOLD: I read the list of persons.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord stated accurately what the list was, and then, carried away by his own rhetoric, asked whether we should make it possible for all the relatives of a man to be asked to support him. Of course we do not. We are not altering the category of those "legally liable" to maintain, but merely stating that

143
where liability exists it shall not cease to exist when a man goes into an institution. I hope I have shown that the clause is not unreasonable, and I ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to say one word in answer. I do not want to question the law as stated by the Lord Chancellor, but the words here connote liability which the Poor Law puts upon various relatives of a man who has benefited from Poor Law relief. Is it right to put this liability upon these persons in regard to hospital treatment? That is surely an entirely different matter. Accepting entirely what the noble and learned Lord said upon the question of law, it appears to me to emphasise the objection which Lord Arnold took—namely, that to put the Poor Law liability for maintenance upon the relatives to whom he has referred, in reference to hospital treatment, is a very different thing, particularly as we all desire—and I take it the noble and learned Lord himself desires—not to put any deterrent in the way of hospital treatment, and not to put any hardship in the way of any poor person who desires to take advantage of such treatment. Such a person might think very seriously before undergoing such treatment, if the effect of going into a hospital institution is to put a liability of this kind upon relatives who would be made liable under the Poor Law. That is the point which my noble friend desires to make.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know that I quite follow this matter. The Party opposite appear to have a great affection for the Bumble of the Poor Law, and because it is so ancient and so harsh an institution seem anxious to mould these new institutions upon it. But those are Poor Law institutions and traditions, and surely I am right in saying there is no Common Law liability upon a father to maintain a son or a son to maintain a father in the ordinary course, but the Poor Law definitely put upon these immediate ascendants or descendants an obligation to keep alive such of their relations as had to be relieved from a state of destitution in the workhouse.
That may be regarded possibly as a reasonable burden. They had to be fed and housed and kept alive, but now you are coming to quite a different thing.
144
You are coming to expensive institutional treatment in hospitals, and it seems to me to be extending that obligation very largely to put it upon these relations to be responsible for this expensive institutional treatment including, as we shall see later, not merely the maintenance of the patient, not merely the staff, but, apparently, the upkeep and maintenance of the institution itself. All that is to be put upon the relation, simply because in the old Poor Law, intended to relieve the indigent and starving poor, you put a duty on the immediate relative to attend to the immediate necessity of keeping him alive. It is a very large jump from that to a modern tuberculosis hospital.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not accurate, of course, to say that under the Poor Law the obligation is only to pay for what is necessary to keep a person alive. To-day, if a destitute poor person goes into a workhouse or into a Poor Law institution the cost of his maintenance, including his maintenance in an infirmary, is recoverable from those legally liable to maintain him. We are merely assimilating in this respect the law with regard to the wealthier people to the law which already exists with regard to the pauper.
EARL RUSSELL: That is just what we object to. You are taking a bad and brutal precedent, and enlarging it into modern conditions.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):—
"Provided that where there is an association or fund for the support of hospitals or the like any such council or local authority may make agreement with such association or fund that if such association or fund pays to the council or local authority an agreed charge in respect of any inmates entitled to benefits from such association or fund the council or local authority shall not exercise its powers of recovery from such inmate or from any person legally liable for his maintenance. Provided further that the council or local authority shall not so agree to any charge which in its opinion would recover less than the average amount otherwise recoverable from such inmates."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to help the practical working of those associations, with weekly contributions from employers and their workmen, which have done so much to relieve the financial anxieties of many

145
of the voluntary hospitals. It is usual in those cases to provide that, if the contributor is in one of the hospitals concerned, no charge shall be made for his maintenance, but it is not an infrequent occurrence that a contributor is unable to wait for a bed in a voluntary hospital, and has, in consequence, to go into one of the Poor Law institutions; and, in such cases, it has been found that the contributor certainly expects the fund to repay to him any costs that may have been recovered by the local authority from him for his maintenance. When the Poor Law hospitals pass over to the local authorities it is probable—and it is to be hoped—that greater use will be made of them, and the number of these cases is likely to increase. As the Bill stands, the local authority is bound to consider the case of each inmate separately—a process which involves the annoyance and the trouble of separate inquiries as to financial circumstances, and separate collection of a large number of small separate charges.
The Amendment aims at avoiding all that by empowering the local authority to arrange with the managers of a contributory scheme to collect from the fund a sum equivalent to what they would on the average have recovered from the individual contributors. An arrangement of that kind abolishes a great, deal of unnecessary work—clerical work and inquiries by almoners; and it substitutes for a large number of small debts, often recoverable only in instalments, a single debt payable by a solvent fund. I feel sure that the intention of the Amendment is one which will be acceptable to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and if he is unable to accept the actual wording which I have put down I hope he will at any rate be able to give an assurance that before the next stage he will agree to put down wording which will effect the same object.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This Amendment did not appear on the Paper until a rather late stage. It raises a point which I do not think has been raised in another place or in your Lordships' House before. It is a very interesting and a very important point, and I should not like to offer an opinion upon it without a little further consideration. There-
146
fore, if I may accept the suggestion made by the noble Lord, that if I were unable to give an answer now we should postpone the matter for consideration on Report stage, without giving any promise as to whether we accept this Amendment or an Amendment like it, or in any way committing myself, I would ask him to postpone consideration of the matter until the Report stage, when I shall have had time to consider it with the Ministry of Health, and can give him a considered reply.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in the paragraph relating to expenses, to leave out "the institution and". The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will see at once what the effect of this Amendment is. The amount of maintenance is to
"be deemed to be a sum representing the average daily cost per patient of the maintenance of the institution and the staff thereof and the maintenance and the treatment of the patients therein."
The effect of my Amendment would simply be to leave out the maintenance of the institution itself, and to leave merely the cost of the staff and the treatment of the patient as representing the amount to be recovered. Coming, as this does, at the end of a clause on which we have already had a great deal of discussion as to its mandatory character, it seems to me an unnecessarily large order to put in the cost of maintaining the bricks and mortar as well. The unfortunate patient who finds himself in an institution has no say whatever as to the extravagant or other scale upon which the institution may have been built; and it seems a little, hard to charge him with his share of the maintenance of that institution when he would probably be quite willing to be treated in a cottage home or something of that sort. That was the only reason why I suggested that the words should be left out. But of course if the Government remain as stiff about this as about everything else it will hardly be worth while saying much more. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 41, leave out ("the institution and").—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid that I am going to incur the censure of the noble Earl.
EARL RUSSELL: The pain and regret.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It would be very difficult, I fear, to carry out his desire of differentiating between the cost of maintenance on the one side and the cost, we will say, of the rest, I think that is the best way of putting it. It would first depend upon an arbitrary definition of maintenance and what was included in the maintenance charge. Then you would have a very elaborate system of accounting in order to see what should be credited to the maintenance side and what should be credited to the other side in the case of each patient. I must say that I think it would be very difficult to carry out, and it would be sure to lead to a great deal of dissatisfaction because so much would depend upon an arbitrary line being drawn. I am afraid it is an Amendment which we shall not be able to accept and add to the Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: I must say that the last objection which I thought the noble Earl would take was the practical objection. Am I not right in saying that in the case of the maintenance of pauper patients in a pauper lunatic asylum, to use what are still, I believe, the legal words though I am not sure, the cost which is charged to the guardians, who are the people who pay the asylum authorities, per patient, is the cost of that patient's maintenance divorced entirely from any charge for the maintenance of the institution? I think I am right in saying that that is so. If it is so it shows that these great practical difficulties are overcome every day in practice on a very large scale. I think the noble Earl will have to advance some better reason than that.
LORD ARNOLD: As a matter of fact there really is no such difficulty in this matter to the extent suggested by the noble Earl. The matter of accountancy could be done perfectly well. Indeed, there might be advantages in doing that from every point of view, because the more costing and so forth, the more knowledge there is of exactly what the sections of the institution are costing the more probability there is of reason-
148
able economies being effected. I do not think that is the reason why the Government are rejecting this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19:
Application to unions with appointed guardians.
19.—(1) The provisions of this Act shall apply as respects any Poor Law union with respect to which an order under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926, or section two hundred and twenty of the Poor Law Act, 1927, constituting an appointed board of guardians for the union is in force at the commencement of this Act, or is made thereafter, subject to the provisions of this section.
(2) The Minister may by order declare that as respects the whole or any part of any such union the provisions of this Part and Part VII of this Act except such as may be specified in the order shall not come into operation until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-five; and where such an order is made, then, as respects the Poor Law union or part thereof to which the order relates and subject to any exceptions contained in the order—
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in subsection (2), to substitute "nineteen hundred and thirty-one" for "nineteen hundred and thirty-five." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one of some substance and is designed to limit the power of the Minister to postpone the operation of the Act regarding Poor Law unions in respect of which an order under the Boards of Guardians (Default) Act, 1926, has been put into force. The clause gives the Minister only a very limited discretion. It gives him power to postpone the operation of the Act for certain unions or parts of unions—West Ham, Chester-le-Street and Bedwellty—for a period of five years. It does not give him power to postpone it for any intermediate period.
In another place the Minister was asked over and over again to give reasons for the insertion of this clause and, as far as I was able to gather, no reason whatever was given except that he wished to have power to postpone the operation of the Act in regard to these unions. I conceive that the reason was that the guardians in those unions were found to be untrustworthy in the execution of

149
their duties. But after April 1 next year the old guardians will be entirely superseded. When you are starting a new scheme it is desirable, surely, to start by giving confidence to the people in whose hands you place the powers that are being transferred. Are we to suppose that the county councils and county borough councils to which the old powers are transferred will also prove to be untrustworthy? Is that to be assumed? I can only imagine that it is because that assumption has been made that this clause has been put in.
I would pray in aid some observations made from the Government Front Bench on the subject of consistency. In a case of this kind I should have thought it was very desirable that the consistency contended for should be followed out. In the counties there will be unions which are administered by the county councils, and if the Minister exercises the power conferred upon him by this clause, there will be certain unions excepted from the power of the county council. In the case of West Ham I understand that a portion of the old union will be in the County of Essex and that the other portion will be administered by the County Borough of West Ham. And there will be a most anomalous condition of things unless the Bill is made uniform for all these places. I can understand that a certain time may be required for the ad hoc guardians to complete the work which they have in hand. It is conceded that they have done very good work. In any case the Bill will not come into operation for another twelve months from now and my Amendment will enable the Minister to suspend the Act for another twelve months in regard to those unions. I should have thought that quite sufficient to satisfy the Government and that any further prolongation would really run counter to the whole spirit of the Bill. I ask your Lordships to place confidence in the county councils to which you are transferring the powers of the old boards of guardians and not to prolong this anomaly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("thirty-five") and insert ("thirty-one").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord who moved the Amendment has said there are three unions with
150
regard to which this clause can operate. It has been stated in another place that the intention of the present Minister is to exercise the power in the case of the Borough of West Ham, and, therefore, it is with regard to West Ham that it is necessary I should tell your Lordships the reason for the power being given to postpone the operation of the clause. Your Lordships appreciate that the clause which we are discussing is a clause which gives the Minister power to postpone until 1935—that is to say, for six years—the transfer to the county councils of the functions of the board of guardians. In the case of West Ham, as your Lordships are aware, there was, before 1926, an orgy of extravagance which was ruining the whole morale of the district, and was spreading its contagion far and wide. It was found necessary, in view of the deliberate and persistent defiance of the law by the board of guardians there, and their failure to carry out their duties in accordance with the Statute, to supersede them, and to substitute certain nominated persons to carry out their duties.
The effect of that substitution has been most remarkable. I do not want to trouble your Lordships with the detailed figures contained in three reports that have been published by the present guardians—the persons who were appointed by the Minister—but, if I might, I will give your Lordships just one or two to indicate the extent of the improvement which has been effected. In July, 1926, which was when the late board was superseded and the new guardians appointed, the number of persons on out-relief was 58,872. On the latest date for which I have figures, February 26, 1929, the number of persons on out-relief was 19,484, a reduction of nearly 40,000. The weekly cost in July, 1926, was £17,405; the weekly cost at the end of February of this year was £4,900. The rate in the pound which the elected guardians were asking for the last half-year they were in office was 4s. 8d.; in the present half-year it has come down to 3s. In the last completed year that the old guardians were in office the increase of debt was over …450,000; during the last year of the present guardians the debt has been reduced in the year by £200,000. The total expenditure in the last completed year of the old guardians was £2,345,930. The total expenditure of the nominated guardians in

