Sitting of 15 March 1929

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill,
Blackburn Corporation Bill,
Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill,
Southampton Corporation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Marriages Provisional Orders Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Middlesbrough Extension) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  RAILWAY (AIR TRANSPORT) BILLS.
  Resolution of the House of the 13th day of March relative to the Southern Railway (Air Transport) Bill, the Great Western Railway (Air Transport) Bill, the London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport) Bill, the London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill, the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Air Transport) Bill, and the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill, which was ordered to be communicated to the Lords, and the Message from the Lords of the 14th day of March signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution, read:
  Ordered,
  "That the Order [12th March] that the Southern Railway (Air Transport) Bill, the Great Western Railway (Air Transport) Bill, the London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport) Bill, the London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill, the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Air Transport) Bill, and the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill, be committed, be read and discharged, and the said Bills be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, to be joined with a Committee of Five Lords."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  Ordered,
  "That all Petitions in favour of or against the Bills, respectively, presented on or before the 27th day of March, 1929, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard against the Bills by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or witnesses, be heard and Counsel be heard in support of the Bills.
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered,
  "That Three be the quorum."
  Ordered,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power, if they think fit, to consolidate the London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport) Bill and the London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill into one Bill and the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Air Transport) Bill and the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Air Transport, Scotland) Bill into one Bill."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of purposes for which policies may be issued.)
    Mr KELLY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, to leave out the word "such".
    The word "such" as it stands in the Bill, limits anything which is done to the policy which has been issued. The insurance company undertook to pay certain amounts to the insured, but the word "such" enables the company to get out of their liability and to pay what is termed a sum not exceeding a reasonable amount for funeral expenses. If the insurance company has made a promise to people that if they will pay certain premiums they will be entitled to certain benefits, that insurance company should be prepared to keep its promises. I am afraid that the insurance companies of this country are able often enough to secure advantages for themselves which it is not possible for other people to secure.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): There is an Amendment upon the Order Paper standing in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—in page 2, line 1, after the word "aforesaid" to insert the words "issued after the commencement of this Act." That Amendment is, in substance, the same as the second Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) and other hon. Members—in page 2, line 1, leave out the words "as aforesaid", and to insert instead thereof the words "issued after the passing of this Act." The Amendment which stands in the name of the Financial Secretary is intended, in substance, to meet the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough East (Miss Wilkinson), which is the same point that the hon. Member for Rochdale desires to raise. I hope he will withdraw the present Amendment and not move the next one and allow me to
    1432
    move the Amendment standing the name of the Financial Secretary. In that way, his purpose will be effected.
    Mr. KELLY: In view of the explanation by the Attorney-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made:
    In page 2, line 1, after the ward "aforesaid," insert the words "issued after the commencement of this Act."—[The Attorney-General.]
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to add the words:
    "(3) In relation to such policies, subsection (2) of section four of the Industrial Assurance Act, 1923 (which makes provision as to the persons to whom payments may be made on the death of a child under ten years of age), shall, in lieu of section sixty-three of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, apply to all registered friendly societies as it applies to collecting societies."
    This Amendment is a purely formal one. It was found that Section 63 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1890, forbids a friendly society which is not a collecting society, from paying any sum on the death of a child under 10 years except to the parent of the child. A friendly society which is a collecting society may pay such sum; there is another Act which brings about that result. The new Sub-section will put friendly societies which are not collecting societies in precisely the same position as friendly societies which are collecting societies.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir BASIL PETO: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words:
    (3) "No such policy shall be issued dependent on the life of any child born in wedlock except with the consent of the father of the child, if surviving, unless he is divorced or separated from the mother or insane."
    The reason why I think it is necessary to move this Amendment is that the bulk of this industrial insurance business is conducted by house-to-house canvass on the part of the agents of insurance companies, and that the people they meet are almost invariably the mothers of the children and that they do not have any transaction with the fathers. The father is away at work; he is the breadwinner

    1433
    of the family, and in many cases he is never consulted about the matter. I have had cases brought to my notice where the mother seems to have had a positive mania for this kind of insurance. In one case there were six policies on the life of the husband and of two children, and there were other policies taken out, all without the consent of the father. In this case, as in the bulk of these industrial cases, the man has to provide the money for the family, and if excessive deductions are made from his earnings, even in times when he is employed, it may reduce the standard of living of the family below what it ought to be and make this insurance positively a burden instead of a benefit to the family as a whole.
    Although this Bill does much to improve matters so far as industrial insurance is concerned, particularly in respect of lapsed policies, and in giving more reasonable returns to the policy holders for the money which is extracted from them week by week, it does not touch the question of whether the husband who is living with his wife should be consulted in a matter which concerns the money which he has to provide for the family. That is the broad principle on which I should like to hear the views of the Attorney-General. It may act as a drag on the number of these policies taken out, but it is a reasonable provision that the husband should concur in these policies being taken out, where he is living with the wife and supporting the family. That is the principle laid down in this Amendment, and I commend it to the consideration of the Committee.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: However admirable may be the purpose of the hon. Member to maintain the rights of the father to guide the destinies of his children and control the family purse, I am afraid that the Amendment is really unworkable. Let him visualise the visit of a collector of one of these societies. In order to put his Amendment into practice the first question he would have to put is: Was your child which you want to insure born in wedlock? The second question would be: Have you divorced your husband? The third question: Are you separated from your husband? And the fourth question: Is he insane? I do not know what the chances are of securing a policy of insurance after all these ques-
    1434
    tions have been asked. But there are other objections. The word "insane" is really impossible to put into an Act of Parliament. Does my hon. Friend mean "a lunatic so found by inquisition." Then, what does the hon. Member mean by being "born in wedlock." Does he mean to give effect to Acts of Parliament which have been passed, by which a child is legitimated if the parents afterwards marry? There are so many difficulties in carrying out what is no doubt an admirable object that I hope he will not press the Amendment.
    Sir B. PETO: I canot accept the Attorney-General's reply as satisfactory. He has dealt with minor points which can be got over quite easily. As to the difficulty of effecting an insurance policy when the agent has to find out whether the husband is living with the wife and supporting the family, I do not think there is any substance in that at all. There may be objections to the form of the Amendment. I do not claim to be a skilled draftsman, but the purpose of the Amendment is quite clear, and I would ask the Attorney-General to put in words more suitable than "wedlock" and "insane" in order to secure the broad principle of the Amendment, which is that the husband of a family has a right to be consulted in this matter and as to how the family money is spent. That is a perfectly clear principle, and as I feel strongly on the matter I should like to press it on the Committee.
    Mr. KELLY: I wish I could find myself able to agree with the Amendment. I agree entirely with the spirit of it, and I cannot understand the Attorney-General's reasons for objecting to it. He does so on the ground that there is a difficulty in putting such questions to those who happen to be at home when the collector calls. The Government find no difficulty in putting these questions when it is a claim for old age pension or for a widow's pension, or for anything for which the Government is paying out. I think the reasons given by the Attorney-General do not justify the Committee in turning down this Amendment.
    Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: I hope the Committee will not accent the proposal. It is very ambiguous. What does the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) mean by "separation." Is it a

    1435
    legal separation. There are many cases in which people agree to separate. And the hon. Member is assuming that in all cases the husband maintains the family. There are many cases in which he is a most undesirable member of society, and the wife chiefly maintains the family. It is a dangerous policy to say that a woman shall not be able to insure her own child without the consent of the father. If the hon. Member had suggested that the consent of both parents should be required there would be something in it. In addition to the difficulties mentioned by the Attorney-General it seems to me that the principle of the Amendment is wrong. The Attorney-General referred to insanity. What about the man who spends a good deal of his time in prison? He is separated from his wife. Would it be considered a voluntary separation? There are many reasons why it is almost impossible to accept such an Amendment.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I hope the Amendment will not be carried. I agree entirely with the reasons given by the Attorney-General and I do not agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr Kelly). There is a great difference between agents who are working for their living and collecting industrial insurance policies and the necessary questions which have to be put in order to obtain State benefits for applicants. If you adopt the principle of the Amendment the very fact that you are going to require the signature of the husband in each case would mean, in effect, that where any industrial insurance business is done that the whole army of agents would have to do a great deal of their work after 6 o'clock in the evening. That would be a very serious thing for a large number of persons engaged in making a livelihood.
    Sir B. PETO: The wife could get the husband's signature and give it to the agent when he called.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: That does not meet the real point. What we want in industrial insurance is a rapid decrease in the amount of expenses and to move as rapidly as possible to the block system of canvassing and collection in order that increased benefits may be
    1436
    given. If you are going to duplicate the visits which have to be made in the case of policies of even one penny per week you are going to make it difficult to put industrial insurance on such a footing as will enable larger benefits to be paid to the insured. Other reasons could be given why the Amendment is undesirable and I hope the hon. Member will not press it.
    Sir B. PETO: As the Committee is not with me in this matter, I bow to the general feeling and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2—(Provisions as to repayment of premiums) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSE 3—(Rights of owners of certain endowment policies).
      The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir B. PETO:
      In page 2, line 33, after the word "fails," to insert the words:
      "to inform any policy holder who has allowed a policy to lapse of his rights under the provisions of this Sub-section or."
      The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is out of place. It speaks of what is to happen if a company or society should fail to do something. It really anticipates a new proposed Amendment. The next three Amendments on the Paper in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) really cover the same point, and I think should be discussed together. It will be rather difficult to do otherwise.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:
      "(3) Every collecting society and industrial assurance company shad cause every collector of the society or company to deliver, at least once within three months after the commencement of this Act, at every house or other place at which he makes a visit for the purpose of receiving a premium payable on a policy of insurance on human life, a notice, in a form approved by the Commissioner, setting forth the effect of the provisions of this section and of the

      1437
      Schedule to this Act, and if any collector fails to deliver any notice in accordance with the requirements of this sub-section he and the society or company of which he is a collector shall he guilty of an offence under the Industrial Assurance Act, 1923."
      I suggest to the Committee that this effects the purpose desired by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) and the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), who have put other Amendments on the Paper. The object is to bring in the most effective way to the notice of persons concerned their rights under this Bill. The Amendment proposes that once at least within the first three months after the commencement of this Act, at every house at which a call is made for the purpose of collecting a premium, a notice shall be left in a form approved by the Commissioner. The form, I think, will be found to be perfectly satisfactory. It will be clearly drawn, and the society or agent will incur a penalty on failure to comply with this provision. This Amendment is to supplement the provisions of Sub-section (3) of this Clause, which provides that every policy which is issued in future and every premium receipt-book shall set out the provisions of the Section and of the Schedule, printed in distinctive type. The Amendment will ensure that people shall be informed at the earliest moment of the new rights conferred on them by the Bill in respect of lapsed and existing policies.
      Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: We are obliged to the Government for the step which they have taken in meeting the point raised in an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson).
      Mr. KELLY: This deals with all policies issued after the commencement of the Act, but is there to be a notice issued with regard to the position of those who have been insured before 1923? It may be said that it is the duty of everyone to know what is his position under an Act of Parliament, but I am afraid that that is sometimes not known even to Members of this House. How you are to expect these people, who are all their time engaged in trying to make a livelihood, to know their position under these complicated insurance Acts, I do not know. Will the notice to be tendered under this
      1438
      Amendment cover the rights and the position of those who have been insured up to 1923?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member will see, if he looks at Subsection (3) of the Clause, that it deals with policies issued after the commencement of this Act. Those policies are to bear a statement, on the back, of the provisions of this Act. The Amendment deals with all the policies to which the Clause applies. The hon. Member will also see that Sub-section (2) applies to any policy issued, or deemed to have been issued in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of this Act and to any other endowment policy issued on the life of a child under 10 years of age, in force at some time after 31st December, 1923. So that it does not apply only to policies issued under this Act, but to those before this Act in respect of which the Act creates new benefits. We have therefore gone further even than the hon. Member supposed.
      Mr. KELLY: The lapsed policy problem which is very serious, is not covered?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is covered so far as the lapsed policies to which Sub-section (2) of the Clause applies, are concerned. Perhaps I may deal with a point raised in an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). It really would be impossible to issue a notice to a holder or former holder of an endowment policy, including lapsed policies. Registers are not kept of all the holders who at some time have had these lapsed policies. It was because the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member was impracticable that we thought it much more desirable that there should be issued in plain terms, not in legal terms but in language designed to enable humble people to appreciate the nature of the rights to which they will become entitled.
      Sir B. PETO: There is a hiatus in the words of the Amendment. In an Amendment which I put on the Paper I sought to have the attention of policy holders called in every case where policies have been taken out since 1st January, 1924. The Amendment of the learned Attorney-General limits the obligation upon the insurance

      1439
      companies to any house at which a collector pays a visit for the purpose of receiving a premium. Considering that more than five years have passed since 1st January, 1924, is it not quite possible that some of these policies may have lapsed from non-payment of premium, and that therefore the insurance agent will have no reason to call at the house? Under the Bill all policies on which a certain number of premiums have been paid have a surrender value. There may be a considerable number of lapsed policies, the holders of which will never have their attention called to the fact that under this Bill they have rights and can get other policies in the place of those that have lapsed, even if it is only a question perhaps of a year's or two years' premiums. How will the Amendment cover the case of policies that have already lapsed?
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The answer is that our Amendment is intended to convey as effectively as possible the publicity that everyone desires. We thought that this publicity would be ensured in the circles where policies are held, by leaving at the houses which the agent visits notices within three months after the passing of the Act. That would mean a distribution of several hundreds of thousands of these notices.
      Mr. ALEXANDER: Millions.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Millions of notices; I have understated it. We are asked now to ensure that a house in which there lived a person who once had a policy shall receive one of these notices. I am informed that the societies do not in all cases keep a record of the policies which have lapsed and that it would be impracticable to carry out the proposal. I think that our proposal will ensure the greatest possible publicity in the districts in which any of these policies have ever been held.
      Sir B. PETO: Surely it is the duty of the company, if they have profited by these lapsed policies of poor people, to have some record of the transaction? There is such a thing as the 1½d. post, or a cheaper post might be sufficient. I suggest that it is the duty of the insurance companies to go through their records and to see what money they owe to the
      1440
      poor people of this country. The Attorney-General understands that the insurance companies do not always keep a record of the lapsed policies which are their great source of revenue from the pockets of the working classes. That is no reason at all. The Amendment could certainly be strengthened, and poor people should have a right to get back something from the insurance companies.
      Amendment agreed to
      Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add the words:
      "(5) Every society or industrial assurance company which has issued policies of the kind referred to in this Act shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, advise all the policy holders of their rights under the provisions of this Act."
      This Amendment covers the point to which I have just referred. It would impose the obligation on the companies to advise every policy holder who has taken out a policy covered by this Bill, of his rights under the Bill. It would impose upon the insurance companies a small clerical expense in looking up the actual cases, and an additional small expense in postage, in order to send notices to the holders of policies, or to people who originally took out policies. I think the Bill will be quite incomplete without such an Amendment as this. I was anxious to raise this matter on Friday last and what has come to my knowledge since I spoke then convinces me of the necessity that we should take effective means to see that all people who are intended to benefit by the provisions of this Bill, receive due notice of their rights. The words of the Amendment are simple. They do not include abstruse terms such as "wedlock" or "insanity" and I think the Attorney-General might meet me by imposing this small obligation upon corporations which have made countless millions of money out of the working classes by lapsed policies.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think I can convince my hon. Friend that this point has been covered by the Amendment already adopted. My hon. Friend's Amendment clearly only covers the cases of existing policies, because a person who has a policy which is not existing to-day cannot be included in the expression "all the policy holders." That expression must mean the people who hold