151
the year 1927–8 was £1,362,000. In other words £1,000,000 a year was in round figures being wasted.
The noble Lord who moved the Amendment says: "Oh, well, cannot you trust the new county councils?" It is not a question of trusting the new county councils; it is a question of whether it is fair and reasonable, first of all in the interest of the county councils themselves, to impose upon them the financial and administrative difficulties which have been created by that long continued orgy of extravagance, and in the view of the Minister of Health, who is in close touch with the situation, it would not be fair to do it. More than that, after what has happened in West Ham, there was not merely extravagance going on—that was the least evil—but there was a demoralisation of the whole population, so that they ceased to be unemployed and became unemployable. They ceased to be people who could not get work and became people who would not work. The present régime is necessary to re-establish the spirit of independence and the spirit of desire to work, which I am glad to say the present guardians are successfully building up again, and to restore their self-respect and the whole morale of the district that had been demoralised by the West Ham Board.
In that task the nominated guardians are being very successful. The Minister has no doubt that they are gradually building up and restoring the population to the condition from which it ought never to have been degraded. To impose on new councils wholly inexperienced in Poor Law work the task of dealing with this population would be very likely to undo a great deal of the work that has been done, and would throw upon the councils a task they could not fairly be expected to perform. This postpones the coining into operation of this Part of the Act dealing with Poor Law relief until 1935. By that time it is hoped, and confidently believed that the position will have been so far restored that there will be no undue pressure or burden put upon the council if they are asked at that time to take over a district which by that period, and not much before, will have been rendered fit to be handled like the rest of the country.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Transfer of functions under Registration Acts]:
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had an Amendment on the Paper to move, in subsection (2), to leave out "until such schemes as hereinafter mentioned are made." The noble Lord said: I think it would be convenient to the Committee to say at once that the noble Earl has convinced me that I am wrong in putting down this Amendment. I have read the document to which he referred with great care; I am always open to be convinced by him. Therefore I do not propose to move any Amendment which deals with the registration point.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 17, after ("as") insert ("are").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: "Provided also that the area of non-county boroughs containing more than 100,000 inhabitants shall forthwith be constituted a separate registration district." The noble Earl said: This is a small Amendment compared with those which have been moved earlier in the evening, and much smaller in its effect than those moved from these Benches. The object is to give county boroughs much more authority than is allowed under the scheme of the Bill introduced by His Majesty's Government. This will give them power over the registration, and there is no other suggestion in the Amendment. I think your Lordships will readily understand that in the case of a large non-county borough of over 100,000 people it is quite natural that they should desire to have their own registration officers in order that their wishes may be gratified. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 34, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I had some difficulty in understanding what the noble Earl really aimed at in his Amendment because it would only touch two towns in the whole county—namely, Ilford and Leyton. It would not take them away from the county. It would just amalgamate them like any other non-county borough or urban or rural district, but it would insist on their being

153
one separate district. They would not get any additional powers by this Amendment, but they would be obliged to be simply one separate district and to manage their registration affairs in one unit. It might be very much more convenient for them to divide into two. I should have thought that in these circumstances it would be really better for these two boroughs, Ilford and Leyton, to be left to arrange their registration affairs as was best suited to their geographical and other circumstances. I think it probable, if I may say so, that the noble Earl desired to put these two boroughs into the position of county boroughs, as for example Birmingham or Manchester or Liverpool or any other great county borough. It would only affect these two towns in the whole country, but it would be cutting at the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is that you should divide registration between the county councils and the county boroughs, and if the noble Earl sought to transform these municipal boroughs, these non-county boroughs, into county boroughs for this purpose, I should be obliged to resist. With regard to these two towns, I do not think it would be well to force them into one registration unit, because it might be better for them to be two, or to amalgamate with another area, as is already done in the case of Ilford which at present is part of the Romford registration area.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I shall not press my Amendment in view of what has been said by the noble Earl, but I still think that in the case of non-county boroughs with a population of 100,000 it is not an undue demand to make that they should have the power of dealing with this matter by themselves and not be subject to the county council.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 27 agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It will probably be convenient to your Lordships as we have come to the end of Part II of the Bill that we should take our short adjournment.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter before eight o'clock and resumed at nine o'clock.]
Clause 28:
County roads.
28.—(1) Every road which at the appointed day is a main road, or which would, apart from this section at any time thereafter have become a main road, and every road as respects which a county council become by virtue of this Part of this Act the highway authority, shall be termed a county road, and the county council shall, in relation to county roads, have the like functions as with respect to main roads, and all enactments relating to main roads shall as from the appointed day have effect as if for references therein to main roads there were substituted references to county roads.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in subsection (1), after "county roads," where that phrase first occurs, to insert "other than such county roads as an urban district council have claimed or are deemed to have claimed to exercise the functions of maintaining." The noble Lord said: It is a happy circumstance that the proceedings were adjourned at the point we reached before dinner because it enables me to open the debate by moving an Amendment which I think the Government will accept, and hitherto no Amendment has been accepted. This is little more than a drafting Amendment, but it is essential to make the clause quite clear. The point is that Clause 28 includes all county roads but Clause 31 enables urban district councils with a population of over 20,000 to claim to maintain and repair all county roads in their districts. Those urban district councils who now maintain county roads will continue to do so and other urban districts who claim the right will now become the road authority for those roads. That being so, and in view of the provisions of Clause 31, it seems clear that the county roads which urban district councils have claimed or are deemed to have claimed to maintain should be excluded from county roads under Clause 28, seeing that that clause, as I have stated, refers to all county roads. Otherwise there is an ambiguity. The necessity for the Amendment is quite obvious.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 23, after ("roads") insert ("other than such county roads as an urban district council have claimed or are deemed to have claimed to exercise the functions of maintaining").—(Lord Arnold.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not know that this Amendment is really necessary and I should like to look into the drafting again, if the noble Lord will allow me, as the Amendment was put down very late.
LORD ARNOLD: I am quite willing to fall in with that suggestion, but if the noble Earl will look at the clause he will see that it is clear that it refers to all county roads, and in view of Clause 31 it cannot refer to all county roads. It is essential that this Amendment which is little more than a drafting Amendment, should be accepted.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have promised to look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Transfer to county councils of functions with respect to highways in rural districts.
29.—(1) As from the appointed day every county council shall be the highway authority as respects such part of the county as is for the time being comprised in any rural district and as respects the highways therein, and as such shall have all such functions under the Highway Acts, 1835 to 1885, as were exerciseable by rural district councils who by virtue of the Local Government Act, 1894, became successors of highway boards, and rural district councils shall cease to be highway authorities:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the functions of rural district councils under the Local Government Act, 1894, as respects rights of way and encroachments on roadside wastes, or any functions not being functions with respect to highways exerciseable at the appointed day by rural district councils as successors to surveyors of highways or highway boards.
(4) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of any rural district council having such power to exercise the power of making byelaws under section one hundred and fifty-seven of the Public Health Act, 1875, with respect to the level, width and construction of new streets:
Provided that a rural district council before making any such byelaws shall consult with the county council, and if a rural district council do not within six months after a notice from the county council requiring them to do so exercise the power of making such byelaws, the county council may themselves exercise the power.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after subsection (1), to insert:—
"Provided also that if any highway to which this section refers is not, in the
156
opinion of the county council, in a reasonable state of repair and condition at the appointed day, the county council shall forthwith (unless the district council themselves undertake the work, which they are hereby empowered to do) proceed to put such highway into a reasonable state of repair and condition, and the amount of the cost so incurred by the county council shall be added to the amount of the county rate payable by the ratepayers of the district concerned, any dispute between the county council and the district council with reference either to the state of any such highway or to the work necessary to put it into reasonable repair and condition being determined by the Minister of Transport, whose decision shall be final."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is for the protection of county councils when the rural district council have neglected to keep up their roads in view of their being taken over. That is not an unlikely case to happen in the case of some of the smaller authorities who, in view of the heavy rates and general depression, are very anxious to save, if they can, in their expenditure. They might neglect their roads thinking that it does not matter because the county council will have to take them over under this Bill. In that case it seems rather hard that the county council should have to throw the cost of making good these defects on the ratepayers of the county, in order to save expenditure in some particular small area. The county council will have to make good that defect.
In this proviso, I am asking that the Ministry of Health shall see to it that, if there has been unreasonable neglect and the roads are not in the proper state of repair, the Minister shall undertake to withhold the grant that would otherwise be made and to hand it over to the county council, so that the latter may be recouped for the neglect of the district council, which, in the interval after the passing of the Bill, has not done reasonable repairs. I think the noble Earl will agree, from his own knowledge of these matters, that it might be a very serious thing indeed if the district council neglected its roads and it might lead to very heavy expenditure on the principle that a stitch in time saves nine. It is very necessary that there should be some protection. I do not insist upon the form of words, and I shall be satisfied if the noble Earl can assure me that something will be done

157
to see that the county council shall not suffer from neglect by a district council in this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 17, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD OLIVIER: This seems to me a very reasonable Amendment. It is obvious that any tenant of an expiring tenancy is always under a certain temptation to neglect his repairs, and this Amendment simply puts the county council in the position of an ingoing tenant of a transferred tenancy who is able to get reasonable dilapidations from the out-going tenant. It seems a reasonable provision.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This Amendment, I think, has two aspects. In the first place, it might be interpreted as seeking to enforce upon a district, before the roads in that district are taken over by the county council, the duty of bringing those roads up to a perfect state. Taking that point first, I admit that there might be roads which are not in such a good state of repair as they ought to be, and as we hope that they will be in the future. The reason why many of these roads have not been brought up to a proper state of repair is really the res angusta domi—that is to say, the financial stringency due to the present narrow basis of charge—and it would really, I think, be illogical to require these very poor rural districts that have been over-burdened through want of revenue to undertake very heavy charges to bring the roads up to the state in which the county council would wish them to be before they take them over, and in which we hope they will be in the future. The general principle of the Bill is that the county council should take over the roads in rural districts in their existing condition and should also undertake the loan charges which have been made in respect of works carried out upon them in the past. That is one aspect of the Amendment and, so far as that point is concerned, I am afraid that I should not be able to accept the principle which it implies.
Then the noble Lord goes on to deal with another aspect. The roads will not be taken over when this Bill becomes law, but later. As your Lordships know, the Government through the ministry of Transport make grants to rural districts
158
in respect of the maintenance of unclassified roads, and if a rural district were to neglect its roads between now and the appointed day pressure could be brought to bear upon it to make it do its duty, and it would be told that its grants from the Road Fund would be imperilled. This Amendment would produce a certain anomaly. On the one hand if the district council between the passing of this Bill and the appointed day reconstructed the road by means of a loan, the liability for the loan would pass to the county council. On the other hand, if the district council did nothing, the cost of putting the road in repair would fall upon them under the Amendment. I think, therefore, that it is not necessary to accept the Amendment in order to force rural districts to do their duty between now and when the roads are taken over, and the rest of it I am afraid would go against the principle of the Bill if accepted. Therefore, I am unable to accept the Amendment.
LORD FORESTER: Speaking as a county councillor, I am sorry that the noble Earl cannot accept the Amendment. We have had various roads taken over by the county councils—roads that link up the main roads. One was taken over the other day. It naturally had to be put in a reasonable state of repair by the district council before it was taken over, and so I am sorry the Government cannot accept what I should regard as a very reasonable Amendment, and one which would save the county councils enormous expenditure. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will press his Amendment, because I think it is a very reasonable one, and I cannot see why the Government cannot accept it.
LORD DERAMORE: When the district councils were first formed, before they took over a road the parish council had to put it in repair, and I do not see why that should not now apply. In the case of a great many of the roads which the county councils have taken over the Ministry of Transport have paid 75 per cent. and the rural districts have paid 25 per cent. They have borrowed that money, and now the county council will have to take over that debt. Surely, in the case of all other roads the district council ought to put them in repair. I hope that the Government will agree to this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the proposed proviso shall be there inserted?
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in the proviso in subsection (4), after "and" to insert: "the Minister of Health shall, before confirming any such by-laws, ascertain and consider the views of the county council with regard thereto: Provided also that." The noble Lord said: The county councils have no objection to this proviso, but they think there ought to be some right of appeal to the Minister of Health.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 3, after ("and") insert ("the Minister of Health shall, before confirming any such by-laws, ascertain and consider the views of the county council with regard thereto:
Provided also that").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think that this Amendment is necessary, because the general scheme of Acts of Parliament which give power to make bylaws is that the responsible local authority should make its by-laws and then secure the approval of the appropriate Department of Government, whether the Home Office, the Ministry of Health, or whatever it may be, after—and this is the important point—they have given public notice in the district and there has been a period for the deposit and public in-
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 26.

CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Chaplin, V.

Forester, L.

Buxton, E.

Lamington, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Lawrence, L.

Fortescue, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Olivier, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sandhurst, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Clwyd, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Tenterden, L.

Allendale, V.

de Clifford, L.

Thomson, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Deramore, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor)

Leven and Melville, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Daryngton, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Macclesfield, E.

Desborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Dynevor, L.

Wellington, D.

Plymouth, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Spencer, E.

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

Exeter, M.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Hood, V.

Jessel, L.

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

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Templemore, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Knutsford, V.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

spection of the by-laws. The only effect of this Amendment would be to give the county council a second opportunity, through the Minister, of bringing pressure to bear on the local authority for the modification of the by-laws. The Bill already proposes to modify the existing system by which the local authority has to give notice before it sends up a bylaw for approval.
The Bill obliges the local authority to consult the county council but it leaves the responsibility for making it where it is now—namely, with the local authority. The object is that the county council should be consulted so that it should have an express opportunity of suggesting modifications to the Minister, especially with a view of obtaining uniformity in by-laws so far as is possible and necessary. The position of the county council, I think, is really sufficiently safeguarded thereby and is certainly absolutely safe. All that would happen under the Amendment would be that the county council would have another opportunity in the procedure which is suggested of doing exactly what it has done already. Therefore, I venture to think the Amendment is unnecessary. The county council already has sufficient safeguard and would not get any additional safeguard from this Amendment.
LORD STRACHIE: As the noble Earl assures me that the Amendment is unnecessary, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Transfer of classified roads in urban districts to county council]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I beg to move two drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 27, line 33, leave out ("a road") and insert ("roads").
Page 27, line 35, leave out ("maintaining the road") and insert ("maintenance and repair").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31:
Rights of certain urban district councils to maintain county roads.
31.—(1) Where an urban district has a population exceeding twenty thousand, the urban district council may claim to exorcise the functions of maintenance and repair of any county road within their district, and if a claim is made within the time hereinafter limited, then, as from such date as is hereinafter mentioned, the urban district council shall be entitled to exercise those functions, and shall continue to be, or shall become, the highway authority as respects that road, and the road shall vest in that council, and for the purpose of the maintenance, repair and improvement of, and other dealing with, any such road, that council shall have the same functions as if the road were an ordinary road vested in them.
(2) Such claim as aforesaid must be made—

(a) in the case where the population of the urban district exceeds twenty thousand at the appointed day and the road is a main road immediately before the appointed day or a road which will by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act become a county road on the appointed day, before the appointed day;

(b) in the case where the population of the urban district is found by the Registrar General's preliminary report on any census subsequent to the appointed day to exceed for the first time twenty thousand and the road is a county road at the date of the publication of the report, within twelve months after that date;

(c) in the case of an Act or order being made adding an area to an existing urban district of which the population exceeds twenty thousand within twelve months after the date when the Act or order takes effect;

162

(d) in the case of an order being made constituting a new urban district or of an Act or order adding an area to an existing urban district, in consequence whereof the urban district becomes an urban district of which the population exceeds twenty thousand, within twelve months after the date when the Act or order takes effect;

(e) in the case of any road which becomes a county road after the appointed day, or after the date mentioned in any of the last three foregoing paragraphs, as the case may require, within twelve months after the date when it so becomes a county road.

(3) The date as from which the right of maintenance and repair shall be exercise-able shall—

(a) where the claim is made before the appointed day, be the appointed day;

(b) in any other case be the first day of April in the year following the calendar year in which the claim is made.

Provided that as respects any county roads which—

(a) may be declared by the Minister of Transport to be roads towards the construction or improvement of which by the county council advances have been made under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, as amended by any subsequent enactment, and to be roads the maintenance and repair of which should, having regard to the best means of promoting economy and efficiency in highway administration, remain vested in the county council; or

(b) being situate in a county within which at the commencement of this Act there was in force a local Act empowering urban district councils to relinquish any functions of maintenance and repair retained by them in pursuance of a claim made under subsection (2) of section eleven of the Local Government Act, 1888, are roads as respects which the urban district council were not exercising the functions of maintenance and repair at the commencement of this Act;

the date as from which the right of maintenance and repair claimed under this section shall ho exerciseable shall be deferred until such date as the Minister of Transport may by order determine, and every such order shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
(4) Any urban district council for the time being so responsible for the maintenance and repair of any county road within their district may at any time, with the consent of the county council, relinquish their functions as regards the maintenance and repair of the county road, and as from the first day of April next after the date of relinquishment the county road and the functions of maintaining it shall vest in the county council in like mariner as if the urban district council had made no claim under subsection (1) of this section.
In the event of the county council withholding consent under this subsection, the urban district council may appeal to the Minister of Transport, who may make such order thereon as he thinks fit, and the order shall be binding on the county council and the urban district council.
(5) Where at the appointed day any urban district council are in pursuance of subsection (2) of section eleven of the Local Government Act, 1888, exercising the function of maintaining and repairing any main road, then—

(a) if the population of the urban district exceeds twenty thousand at the appointed day the council thereof shall be deemed to have duly made a claim under this section as respects the road, unless before the appointed day they give to the county council notice in writing to the contrary;

(b) in any other case the right of the urban district council to maintain and repair the road shall as from the appointed day determine, and the road and the functions of maintaining and repairing it shall vest in the county council.

(6) For the purposes of this section—

(a) the expression "road" does not include county bridges; and

(b) the population of an urban district shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be deemed to be the population thereof according to the last census for the time being:

Provided that the population of any urban district at the appointed day shall be taken to be the estimated population of that district for the year nineteen hundred and twenty-eight.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and shall continue to be or shall become the highway authority as respects that road" and, towards the end of the subsection, after "if," to insert "they were as respects that road the highway authority and." The noble Earl said: These are not quite drafting Amendments. They are designed to get rid of an ambiguity. The words proposed to be omitted were inserted during the passage of the Bill in another place in order to make it clear that the urban authority which should maintain the road would be the highway authority for all practical purposes. For example: If authorised undertakers wish to lay a pipe the urban council and not the county council would be the proper authority to whom they should address the application.
But the clause, as amended, went too far and had the effect of creating two
164
highway authorities in respect to the same road. Further, under the clause as amended it is doubtful whether a road which is claimed remains a county road as defined in Clause 28 (1). The effect of the present Amendments is to make it clear that the county council remains the highway authority and the road remains a county road though for all practical purposes the urban council always functions as the highway authority. It is mainly a legal point, but it is also a drafting one and the Amendments make the clause clearer.
Amendments moved—
Page 28, line 30, leave out from the beginning to ("and") in line 31.
Page 28, line 35, after ("if") insert ("they were as respects that road the highway authority and").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "an Act or order being made" and insert "any enactment." The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting Amendment and the other Amendments which follow immediately in my name are also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 9, leave out ("an Act or order being made") and insert ("any enactment").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 29, line 13, leave out ("Act or order") and insert ("enactment")
Page 29, line 14, leave out ("order being made") and insert ("enactment")
Page 29, line 15, leave out ("of an Act or order")
Page 29, lines 20 and 21 leave out ("Act or order") and insert ("enactment").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD moved, in proviso (b) of subsection (3), to leave out "were not exercising" and to insert "have relinquished." The noble Lord said: This Amendment really deals with roads under urban district councils, or roads which might be under their control, in the County of Middlesex. Under Section 11, subsection (2), of the Local Government Act of 1888, an urban district council with a population of over 20,000 can claim the right to maintain and repair main roads in its areas, and

165
some urban district councils in Middlesex have relinquished their rights under that Act. That being so, they might, but for this clause, in due course come to claim their right, but this clause, unless my Amendment is accepted, takes away those rights from urban district councils which have not yet made those claims. It takes away from many urban district councils in the County of Middlesex the right, which all other urban district councils with a population of 20,000 and upwards are getting, the right to repair the classified roads if, in this year 1928, they have that population. That is an anomalous position. It is placing the County of Middlesex, or certain urban district councils in the County of Middlesex, in a disadvantageous position as compared with other urban district councils in other parts of the country.
Let me take an example. Supposing you had District A in Middlesex in 1894 and it has now a population of 50,000. You have in Surrey a precisely similar case, a District B whose population is now 50,000. District B would be entitled to claim under the Bill the classified roads, but District. A would not, merely because in the County of Middlesex certain urban district councils have, under a special Local Act, relinquished their rights. What is the reason for this? I understand the Ministry of Transport say that the County of Middlesex is an urbanised area. That is true, but it is not the only urbanised area; there are plenty of other urbanised areas. Middlesex is not in a unique position in this respect. Take Lancashire for instance. In Lancashire there are 101 non-county boroughs and urban district councils and 19 rural district councils. I think practically all of those maintain their main roads. In Yorkshire you have pretty much the same position—120 non-county boroughs and urban district councils in the West Riding. In the western portion of Mon-mouthshire you have an almost entirely urban area. There is really nothing to suggest that Middlesex is in a unique position.
We heard earlier in the evening much about the desirability of having uniformity, that we should not have difference of treatment as between one county and another. That was the principle the Lord Chancellor was
166
apparently prepared almost to die for. I submit that here the same position has arisen. The noble Earl shakes his head. What is the reply? Can he deny my figures? Is it not the case that the areas I have named are just as much urbanised as the County of Middlesex?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I entirely deny that.
LORD ARNOLD: Will you deal with the figures I have given?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not know about those figures.
LORD ARNOLD: The figures I have given I believe to be quite unshakeable. I make one further point. An attempt was made, I think in 1925, under an Act which was promoted then by the Surrey County Council, to get a similar provision. There was much opposition to it and it was withdrawn. So far as precedent goes, precedent is against the Government. Uniting all these considerations I think there is a strong case for acceptance of the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 12, leave out ("were not exercising") and insert ("have relinquished").—(Lord Arnold.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am very glad that I spent a few moments before coming to the House in fortifying myself with certain figures. The noble Lord was so well armed with figures referring to Yorkshire and Lancashire—correct and, no doubt, meticulously correct—that it is just as well for purposes of defence that I should have a little counter ammunition in the way of figures for Middlesex. The noble Lord said that Lancashire and Yorkshire were highly urbanised districts and I admit that that is perfectly true, but he told us—I think I am correct—that there were 19 in Lancashire.
LORD ARNOLD: No, 101 non-county boroughs.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I meant 19 rural districts.
LORD ARNOLD: I was dealing with urban districts.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: In Middlesex there are four non-county boroughs, thirty urban districts and four rural districts. All those rural districts are going to be