      1441
      policies to-day and who are paying premiums. The Amendment already accepted by the Committee requires that in the case of every house in which there is a person from whom premiums are being collected, notice shall be given framed in the language which was approved by the Industrial Assurance Commissioner. Therefore, the Amendment achieves, I think in a more satisfactory manner, the purpose which my hon. Friend desires by his Amendment and I hope he will not press his Amendment.
      Sir B. PETO: I should like to ask leave to amend my Amendment as I quite realise the force of the Attorney-General's objection.
      The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet must first ask for leave to withdraw the present Amendment, and it may then be possible for him to move another Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 3, line 30, at the end, to add the words:
      "(5) Every society or industrial assurance company which has issued policies of the kind referred to in this Act shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, advise all persons who have taken out policies of their rights under the provisions of this Act."
      I quite accept what the Attorney-General has said to the effect that the term "policy holders" technically means the holders of policies which are alive. I desire to cover those people who took out policies which may have lapsed, owing to the payment of the premiums not having been kept up, and I think the Amendment in its present form will achieve that purpose.
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid my answer must be that my hon. Friend's conditions would come into conflict with the more satsfactory conditions already accepted by the Committee. His proposal requires that something should be done within one month, and the proposal which the Committee has already accepted requires something to be done within three months. In addition to that, the words now suggested would cover the cases of persons who had taken out policies for I do not know how many years back. I suppose it would go back to the beginning of the legislation enabling things of this sort to be done.
      1442
      In view of the fact that the people who take out these policies are repeatedly changing their addresses it would be impossible to give effect to the proposal. My hon. Friend says that the societies ought to keep registers of the policies which have lapsed. I think there is a great deal of substance in that criticism of their methods, if those methods be such as I am informed they have been in some cases. But, by saying that they ought to have done something, you do not get over the fact that in some cases they have not done what they ought to have done. Even supposing they have such a register of addresses, how on earth are they to find out all those persons now by means of the addresses at which such persons once dwelt? I am sure my hon. Friend, on reflection, will see that the Amendment which the Committee has accepted really does in substance what he desires. I cannot agree to his Amendment.
      Mr. KELLY: Some of the reasons given by the Attorney-General against the Amendment may hold good, but, when he speaks of the insurance companies not being able to find out those people who have taken out policies, I am afraid he does not know the collectors and the machinery of these companies. As we know from experience in General Election periods, they have greater facilities for tracing removals than any election agent. If that were the only objection to the Amendment, I think the Amendment ought to be accepted, but I suggest to the hon. Baronet that there is another difficulty. It is only just that people should get their rights, no matter how long those rights have been withheld, but there is a difficulty in this matter in going back further than the year 1923. The insurance companies retain records of their policies over the past six years. I doubt very much if any insurance company destroys papers dealing with matters on which premiums have been received in the last six years, and, if the hon. Baronet were to fix the limit of 1923, I think the insurance companies would have little objection to this proposal.
      Sir B. PETO: I was under the impression, perhaps wrongly, that this Bill was limited to that period, and dealt only with lapsed policies since 31st December, 1923. Therefore, policies going back to the remote period suggested by the

      1443
      Attorney-General would not be covered by my Amendment. It only applies to policies coming "under the provisions of this Act".
      The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: What the Amendment refers to is "their rights under the provisions of this Act".
      Amendment negatived.
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      CLAUSES 4 (Retrospective operation of Act) and 5 (Short title, citation, construction, and extent) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

  SUPPLY.
    REPORT (13TH MARCH).
    Resolutions reported,
    REPORT (13TH MARCH).
      CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.

        CLASS IX.
        1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £600,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1929, for Grants in Aid of the Lord Mayor's Fund and towards the cost of Administration of the Fund and Co-ordination of other Funds for Relief in Distressed Mining Areas."
        2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £82,438, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1929, for Grants in Aid of Relief in Distressed Mining Areas in Scotland and towards the cost of Administration of the Distress in Mining Areas (Scotland) Fund."
        First Resolution read a Second time.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
        Mr. BATEY: On Wednesday, the Noble Lord the Minister of Education, in introducing this Estimate, delivered an optimistic speech, a rather too optimistic speech, which has made an altogether wrong impression in the North of England. When I read the "Northern
        1444
        Press," which is one of the chief Conservative Newcastle journals yesterday morning, I found these big headlines:
        "Trade Improved in the Distressed Areas.
        Encouraging Statement by Lord E. Percy. The Relieved Industries.
        Achievements of Local Committees."
        The impression conveyed by the Noble Lord's speech was that distress in the distressed areas has been very much relieved and that any fault for not using the money of the Lord Mayor's Fund rested with the local committees. I read and re-read the Noble Lord's speech, and I want to direct his attention to some of the things that he said. He said:
        "In the first place, we can now say that in all these areas there is no reason why any child in the schools should be inadequately shod or clothed, or should be suffering from inadequate nourishment…. I confess that at the end of last year the position did give me some cause for anxiety in certain districts in Durham and South Wales. I think that the operations of this fund have relieved us, or should relieve us, from all anxiety on that score."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1929; cols. 1154–5; Vol. 226.)
        The only construction that one can put upon those words is that now there is no need for any anxiety and that the distress which was so great at the end of last year has been largely relieved by this time. Some of us who live in the North of England cannot see what grounds the Noble Lord had for making that statement, and we say that the distress in the North of England is almost as bad to-day as it was at the end of last year. As a matter of fact, the Lord Mayor's Fund has scarcely touched the fringe of the distress in the North of England, and it is altogether wrong to give the impression that the distress there has been relieved because of what has been done by the Lord Mayor's Fund. I took up another paper, that was issued in the North of England last Monday, and strange to say it is also a Conservative newspaper, the "Sunderland Echo," which has an interesting article on the Lord Mayor's Fund.
        The headings were:
        "Relief Fund Work in Durham.
        Dissatisfaction and Complaints.
        Distribution Works Slow."
        The article says:
        "The administration of the schemes in the County of Durham under the Mansion House Fund has given rise to considerable

        1445
        dissatisfaction, and even yet there are many complaints on all sides. It is felt that the winter is going, and yet the work of distribution has never been really set in motion."
        That, in my opinion, touches the very kernel of this question. The winter is going, and there is going to be no real relief of distress until after the winter is over. When the Noble Lord throws the blame on the local committees, I very much question whether they ought to share that blame. If it does rest on the local committees, I have no hesitation in saying that, whether the majority of the members of those committees belong to my school of thought or not, they stand to be severely censured for the lax way in which they have been dispensing or attempting to dispense the Lord Mayor's Fund, but I very much question whether the local committees deserve so much censure. I am rather inclined to agree with this statement in the newspaper, that it is really the cumbersome machinery which the National Executive has set up that is to blame.
        First of all, we have got the national executive for this fund. Then we have got the district committees, then the local committees and, before the money can drift from headquarters through one committee and another, the people are simply being starved. The machinery, which is altogether new machinery, for the dispensing of this relief from the Lord Mayor's Fund is very cumbersome, and even up to the present time has not been set in motion. In spite of the fact that this Fund has been in existence so long, and in spite of the appeals which have been made, the distress in the North of England has not been relieved by this Fund. As a matter of fact, the amount of money which has been spent shows that very clearly, and better than anything else, that while we have got a fund to which the voluntary contributions have been £752,000, and the Government contributions, after this Vote has been passed, ought to be £735,000, making £1,487,000, there has been paid out of that huge sum only £493,456. In view of the severe weather through which we have gone and all the distress, to have paid out only £493,456 is in itself a sufficient condemnation of the cumbersome machinery, and the slow way in which this money is being dispensed. It shows the need for something to be done
        1446
        to speed up the relief that is so much needed. The money still lying in the Fund seems likely to lie in the Fund until the bad weather is over and there is not the desperate need which exists at the present time for relief.
        I want to say a few words in regard to the distress, because I am far from agreeing with the noble Lord that there is no need for anxiety in the North of England. The words of the noble Lord applied merely to children. In re-reading the right hon. Gentleman's speech, one notices that, to a large extent, the speech applies more to children than to anybody else, and the "Newcastle Journal" yesterday, in a leaderette upon the Noble Lord's speech, said:
        "It was a satisfactory statement which Lord Eustace Percy was able to make in the House of Commons yesterday with regard to the distribution of the Mansion House Fund in the distressed areas and the relief which is being afforded to suffering people."
        12 n.
        I submit that, apart from children and one or two isolated cases, there has been no real relief to the suffering people in the North of England. One reads the big posters in London appealing to people to come to the relief of the mining classes in the distressed areas, and one large poster says "Sympathy is not enough." As far as the bulk of the people in the North of England are concerned, they are not being touched by the Lord Mayor's Fund, and, speaking from one's own experience, I very much question whether in the county of Durham there is no anxiety as regards the boots, clothing and feeding of these children. Leaving aside the question of the children, there is still the condition of the men and women. Only yesterday, in the ascertainment for the county of Durham, the number of unemployed people is dealt with. The ascertainment, which is based upon the January figures, shows that there were 735 more men employed in January than in December, and that, compared with 1924, the reduction of men employed in the county of Durham is 45,859.
        Out of that great army of unemployed men in the county of Durham, there were, in January, only 735 more men employed than in December. Since January, we may have had another 200 or 300 men employed, but they can be reckoned in very

        1447
        few hundreds, so that we have at the present time in the county of Durham still this great army of 45,000 unemployed, who are not being touched by the Lord Mayor's Fund. I put a question to the Minister of Health recently asking how many unemployed men there were in Durham who were receiving Poor Law relief, and I confess that he gave figures far beyond those I expected. He said that in December last there were in the county of Durham receiving such relief 45,188 cases classified as unemployed. With this big army of men, women and children having to live upon Poor Law relief in the county of Durham, for the House to get the impression that there is no need for anxiety now in the North of England, that the Lord Mayor's Fund has abolished distress, and that everything in the garden is lovely at the present time, is altogether a false impression.
        The Noble Lord remembers that there was an official visit paid to the county of Durham in the latter end of January or the beginning of February, and the organising secretary of the Lord Mayor's Fund accompanied the Prince of Wales in those districts. The Prince was simply staggered at the poverty, and the reports in the Press of that visit staggered the public, too, to think that at the latter end of January there was such enormous poverty in the county of Durham. If one can rely on the statements one hears, the Prince was so impressed by the poverty that the language he used at times could not be described as Parliamentary. In one of the colliery villages in my Division which he visited, he said, in regard to the poverty: "Surely, this is bedrock!" We ought to have an official report of that visit, because the Prince of Wales was accompanied by the organising secretary of the Lord Mayor's Fund; they went where they pleased, and if we had an official report, it would show, like the report of the medical officers of the Ministry of Health, that there was still real cause for anxiety about the distress in the north of England.
        A huge machine has been set at work under the Lord Mayor's Fund, but everything is ending in the machine. It may be satisfactory to some people to think that a great machine has been set
        1448
        up, but we are able to see the impoverishment of our own people, and people gradually sinking. In spite of that, the Lord Mayor's Fund is doing practically nothing to mitigate their sufferings. We were frightened that the Government would have allowed the transitional period of the Unemployment Fund to expire in April. We are glad that the Government have decided to bring in a Bill next week to extend the period for another 12 months, because we were afraid of the effect upon our people if the period had ended. I have a letter from my brother, who is in a district where from 8,000 to 10,000 miners are living, and a huge number are out of work. He says:
        "There is nothing doing about the Lord Mayor's Fund here yet. How is it that Shields is not under the distressed areas for the transfer scheme? Of course, the likes of me with no little bairns will receive no benefit under these charity schemes, in spite of the fact that I have been out of work for 3½ years."
        In spite of cases like that, we are asked to believe that there is no cause for anxiety in the North of England. I have only one pair of boots, that in which I am standing now. I generally have two pairs, but last week my wife sent the other pair to a case which she considered more deserving in the county of Durham, leaving me with just the one pair. There is no question that there is real cause for anxiety in the county, and an urgent need that something should be done to speed up the Lord Mayor's Fund, so that the money can be paid out during the severe weather.
        I want to say a word about the Government's policy in bringing forward this Supplementary Estimate. Some of us believed that the Government were trying to evade the promise of the Prime Minister, and trying to put off as long as they could bringing forward this Estimate. That has been in keeping with the whole Government policy in regard to distress in the mining areas. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Richardson) put a question to the Prime Minister on the 10th November, 1927, asking him whether he was aware of the distress in the mining areas, and what he was prepared to do. The Prime Minister said that he was prepared to do nothing, and did not intend to do anything, and the

        1449
        matter closed there. In the spring of last year, when we had a Debate on the distress in the mining areas, we argued that it was a Government responsibility and that the Government ought to find the money for the relief of the distress. The Minister of Health said that it was not a matter for the Government, and that a public appeal ought to be made. That started the Lord Mayor's Fund, but it did practically nothing for the distressed mining areas right up to the end of the year; then, because of the efforts of some of the Press, a wave of public sympathy swept through the country.
        That affected the Prime Minister, and he came to the House on the 19th December and said that the Government had considered the matter, and were prepared to give a pound for every pound subscribed to the Lord Mayor's Fund. I then criticised that action, because I thought that to give only a pound per pound was disgraceful. When the Government had given £1,500,000 to the Irish loyalists, are prepared to pay up to £1,000,000 a year to the North of Ireland Treasury for the Unemployment Fund, and are giving £400,000 to the brewers, it is a shabby action to give only a pound per pound for the distress in the mining areas. The Government ought to have been prepared, as they are responsible for the distress, to have given far more. Even when they promise to pay a pound per pound, there is a difficulty in getting them to pay up. It is said that there are only two bad payers in the world—those who pay too soon and those who will not pay at all. The Government almost come in the last category, and they have held on to the money as long as they dare.
        When the Prime Minister made his pound per pound promise, he said that the Government had decided to give £150,000 as an immediate contribution, and a supplementary Estimate was hurriedly passed by the House, believing that the Prime Minister meant what he said. That was on 19th December. On 28th January, I put a question to the Noble Lord, and found that that £150,000 had not been paid. That was six weeks after the Estimate had been passed, and after the Prime Minister had said that the Government were prepared to give this amount as an immediate contribution. It was not until the question had been raised that the Government tipped up
        1450
        the money. The voluntary fund grew and grew about Christmas time and in the new year, running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, and yet the Government do not until this week come forward with this Second Supplementary Estimate. Four times I put a question asking the Government when they were going to bring forward this Estimate, as the money was due to be paid because the Fund was increasing, and there were no signs of the Government making their second contribution. They paid the money six weeks after they first promised to pay it, although the Prime Minister said they were finding this £150,000 as an "immediate step". The winter has been with us all the time, but another six weeks has gone by before they put down the second Estimate, and I am wondering when this further money will be paid. Will they wait another six weeks after the pasing of this Estimate before paying over the money? It is a shabby action on the part of the Government.
        The Government put out posters to say that sympathy is not enough, but they themselves behave in a shabby fashion in their dealings with these distressed areas. An hon. and gallant Member sitting below the Gangway said on Wednesday that we ought to thank the Government for giving so swiftly and without limit. I believe he was in earnest and really meant that; but I could have laughed when I heard him say it. A pound-for-pound offer is a shabby limit for a wealthy Government who are paying out so much money to their own friends. As for their swiftness, the Government hold out as long as they can against handing over the money. The idea in the mind of the public is that the Fund was started to relieve distress in the distressed mining areas, but what money is being spent is being frittered away in so many directions that it is doing no good. All sorts of regulations are being made under which the Fund is applied to very different purposes from what the public believed it would be. I will deal with the County of Durham, and will quote again from the same article in the "Sunderland Echo" to which I have referred before. They say:
        "Among the new provisions under the Fund are special grants to families (up to £5 in any one case) suffering acute hardship through sickness or accident. The Durham county committee has spent £600 in meet-