167
urbanised immediately so that Middlesex will have no rural districts at all. The whole county will be urbanised, though not in the manner in which the noble Lord suggested Yorkshire and Lancashire are very largely urbanised, but Middlesex will be one entirely urbanised area. Now, the point of this clause is to protect the County Council in this very unique position. Obviously, if they did not have some protection of this kind, the mileage of roads which they would have to look after would be very small indeed. The four non-county boroughs are Acton, with a population of 63,000, Ealing with 95,000, Hornsey with 89,000, and Twickenham with 34,000. The urban districts are Brentford and Chiswick, with a population of 56,000; Edmonton, 72,000; Enfield, 63,000; Finchley, 46,000; Hendon, 80,000; Heston and Isleworth, 60,000; Tottenham, 165,000; Willesden, 175,000; and Wood Green, 52,000. Those are local education authorities. I could not get figures for other districts but there are a good many others with populations over 20,000.
In Middlesex, therefore, not only will non-classified roads all fall to the urban districts, but unless there is some modification very large portions of the county roads might also be claimed. One of the main objects of the highways provisions is to extend county control and so one does not want to abolish county control where there has been county control—under a special Act, if you like. Where there has been county control one does not want the Bill to operate in the direction of taking away that control. The object of the clause is to maintain Middlesex in its existing position, especially as it will be in an even worse position by losing its four rural areas.
LORD ARNOLD: I think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding by the noble Earl—if I may say so with respect—about the provision. It is not a question of taking away from county councils. It is a question of taking from urban district councils the right which they have at present.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I said county councils.
LORD ARNOLD: But it does not take from county councils; it takes from urban districts.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It safeguards county councils.
LORD ARNOLD: That is different. It takes away nothing from county councils but it takes from urban district councils rights which they possess. His figures do not vie with mine. I gave figures for Lancashire and Yorkshire. As regards Yorkshire, I said there were 120 non-county boroughs and urban districts. I did not mention rural districts. As regards Lancashire I said there were 101 non-county boroughs and 19 rural districts. They are practically all local authorities, so as regards South Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire, how much is left? If he says that if we take away these roads there will not be much left to Middlesex, I submit there will be just as much left as in the case of the counties I have mentioned. The same thing applies to Monmouth. He will find his case is mathematically not at all accurate. As a question of proportion the justice of it is on my side. However, once again we meet with the usual fate. The Amendment will not be accepted so I shall not press it to a Division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 14, leave out ("deemed to be the population thereof") and insert ("ascertained").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out Clause 31. The noble Lord said: With regard to this particular clause, I would point out that the explanatory Memorandum submitted as a White Paper to the House of Commons explaining its effects was not accurate. It stated there that it was the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission that the right to claim should be given. I had the honour of being on the Royal Commission and that was not the case. Certainly we did not make any unanimous recommendation of the right to claim. The White Paper submitted to the House of Lords is different. No doubt the officials found that that statement was incorrect and in the White Paper submitted to this House they say that the tenour of the recommendation was to that effect. The recommendation of the Royal Commission is fully set out in paragraph 159:—

169
"County councils should be empowered to delegate the maintenance of classified and main roads to councils of county districts if they think fit; but it is observed from paragraph 14 (iii) in the Proposals for Reform in Local Government (Cmd. 3134) that 'consideration will be given to the question whether, and if so, on what conditions, certain of the other authorities' [i.e., county district councils] 'should not carry out the actual work on their Class I and Class II roads and other 'main' roads.' No doubt the larger authorities will be entrusted with such work. But in the case of smaller urban authorities (e.g., those with less than 20,000 population) it should be open to a county council to represent to the Minister of Transport that it is undesirable that such work should be undertaken by any individual urban authority; and the Minister, after considering the observations of the county district council concerned, should be empowered to give such directions as he thinks proper."
There are strong objections to applying this because of the effect which will be produced in particular areas. I will quote a few typical examples to show the way the clause will work in some of the Home Counties. In Essex there will be four authorities in 7½ miles of the Eastern Avenue. In Middlesex, on the North Circular Road in seventeen miles there will be ten authorities, on the Uxbridge Road in twelve miles five authorities, on the Greenford Road in three miles three authorities; there is a different authority for each mile. Then we have the Green Lanes road, with 8½ miles and five authorities. In the County of Surrey we have the Kew Bridge to Esher Road, a short length with five authorities. Then there is the Tolworth-Esher Road, with ten miles and four different authorities. It seems very undesirable, when we are having this great reconstruction of local government and putting the county councils as overlords in most of these matters, that in this particular case there should be this exception. It certainly will not make for economy or efficiency to have so many different authorities concerned with the roads. Finally I should like to say that, though it may be claimed that the Ministry of Transport will ultimately eliminate some of these authorities, the easy way would be to arrange for the county councils to have complete control in all these cases. It does not make for efficiency to allow all these authorities to interfere.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 31.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In reply to this Amendment I think it is important that I should tell your Lordships what the existing position is. Under the Act of 1888 urban authorities then in existence were given the power to claim to be responsible for the maintenance of their roads. Under Clause 30 of the Bill now before your Lordships that power is being taken away from those urban authorities and, instead of making the right to claim to take charge of the roads depend upon whether or not an urban authority was in existence as such before 1888, it is made to depend upon the population of the urban area at the time when the claim is made. Urban authorities with a population of more than 20,000 are given the right to claim to take charge of the roads in their own district.
The noble Lord who has moved the omission of this clause says that this is not the recommendation of the Royal Commission. He was a member of the Commission, and I accept at once from him that this was not at any rate his own intention, but the passage to which he calls your Lordships' attention might, I think, have indicated to some minds, as it certainly did to my own, that it was the intention. The paragraph in question opens by saying that consideration is to be given to the conditions on which authorities are to be given the actual work of maintaining roads, and it goes on to say:—
"No doubt the larger authorities will be entrusted with such work. But in the case of smaller urban authorities (e.g., those with less than 20,000 population) it should be open to a county council to represent to the Minister of Transport that it is undesirable that such work should be undertaken by any individual urban authority; and the Minister, after considering the observations of the county district council concerned, should be empowered to give such directions as he thinks proper."
I read that as meaning that, in the case of those districts with under 20,000 population, it should be open to the Minister either to allow or to disallow the claim for maintaining the roads; but in the case of larger authorities, these would, as the Royal Commission say, no doubt be entrusted with the work.
That is the provision to which the Bill gives effect. Your Lordships will appreciate that, if we were to take away altogether from all the urban authorities

171
the right which many of them possess to-day of claiming to be responsible for the maintenance and repair of their roads, we should be taking a step which would be bitterly resented by the urban authorities concerned and depriving them of a right which they have now had for forty years. There are two provisos, the one which we have been discussing in answer to the Amendment of Lord Arnold, which concerned Middlesex, and the other the first proviso, which enables the Minister of Transport to exclude from the operation of the clause certain arterial roads. I notice that one noble Lord referred to the North Circular Road as a road which the Minister of Transport proposes to deal with in that way. Where a certain number of local authorities are concerned it would, no doubt, be inconvenient that power should be exercised by each over a small space. Subject to that safeguard, I venture to submit to your Lordships that it would hardly be fair upon urban authorities to take away a right which they have enjoyed for so long, and which the Royal Commission's Report supports and does not disapprove.
EARL RUSSELL: I am interested in this question as a person primarily interested in roads, and I think the argument in support of the course taken by the Government is rather pitiable. We heard a great deal early this evening about the desire for uniformity in administration. When we came to Poor Law, human beings had to be regimented—there had to be no exceptions—but when we come to a matter like roads, economy in construction is apparently of no consequence and we are not to consider the reasonable way of making a main through highway from one part of the county to another, but we are to consider the feelings of the urban local authorities. The noble and learned Lord, towards the end of his speech, let out the real reason for this provision—namely, that it would hurt the feelings of the urban local authorities if it were omitted. Is that a good reason, when you are passing a Bill of this sort, which in a sense is overturning our present local government and making it something quite new—is that a good reason for continuing what is a foolish state of affairs?
It is 25 years or more since I heard comments passed upon the fact that the
172
Great North Road had 300 authorities concerned with it in 400 miles, and in those days it was looked upon as a shocking and foolish thing of which to encourage the continuance. Yet now you hear of these comparatively small lengths of road with which numerous authorities are concerned, and we are told that although you have main thoroughfares running through perhaps several counties, wherever they go through an urban district you are to allow the urban authority to make up and control that part of the road, apparently making it differently from the county council portion, keeping up a separate staff, and incurring all the additional expense of administration which such a course involves. From the point of view of administration is that reasonable, or is it common sense? There was a suggestion made by a noble Lord that if you took this work away from them the local authorities would not have much to do, but there are plenty of other roads in an urban district to be looked after and I maintain that from an administration point of view this is not reasonable.
I do not know why the Government do not take this opportunity of putting this matter of roads upon some reasonable basis. Is this one of the bargains made outside Parliament by which the Government are bound? Is this something which Parliament is asked to sanction because sonic opposition outside has been squared? If not, is your Lordships' House not prepared to assert itself, and to say that you will take the reasonable and practical course, and have these roads looked after by one authority throughout their length, and, if they like to delegate their powers to certain urban authorities, where they do not think it will interfere with the construction and maintenance of the roads, let them do so?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Contributions by county councils to county roads maintained by urban district councils]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There is a drafting Amendment in the proviso to subsection (2).
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 22, after ("improvement") insert ("are being or").—(The Earl of On-slow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There is another drafting Amendment in subsection (4).
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 30, after ("improvement") insert ("are being or").—(The Earl of On slow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34:
Delegation of road functions by county councils to district councils.
34.—(1) The council of any district wholly or partly within a county may within three months after the commencement of this Act apply to the county council for the delegation to them as from the appointed day of the functions of the county council with respect to the maintenance, repair and improvement of, and other dealing with—
(a) the whole of the unclassified roads, exclusive of county bridges, within the district or such part of the district as is within the county;
(2) In so far as the application is in respect of unclassified roads, the county council shall grant the application unless they are satisfied that having regard to the best means of promoting economy and efficiency in highway administration throughout the county and to the particular circumstances of the district in respect of which the application is made the application ought not to be granted.
LORD OLIVIER,on behalf of Lord Parmoor, moved to add to paragraph (a), "except, existing main roads." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really on the same lines as that on the question of urban district councils, but it seems a stronger case. Surely, the county authorities having been clothed with the responsibility of taking over these roads, it is really an idle and foolish thing to hand back to the rural district councils the, strips of main roads which run through those councils' areas. Even with the intervention of the urban district councils, we should, under the Bill—as apparently was intended—have very long stretches of main roads controlled by one uniform authority, under the supervision of the Minister of Transport. That, surely, is the only rational way of dealing with our main roads, and there cannot he such special and private reasons for dealing with these roads in rural district
174
as there are in urban districts. I do not know whether we can hope that the Minister will see the reasonableness of adhering to the main intentions of the Bill in this respect, bit I feel bound to move the Amendment, and to press it very strongly. It rests on even stronger grounds than were advanced in the case of the urban district councils.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 10, after ("county") insert ("except existing main roads—).—(Lord Olivier.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I feel it is right that I should answer the noble Lord on this question somewhat fully, because it touches a matter with which I happen to be particularly acquainted, as it is based on one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, of which I had the honour to be Chairman. The Royal Commission were impressed with the desirability—because I am sure that everybody will agree that it is desirable—that you should offer every opportunity and every temptation to the best possible people to serve on all local governing bodies, whether county boroughs, or rural districts, or even parish councils. I am sure the noble Lord opposite would agree with me there. In order to tempt people, to give them occupation, you must give them really good and sound work to do. That is one reason why it is sought to give the greatest possible responsibility compatible with efficiency to the rural district councils.
Then there is another point. The principle of this Bill is to spread the area of charge over as large a district as possible in order to equalise the effect of the costs on particular districts. It is also one of the principles of the Bill—it has been carried out in the Poor Law clauses—to delegate to the people who live on the spot those particular details of local administration which touch them most closely and which they are really best qualified to carry out. Up to the present time, of course, as your Lordships are aware it was the duty of the rural districts to maintain these unclassified roads. Under this Bill those roads in the rural districts will pass as a charge to the county councils. But it is thought that the rural district councils should have the opportunity of claiming to be agents for the county councils in the