        1451
        ing the preliminary expenses of people leaving their homes to take up work in other parts of the country or to go overseas."
        To give grants of £5 would be a good thing—if it were done; but I should like to know where it is done. There are many eases of sickness, and many cases of accidents—at least accidents of this description; I refer to cases where our men are not being paid full compensation, getting only partial compensation; but even though getting only partial compensation they can get no unemployment benefit. There are thousands and thousands of these cases, but we find great difficulty in ascertaining any where this grant of £5 has been paid. If the grant is given in any of these cases, the number must be extremely small.
        With reference to the further statement that £600 has been spent on the expenses of people leaving home to take up work in other parts of the country or overseas, I hold that no money for industrial transference ought to come out of this Fund. I have no faith in industrial transference. I have talked to too many of the men now in London who have come from Durham. The Government appointed the Industrial Transference Board and accepted its report, and the Government are in honour bound to shoulder the expense of carrying out their recommendations, and yet £600 of this Fund has been spent upon this work of industrial transference by the Durham County Committee. That money could have been far better spent in assisting some of the poor people in Durham who, when they get one meal, scarcely know when they are going to get the next. This report goes on to say:
        "A sum of £800 has been allocated for the transference of people from the county to other areas, and of another £800 earmarked for equipping intending emigrants not more than one-tenth has been used. Apart from all these activities, the Society of Friends is doing real pioneer work in the cultivation of allotments in the county in conjunction with the Fund, a sum of £20,000 having been allocated."
        This brings me to the question of allotments. In his speech on Wednesday, the Noble Lord said the Lord Mayor's Fund wanted to cure mental depression by providing allotments for distressed miners. I agree that the providing of allotments or the gift of seeds for allotments may be a good thing for the
        1452
        Society of Friends, but to think of curing mental depression among the miners by finding them allotments it; ridiculous. What our men in Durham want is a chance of finding work, and if we say to them, "Spend your time on allotments, that is good for mental depression, they will not be able to seek work in other parts of the country. Besides, to think of allotment work as a cure for mental depression! I can tell the Noble Lord of a far better cure for mental depression. The Government ought to insist that some of our pits should be reopened. That would be a far better cure for mental depression than allotments.
        I think the Press reports about the improvement of trade may have misled the Noble Lord. I do not want to say there is no improvement in trade in the North of England, but I do say that, as a matter of fact, the improvement there amounts to no more than this, that collieries which were working short time, that is 3½ or 4 or 4½ days a week, are now working full time. Selling prices are a little better, but, so far as bringing employment to the huge army of unemployed, there is certainly nothing doing. There is still no prospect of work for them, and what I say to the President of the Board of Education is: "Do not make fun of these men out of employment by telling them to grow cabbages on an allotment." That is poking fun at them. Something more ought to be done than that. In the speech, which the President of the Board of Education made on Wednesday last, he said:
        "There is one respect in which the Lord Mayor's Fund has been able to do very little up to now—indeed it has been able to do nothing—and that is in regard to the problem of the young single man, the most depressing problem and the most delicate and difficult to deal with." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1929; col. 1158, Vol. 226.]
        I am glad that the right hon. Gentlemen recognise that this is a real problem, in fact, it is one of the saddest things with which we have to deal.
        Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member is getting a long way from the Estimate with which we are dealing.
        Mr. BATEY: I do not want to get out of Order, and I have said almost all that I wish to say. The President of the Board of Education in his speech dealt

        1453
        with the problem of the young men, and I will content myself with saying that the young men in the distressed mining areas do not receive anything from the Lord Mayor's Fund. Not only that, but those young men do not receive unemployment benefit or Poor Law relief. Consequently, they are between the Devil and the deep sea. I should have thought that the Lord Mayor's Fund would have recognised the position of these young men, but the whole policy of the Government seems to be to make criminals of them. They cannot get employment or relief, and what are they to do? Young men cannot submit very much longer to this kind of treatment, which is enough to make them rebel against society.
        I would like to see this problem of the young men pressed upon the attention of the Lord Mayor's Fund, because there is an urgent need for doing something. When a colliery stops work, it is difficult for the men who have been employed in that colliery to get work anywhere else. Not only so, but about 700 boys leave school every year in the county of Durham, and no employment can be found for them.
        For these reasons, I urge upon the Noble Lord and the committee of the Lord Mayor's Fund the necessity of doing something besides merely providing boots and clothing for the children. They ought to do something in the direction of supplying the needs of young men and grown-up men and women. The fund has now reached £1,500,000, and there should be no desire on the part of the Committee which is administering that Fund to keep it intact. That money ought to be spent during the bad weather which we are experiencing this winter. While we are urging that this money should be spent and that our people should be relieved, I want at the same time to make it clear that we do not believe in charity. The Lord Mayor's Fund only touches the fringe of this problem. We do not want the Government to shelter themselves behind the Lord Mayor's Fund in the belief that they are doing all that is required. The responsibility for the unemployed is a Government responsibility which they ought to shoulder; they ought to see that the collieries are re-opened and that the men are set to work instead of being
        1454
        obliged to accept charity from the Lord Mayor's Fund.
        Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I have listened very carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey). I am a member of the Executive Committee of the Lord Mayor's Relief Fund, and as the hon. Member was admonishing the members of that committee, I feel it is incumbent upon me to say a few words in reply. With the hon. Member's concluding words, I thoroughly agree. I think that the decision of the Government to give pound for pound according to the amount received from charitable sources is a very inadequate way of dealing with distress in the mining areas, and, on the general principle, my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor and myself are in agreement. When I come to the hon. Member's detailed criticism of the administration of that Fund, then, as a member of the Executive Committee of the Lord Mayor's Relief Fund, I must say that there is absolutely no restriction or hold-up by the central committee at all of the character which has been described by him.
        Mr. BATEY: The folk are not getting it.
        Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member's criticism that the Government were late in coming forward in regard to this matter is a sound one. The Government came to the decision to make the pound for pound contribution on the 19th December last. Of course, as soon as we begin to grant public funds, you require a proper scheme put before the Public Accounts Committee showing the way in which public money is being spent. I would like to point out to my hon. Friend that from the 19th December up to the present time is only a matter of a few weeks, and yet in those few weeks we have already distributed about £500,000. That is something of which we need not be ashamed. The Lord Mayor's Fund Executive Committee was not actually constituted as a new executive until near the end of January, and in that short time we have managed to distribute in an effective way the huge sum I have mentioned. Therefore, there is no justification for the charge that there has been any undue delay in the distribution of these funds.

        1455
        There is, however, some justification for the charge that the Government assistance was so long delayed because the Government decision was not arrived at until half the winter had passed. If the criticism of the hon. Member for Spennymoor had been more in that direction, I should have supported him up to the hilt. The hon. Member, towards the end of his speech, said that he thought there was a desire to keep a large part of the fund intact. There has been no mention of anything of that kind before the Executive Committee of the Lord Mayor's Fund. Directly a requisition comes from a local committee or a divisional committee, whatever money is required, not only for immediate needs but to provide a balance at the local bank upon which to draw is immediately sent from the central office. I think that, if my hon. Friend were to make inquiry at this moment, he would find that in every case the local treasurer of the divisional or local committee has a bank balance upon which to draw for immediate cases of relief. If there are still cases—and I do not doubt it when my hon. Friend says so, because we all know his very great interest and his very large heart in these matters—if there are still cases of actual immediate and really anxious distress which are not being dealt with out of the bank balances of the local committees, there must be something wrong with the local work—
        Mr. BATEY indicated dissent.
        Mr. ALEXANDER: Under the scheme which we set up for divisional and local committees we did ask that not only should all the voluntary associations connected with the relief in distressed areas be given representation in some form or other, but that the workers' organisations also should be given representation, and we have on the local committees a large number of miners' representatives. We in London have to look at this problem from a distance of hundreds of miles, and we must rely upon the workers' representatives to bring any cases of immediate distress to the notice of the local committees, to whom we have actually issued funds leaving them balances at the bank upon which they can draw for immediate needs.
        As long as I make that point clear to my hon. Friend, I do not want to say
        1456
        anything more about his speech except with regard to allotments. I appreciate his point of view, but I am much more inclined to the point of view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) on Wednesday, that inevitably in these distressed areas there are large numbers of men who will not be employed for many months yet. I rather agree that the President of the Board of Education was, perhaps, inclined to be almost too optimistic in some of his remarks, although it is not always a fault to be an optimist. I am certain, from the reports that have been presented to us, that many married miners in the localities, who have been unable to get land for allotments which they desired in the past, and are now unable, because of their distress, to equip themselves with either tools or seeds, have been really appreciative of the help that has been given by the Society of Friends in the matter of allotments. In consequence of that, the Executive of the Lord Mayor's Fund were, I think, quite right in saying that, if widespread need for the extension of that work were made plain by the Society of Friends, some portion of the funds at our disposal might be used for that purpose. I am sure it will be found that generally speaking the miners in the localities appreciate that work. I do not quarrel with the general spirit and attitude of my hon. Friend in fighting for the workers for whom he has spent his lifetime and for whom he works so assiduously, but I do not want it to be taken that the Central Executive of the Lord Mayor's Fund, which is in close touch with the President of the Board of Education, is in any way holding up, or doing anything other than speeding up, the administration and granting of the relief available under the fund.
        Mr. TINKER: We appreciate the point of view that has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander), as one who is serving on the Committee, but I think he will understand our point of view in thinking that the Lord Mayor's Fund is not being speeded up. The impression that I get is that, owing to the slight revival in the coal trade due to the cold weather, the Lord Mayor's Fund is being somewhat held up, and I want the President of the Board of Education, and also

        1457
        my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough, to understand that the poverty-is not yet removed, but that we want all the help we can get as quickly as possible. There is a large sum of money, and the more quickly it can be allocated the better it will be for us. The other night, hon. Members opposite seemed to think that we ought to thank the Government for what they have done, but the fact that we are not fulsome in our praise of the Government does not mean that we are lacking in appreciation of the generosity of the efforts that are being made. I cannot find it in me to thank a person who has kicked me into the gutter and then throws me a few pence; and, after all, that is what has happened.
        Mr. BATEY: That is a good illustration.
        Mr. TINKER: The Government have brought about the present depression; they have caused the suffering; and then, in their charity, they have said, "We are prepared to do something now, because the men are down and out and ought to have some help." Even so, they might have gone about it in a different way. To depend on outside charity as a lead to what they shall give seems to me to be a wrong method altogether. If they made a mistake—and they admit that they made a mistake—why should they not say that they would grant, say, £2,000,000, or £1,000,000, in an effort to relieve the poverty? Instead of that, they have given pound for pound. I wonder what the position would have been if the response had not been so large as it has been? Supposing that only £100,000 had been subscribed to the Fund, the Government would have covered that, but would that have met the present position, which even the £1,500,000 does not meet properly? The Government's method is entirely inadequate, and we think that a strong Government would have dealt with the situation far differently. Looking back on what has happened, it staggers me to think that, while such a big fight was put up on the other side of the House to get money for a certain class of people, we have almost to appeal in order to get something. Only a short time ago, for the sake of a mere 283 persons, a strong fight was put up so that they
        1458
        might get a sum almost equal to these two grants from the public and the Government for miners in the distressed areas; those 283 persons received over £1,000,000 between them. We accept what is being given to-day. A beggar has to accept; there is no other course that he can take. We are bound, however, to criticise what has happened, but, although I am criticising the Government as a whole, I am not criticising the President of the Board of Education. I do not join in the criticism of what he has been doing in the difficult position in which he is placed. My comments are general, not individualising anyone on the Government side, but condemning the whole for what has been done. I hope that the Government and the President of the Board of Education will get along and see that this money is given out as quickly as possible.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Second Resolution agreed to.

  DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  This Bill has been framed to carry out the recommendations of the Special Commission which was set up in 1926 to deal with the problem of mining subsidence and the injury which it threatened to the drainage system of this area. The area has a very long drainage history. It includes a very well-known tract of land, Hatfield Chase, and in the middle of it is what is known as the Isle of Axholme, which is surrounded by what were large areas of marsh and mere. In the reign of Charles I, the famous Dutch engineer, Cornelius Vermuyden, who dealt with the drainage of the Bedford Level, was commissioned to drain Hatfield Chase. His work constituted a very complicated system of drainage and has enabled the lowlands to be drained and the upland waters to be carried across to the Trent and the Yorkshire Ouse. It is a very delicate system involving sluices and pumps, because much of the area is

  1459
  below the level of the two main rivers into which it is drained. The problem has become an anxious one in recent years, because under this area is what is known as the concealed coalfield of South Yorkshire, in which seven collieries are now operating and where considerable extension is expected in the future.
  The Commission that was set up included all interests concerned. Sir Horace Monro was the Chairman, and they were able to present an agreed report. I should like to say how much we owe to Sir Horace Monro and the Commission for the skill and attention which they devoted to this very difficult problem. The Bill follows their report very closely. It is necessarily a Measure of considerable detail, but it has two main purposes. It sets up a comprehensive drainage authority for the whole of this area of about 210,000 acres, and it provides that they shall have control over the main drainage system and general supervision over the operations of the internal drainage authorities. It also provides that the mineowners shall be charged with the definite liability to make good the damage that may be caused to the surface drainage by mining subsidence. It is not merely a matter of the mineowners paying this at the moment, but they will provide funds for works to remedy any present or expected damage to be maintained in perpetuity, so that the drainage may be assured.
  We are preparing legislation to deal with the general problem of land drainage. This Bill will in no way conflict with that general legislation when we are able to introduce it. It will be quite easy to make any necessary adjustments in the boundaries of the drainage district which we propose to constitute for the Doncaster area to make it conform to the general plan of the catchment area authorities. It is important that the Bill should be passed without delay. The principle has already been agreed by the parties concerned, and it is urgent that the authority should be set up to deal with this question of drainage. If the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, I will then move that it be referred to a Committee of both Houses.
  Sir THOMAS DAVIES: Is any grant from the Exchequer to be given towards the cost?
  Mr. GUINNESS: No, Sir.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: The Minister has alluded to the problem which is to be followed up as a consequence of the Royal Commission's Report. After all, the Commission reported quite a considerable time ago, and I have been wondering whether the Government could persist for such a long time as still remained between the reporting of the Commission and the dissolution of this Parliament in neglecting the problem till after the General Election, and get away with its neglect. It seems to me that this is a belated and a very diminutive contribution to a problem which everyone recognises to be very great and very urgent. The Commission states that nearly 2,000,000 acres are in need of very rapid attention. However, this is a crumb the Minister is throwing to the dog, and it is certainly one of the most urgently needed. I do not take up an attitude hostile to the Bill, but I think the Minister might satisfy the House a little further than he has done in regard to the manner in which it would fit in with the scheme of the Commission. He said that it would not conflict with the general plan, but perhaps he would say a further word as to how the principle of benefit which the Commission adopted and worked out in a new form would fit in with the scheme of the Bill.
  A reflection occurs to me in thinking of the Bill. If its provisions are applicable to this area, why is it not possible without further delay to make proposals applicable to the general problem. I presume it is because in this case there is a particular factor. There is the presence of mines and mining companies which can make a special contribution to the cost. But a large part of the area is agricultural, and the agricultural land drainage problem is provided for in the Bill. Therefore, the Bill is dealing with a problem which applies everywhere, and, I suppose, is the same fundamental problem the Minister has to face in regard to plans for dealing with neglected drainage in general. Perhaps he would show what broad features there are in the Bill which make it different and easier to deal with than the general problem. If not, if this