175
maintenance of these roads, that they should go to the county council and say: "We wish to be the agents of and to do the work for the county council in keeping our own roads going." Of course, the responsibility for the overseeing of the business is in the hands of the county council, and it is possible for them to go to the Minister of Transport and point out that such and such a rural district council has applied for the delegation of the roads; but there are such and such reasons—that it will not be economical, or that they have not been economical, or that they will not be efficient and so forth—why that delegation at the request of the rural district should not be granted.
Those are the principles upon which the Bill is based. If you gave the county council unfettered discretion whether to delegate or not to delegate you would defeat the object which was the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission. I may say that the Royal Commission contained a majority of members who were definitely representative of various local government bodies. There were three members of county councils, three members from the county boroughs, one from the municipal boroughs, and one each from the urban districts and the rural districts. That unanimous recommendation has been embodied in the Bill, and I think it meets the case. It gives to rural district councillors important work to do and it gives the council control over their own local roads subject, of course, to the general supervision of the county, and not taking away the general control from the county council of the management of roads in the county.
LORD OLIVIER: I do not feel quite sure that the noble Earl has looked at the Amendment much because he has dealt generally with the question of unclassified roads and rural roads. This Amendment merely proposes to make an exception in regard to existing main roads. It is only of the existing main roads and the trunk roads that I speak. As regards the suggestion that you should give your local talent the best possible means of exercising itself upon the roads, I do not think that at all a sound principle with regard to main arterial roads. You can get the best possible talent and advice and the most en-
176
thusiastic work done, as I used to see when Sir Henry Maybury was surveyor of Sevenoaks, by getting the best qualified engineer to deal with a large line of roads. Certainly, with regard to our main roads which carry the principal traffic it is not the case that you would get the best service by letting your local talent exercise itself upon them.
EARL RUSSELL: I would like to see whether I really understand the argument of the noble Earl. Of course, he drew a very suave picture to your Lordships of these rural district councils saying to the county council: "We should like to be your agents," and thereupon becoming the agents of the county council. One has heard comments on the way business is carried on by Government Departments and sometimes by local authorities; but in the ordinary business world, if a business man desires to carry on his business efficiently, he prefers to choose his own agents and not to have them chosen for him by some one who comes and says: "I propose to be your agent; you will have to accept me." It is rather a curious definition of an agent. The noble Earl also said that it resembled the method of delegation, and was on a par with the method of delegation of the Poor Law powers. Surely that is a statement that does not bear examination. He was referring, I take it, to the delegation of the Poor Law powers to the guardian committees. On the guardian committees there is a permanent two-thirds majority of members of the county council. It is hardly delegation when you retain complete control of the delegation body.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There are members of the district council as well as the county council among the two-thirds. The co-opted are one-third.
EARL RUSSELL: And members of the district council. Then there are not a majority of the county council as upon the guardians committees. Anyhow, it is not quite the same delegation. The county council does retain a direct representation and a direct control, whereas in this case I take it the work is to be done for them by an agent they are willing to accept, whom they would not choose for themselves, but who puts himself upon them saying: "I should like to do the work, and if you do not

177
think it administratively expedient, there it is; it does not matter because you have an appeal to the Minister and he can decide in a proper case that the county council need not have this agent put upon them, and that this work may not be taken from them." it is really the Minister of Transport, sitting in London, who, after all, has a good deal to attend to, including incidentally the railways of the country, who is thought to be better able to form a judgment as to whether a rural district council somewhere or other is more fit to be the agent for the county council to look after its roads than the county council of the county is itself able to judge.
The county council is elected by the people of the county, and the people of the county send their representatives there to act for them. I should have thought that on any principle of representative government they were infinitely better fitted to decide than some Minister sitting in London, who can only hear what is said by the parties, and who no doubt would come to an honest decision on the materials before him, but who can never realise the local circumstances of the people who live there. I think this is making for bad administration, and I hope that your Lordships are going to act independently and take steps to express your view upon matters of this kind and not go like sheep, as in another place, following the Government into the Division Lobby without any adequate reason being given for any of these things beyond the fact that they are liked by somebody outside, or that some bargain or arrangement has been made, or that because they have had the powers before they ought to go on having them now. What is the good of changing local government if you leave things unreformed in that way?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Let me answer the two questions that were put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Olivier, thought I had not quite understood him. I quite follow that he referred not only to roads which had been main roads, that he referred to through arterial roads. I would point out that those great through arterial roads will become county roads. They will not be unclassified roads. Therefore, I think I was right in my contention in regard to those unclassified
178
roads. There are a great number of main roads in different counties which are really unimportant and are therefore unclassified. It was to those I referred. I dealt with the whole question of unclassified roads in elaborating my argument with the noble Lord.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said I was quite wrong in comparing the delegation of the Poor Law powers to the guardians committees and the road powers to the district councils, and he said: "You have a majority of elected representatives upon the guardians committees." The guardians committees under Clause 7 consist of members for the time being of the councils of the district or districts comprised in the area; then the members for the time being of the county council representing the electoral divisions wholly or partly comprised in the area less presumably the district members, and then the co-opted members to whom I need not refer. The council to which the unclassified roads will be delegated will be the rural district council. That is to say, it will be very likely the same as the guardians committee, less the co-opted members and the few members of the county council, so it is an elected body to whom these roads are delegated. It is a body which is elected. It is not an appointed body. Therefore the two things are not analogous, if I may venture to suggest that to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert:—
"(2) The county council shall delegate the maintenance, repair and improvement of and other dealing with unclassified roads to the council of any rural district, but the county council shall be empowered to represent to the Minister of Transport in the case of any individual rural district council that it would be undesirable to grant delegation or that delegation should be withdrawn, and the Minister of Transport, after considering the circumstances of the area affected and the observations of the rural district council concerned, shall have power to give such directions as he may think proper."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to reverse the procedure under which roads may be delegated to the rural district council by the county council. As the Bill now stands the rural district council will have to apply to the county council to allow these roads to be delegated to the rural district coun-

179
cil. I propose that the procedure should be that the county council should delegate to the rural district councils the maintenance of the rural roads, the unclassified roads. Otherwise it seems to me that you will take away a very large amount of the work of the rural district councils. Practically they will be no longer a road authority. I admit that under the Bill, if the county council refuses an application to delegate the unclassified roads to rural district council, the rural district council may make an appeal to the Minister. I want to reverse that procedure and say that the rural district councils shall by right have delegated to them the control of unclassified roads.
In support of my Amendment I should like to quote from the second Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. This Commission was presided over by the Earl of Onslow and among its members was the Chairman of the County Councils Association, Sir Edmund Turton. Another very prominent member was Mr. Samuel Taylor, and I was also a member. We were all unanimously in favour of county councils delegating the maintenance of these unclassified roads to the rural district councils, subject, of course, to an appeal to the Minister. I will quote paragraph 160 of that Report. It says:
"It should be the duty of county councils to delegate the maintenance of unclassified roads to rural district councils; but a county council should be empowered to represent to the Minister of Transport, in the case of any individual rural district council, that it is undesirable to grant delegation or that delegation should be withdrawn; and the Minister, after considering the circumstances of the area affected and the observations of the rural district council concerned, should be empowered to give such direction as he thinks proper."
The Royal Commission were unanimous upon that point, that it should be the duty of the county council to delegate unclassified roads to these rural district councils, but of course they would have the right of appeal to the Minister of Transport if they thought it undesirable in any individual case that these unclassified roads should be maintained by the rural district council.
I know that the evidence given by the rural district councils had great weight with the Royal Commission. If you take away the unclassified roads you will take
180
away a great part of the business of these rural district councils, because very often their main business is looking after these unclassified roads. The advantage of the rural district councils looking after non-classified roads is that local knowledge is brought to bear upon local interests. If you have a county council supervising these roads, there is a danger that local interests are neglected, but if the rural district councils have charge of these roads, they will see that they are not neglected. The Royal Commission unanimously reported in favour of my proposed Amendment instead of the proposal in the Bill. Undoubtedly it strengthens the case of the rural district councils before the Ministry if ipso facto the county council has to delegate instead of the rural district councils having to make an appeal that they should be given these powers. I only hope that the noble Lord, who has already voted in favour of an Amendment which was the unanimous wish of the Royal Commission, will see that in this particular case it was also the unanimous report of the Royal Commission, and will support my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 17, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has said that this is a very important matter. I am very sorry but, after giving my best attention, I still cannot see that it is a matter of any great importance at all. The position is this. In the clause as the Government propose it the provision is that, where a district council has applied for the delegation of unclassified roads, the county council shall grant the application unless they are satisfied that, for the reasons stated, having regard to the best means of promoting economy and efficiency in highway administration throughout the county and to the particular circumstances of the district in respect of which the application is made, the application ought not to be granted. In the Bill as drafted when application is made by a district council, the county council is bound to grant the application unless on one of the two grounds given they think it inadvisable. If they refuse it on either of those grounds and the rural district council is not satisfied, the matter goes to the Ministry and the Ministry decides.

181
The proposal in the Amendment is that—just as in the Bill—the rural district council applies for delegation and the county council shall delegate. Then, instead of saying that they shall delegate unless they are satisfied that it is undesirable for the reasons named and then there is to be an appeal to the Minister, this Amendment proposes that they shall delegate and, having delegated, they can then appeal to the Minister against their own decision. Either way it gets to the Minister. The only reason why I prefer the Government's proposal to the noble Lord's is that, under the noble Lord's form of words, there is nothing at all laid down to guide the Minister as to the considerations which should influence him in refusing the delegation and allowing the county council's appeal against their own delegation, whereas, under our proposal, the matter which he has to consider and which the county council has to consider in deciding whether or not they shall delegate, are set out in the clause. They are to grant the delegation unless they are satisfied of two things:—
"that having regard to the best means of promoting economy and efficiency in highway administration throughout the county and to the particular circumstances of the district in respect of which the application is made the application ought not to be granted."
It seems to us that, if you are going to give the right of appeal to the Minister, the Minister should be given some sort of guide as to the circumstances which, in the view of Parliament, ought to influence him in disallowing a delegation which should be a general right. It is on that ground that I feel unable to accept the Amendment. Apart from that, quite honestly I do not think there is anything in whether the county council shall delegate and then appeal against this decision, or a county council shall delegate unless it thinks this undesirable and then the rural council shall appeal.
LORD STRACHIE: I am afraid I cannot agree with the Lord Chancellor. I do not say that he has misrepresented my contention, but he has misunderstood me. My contention concerned the question whether the county council should have to delegate the unclassified roads to the district councils or whether the district councils should have to ask to
182
have them delegated. But since the Government have decided that they will go against the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission, I have nothing to do but to withdraw my Amendment. I very much regret their decision in this case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 35, to insert the following new clause:—
".—(1) The county council and any district council may from time to time contract for the undertaking by the district council of the maintenance, repair, improvement and enlargement of, and other dealing with any county road, and, if the county council so require, the district council shall undertake the same, and such undertaking shall be in consideration of such annual payment by the county council for the costs of the undertaking as may from time to time be agreed upon, or, in case of difference, be determined by the Minister of Transport; and for the purposes, of such undertaking the district council shall have the same powers and be subject to the same duties and liabilities as if the road were vested in them:
Provided that in no case shall a county council make any payment to a district council towards the costs of such undertaking as respects any road until the county council are satisfied by the report of their surveyor, or such other person as the county council may appoint for the purpose, that the road has been properly maintained and repaired, or that the improvement or enlargement of or other dealing with the road, as the case may be, has been properly executed."
The noble Lord said: The reasons for this Amendment are evident from its terms, and I will not trouble the House with a speech upon it. I only desire to hear what my noble friend has to say with regard to it. No doubt, he will be able to assure me that it is unnecessary and that the county council are safeguarded in this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 28, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strachie.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think I can answer my noble friend satisfactorily. This Amendment is quite unnecessary, in view of the provision with regard to delegation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, after Clause 37, to insert as a new clause:—
Saving as to rights of electricity undertakers.
". For the purposes of section 13 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, and of the provisions of section 12 of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, as incorporated with any Act or with any Provisional or Special Order under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, passed or confirmed or approved either before or after the appointed day and of any provisions corresponding with or similar to those provisions and contained in any such Act or Order, the following provisions shall have effect notwithstanding anything in Part III of this Act—

(a) every county road (other than a road which at the appointed day is a main road repairable by the county council) shall be deemed to be a street repairable by the local authority; and

(b) the county council shall be deemed to be the local authority as respects every such county road, within the meaning of the said section 13 and such provisions as aforesaid, except where the urban district council have claimed or are deemed to have claimed to exercise the functions of maintaining any such road."

The noble Earl said: In the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Askwith, he has asked me to move the Amendment which stands in his name. This Amendment deals with the question of electricity undertakers, who find themselves in a difficulty under the Bill. The present position is very simple. Under roads which are repairable by the local authority they have a general power to break up the road in order to lay their cables and carry on their undertaking. By Clauses 29 and 30 of this Bill a great number of roads, in fact the majority, are no longer repairable by local authorities and consequently the undertakers have to go for special leave to the county council before they can break up the roads. If they cannot get this leave they have to go to the Electricity Commissioners, who have laid down certain rules and regulations. They have to deposit plans, to specify every bit of road that they propose to take up and the whole thing is ended by an order that they should pay the costs of the Electricity Commissioners for giving their consent to taking up the road. The whole process leads to delay and expense.
I am not dealing with anything in the future but with electricity matters that are going on now and with practical schemes in progress at the moment. If
184
something is not done the effect will be possibly that, where two schemes have been thought out to take place simultaneously, one may be delayed more than the other and it will not be possible to carry them out as was intended. This may be part of the thought-out scheme of the Government, but I move this Amendment, which does not do anything new or bring anything extra into the Bill and merely preserves the rights that the electrical undertakers possess now in regard to schemes which they are at present engaged upon. It may be that the Government have some reason for not desiring to do it, but I think that it is certainly a matter on which one is entitled to ask whether they will be content to allow the present electricity contractors to continue to do as they have done before the Bill passed, and if not, for what reason?
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If I correctly understood Lord Halsbury, the object of this Amendment is to obviate the necessity for an electricity undertaking to obtain the consent of a county council before breaking up any road transferred to the county council under the Bill. Under the enactments referred to in the Amendment consent is not required in the case of streets repairable by a local authority, and for the purposes of these enactments a county council is not a local authority. Should a county council, however, refuse consent there is, under Section 13 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882 (as amended), a right to apply to the Electricity Commissioners, who may give their consent in writing. The Amendment, if accepted, would be liable to lead to confusion, as the powers of the county council in relation to any particular road would depend upon whether or not it had been a main road before the appointed day. One of the objects in the drafting of the highway clauses of the Bill has been to give county councils uniform powers in respect of all county roads. I think it is unnecessary to depart from this principle in view of the fact that a summary remedy is already provided under the existing law in the form of an appeal to the Electricity Commissioners.

185
The Amendment would retain the present position as regards existing main roads vested in county councils, but, as regards the roads to be transferred to the county councils under the Bill, it would place the latter in the same position as local authorities, that is, with power to approve the plan but not to refuse consent ab initio. I do not think the Amendment is necessary, because of the appeal to the Electricity Commissioners. The safeguard is in the hands of the authority and I see no reason to put the Amendment in the Bill.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am rather astonished at the answer that I have received. First of all the noble Earl has not dealt with this point, that at the present time the electricity undertakers have a general power, without the consent of anybody, to break up a road which is repairable by the local authority. That is to be taken from them, and they have then to get an absolute approval from the county council. If they do not get that approval, they then have to go to the Electricity Commissioners, and the noble Earl tells us that the Commissioners can then and there give their consent in writing, and everything will be well. On the contrary, let me point out what is the procedure as laid down by the Commissioners themselves. Firstly, there has to be an application by public advertisement. That is the first thing that has to happen. Then notice has to be given to the road authorities. The next thing is that you have to prepare and deposit plans and detailed descriptions of the roads to be broken up; and finally you have to pay the costs of the Electricity Commissioners for their consent. That is the present procedure, as laid down by the Commissioners themselves, and to be told by the noble Earl: "Oh, they have only got to write straight off, and the whole thing is over", does not seem to be an adequate answer. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Power to combine councils for the purposes of town planning scheme
39.—(1) Where it appears to the Minister that it is expedient that two or more local authorities (including county councils)
186
should be combined for purposes connected with the preparation or adoption of a town planning scheme, it shall be lawful for the Minister, by order, to provide for the constitution of a joint committee for the purpose, and to confer on such a joint committee any powers which a local authority under the Town Planning Act, 1925, might exercise in relation to the preparation or adoption of a town planning scheme:
Provided that the Minister, before making such an order, shall hold a local inquiry unless all the local authorities whom it is proposed to combine, assent.
LORD CLWYD)LORD CLWYD) moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), after "appears," to insert "expedient." The noble Lord said: Clause 39 refers to the town planning schemes for combined areas. The clause as it stands provides that the Minister can by order provide for the constitution of a joint committee for town planning purposes. The object and effect of the Amendment would be to give to the two or more local authorities concerned a similar right of initiating proceedings for this purpose. Town planning is an important matter. Circumstances might conceivably arise when it was really necessary and desirable that those who knew the facts on the spot, the members of these local authorities concerned, should have the right themselves to initiate proceedings. The matter is one of some practical importance.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 33, after ("appears") insert ("expedient").—(Lord Clwyd.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree that it is desirable that the local councils should have the power of themselves making these combinations, but the answer to the noble Lord's Amendment is that they have it already. That is why we have not put it in. If he will look at the Town Planning Act, Section 2 (1), proviso (2), he will find that two or more borough or district councils can already combine to prepare or adopt a town planning scheme, and under the clause we have just passed the county council put in the same situation under subsection (2), and therefore Clause 39 gives to the. Minister the power which the councils already have in combination if they choose, and the clause only operates if they have not been able to arrive at an agreement.
LORD CLWYD: I understand, therefore, that if two or more councils desire to combine for this purpose they have the right to do so?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
LORD CLWYD: Then I beg to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
Clause 42:
Amendment of 15 Geo. 5. c. 16. s. 3.
42. Section three of the Town Planning Act, 1925 (which requires the councils of certain boroughs and urban districts to prepare town planning schemes before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine) shall have effect as if for that date there were substituted the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, before "thirty-nine," to insert "thirty-four, or with the consent of the Minister, a later date, but not later than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and." The noble Lord said: On an earlier clause the noble Earl opposite [Earl Russell] expressed the opinion that if the Government did not accept his Amendment they would convict themselves of being unreasonable. He did lint press his views as to what was reasonable to the extent of the Division Lobby and I, for one, was left with the impression that reason, in that particular case, was rather on the side of the Government than on the side of the noble Earl. But in the case of this Amendment to Clause 42 I should like to adopt the expression of the noble Earl. In fact, I am bound to say that the more I look at it the more astonishment I feel that the Bill was not originally drafted in the way I propose to amend it, and that it was proposed instead to postpone these schemes until 1939. The effect of Clause 42 is to postpone the date by which boroughs and urban councils must prepare town planning schemes from January 1, 1929, to January 1, 1939, ten years. The effect of my Amendment would be to make that date 1934 and at the same time to give the Minister power to postpone schemes in any case where he was satisfied that it really had not been possible to prepare them.
I shall be told that in the case of town planning schemes what is wanted is not quick schemes but good schemes. With that, of course, I absolutely agree; but it seems to me that while that might be a very good argument for refusing to accept the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Buxton, who wants the date to be 1932, it is no reason at all for refusing the Amendment which I am proposing. Consider for a moment what is involved in the question of town planning. First of all, there is the question of the arterial roads. In the last ten years at immense expense new arterial roads have been pierced through such open spaces between villages—I am speaking of the spaces round London—as still exist. Unless town planning schemes are put into force we shall very soon have ribbon-growths of houses all along those arterial roads and bungaloid excresences of every description growing up in every direction, and very shortly those arterial roads will be reduced to the same condition as the old roads which they have largely superseded for motor traffic. We have had one opportunity of making these arterial roads. It is the only one. If we do not safeguard those arterial roads we shall never get another chance of repeating the work of making a clear passage through, in and out of big cities.
Then there is the question of playing fields. I should think that every one of your Lordships has interested himself more or less in the question of playing fields, not only for children but for adults, football and cricket grounds—one of the most important things that you can have in built-up and semi-built-up areas. How many playing fields shall we lose if these town planning schemes are postponed till 1939? Lastly, the most important of all these matters is the question of slums. Everybody who has dealt with slums knows that you cannot get rid of them simply by demolishing and rebuilding the slum areas. You have to look ahead in the matter of slums. You have to prevent new slums coming in the future. That is an element in the art of getting rid of slums. I assure your Lordships that the golden hours are flying in which all these vitally important matters can be dealt with, and here we have the Government proposing that the