  1461
  plan is applicable, one does not see why we should further delay. If it is not applicable, how is it possible that this scheme fits in with the general scheme recommended by the Commission. No one can think there can be much further delay in dealing with a problem which means that such a very great area is daily deteriorating.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I want to express a rather restrained welcome for the Bill. As a resident in the Doncaster area, I feel that sufficient time has been wasted before steps are being taken to deal with what is a very real problem for that neighbourhood. Ten thousand of my constituents reside in that area, and, from the point of view of their health and of loss of employment through land becoming derelict for want of drainage, I have more than an ordinary interest in the Bill. Fortunately, it is an improvement upon the West Riding Bill of 1923, for there we had coalowners, royalty owners, drainage commissioners, and a certain number of local authorities opposing it. As a result of the Drainage Commission, which completed its sittings some 12 months ago, a drastic change has taken place in the mentality of a fairly large number of people. As the Minister has truly said, this is expected to be the largest coal mining district in any part of Great Britain, and unless steps are taken quickly, a very large area of land will obviously become submerged, and be of no further use for agricultural purposes.
  Need I remind the House of one statement that was made by mining experts in this area, when they told us that certain parts of this area are only 16 feet above sea level? As there are approximately 35 feet of coal which ultimately might let down the whole of the land by approximately 21 feet, one can readily see the necessity for a drainage scheme of this description being undertaken at the very earliest possible moment. As a matter of fact, the taking away of the first seam has already let down the surface by approximately 3 feet 6 inches, and it is estimated that some 70 or 80 years hence the surface is bound to fall another two or three feet. Therefore, if one reflects for a moment one can realise the effect in the process of time upon the health and the general population of
  1462
  that area. This is also a very real problem from the point of view of the Agriculturist. Constant complaints are forthcoming from farmers who find themselves in a hopeless condition because of their land being waterlogged and they are unable to obtain the maximum quantity of food stuffs. Here is a statement which was made by the mining expert who was called upon to give a report on this particular area. I merely give this quotation from the point of view of the position of agricultural land and of food production. This gentleman states:
  "The larger proportion of this land is excellent for farming if kept free from water, which constitutes no difficulty, except on grounds of cost. This valuable agricultural land to the East and North East of Doncaster can be made to produce the whole or greater part of the vegetable and dairy produce required for a larger industrial population."
  He continues:
  "The provision of keeping this land free from water is a national necessity."
  This Bill is not premature, but long overdue, and I hope that in a very short space of time it will not only pass through the Committee stage but will be given the Third Beading, and that the essential Board will be set up. There are one or two questions which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. He told me in reply to a question yesterday that of the 25 inclosure awards in the area proposed under this Bill at least 14 of the awards were practically null and void because the beneficiaries under the awards were refusing to meet their obligations as far as drainage is concerned. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that when the Measure becomes operative, the Central Board will have full power to insist upon the awards being carried out, so that the original beneficiaries will not be able to saddle their responsibility on to property owners and other people resident in that area.
  1.0 p.m.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is going to be the real effect of the application of this Measure on the ordinary cottage tenant and on the ordinary property owner, and, in fact, on the hereditaments? Unless we can know something about that, I fear that suspicions may be created in the minds of some people and that they may attempt

  1463
  to hold up the Measure when the majority wish to see it put into operation at the earliest possible moment. I was looking at the original Act of 1833, and at the Act of 1918, and there I saw that powers were given to the Drainage Commission to make exceptions when rating various hereditaments in the various areas concerned. If the right hon. Gentleman can explain what the ultimate effect of introducing new drainage schemes or improving old drainage schemes will be upon ordinary cottage property all suspicions will be removed.
  There is another point which, I think, is a fairly legitimate one. The First Schedule indicates how the Central Board must be constituted. I notice that while the District Drainage Board's representation on this Board is to consist of the West Biding of Yorkshire County Council, the Lindsey County Council, the Nottingham County Council and the Doncaster County Borough Council, with the Coal Owners' Association having three representatives, and the Royalty Owners three representatives, the tens of thousands of miners who with their families reside in this area do not get any representation at all. Although the Drainage Commission made representations on the lines of the constitution embodied in the Bill, it is a fairly legitimate claim to make on behalf of the tens of thousands of miners, who with their wives and families will indirectly not only be called upon to pay the share of the Royalty owners and the share of the mine owners but—and this is a more important factor—will be obliged to live in this district. They have a real interest from the point of view of health and of general environment.
  Therefore I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider before the concluding stages of the Bill whether he cannot give at least some representation to the men who delve in the bowels of the earth and make drainage schemes necessary, and to the people who have to reside in that district. I should like to ask how it is that in Clause 20, instead of the Government making a financial contribution to what after all, is a scheme of national necessity, they demand actual payment from the Central Board for any initial cost that may be incurred for
  1464
  putting the Measure into operation. That seems to be a mean attitude on the part of the Government. If it is going to result in draining the area, in improving the health of the people, in increasing the amount of agricultural land available for employment, the Government ought not to be quite so mean Instead of demanding payment in respect of the cost of putting the Bill into operation, they ought to be making a real contribution towards this scheme.
  Having said so much, I have no further criticisms to offer on the Bill I notice, however, that there is one omission. There appears to be no arrangement made for dividing the area into divisions for rating purposes. That may or may not constitute a difficulty in the future. There are arrangements whereby certain areas can withdraw from the scheme temporarily. That may have the effect of permitting certain areas to withdraw from the original scheme and avoid any of the initial costs, and come back into the scheme after other parts have been called upon to make big financial contributions. That point may very well be dealt with in Committee.
  The Bill does not profess to be a permanent institution which will render the bigger scheme unnecessary. It is intended to be a temporary scheme which will fit into the bigger scheme when it comes along. That being so, and so long as this Bill helps to co-ordinate drainage schemes in the area and to provide them with a central board, which will have the necessary education to fit them for the bigger undertakings, the least we can do is to give the Bill a Second Reading, and to hope that the Minister will, as and where necessary, amend it on proper lines in the Committee stage.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I will answer a few of the points which have been raised. The right hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Buxton) asked why we bring forward a Bill to deal with this small area, and why, if we can do that, we do not change the law for the whole country. The answer is that this area presents a special problem, as I tried to make clear in my original remarks. It is subject to a special danger from mining subsidence. That is why we cannot set up an authority to deal with

  1465
  it, except by a hybrid Bill of this nature. There is no precedent for levying charges for land drainage on other than surface owners. This Bill will enable a levy to be made upon those who own the subsoil. So far as the rating of the surface owners is concerned, the Bill does not change the law. For that reason, when we are able to deal with the great problem of land drainage for the whole country, any changes that we make in the responsibility for rate payment towards land drainage will, naturally and automatically, apply to this new authority which we seek to set up by this Bill, as it will apply to all other authorities of the kind.
  I think, therefore, the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that this Bill deals with a matter which, I am glad to say, is generally not found in connection with land drainage. No delay is taking place in tackling the problem of the general amendment of land drainage law. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, from his experience of the matter when he was Minister of Agriculture, that it is a very large and extremely complex problem. Apart from the legal side, there is a very large amount of survey necessary before a Bill can be framed to set up these catchment area authorities. We are at work on that survey; it is being carried out by an efficient survey staff, and, as soon as the necessary information for the purposes of legislation is available, it is the intention of the Government to deal with it.
  The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) raised several points, which he said might more appropriately be considered in Committee, but I will answer him briefly. He was dissatisfied with the representation which is given, in the First Schedule of the Bill, to various interests on the new authority. He would like to see representation given to a special section of householders, namely, the miners. There is no case for that. This Bill follows the usual course in giving representation to the local authorities. We have made a change in the exact representation suggested by the Committee by substituting for the representation of certain Government Departments representation for the internal drainage authorities. The Bill includes
  1466
  representation for those other interests who will have to pay, namely, the mine-owners, through their various organisations. They are given this special provision, because it is felt that, if they are to be taxed like this, they ought to be represented. The miners are not going to be taxed under this Bill.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes.
  Mr. GUINNESS: Indeed, not. There will be no levy except on those who are getting benefit from the drainage.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, under the present ascertainment system in the coalmining industry, of any payments which are made out of the proceeds, for drainage purposes, the mine workers themselves would contribute 85 per cent., while the mineowners would contribute only 15 per cent. To that extent, it seems to me that there is not only a highly legitimate case, but a highly moral case, for the miners, apart from the point of view that the men ought to have representation through their Association, just as the mineowners are to have representation through their Association.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I think there is a case for giving representation to those who are directly liable to make payments. If the hon. Member can establish to the satisfaction of the Committee that there is a claim for the miners, I have no doubt that the Committee will be willing to consider it. We have taken the recommendation of the Special Commission and we have thought it desirable to give representation where it is needed, and that is to those who are paying, either by the special provision, or through the local authority, who represent those who will pay. On the question of the expenses of this Bill being recovered from the new authority, I would point out that this is a normal procedure. In connection with the various drainage orders and the proceedings before Select Committees, it is the universal practice, which is always endorsed by Parliament, that these Private Bills, where they throw expense on a public department, should be paid for by the area authority concerned.
  The hon. Member asked about the enforcement of awards. These drainage awards are enforced where the people liable can be found, but there is great