189
compulsory date shall be postponed till 1939.
I have fortified myself with another argument from Clause 44 of the Bill. There you see that the re-arrangement of county districts is provided for. The clause provides that the county councils have to review their areas, and that their review for the purposes of redistribution of boundaries of districts and parishes has to be completed by 1932. I shall be told that it takes a long time to prepare town planning schemes and also that for the next few years all these authorities will be very fully occupied with the big changes which they have to face under this Bill. That is perfectly true. They have until 1932 to do all that under my Amendment and to make their survey for the redistribution of boundaries. After that, they have two more years in which to make their town planning schemes. I submit to your Lordships that in the great majority of cases that ought to be reasonable and sufficient. I shudder to think of the result, if you are to put off the date for authorities who do not want it till 1939, and perhaps two years beyond that. This is a very small Amendment as it stands on the Paper, but I submit that there are great issues hanging upon it. I appeal to the noble Earl, who is extraordinarily tactful and conciliatory with so many people trying to get Amendments out of him, some much bigger than mine, to say: "After all this is but a little one" and agree to give it favourable consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 15, after ("and") insert ("thirty-four, or with the consent of the Minister, a later date, but not later than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
EARL BUXTON: My noble friend has moved an Amendment somewhat different from the one I have on the Paper, but I am quite prepared to support it on the ground that it is much more likely to be accepted by the Government, than mine. I will not cover the ground that the noble Lord has covered, but having had some knowledge of town planning schemes for a number of years it does seem to me quite inadvisable to wait ten years before county councils who are not anxious to carry out town planning schemes should be brought to book. Ten
190
years is far too long a period. In ten years the face of this country will be entirely altered for the reasons given by my noble friend who has just spoken. All the amenities to which he referred ought to be preserved. One particular point he did not refer to is what I may call the amenities of the countryside. Brighton, near where I live, and the neighbouring districts have, I am glad to say, been forward in this matter and have a town planning scheme which will protect to a great extent large areas of the countryside.
Near there, however, we have one of the greatest examples of the want of town planning in a place called Peace-haven. While there is a progressive
municipality which has carried out town planning at an early date there are in that district a number of areas which have not yet begun to consider the matter at all. I cannot understand why the Government are prepared to give such a very long period of consideration for these town planning schemes. I quite agree that you must give a considerable period—say, two or three years—to those areas which have not yet begun to consider the matter, but to give them so long a period as ten years is really inviting them to do nothing for that period. I really cannot understand why that long period has been put in. I have looked through the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in the other House but have not discovered in the debate that took place what the arguments of the Government in favour of this period really are. To give ten years to these recalcitrant authorities is to ask for trouble in the future and will tend to the destruction of many of the amenities and beauties of the countryside without any possible advantage to any human being.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I hope I shall be able to meet to a certain extent the views of noble Lords who have spoken if my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh will accept a modification of his Amendment. The modification I would suggest is this: "or such later date before 31 December, 1938, as may be determined by the Minister, either generally or specially as respects any particular council."
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: That is the same date.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes, I am quite ready to accept that, but I gather that the noble Lord does not like the words "general or special." I think it is necessary to keep in that power because general postponement of dates is of some importance. There might be confusion if it was only a special postponement. Therefore I venture to hope that the noble Lord will agree to this.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am afraid I do not much like the wording proposed, because it will still leave the Minister with the right of general postponement and that is the very thing I want to avoid. I am not suggesting that the Minister intends to make a general postponement, but if you leave the power of general postponement you are advertising the fact that that is what may happen. It is what has happened already because the date in the 1925 Act was 1st January, 1929, and there has been a general postponement. What I would accept would be to leave the clause as it stands with an alteration at the end. It would then read:—
"… the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, shall have effect as if for that date there were substituted the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, or such later date before thirty-first December, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, as the Minister may in any individual case allow."
That, you see, gives the Minister the right in any particular circumstances to make any postponement he thinks fit, but it does prevent him making a general postponement of the whole thing until 1939.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I do hope the Government will go a little further in this. Four years ago Parliament laid down that certain authorities specified in this Clause 42 were under obligation to make town planning schemes. The expression "town planning" is a little misleading. It does not merely apply to what we call towns, but it applies also to a great deal of what we properly call country. Four years have elapsed and many of these authorities have not fulfilled their statutory duties, and now the Government come and suggest that to that four years there shall be added a period of ten years during which they need do nothing. I have not got the terms of the suggested Amendment to the Amendment in my mind—I only heard
192
them a moment ago for the first time—but it is clear that the Government go some way towards meeting Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I submit, however that the Government are not going quite far enough. Every statutory delay in bringing a town planning scheme into operation is a deliberate inducement to the town planning authority to defer consideration of the subject.
It is no good making to-day a town planning scheme which very likely will not come into operation for ten years, because in the intervening period every kind of thing may happen which will prejudice the whole basis of that scheme. Your Lordships well know that local authorities very often like acting together, synchronising their action, for the ordinary and very good reason of neighbourliness in local government. If ten years' delay, or even five years' delay, is added it means that consideration in many areas, especially areas where there is no zeal on this matter of town planning, will be deferred and meanwhile development will continue. It is really heartrending at this stage to have to urge upon His Majesty's.Ministers that town planning is of all problems in this country perhaps the most urgent, transcending—infinitely transcending—in importance a number of great political problems to which we give all our attention. Road zoning, open spaces, housing—everything that affects the comfort and the health and the decency of our people, depends upon proper schemes of town planning and their enforcement. If the Government are now going to say you can put it off for another five years on the top of the four years in which we are now acquiescing I for one will regret that decision.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord who moved this Amendment declared that he found me very unreasonable. I am not at all sure that the noble Lord is not himself very unreasonable. We have reached Clause 42 and the noble Lord has extracted from the Government the first concession that has been made. It is true he has not got a whole Amendment but even to get half an Amendment is a considerable concession and he ought to be rather proud of himself. I agree entirely with the noble Earl who has just spoken that this matter of town planning is very important and we on these

193
Benches hope the Government may yet meet this matter more fully.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: After the very eloquent appeals from both sides of the House, I feel that I should be acting churlishly if I did not give away a little more. I will accept the principle of what my noble friend has raised and I will leave the actual drafting to the Report stage.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I thank the noble Earl for the way he has met me. I would like to insert the Amendment in the wording I have suggested.
EARL BUXTON: I do not want to appear churlish in the matter and I am glad the noble Earl is prepared to consider it further. I do not think we have got much concession yet in this matter. Although it is true the later date is to be December, 1938, instead of January, 1939, I hope the noble Lord understands that it is only a difference of a month. The general principle of allowing the Minister to have discretion in this matter is one on which we shall all be in accord. I would again press him between now and Report stage to see if he cannot reduce the latest date a little further because the noble Lord, Earl Crawford, has pointed out that these bodies have had four years in which to prepare their town planning schemes and, if they are going to be allowed another ten years of licence, they will have fourteen years in which to adopt and carry out these town planning schemes. The expression "town planning" is entirely misleading. The danger of delay is not in the towns but in the country districts. In the district to which I referred, in Brighton, the vast part is entirely country districts and places of beauty. Unless something is done, fourteen years hence there will be no place left for which to do their town planning. I would appeal to my noble friend in charge of the Bill to consider before Report stage if he can make some further change in the maximum date which these non-progressive authorities should have.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 15, leave out ("thirty-nine") and insert ("thirty-four or such later date before the thirty-first day of December, 1938, as the Minister may in any case allow").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44:
First general review of districts by county councils.
44.—(1) The council of every county shall as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, after conferences with representatives of the councils of the several districts wholly or partly within the county, review the circumstances of all such districts and consider whether it is desirable to effect any of the following changes:—

(a) any alteration or definition of the boundaries of any such district or of any parish;

(b) the union of any such district or parish with another such district or parish;

(c) the transfer of any part of such district or parish to another district or parish;

(d) the conversion of any such district or any part thereof, if it is a rural district, into an urban district, or if it is an urban district, into or so as to form part of a rural district;

(e) the formation of any new district or parish;

and shall forthwith after the review is completed as respects the whole or any part of the county, and before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, or such later date as the Minister may in any case allow, send to the Minister a report of the review, together with proposals as to the changes (if any) which they consider desirable:
Provided that before making any such proposals the county council shall consult with the councils of the county boroughs adjoining the county, and the Minister shall give those councils an opportunity of laying before him their views on the proposals made by the county council.
(7) An order under this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to omit the proviso in subsection (1). The noble Earl said: After the new spirit that appears to have entered into the noble Earl after the dinner hour, I feel almost bold enough to hope for greater success in moving this Amendment than we have hitherto experienced. The only trouble is that this proviso appears to be so novel and unreasonable that it is hard to imagine that it could have been inserted except under very strong pressure from some bodies of which the noble Lord and the Minister must evidently be afraid,

195
and it seems as if it will be difficult to get any concession. This is an entirely new proposal to allow county boroughs to have the right to interfere with the arrangement of the boundaries of urban and rural districts entirely outside their jurisdiction.
All of us who have had to do with county council work realise that county councils already have quite sufficient difficulties in keeping hold of their territory. No sooner do districts outside great county boroughs become at all densely populated and capable of producing a large rate than the county borough tries to seize hold of them and obtain that rateable value for itself. In 1926 county councils were placed in a stronger position than before because, under an Act of that year, the Ministry of Health was deprived of the power of making borough extension orders unless the county and borough councils concerned were prepared to agree as to the suggested procedure. That policy, embodied in an Act in 1926, is now being reversed, and the situation produced by this clause will be worse for the county councils than it was before that Act. I would therefore appeal to the noble and learned Lord to reconsider this question with a view to leaving the county councils in the position brought about by the Act of his own Government in 1926.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, leave out lines 8 to 13.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Earl has failed to appreciate the effect of the proviso which he wants to omit. This clause provides that every county council is to make a general review of its whole area and to make suggestions to the Minister as to any alterations that may be desirable so as to equalise the different districts into which it is divided; and the proviso to which objection is taken provides that before making a proposal the county council is to consult with the county borough councils which adjoin the county and the Minister is to consider what they have to say. The suggestion is that the county borough councils shall not be allowed either to discuss the matter with the county council or to have their views even laid before the Minister. The noble Earl said there was some
196
sinister body which exercised some malign influence—a kind of hidden hand—upon Lord Onslow. I can tell him what that sinister body is. It is the Royal Commission. This proposal, which is regarded as so reactionary, is the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission, of which Lord Strachie was a member, and is to be found in the Second Report, paragraph 44, on page 17, as follows:—
"It should be the duty of the county council, before making representations to the Minister, to consult the councils of the county boroughs within the geographical county; and the county borough councils should have opportunity of laying before the Minister their views on the proposals of the county council."
That is exactly the proviso which we put forward.
As to the reasonableness of the Royal Commission's recommendation, I should have thought there could be no two opinions. We are not giving to the county boroughs any right to veto or prohibit, or to insist upon their own particular views being embodied in any particular scheme. All we are saying is that before a scheme is put forward by a county council they must find out what their neighbours think of it, and before any scheme is finally decided upon any county borough shall have an opportunity of putting its views before the Minister. I should have thought that in the interests of the absence of friction and of reasonable dealing all round, it was eminently desirable that the county council should get into touch with the county boroughs and hear what they have to say. Neither the county council nor the Minister is bound to give effect to the representations of the county boroughs, but it does seem eminently desirable that they should have an opportunity of hearing what the county boroughs have to say.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: The matter is not quite so simple as the noble and learned Lord wishes us to believe. Whatever the recommendation of the Royal Commission may be, there is very large and widespread doubt with regard to the wisdom of this particular provision. If the Government had always followed out the recommendations of the Commission I should have been more moved on hearing that this provision is based on the recommendation of the Com-

197
mission, but when we find them going contrary to the Report of the Commission on one occasion and then adopting it on another, I do not attach much weight to the noble and learned Lord's argument. Those of us who are connected with county councils must know the fears which they have with regard to the encroachments of county boroughs. No sooner does any area become valuable than some county borough casts longing eyes upon it and tries to take it away from the county, and that is the fear which is at the back of this Amendment.
I have had communications from more than one county on this subject, so that, whatever the recommendations of the Royal Commission may be, I do know that there is a great deal of apprehension felt as to the result of these communications between the county boroughs and the county councils. These county boroughs for a long time have been looked upon with apprehension by these county councils, and giving them this power of consultation beforehand does make the county councils rather frightened lest they encroach still more on their areas. For these reasons I support the Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble and learned Lord gave us reasons—somewhat better than most of the reasons have been—why this proviso appeared in the Bill. It was taken, he says, from the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission. But it is true, as Lord Beauchamp has said, that a good many county councils themselves do not like the proviso, and do not quite see why it should appear. Because what, after all, are they engaged in doing? They are engaged in adjusting, not the areas of county boroughs, or not even the areas which include county boroughs, but their own areas, and divisions in their own areas, from which county boroughs are excluded. They not unnaturally say: "Why should these county boroughs come interfering with our own domestic concerns?"—because that is the way in which it presents itself to the county councils. County boroughs are themselves in a sense an anomaly, and they have been given a specially privileged position. I do not think that your Lordships can wonder that county councils are frightened by these proposals. What is the position in counties now? The
198
valuable rate areas are taken from them piece by piece. They may fear that horrible suggestions may be made by these county boroughs to the Minister that the districts may be so arranged that it may be easy for these county boroughs in some future extension to snap up a detached area which is part of the valuable rating area. I do not wonder that they do not like the prospect of that happening.
Really this Bill and the actual conditions are going to make life very difficult for rural county councils. First of all, they are going to be overburdened with work—the job of the county councillor is going to be anything but an easy one under this Bill. Then they have their grants fixed and stereotyped, without the percentage grant to help them out under this block grant system, and then they find the greater part of the land in their area deprived of rateable value. They are in an increasingly difficult position, and I do not wonder that they are frightened. It may well be that in the end the remedy will have to be sought—if it is thought desirable for administrative reasons to extend these boroughs in the way they have been extended in the past—by compelling these boroughs to contribute something to the county outside them, which, after all, does maintain the roads on which the people in the borough travel. But they are not always reasonable. Your Lordships will remember a Private Bill Committee in this House last Session, in which a very important borough applied for a very large extension, and was turned down on the case of the promoters. That is the sort of thing which frightens county councils, and I should be glad to hear that there is some sympathy for them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is every sympathy for them from this point of view, that there is no intention whatever to depart from the principles laid down in the 1926 Act on the basis of the First Report of the Royal Commission, which we followed out in the Act, just as we are following out the Second Report in the present proposal.
On Question, Whether the words "Provided that" shall stand part of the clause?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Onslow, E.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Plymouth, E.

Clinton, L.

Spencer, E.

Daryngton, L.

Wellington, D.

Stanhope, E.

Dynevor, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Bath, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

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

Chaplin, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Airlie, E.

Churchill, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Elibank, V.

Jessel, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Falmouth, V.

Lamington, L.

Iveagh, E.

Hood, V.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Knutsford, V.

Suffield, L.

Lovelace, E.

Peel, V.

Templemore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Exeter, M.

Malmesbury, E.

Forester, L.

Russell, E.

Hemphill, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.

Chesterfield, E.

Allendale, V.

Olivier, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

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

Arnold, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Tenterden, L.

Fortescue, E.

de Clifford, L.

Thomson, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Deramore, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved to omit from subsection (7) the words after "shall" to the end of the subsection and insert "not become operative until it has been confirmed by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament." The noble Earl said: I do not insist on the particular form in which my Amendment is moved and if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill desires it I should be glad to accept any other form of words that he would suggest. I do not particularly want a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. On the other hand, I do not think what is in the Bill really goes far enough. I should like a little more than the Bill—"laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made." Your Lordships heard in the Second Reading debate that there is a good deal of feeling in all quarters of the House with regard to the power given to the Ministry and the permanent officials generally on matters of this kind and I think any check on the part of Parliament would be valuable. As the Division will show, a number of influential people supported the last Amendment—persons representing county councils throughout the country—and throughout the country there is a great deal of feeling with regard to this provision. I hope in those circumstances His Majesty's Government
200
will try to meet us and thereby considerably relieve our apprehensions.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 29, leave out from ("shall") to the end of subsection (7) and insert the said words.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid I must trouble your Lordships with a little historical narrative in regard to this matter. The question of the general review of boundaries of districts was one which occupied a considerable part of the time of the Royal Commission and a great deal of evidence was heard thereon. The object of this clause is that the whole country should, in one general review, be reconsidered in regard to the boundaries of districts and that the various local authorities should have an opportunity of giving their views on the subject. At present when the boundaries of districts are altered—I am speaking of urban and rural districts, not of non-county boroughs—the matter is governed by Section 57, subsection (6), of the Local Government Act, 1888, which makes orders for the alteration of such districts final when confirmed by the Minister—that is to say, the arrangements are made by the county council and confirmation is given by the Minister of Health. That is the procedure in regard to all urban and rural districts.
The procedure in regard to non-county boroughs is a different one. Non-

201
county boroughs have a right to come to Parliament with any question of the alteration of their boundaries. When the whole question of the reorganisation of boundaries in the districts was considered the non-county boroughs gave their evidence. I myself examined Mr. Jarratt, their witness. I said: "Under the circumstances, if there is a general review of this kind, would you be prepared to give up your right under existing Acts of going to Parliament and obtaining a Provisional Order?" They said they would under certain conditions—which I need not go into at length now—for the first instance, and for the first instance only of this general review, submit to the procedure which is proposed in this Bill, that is to say, that they should not go to Parliament for a Provisional Order. The proposal now is that everyone of these Orders altering the boundaries of districts shall be submitted to Parliament before it becomes operative.
There are objections to this which I will venture to lay before your Lordships. In the first place there would be considerable delay. It must be a lengthy process which would take some time in any case. The alteration of the boundaries of districts over the whole country is not an easy matter and requires a considerable amount of research and inquiry. Then the next point is that these proposals for the alteration of the boundaries of districts in a county must be considered as a whole. The alteration of the boundaries of one district here might affect the boundaries of another district there. The whole thing is rather like a jigsaw puzzle. The whole thing has to be fitted in to give the most general satisfaction possible. That is a matter which must require the most meticulous inquiry, and consideration of the feelings—reasonable or unreasonable—of all the districts in the county and in fact of all the ratepayers in the county. That is why we thought it so necessary to provide that county boroughs should be consulted in regard to this revision.
The proposal which is made by the noble Earl is that these Orders, before becoming operative, should come before Parliament, that is to say that they should be confirmed, I imagine by an affirmative Order in Parliament. That
202
would mean that the rights or wrongs of each particular boundary—of each frontier question, if I may so call it—within the county would be settled by a debate in the House of Commons or in your Lordships' House. It does seem to me that that would be a very inconvenient form of procedure. This is such a meticulous form of inquiry that it is not suitable for settlement by debate in Parliament. It is a matter either for the procedure of a Provisional Order—which I think would be impossible because it would render impossible the endeavour to get these district boundaries rectified—or for the procedure which we have proposed: that is to say, the boundaries should be settled by the county council in conjunction with the other authorities mentioned in the same way as county district boundaries are settled at the present time.
The last argument I have to put before your Lordships is that this is one great Act for the whole country. There is no precedent for it. It is expressly provided in the Bill that any subsequent review, any general county review, should take place at some period after the first general review not exceeding ten years but at any rate when necessary; and it is provided that in those circumstances the present procedure of county borough boundaries being altered only by Provisional Order should be maintained. So I venture to hope that your Lordships will accept the principle in the Bill for the reasons which I have given. It is, I think, the only convenient manner and the only possible manner in which we can make this great and very necessary change in our local government system and without it very great confusion may result.
If there is any real instance of the Minister acting in a manner which is unjust or improper or wrong in giving his consent or insisting upon any particular change, then there is always the usual means of calling his actions into question on the Estimates in Parliament. It is of course only a general form of control, but there is that safety valve which still exists. The principle that we should get this great change done with the least possible friction in the quickest possible time is a matter of great importance to local government in this country.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: In view of what the noble Earl has said I will not press this matter especially at this late hour, though I regret the Government are not meeting us in some way. I thought they might have offered some compromise, might have charged this new Statutory Orders Committee with the investigation of these Orders.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clauses 45 and 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Adjustment of boundaries of counties and county boroughs]:
EARL FORTESCUE: I should like to know what happens if the county councils referred to, instead of agreeing to make joint representations, differ. The clause says:—
"Where at the commencement of this Act any district or parish is not wholly comprised within one county, or where a part of a county is wholly detached therefrom, the county councils concerned shall as soon as may be take the case into consideration, and if as a result of such consideration a joint representation is made to the Minister by those councils, the Minister may…"
and so on. Supposing that they do not agree to make a joint representation, what will happen then?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This clause provides what is to happen if the two counties agree that there ought to be an alteration. If they do not agree then the clause will not operate.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48:
Review by county councils of electoral divisions.
48.—(1) The council of every county, as soon as may be after completing the first general review of the circumstances of districts wholly or partly within the county made or treated as having been made by them under this Part of this Act, shall review the electoral divisions of the county and shall consider whether any alteration of the boundary of any such division, or of the number of county councillors and electoral divisions in the county, is desirable, and shall forthwith, after the review is completed and before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, or such later date as the Secretary of State may in any case allow, send to the Secretary of State a report of the review, together with proposals as to the alterations (if any) which they consider desirable, and any such proposals shall have effect as if they had been a representation
204
made to the Secretary of State under section fifty-four of the Local Government Act, 1888:
Provided that if in the case of any county the Secretary of State is satisfied after considering such representations, if any, as may be made by local authorities in the county, that it is unnecessary to make any such review as aforesaid, he may direct that this section shall not apply as respects that county.
EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, in subsection (1), before "is desirable," to insert "or of the method of electing county councillors." The noble Earl said: I have very little hope that the Government will accept this Amendment, the object of which is to secure the introduction of other methods of election. There is a very real danger at this time that the "spoils" system may creep into our general system of local government. Something of this kind has already happened in connection with some of the local authorities. It is a very serious danger if it becomes the custom, when a county council has got a very large majority of one Party, that they should sweep away all the aldermen of experience who do not belong to their Party, appoint to these new committees under this Bill people who agree with them and not allow anybody who does not agree with them any part in local administration. A very serious situation would then arise and there are districts where that position has already arisen. I would urge upon the Government the very real danger they are running in not taking some steps to prevent the extension of dangers of this kind. If they go on His Majesty's Government will look upon it in the future as a most serious and unfortunate thing and will regret that they did not take the opportunity of this Bill in order to provide against this danger.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 36, after ("county") insert ("or of the method of electing county councillors").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If the noble Earl's Amendment were accepted, the clause would read as follows:—
"… or of the number of county councillors and electoral divisions in the county or of the method of electing county councillors…"

205
The provisions of this Bill are to have effect as if there had been a representation made to the Secretary of State under Section 54 of the Local Government Act, 1888, which enables a representation to be made to the Secretary of State
"that the alteration of the boundary of any electoral division or of the number of county councillors and electoral divisions in a county is desirable."
This deals only with the alteration of boundaries or the number of councillors, and not with the method by which the latter are chosen to serve. The noble Earl has not put down any specific operative provision to deal with the method of election that he proposes. At present the election is regulated by Statute, and no proposal by the council can alter the law of election without specific statutory authority.
Under this Amendment the method of election might vary in different counties. There might even be a different suffrage. I do not know exactly what the noble Earl contemplates, but this would cause great difficulties. If it is desirable to alter the method of electing councillors, this should be done by Parliament after special consideration and not by the modification of a clause in this Bill. Further, the Amendment would make it necessary to add to the heading of the clause the words "and of the method of electing the county council within the county."
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I apologise for not making myself clear. My object was
206
to introduce a system of Proportional Representation into these elections, so that there may be proper representation of minorities in counties with a very decided opinion.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation. If we are to introduce Proportional Representation into these elections, we should have to consider the whole method of election to local bodies throughout the country. The subject requires more comprehensive treatment than is possible in an Amendment of this kind, whatever the merits or demerits of the proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understand that your Lordships find it convenient to break in upon our labours at this point, and I therefore move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 19th and 26th of February last discharged and Bill committed.
House adjourned at half-past eleven o'clock.