  1467
  difficulty in the case of old awards in discovering those who have succeeded to the liability. We are making provision in this Bill to transfer to the new authority the responsibility for enforcing the liability. We are also giving powers to the new authority to take a money commutation where it is for the convenience of administration that the work shall be done by the authority and not by the individual who is formally responsible. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no suggestion in this Bill that the individuals who are responsible under the law for this particular maintenance work will be in any way let off. If there is a commutation, it will be for the full financial equivalent.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask one question with regard to the financial payment. The right hon. Gentleman says that Clause 20 is in accordance with the normal procedure on Private Bills. Does he regard this as a normal Private Bill in the sense in which we usually understand Private Bills? Does he not think it is a very urgent national problem and that from that point of view, instead of merely demanding the expenses of the promotion of the Bill from the area he should make some contribution towards initial expenses?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member must not make a second speech.
  Mr. GUINNESS: I do not suggest that this Bill is a normal Private Bill. It is urgent. There is need for immediate action, but it is perfectly clear in the machinery that it sets up that it is on all fours with many other areas which are dealt with by Orders made by the Department. We cannot make an Order for this authority, because it needs this special power of levying a charge on the owners of the subsoil, and it is because of that that we have come to Parliament with a hybrid Bill. The question is whether this is a local matter, like other local matters which are paid for by the area, or whether it is essentially different. I do not think is it different, and for that reason I think it is quite proper that the locality should pay.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Resolved,
  "That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."—[Mr. Guinness.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES) BILL [Lords].
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The object of this Bill is to enable effect to be given to the Report of a Departmental Committee. Artificial humidification in cotton cloth factories is at present governed by regulations made under a Bill passed in 1911, which in its turn was also founded on a Report of a Departmental Committee. This question has been the subject of controversy for a matter of 50 years. In the Report of 1911, the workers' representatives made a reservation to the effect that they considered artificial humidification should be totally abolished, or, if that was not possible, that the matter should be reconsidered in three years' time. Unfortunately, the War supervened, and the question was not reopened until some time after the end of the War, when the trade conferences were resumed. At the last trade conference, held in 1924, it was agreed that the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson), should be asked to appoint another Departmental Committee to go into this question. He did, and I am glad that that Committee, which was fully representative of both sides and also of the technical side, after three years' careful inquiry came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that employment in humidification sheds gave rise to more sickness than employment in non-humidification sheds, but they unanimously agreed on various amendments to the existing Regulations which would do much to reduce the serious discomfort to

  1469
  which the workers in humidification sheds were exposed. I hope that the result of this Committee's recommendations will lead to a final settlement of this vexed question.
  Mr. KELLY: Were the operatives represented on that Committee?
  Sir V. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. It is obviously desirable that this Bill should become law at an early date, because of the hot weather which is approaching. Although the Committee reported early last year, it was necessary to consult both sides of the industry on the recommendations of the Committee, and it was not possible to prepare a Bill and bring it in until so late last Session that we could not deal with it then. Therefore, we took advantage of circumstances and introduced the Bill in another place at the beginning of this Session. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 enables the Secretary of State to make Regulations, and to that extent is in conformity with the Bill of 1911. The second Sub-section reproduces a Sub-section of the Act of 1911, which is being repealed for the purposes of convenience, and it strengthens the penalties which were laid down in the Act of 1901. Sub-section (3) of the same Clause deals with the laying of Regulations on the Table of the House. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the question of making it compulsory for a local authority, before they approve of a building which has been erected for the purpose of a cotton cloth factory, to see that the certificate of the local factory inspector is obtained. This Clause reproduces the recommendations of the Committee. Clause 3 is purely a machinery clause.
  Mr. KELLY: The Under-Secretary has stated that these proposals have been unanimously agreed to by the representatives of the two sides of the industry, and, in view of that statement, I have no objection to the Second Reading of the Bill. I am, however, anxious to know what is meant by the substitution of 24 months for 12 months in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. It increases the penalty.
  Sir V. HENDERSON: That is not a new provision. It is a reintroduction of a Sub-section in the Act of 1911. It is merely reproduced here, because we are repealing that Act.
  Mr. KELLY: With regard to Clause 2, I am glad that at last the Government have seen the necessity of the factory inspector having something to say before a building is put up for such a purpose as this, by which the health conditions and ventilation of the building may be secured. There are other questions which I desire to raise, but I will reserve them for the Committee stage. I have not had time to see what provisions of previous Acts are being repealed, and I want to satisfy myself that they are in keeping with the feelings of those I represent. Subject to this proviso, I have no objection to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Sir V. Henderson.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND LAND BILL.
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered." put, and agreed to.—[Sir V. Henderson.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

  NORTHERN IRELAND LAND BILL.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Determination of tenancies in holdings excluded on account of building value.)
    Lords Amendment:
    In page 7, line 15, leave out the word "twenty-five," and insert instead thereof the word "thirty."
    Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    It would be for the convenience of the House if I explained very briefly the whole of the Lords Amendments which we are about to consider. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Tomlinson), who was on the Committee which dealt with this Bill, will remember that he moved certain Amendments in order to try to improve the position of the tenant under this particular Clause. I informed him then that I was in the nature of an agent, so far as the Bill was concerned, and that I could not accept any Amendments unless satisfied that they were

    1471
    agreed Amendments which had been referred to both sides in Ulster. When the Bill reached another place, representations were made on this question, and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland called together a further conference of both sides. As a result of that conference, it was agreed to increase the basis of compensation from 25 and 30 to 30 and 35 times. It was also agreed that the buildings on the holdings should be entitled to a separate system of valuation, and that both the landlord and the tenant should, if they desired it, have a right of appeal to what corresponds to our County Court, and the further right of appeal, if necessary, to the Court of Appeal. That statement really embodies the whole of these Lords Amendments. I understand that they are accepted by both sides in Ulster, and that they were accepted by all parties in another place. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree to them.
    Mr. TOMLINSON: As the Under-Secretary has said, when this matter was before the Committee, I put down Amendments in the interests of the unbought tenants. The Under-Secretary pointed out at the time that if I pressed the Amendments the Government might regard this as a controversial Bill, and
    1472
    that that would jeopardise it. On the assurance given by the Under-Secretary that he would consider the matter further, I withdrew my Amendments. I wish now to acknowledge the way in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has fulfilled his promise. Although the Amendments dealing with the point I raised do not go as far as I would like, they do go some distance in the desired direction, and the unbought tenants are in a much better position and have a right of appeal to the Court if not satisfied with the compensation that they get. I greatly appreciate the spirit in which the matter has been dealt with by the Under-Secretary.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir Victor Warrender.]
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes before Two o'clock, until Monday next, 18th March.

  EXCISABLE LIQUORS, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  EXCISABLE LIQUORS, NORTHERN IRELAND.
  FOREIGN ROADSTONE (IMPORTS).
  FOREIGN ROADSTONE (IMPORTS).
  POOR LAW RELIEF, DEVONPORT AND PLYMOUTH.
  POOR LAW RELIEF, DEVONPORT AND PLYMOUTH.
  HOUSING (EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS).
  HOUSING (EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS).