Sitting of 20 March 1929

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Crowborough District Water Bill,
Nottingham Corporation Bill,
Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill,
Tyne Improvement Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
Pacific Cable Board Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    FOREIGN OFFICE (WIRELESS SERVICE).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House what will be the estimated cost of transmission of the British official wireless service which is prepared by the Foreign Office and transmitted from the General Post Office high-power wireless station at Rugby for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): In the 12 months ended 31st December, 1928, the amount due to the General Post Office in respect of the transmission of this service was £8,974. The cost for the current year is unlikely to show any marked variation from this figure.
    Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that such a great expenditure is necessary?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I think we get value for our money.

    TEMPORARY FEMALE CLERICAL STAFFS.
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir HERBERT NIELD:
    42. "To ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why temporary female clerical staffs are being newly appointed to Departments of the Civil Service, in view of the Government's policy of preference for ex-service men in respect of such employment in the Civil Service."
    Sir H. NIELD: I do not put this question as it has been answered. It was put down for a written reply on Thursday, and, as I did not get a reply on Monday, I starred it.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): Perhaps it would be more satisfactory if I gave a reply to that. The House rose very early last Friday. The reply was ready for delivery on Friday, but could not be delivered here to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on account of the early rising of the House. We take every step to get our written replies to hon. Members with all speed.
    Sir H. NIELD: It had not reached me by three or four o'clock on Monday.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    MINORITIES.
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the importance of the minorities question, whether the British Government would support a proposal for the establishment of a permanent minorities commission of the League of Nations, analogous to the Mandates Commission?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 13th of February last to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone).
    Mr. RILEY: Has any special committee been set up to consider the best methods of dealing with this problem; and, if so, have the British Government any representative upon that committee?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Council at its last meeting appointed the representative of Japan, Viscount Ishii, as rapporteur and associated with him two other members of the Council, including

    1713
    a British representative to present a report on the whole subject at the June meeting of the Council.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman correct in saying that the hon. Member for Northampton asked whether a permanent minorities commission would be appointed?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member asked specifically whether the representative of His Majesty's Government on the Council would support and, if needful, himself bring forward again the proposal which was made at the last Assembly of the League, that a permanent minorities commission should be created.
    Sir R. THOMAS: I apologise.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: In connection with the increased publicity which the Foreign Secretary advocates for the grievances of minorities, is there any method of bringing it about as efficient as that of a commission?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not wish to appear unwilling to answer questions in this House, but the right hon. Gentleman will see that I am in a position of some difficulty, as I have been asked with two of my colleagues on the Council to present a report to the Council on the whole subject. In those circumstances, I should be glad to avoid expressing an individual opinion before I have consulted with them.

    DISARMAMENT COMMISSION.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who will represent His Majesty's Government at the forthcoming meeting of the Disarmament Commission of the League of Nations?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The representative of His Majesty's Government will be the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  MEXICO (BRITISH INTERESTS).
  Sir R. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the lives or property of any British nationals have been lost or endangered during the recent civil disturbances in Mexico; and, if so, will he give particulars?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Minister at Mexico City reported on the 8th of March that he had no report of any loss of British life or property; no indication of any subsequent loss of life has been received. A report was, however, received on the 5th of March that the Vera Cruz representative of the Bank of Montreal had been obliged to give a forced loan of 50,000 pesos to the rebels. Vera Cruz was re-occupied by the Federal forces on the 6th of March, and it is not known whether the sum in question was actually paid over.

  BRITISH SUBJECT'S ARREST, TURIN.
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State, for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. Horace Frost, of Watton, Norfolk, who has been sentenced to a month's imprisonment by a Turin magistrate because he had refused to comply with a request to show his passport to two persons who were fellow travellers with him in a train crossing the Italian frontier from Men-tone into Italy; whether Mr. Frost has been allowed to communicate with the British Consul in Turin; and whether he has received any Report from the British Consul and has taken any action in the matter?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a report on this matter from His Majesty's Consul at Turin. His Majesty's Consul has had an interview with Mr. Frost and has made the necessary arrangements for the lodging of an appeal.
  Mr. DAY: Is it a fact that these two officers did not disclose their official identity when demanding the passport from Mr. Frost, who thought they were ordinary fellow-passengers?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I had better make no statement as to the facts pending the appeal.

  AMERICAN TOURISTS (VISAS).
  Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many American tourists have applied for and obtained visas in this country during the last period of 12 months of

  1715
  which data can be given; and what has been the total amount received for these fees?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that our records do not distinguish between visas granted to tourists and other categories of travellers.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: What is the number—both tourist and otherwise?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon Friend will put down that question, I shall try to give him an answer.
  Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any figures are available to show what the Italian Government is losing directly by forgoing payment on visas to American nationals to Italy; whether any other countries in Europe have forgone the payment of visas for American tourists; and whether he has considered the advantages to be gained by adopting a similar policy in this country?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information in regard to the first part of the question; according to a statement given by the State Department to the Press on the 27th of February, the following countries in Europe have forgone the fees for visas granted to United States citizens:—Albania, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and Yugo-Slavia. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on the 7th instant.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that those Governments show a business attitude in trying to get more American citizens over to their countries and that a tourist is likely to spend more than the comparatively small amount represented by the cost of the visa?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I gave a full reply to the question of my hon. Friend on the occasion to which I have referred. I have nothing to add.
  Sir H. BRITTAIN: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the full answer I have received, but may I ask him to believe that it is rather unsatisfactory; and will he consider evidence from the United States, showing that we should get in more tourists to this country by eliminating these visas?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be glad to consider any information which my hon. Friend likes to put before me, but I can hold out no hope that our attitude in this matter will he changed. We have offered reciprocity; we have not been able to obtain it.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    RUSSIAN OIL (BRITISH INTERESTS).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to whether any provision is contemplated by the Soviet Government for providing compensation for British nationals whose oil wells in Russia were appropriated without any compensation being paid?
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I have no information on this subject.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the enormous profits that are now being made by the Soviet Government as a result of admission to the combine; and does he not think, in view of the fact that they have paid nothing for the oil wells from which they are selling, that some action should be taken in the matter?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the large profits which are being made by the British firms in the combine, indirectly out of Russian oil; and can nothing be done to compensate those unfortunate British subjects who lost their property?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can nothing be done to exclude this oil from the country until proper compensation has been paid?

    GLOVE-MAKING INDUSTRY.
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade the production of leather and fabric gloves during the last quarter of 1928 and, for comparison, the corresponding figures for the last quarter of 1925; and whether he can give employment figures in the leather and fabric glove industries in the same periods?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): Certain particulars about output and employment are supplied to the

    1717
    Board of Trade by the Joint Industrial Council for the glove-making industry, from which it appears that, as regards leather gloves, 102,020 dozen pairs were produced in the fourth quarter of 1925, and 143,087 dozen pairs in the fourth quarter of 1928. During the former period the average number of persons employed was 7,430, and in the latter period 8,774. As regards fabric gloves, in the fourth quarter of 1925 24,069 dozen pairs were produced, and in the fourth quarter of 1928 57,024 dozen pairs. The average number employed in the former period was 692, and in the latter period 1,266. The figures for leather gloves are stated to relate to firms which, in 1924, employed 88 per cent. of the cutters in that industry. The data for fabric gloves for 1925 relate to firms which employed, in 1924, 88 per cent.; and those for 1928 to firms which employed, in 1924, 82 per cent. of the cutters in that industry. The numbers of workpeople are inclusive of outworkers.
    Sir B. PETO: Do I understand that it is reasonable to shorten this by saying that the result of safeguarding the fabric glove industry has been to double production and employment?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman say how much the wages have increased in that time?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

    LACE (TRANSHIPMENTS UNDER BOND).
    Sir B. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade the total transhipments in bond of machine-made lace and hand-made lace, respectively, through this country in 1927; and how much of this was French lace on its way to the United States of America?
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The total value of lace and net of all kinds transhipped under bond through this country during the year 1927 was £758,000, of which lace and net valued at £569,000 was in transit via Dover and Southampton to the United States. Separate particulars of the various sorts of lace transhipped under bond are not available.

  TANGIER (CASINO).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Spanish
  1718
  Government is opposing the proposal to set up a casino at Tangier on the lines of the gambling establishment at Monte Carlo, and that the considered reasons state that the opposition is based on moral grounds, proximity to the Spanish zone, and contrary to the purpose for which international status was conferred; what instructions have been given to the British representative; and whether the proximity of the garrison and fleet at Gibraltar has been fully considered?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Article 52 of the Tangier Convention provides that games of chance shall be forbidden in the Tangier zone and that this prohibition shall be absolute except on a decision by unanimous vote of the Committee of Control. The Spanish representative on the Committee of Control has intimated that his Government are opposed to the establishment of a casino at Tangier, and in the circumstances the proposal clearly cannot be adopted. Should it prove necessary to give instructions to the British representative, account will of course be taken of the considerations to which the hon. and gallant Member refers.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Before a decision is taken, will instructions be given to the British representative; and is my right, hon. Friend aware that in the newspapers it has been stated that the British Government instructed their representative to support the proposal?
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not accurate. I think there were instructions at one time, to the British representative, that if the Committee were unanimously in favour of the proposal, he was not to oppose it.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ORDNANCE INSPECTORS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any alteration has been made in the daily rate of subsistence allowance and travelling expenses in respect to the Royal Naval Ordnance inspectors at Woolwich Arsenal during the past two years whether he has received an application for the abolition of reduced allowance after the expiration of three months' detached duty, the free distribution of rule books, and payments for travelling

    1719
    with gauges and stores to and from the Royal Arsenal; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): No such alteration as that referred to in the first part of the question has been made. Applications have been received for the subsistence allowance granted to examiners on account of expenses for the first three months of duty away from Woolwich to be paid, instead of assessed extra expenses, after the first three months of absent duty, and for overtime payments to be allowed when examiners travelling to and from their duties have gauges and stores in their possession; these applications have not been, and are not proposed to be, allowed. Inquiries have been received concerning a booklet called the Workmen's Handbook; this booklet was prepared at the request of, and has been distributed by, the Trade Union side of the Admiralty Joint Industrial Council.
    Mr. THORNE: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise the great hardship under which these inspectors are suffering, owing to the fact that, when they are away for three months, they lose something like 14s. a week, apart from the extra expense which they have to bear?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not recognise the hardship at all. Perhaps if the hon. Member speaks to me about it, he may be able to make it clearer to me than it is at present.

    SHIPS' FUEL (COAL).
    Mr. KELLYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ships in the Navy driven by coal power and the type of such ships?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of yesterday to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), (OFFICIAL REPORT, Columns 1583–4).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman state how many ships are using pulverised fuel?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No ships of the Royal Navy are using pulverised fuel at present.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Have the Admiralty considered the advisability of using this fuel in view of its prospective utility to the coal mining industry of this country?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If the hon. Member had been present at the Debate which recently took place, he would have understood that we were doing everything in our power to further the development of pulverised fuel.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the Admiralty themselves are experimenting on ships with pulverised coal, and can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us when they will be able to give us a report as to its utility, or otherwise?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The Admiralty are not making any experiments themselves, as I have already explained.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from the hon. and gallant Member's statements, both in Debate and at Question Time, that the Admiralty are doing everything but use pulverised fuel?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The hon. Member may thoroughly understand that it is true that we are following these developments with great interest.
    Mr. PALING: If we had followed the Debate in question should we not have learned that the Admiralty were doing nothing?

    MEDITERRANEAN FLEET (MINISTER'S VISIT).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what vessel he proposes to use for his forthcoming visit to the Mediterranean Fleet?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr Bridgeman): I hope to be accommodated in the Flagship of the Mediterranean Fleet.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not using the Yacht "Enchantress"?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No.
    Mr. THURTLE: Would not the First Lord have greater leisure for this trip if he deferred it until June next?

    SHIPWRIGHTS AND BOILERMAKERS, GIBRALTAR (PAY).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty

    1721
    what are the rates paid to shipwrights and boilermakers at Gibraltar; and, in view of these two classes of labour in Home yards being paid similar basic rates, will he see to the rates being increased at Gibraltar?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The general rate for shipwrights is 48s. a week. Boilermakers are paid at various rates from 43s. 6d. to 62s. a week. The statement in the last part of the question is incorrect, and the answer is in the negative.
    Mr. KELLY: Since when were the boilermakers paid at varying rates?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot tell the hon. Member exactly since when. I can only say what the system is at the present time.
    Mr. KELLY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware of a claim that is being made from Gibraltar for the shipwrights to be placed on the same level as the boilermakers?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: A request from the local shipwrights, for their wages to be increased because some other trades had higher rates was forwarded by local officers in November last.
    Mr. KELLY: Has that been approved?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The request was not approved.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    CANADIAN HARVEST (BRITISH WORKER'S EXPENSES).
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the case of Edward Stevenson, of 18, Glover Street, St. Helens, who has re-received a notice from the local Employment Exchange officer for the repayment of £22 advanced to him as expenses and fares to the Canadian harvest; and if, in view of the fact that his unemployment benefit was suspended while away from home and the comparative scanty earnings in Canada, out of which remittances to his family were sent, he will refrain from pressing for repayment?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): Edward Stevenson received a loan of £10 for his outward journey to Canada. On the
    1722
    5th September, while the demand for harvest workers was still unsatisfied, he applied for, and received, at Winnipeg, a further loan of £12 to pay his passage home. These advances were made from public monies, and I am afraid I cannot release him from the responsibility of repayment.
    Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man got no employment at all in Canada, that he is working on short time in a coal mine here and mortgaging his whole future, and that there is no chance of recovery if this iniquitous demand is persisted in?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me any further information to that effect. My information, if I remember aright, was that the man had signed a statement saying that he had refused employment at £4 a week. Perhaps the hon. Member had better communicate with me, therefore, to see which is correct.
    Mr. SEXTON: May I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that this man is the only support of his widowed mother, that his own brother is not on unemployment benefit, and that the whole family is dependent on him?

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Labour if the Government has any new plans for reducing unemployment?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The policy of the Government in this matter, which they believe to be that best adapted for securing a permanent reduction in unemployment, has been fully explained in this House on a number of occasions.
    Mr. THURTLE: May I take it that the Government have nothing at all to add to what they have said already?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, the reduction figure of 118,000 will be increased in subsequent weeks.
    Lord APSLEY: Are not the Government looking forward to a renewed period of five years of office?

    EXCHANGE FACILITIES, HULL.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Labour whether he has had any Report of the new Employment Exchange at Hull, particularly as

    1723
    regards accommodation and staffing; and if he is aware that complaints are made of overcrowding and delays in dealing with workmen and others attending the new Exchange?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: An inspection of this new office has been made, and a report will be received shortly. After so recent a move and with the present high rate of unemployment, a certain amount of dislocation is inevitable, but I am not aware of ground for serious complaint of congestion and delay.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When will the right hon. Gentleman receive the Report?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member when I have read it.

  AVIATION.

    EMPIRE AIRSHIPS (MOORING TOWERS).
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made by the Dominion Governments for the erection of standard mooring-masts for the use of Empire airships?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): I understand that the present position is as follows: His Majesty's Government in Canada have erected a mooring-tower at St. Hubert, Montreal, and hope that it will be finally completed early in May. His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa have acquired a site for the erection of a mooring-tower at Grautville, Natal, but construction has not yet begun. As regards India, it is expected, as I stated in my Memorandum accompanying the Air Estimates, that the mooring-tower at Karachi will be completed during the summer.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: May I remind my right hon. Friend that a year ago he told us that the plant was ordered for a mooring-mast for South Africa, and why has it taken so long to prepare?
    Sir S. HOARE: I think that question ought to be directed to the Government of South Africa. What I can tell my hon. and gallant Friend is that I think
    1724
    the mooring-mast will be ready when we are in a position to make flights to South Africa.

    CUSTOMS PORTS.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is considering the establishment of special Customs ports in view of the rapid development in passenger flying-boats; and at what ports does he anticipate establishing such Customs arrangements?
    Sir S. HOARE: I think my hon. Friend will find the information which he requires in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Sir R. Gower) on 4th March, and to which I have nothing to add.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can my right hon. Friend say where this development of the flying-boats is taking place?
    Sir S. HOARE: My hon. Friend had better address that question to the hon. Member who asked the question on the Paper.

  TRANSPORT.

    SPEED OF TRAFFIC, BRIDGE STREET AND VICTORIA EMBANKMENT.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the excessive speed at which mechanically propelled vehicles are allowed to swing round from Bridge Street to the Victoria Embankment; and whether he will arrange for a "Slow Down" warning notice to be placed at the junction of those thoroughfares?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I do not think that in normal circumstances motor vehicles at this street junction travel at a speed greater than is necessary to clear the traffic and to prevent congestion in Bridge Street. A "Slow Down" warning notice would adversely affect the movement of traffic in the whole of this important area. The junction is somewhat difficult for pedestrians and to obviate the necessity for crossing the road there is a subway and a notice bearing the words:

    "FOR SAFETY CROSS BY THE SUBWAY."
    Mr. BOWERMAN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a few days ago a young woman was thrown

    1725
    over and killed on the Embankment, entirely owing to the rapid speed at which certain vehicles were passing? Surely something can be done to prevent that sort of thing. As a matter of fact, people are skipping across that road day after day.
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am sorry to hear of the unfortunate accident, but the way to avoid that sort of thing is to go by the subway.
    Mr. HANNON: Has the attention of my right hon. and gallant Friend been called to the speed of motor cars passing down in front of the House of Commons, between the house and St. Margaret's Church, and cannot he do something to have a "Slow Down" notice posted, so that the lives of Members crossing there may be protected?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That question does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do you skip?

    MOTOR LICENCE DUTIES (COST OF COLLECTION).
    Colonel APPLINasked the Minister of Transport what expenditure has been incurred by local licensing authorities in Great Britain in the collection of motor licence duties during each of the past three years and what percentage it represents of the amounts collected?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The expenditure incurred by licensing authorities in Great Britain in the collection of motor licence duties during the past three years was:

    Year.

    Total Costs.

    Per cent. of Revenue collected.

    £

    1925–26

    347,397

    2·10

    1926–27

    373,647

    1·87

    1927–28

    403,235

    1·79

    These figures include the cost of the system of registration of motor vehicles, which accounts for a substantial proportion of the total expenditure.

    ROAD EXPENDITURE (WAGES AND MATERIALS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Transport if he is in a position to give an approximate estimate as to the proportion
    1726
    of each £1,000,000 sterling spent on road construction which is paid in wages and the proportion spent on materials?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Expenditure on wages depends so largely upon the type and situation of the work that generalisations are apt to be misleading. As a rough approximation, a figure of between 30 and something under 40 per cent. may be assumed for cost of labour on works of road construction, and a rather higher percentage for expenditure on materials. Much of the latter item of expenditure represents wages, but I have not sufficient data to enable me to form an estimate of the proportion.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that Sir Henry Maybury has on more than one occasion stated that every million pounds spent on road construction meant employment for 5,000 men one way or another?
    Colonel ASHLEY: Of course, I cannot say exactly what Sir Henry Maybury stated, but I should doubt that. I think the figure would be much more like 4,000, direct and indirect.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that Sir Henry Maybury told me personally that the approximate number is 5,000?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I have no knowledge of the personal conversations of the hon. Member.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Is it not a fact that the ratepayers would have to keep up these roads when they were made?

  DRUGS (ADMINISTRATION).
  Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Health whether hospital probationers are entitled to administer powerful drugs, such as digitalin and morphia, in the absence of a qualified medical practitioner; and who is held responsible in the event of the death of a patient as a result of a mistake on the part of a probationer?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the question is that while the administration of drugs within the scope of the Dangerous Drugs Acts is subject to special restrictions, the responsibility for

  1727
  administration rests with the medical practitioner in charge of the case. I cannot undertake to pronounce the general terms upon the issue raised by the second part of the question, which must turn upon the view taken of particular facts.

  HOUSING SCHEMES.
  Sir W. DAVISONasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that housing schemes for the erection of dwellings to accommodate working-class persons are being held up by reason of the fact that there are two or three persons on the site who decline to accept alternative accommodation on account of their rights to continue their present tenancies under the Rent Restrictions Act; and whether any action will be taken by the Government to deal with cases of the kind?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend will no doubt recollect that under paragraph (e) of Section 5 (1) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, as amended by Section 4 of the Act of 1923, the Courts are empowered to grant possession if a house is reasonably required for any purpose which is in the public interest. I know of at least one case in which this power has been used to facilitate the carrying out of a housing scheme. With regard to the suggested amendment of the Act, I would remind my hon. Friend that it was found necessary to extend the Rent Restrictions Acts in their present form for another year owing to the impossibility of finding time during this Parliament to consider any Amendments.

  LAND DRAINAGE SCHEMES.
  Major CARVERasked the Minister of Agriculture the number and nature of the reclamation and drainage schemes started and completed since 1924, the sums granted by the Government towards such schemes, and the number of workers thereby employed?
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): As the reply is rather long and includes a number of figures, I propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the reply:
  During the years 1921–22 to 1925–26 a programme of land drainage work was in operation for the relief of unemployment primarily in rural areas, the season in each case lasting about six months. In the season 1924–25 the number of schemes carried out was 386, the Government contribution £165,000, and the labour employed the equivalent of 2,000 men on full employment for a year. The corresponding figures for 1925–26 were 194 schemes, £38,000 Government contribution, and 600 men. A new programme was instituted as from 1st April, 1926, but this was not directly for the relief of unemployment, and the amount of labour employed cannot be stated. Under this programme 20 schemes have been completed with Government grants totalling £20,000; 32 are in operation, the estimated grants being £250,000, and 11 others where the estimated grants are £117,000 have been approved in principle. The further programme recently introduced with the object of facilitating the transfer of labour from depressed areas has been in operation for so short a period that very little work has yet been done, but the number of schemes approved or accepted in principle is nine, and the total estimated cost is in the neighbourhood of £650,000. No schemes of reclamation have been carried out since 1924.

  POST OFFICE.

    TELEPHONE FACILITIES, LEEDS.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that no public telephone facilities are provided on the new Middleton Park Estate, Leeds, where there are 1,400 houses, except at a hotel which is only open at certain hours; and if he will arrange for a telephone kiosk to be placed in a suitable position convenient for the inhabitants?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson)Public telephone facilities are available between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. at the sub-post office serving the district and urgent night calls can also be made. Telephone facilities are also available at the hotel to which the hon. Member refers between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10.45 p.m., and I am informed that urgent night calls

    1729
    are not refused. I am having inquiries made as to the practicability of installing a street kiosk.
    Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform me of the result of the inquiries?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I will do so.

    TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether his Department has agreed to adopt any of the suggested additional facilities recently obtained from the telegraphic system of the United States and Canada; and, if so, which and when?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The recommendations of the Commission which recently visited the United States of America are being examined in detail, and until the examination is complete I cannot say which will be adopted. The matter is being pressed forward as rapidly as possible.

  SITE VALUES, GLASGOW.
  Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that recently, adjacent to Renfield Street, Glasgow, a site was sold for £75,000 which formerly changed hands at £100 and that future rents on that site will be increased as a consequence; and if he intends to take any steps to ensure that such increased values are returned to the citizens of Glasgow?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I have no information about the matter referred to and I can give no undertaking of the nature suggested in the last part of the question.
  Mr. HARDIE: If I furnish full details, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Government, seeing that they are trying to get money to help forward trade, to bring in legislation to take these values, which are brought about by the community, and give them back to the community?

  NORFOLK ASSIZES (SENTENCE FOR ARSON).
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Bertha Eliza Nobes, who was recently sentenced to three years' penal servitude at Norfolk Assizes for setting fire to a stack of corn, this being her fourth conviction for arson; will he state whether the woman has been examined by a mental specialist; and what steps he proposes to take to secure other treatment in the case of offenders guilty of apparently purposeless crime?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): My attention has been drawn to this case. As she had been on bail and as she pleaded guilty, there was no medical evidence as to her mental condition. She has since been examined by a competent medical officer and I have had the advice of the Medical Commissioner of Prisons. She is not at present regarded as certifiable, either as insane or mentally deficient. Her case is being carefully watched and all necessary and practicable steps will be taken. As at present advised I have no further steps to propose.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman repealed the sentence on a boy for arson not long ago, because it was found that arson is one of the special crimes of the mental deficient, and is it not also true that so long as people like Judge Rowlatt at Winchester say that people who commit these crimes—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard this woman as of normal intelligence?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I did not Say so. My hon. Friend, as a doctor, will appreciate that my words were carefully chosen. I said that she is not at present regarded as certifiable, either as insane or mentally deficient, but she is being carefully watched, and all necessary and practicable steps will be taken.
  Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask, as some of the Judges say—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!

  MR. T. A. WHITE, BIRMINGHAM (NATURALISATION).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received an application for a certificate of naturalisation from Mr. Thomas A. White, of Birmingham, a naturalised American citizen and formerly an Englishman; and, if so, whether the application was granted?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A certificate of naturalisation was granted on the 31st January, 1927, to a Mr. Thomas Albert White, who seems to be the person to whom this question refers.

  POLICE COURTS (CIVIL OFFENCES).
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Home Secretary if he will, in the interests of public convenience, consider issuing a circular to all police courts recommending an arrangement whereby ordinary summonses for civil offences should be heard in police courts before cases of a criminal nature?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Such an arrangement would operate very hardly against persons arrested and detained in custody pending the hearing of charges against them, who would have to wait until all the summonses, which at busy Courts are very numerous, were disposed of. I should not feel justified in issuing a circular to all Police Courts, asking magistrates to vary the arrangements which their experience has led them to regard as best calculated to serve the general convenience.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that persons recently arrested have to listen to the most appalling cases; that, for instance, if a woman is arrested for a motoring offence, she has to go to court and listen to these cases, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is quite right?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Noble Lady is wrong in saying arrested; she probably means summoned.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Yes, summoned.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In my younger days, I had experience of these courts, and, after long experience, I am sure that it is right to deal with the persons who have been arrested and kept in prison and to get rid of them first. They are entitled to it.

  ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY (GOVERNMENT SHARES).
  Mr. DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present value of the shares held by the Treasury in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, together with the number of shares held in it the amount received in dividends during the past year; and will he give the total amount of dividends received by His Majesty's Government on these shares since November, 1923?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The present market value of the Government's holding of shares and debentures in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company is approximately £32,773,500. The holding consists of 7,500,000 ordinary shares of £1; 1,000 8 per cent. preference shares of £1; and £199,000 5 per cent. debenture stock. The amount received in dividends during the current financial year is £572,530; and in the period since November, 1923, £4,019,507 9s. 4d.
  Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us bow many of that number of shares are bonus shares?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, I cannot off-hand. That question should be put on the Paper and I will try to ascertain.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the answer throw a rather curious light on the answer of the oil companies?
  Mr. W. THORNE: Have they paid any Income Tax on these dividends?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Of course Income Tax is paid on the dividends of a trading company.
  Mr. THORNE: Did the Government pay any Income Tax on what they got?
  Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member will reflect a moment, he will see that

  1733
  that would lead nowhere, because it would simply mean paying out of one pocket into the other.
  Mr. THURTLE: Were the fees of the Government directors paid back to the Treasury?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That point does not arise out of the question.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the reasons why Mr. Thomas A. White, of Birmingham, aged 72, and his wife, aged 71, have not been granted old age pensions?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply. If the hon. Member will supply the full names and addresses of these persons I will cause inquiry to be made.

  GIBRALTAR (NEWSPAPER "HOJAS LIBRES")
  Mr. KELLYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the action of the colonial secretary and chief of police at Gibraltar in confiscating all copies of the newspaper "Hojas Libres"; has this action had the approval of the Colonial Office; and what steps are being taken to prevent this restriction of the freedom of the Press?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have no information regarding this incident, but will make inquiries of the Governor.
  Mr. KELLY: Will those inquiries be made immediately, in view of this paper being suppressed by the Government?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have no in formation as to what this paper is or why it was suppressed, but I will make inquiries at the earliest possible moment.

  IRISH GRANTS COMMITTEE.
  Major CARVERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will give the names of the members
  1734
  serving on the Committee to investigate the claims of the Southern Irish loyalists; the number of meetings that have been held; and the remuneration which is being given to each member?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have been asked to answer this question. The members of the Irish Grants Committee are Sir Alexander Wood Renton, K.C.M.G., K.C. (Chairman), Sir James Brunyate, K.C.S.I., C.I.E., and Sir John Oakley, G.B.E. The Committee has held 219 meetings. Remuneration is paid to the Chairman at the rate of £1,100 per annum and to Sir James Brunyate at the rate of £1,000.
  Major CARVER: May I ask why no remuneration was paid to Sir John Oakley?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If the hon. Member will put down that question, I will make inquiries.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of the recent position of the Government, will the committee feel disposed to reconsider any claim previously turned down?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think that question hardly arises out of the answer. It is so far removed from the original question that I think the hon. Member had better put it down.
  Mr. RILEY: Over what period of time have the 200 meetings extended?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Since the committee was set up, which to the best of my recollection was about 15 months ago.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: Who represents the Treasury on the committee?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: They all do.

  DISTRESSED AREAS (LORD MAYOR'S FUND).
  Lieut.-Colonel GADIE (for Viscount SANDON)asked the President of the Board of Education whether balances of the Lord Mayor's Fund have been allowed to accumulate for interest; and, if not, whether this will be done in future?
  Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply to this question. Yes, Sir; the balances are placed on deposit.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Henry Mond, esquire, for Borough of Liverpool (East Toxteth Division).

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE).
  Report and Special Report in respect of the Government Annuities Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords) brought up, and read;
  Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  LEAMINGTON AND WARWICK TRACTION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Short to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Fire Brigade Pensions Bill), and Mr. Morgan Jones as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Justices of the Peace (Small Debt) Amendment (Scotland) Bill).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Local Government Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable highway authorities and the owners of bridges, carrying public carriage roads to make agreements with respect to the maintenance, improvement, reconstruction, and transfer of such bridges, and of the approaches thereto and the roads carried thereby; to empower the Minister of Transport, in the absence of any such agreement, to make orders with respect to the matters aforesaid, and for purposes incidental to the making of such agreements and orders." [Bridges Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen,
  1736
  and Citizens of the city of Birmingham to construct works for the improvement of the Rivers Rea and Tame; and for other purposes." [Birmingham Corporation (Rivers Improvement) Bill [Lords.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]
  BRIDGES BILL. [Lords.]
  Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 81.]
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (RIVERS IMPROVEMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

  SCOTTISH AFFAIRS.
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: In the first place, I must apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for having had to make a slight alteration in the proposed programme. It was intended that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) should open the Debate and deal with agricultural matters, but in his absence I propose, in the first instance, to raise the question of fisheries. I make no apology for asking the attention of the House for a short time to certain aspects of fishery affairs in Scotland. The industry is one of great national importance. The part the fishermen played in the War is known to everybody, and it must be a matter of serious concern to all to see an industry of this size and importance getting into difficulties.
  I wish, first, to refer particularly to harbours. The harbours of a country are as much a national asset as are its roads, and it is a serious national loss if harbours fall into disrepair and become out-of-date and unable to accommodate the vessels for which they were intended. Although many of the harbours to which I refer are mainly fishing harbours, they are also harbours to which other vessels go, and, when I speak of them as a national asset, I am thinking of them, not only as fishery harbours, but as harbours to which trading vessels and the smaller vessels of His Majesty's Navy go in the course of their duties. Unfortunately, the harbours of Scotland, particularly, on the east and north-east coast, have of late years got into serious difficulties, due to a variety of causes. The conditions under which the fishing industry is carried on have altered considerably during the last 25 years. Boats used to be of a much smaller size and were driven by wind power, but those smaller
  1748
  sailing boats have given place to larger steam-drifters and steam-trawlers, and also to fairly large motor boats. Harbours built originally for small-sized craft are in many cases proving inadequate to the demands made upon them to accommmodate boats of a larger character which need a greater depth of water and a greater area of deep water inside the harbour.
  The bad conditions were quite apparent before the War, but the War had a serious effect upon the fishing industry. At that time, many of the harbours were closed by order of the Government, and the fishermen were not allowed to go to certain grounds to catch fish. A very large number of fishermen entered the national service and were employed on mine-sweepers and patrol boats. They were engaged in a most hazardous service which they carried out to the admiration of everybody. It may interest the House to know that the actual number of fishing boats taken from the fishing industry and engaged directly in war operations was 302 trawlers, 329 drifters, and 133 motor boats. All those boats were taken for active service during the War. The fishermen were engaged in duties on those boats, and no fishing, or at any rate very little, was going on, with the result that there was a very great loss of revenue. On this point, I should like to quote from the Report of the Fishery Board for 1921 which says:
  "The restriction of fishing operations during the War and the subsequent depression in the industry have so decreased the revenues of the harbour authorities that it has been impossible for them to keep the harbours in a proper state of repair, much less to effect improvements, and consequently State assistance has become even more vitally necessary if the accommodation is to be made suitable for the requirements of the fishing fleet."
  Those facilities have become inadequate and obsolete since the War. A certain amount of money has been spent upon them, but the amount has been quite insufficient to keep the harbours in the condition in which they ought to be maintained. In many cases, repairs have not been carried out, and the harbours are badly silted up, because the harbour authorities have not been able to use the dredger supplied by the Fishery Board. Some years ago the Fishery Board obtained a dredger for the use of these harbours where silting up takes place,

  1749
  and the report on this question which was issued in 1927 says:
  "The dredging scheme was intended to be self-supporting, but, in view of the financial straits of the majority of the authorities, the Treasury sanctioned an arrangement whereby an authority not in a position to pay immediately the full cost of dredging might have half the cost regarded as a deferred loan not payable for a period of five years, and bearing interest which would be allowed to accumulate and be added to the principal sum at the end of the five-year period."
  They go on to say:
  "As has been explained in previous reports, the serious financial position of the harbours has, notwithstanding the above concession, prevented them from taking full advantage of the scheme, and during 1927 the dredger was only partly employed."
  That is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs. Here you have a dredger supplied by the Fishery Board for the express purpose of keeping the harbours open, and the authorities are in such a bad financial state that they are not able to make use of Treasury assistance at the reduced terms which have been approved by the Treasury. The arrears of debt which are piled upon the harbours have increased and accumulated during past years with the serious result that the harbour authorities tried to do their best to keep their heads above water have had to increase their dues charged to the fishing folk, and this places another severe tax on the industry. In some instances, this has amounted to £3 per boat, plus 5d. per pound on each cran as landing dues. A charge of this kind means over £50 per annum on a single boat, and from that fact alone it will be readily realised what a vicious circle the fishermen are in.
  The harbours are falling out of repair, and the harbour authorities are unable to meet their obligations. When they endeavour to do so, they are obliged to put a severe tax on an industry which is struggling at the present time under very adverse circumstances. The other day I asked for a return of the accumulated loans outstanding on the harbours, and the amount which was necessary to meet those charges. When that return is obtained it will be realised what a dead weight there is on the harbours, which will have to be relieved by some very drastic measure. It is quite hopeless to expect some of these small harbours to
  1750
  meet the heavy burden which has been piled upon them during the war, and which they are now absolutely unable to meet. That is a state of things with which we ought to deal at once.
  I submit to the Government that the only way in which this problem can be satisfactorily approached is by having a review of the whole position. The industry should be treated as a great national concern, which must not be allowed to get into arrears. The harbours are a great national asset and they should be relieved of this deadweight of debt which it is impossible for them to meet under present circumstances, and restarted on a new financial basis. I would like to quote the opinion of various authorities, such as curers and people definitely interested in the fishing industry, who took part in a meeting which was held at Yarmouth last August. Those people represented different places in Scotland, and they were all unanimous that this deadweight of debt, very largely caused by the War, was having a very depressing effect on the industry; that the harbour authorities themselves were quite unable to throw that burden off their shoulders, and were not able to take the steps which will have to be taken in the future if the fishing industry is to regain its old position.
  The Government must realise that these small harbours will never be able to pay off these heavy burdens and they must provide assistance and relieve them of these debts. It has not yet been possible to ascertain what effect the derating schemes proposed by the Government will have in reducing the harbour dues which are now charged. I made some inquiries quite recently from the Fishery Board, but they were not in a position to give me any information as to what relief would be gained in this respect. I shall be very glad if the Secretary of State for Scotland can give the House some information on that point, because it is a matter which is exercising a good many of the local authorities. There will be a certain amount of derating on the freight transport hereditaments, but how much that will amount to, and how much benefit will be passed on to the fishing industry is a point on which the industry would be very glad to have information if the Secretary of State can give it.

  1751
  I should like now to pass from the question of harbours to the question of markets, and here I am referring more particularly to the herring industry. Before going into the question of the herring industry, however, I should like to bring to the notice of the Secretary of State for Scotland the high railway rates that are charged on fish sent down from Scotland. Some of the figures which I have ascertained are really hardly credible; I will quote only one or two. The freight from Fraserburgh to London on a barrel of herrings is 8s., while on the same barrel sent to an upper Baltic port the freight is only 2s. or 3s. A box of kippers, weighing 14 lbs., sells in London for 4s., and of that 4s. the railway carriage represents 1s. 1d. These are pretty serious charges on the industry. We made some effort, when the Local Government Bill was going through the House, to get fish included in the Schedules under which special rates and advantages could be given, but our efforts were not very successful, for it was pointed out that had the Amendment in question—the only one which came within the Rules of Order—been successful, it would only have reduced the rates on fish delivered to steelworks, which was rather a ridiculous result. Still, the effort was made, mainly with the object of drawing the attention of the Government to the heavy rates that are charged on fish sent from ports in the North of Scotland to the markets in the centre and South of England, and any steps that can be taken by the Government to secure that the fishing industry is not treated worse than the agricultural industry in this matter would be greatly to its advantage.
  With regard to the marketing of herrings, the question of the Russian market has been raised many times in this House, but I never hesitate to raise it again, because it is a question of vital importance to the herring fishing industry. Of the herrings landed in Scotland, something like 62½ per cent. are cured and barrelled for export, only the smaller proportion being consumed fresh, smoked or kippered. Cured herrings form the bulk of the export trade, and in pre-War days the greater proportion of the exported herrings went to Russia. It is not necessary for me to detail past history, but the fact
  1752
  remains that the Government in power do not look upon Soviet methods with a very friendly eye, and that has led them into what, I think, is the unfortunate position of refusing to encourage trade with the Russian people, which is a matter entirely apart from the views that anyone may hold as to the political methods and ideas prevailing in that country. I am very glad to see that an important trade delegation is on its way or just about to start to Russia from this country, with a view to opening up trade there, and that on that delegation there are going to be two representatives of the herring industry.
  We are given to understand that the great difficulty which stands in the way of opening up trade with Russia is the question of credits. How far the trade delegation will be able to take any steps or make any arrangements to get over that difficulty, we are, of course, unable to say at the present time, but I think it will be found that the question of credits will be one of the first questions with which they will have to deal. I appealed some little time ago for the addition of Russia to the. Schedule of countries to which export credits might be given, but the Government refused, and said that it was open to private traders to push their trade and make what arrangements they liked. I must say that I regretted the attitude then adopted by the Government because I think they rather went out of their way to show a hostile attitude where a kindly word might have been very useful. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland to-day will take this opportunity of saying such a kindly word. I do not ask him to express the view that the Government's attitude should be altered, but I do ask him, at any rate, to take this opportunity of saying a kindly word in the hope that our trade with Russia may increase. It is not asking for very much, but it might do a great deal in helping out trade. I am not speaking on behalf of Russia, but entirely in the interests of our own people. I think that in our own interests a kindly word expressing hope that trade may be re-established may be of considerable use to the industry, and I do ask the Secretary of State, if he can see his way to make some expression of that sort, to do so this afternoon.

  1753
  Some attention was drawn the other day to a rather unusual winter catch of herrings at Buckie, or rather, at the herring port on the western side, where the catch was turned back into the sea because there were no means of dealing with it. That attracted a good deal of public attention. It is always most unsatisfactory when good food has to be thrown into the sea, especially when there are many people who are hungry and only too anxious to get hold of it. I should like to know whether, now that the Government are supervising the administration of the fund for distressed miners and are adding £1 to every £1 of public subscription, any arrangements are being made to secure that, in the event of an exceptional landing of fish of that sort, the fish shall be sent to the distressed areas rather than that it shall be thrown back into the sea. I know that there are difficulties in the way, and that it is not an easy matter to deal with, but I do ask the Government to let us know whether, with that incident in their mind, they have taken any steps to secure that such a thing shall not happen again, and that good fish shall not be thrown away when there are hungry people ready to eat it.
  Apart from the question of the Russian market, which I have already touched upon, there is no doubt that a good deal might be done in finding new markets. The trade itself has done a great deal in endeavouring to open up new markets to take the place of those which they have lost, but it is rather astonishing to note that certain countries of Europe take practically none of our herrings at all. For instance, Spain and Portugal take none, and other countries in the Mediterranean take none. A trial shipment of about 35 barrels was made to Palestine last year, which met, I believe, with considerable success and may be the beginning of trade there. We know that cured herring is not a suitable article for export to very hot countries, but there are parts of the Mediterranean and the East of Europe where, certainly in the winter season, there are opportunities for opening up fresh trade, and in that respect a good deal might be done by instructions to our Consular officers. We have a great network of Consular officers all over Europe, and, if they were given instructions to make inquiries and
  1754
  collect and send home information, and if, when it came home, it were not pigeon-holed but published for the benefit of those interested, I think that a great extension of our markets in Europe might be found.
  Then I come to another market where nothing is being done at present, but where Canada is already trying to make an opening, and that is in tropical Africa, where there are millions of our subjects, most of them fish eaters, and many of them very well off, whose ordinary food is uninteresting, yams or rice, to which they like to add something tasty; in fact, the more tasty the fish the more they like it. Canada has done a good deal in canning herring of all sizes, from the small herring of the sardine size up to the full-grown fish, sending them to Ceylon and Malaya. I should like to know whether anything could not be done by way of canning, in suitable receptacles for up country transport in Africa, to see if an opening cannot be made in that direction, because there is undoubtedly a great possibility and the chance of getting a market for canned herring. There is also the question of a hard cure for cod. The question of a hard cure is one that means scientific research. Some efforts have been made in that direction in Canada and I have been in communication with the Fishery Board on the subject, and they have promised that the matter will not be lost sight of. I should like to see it pressed forward, because there, again, in the tropical markets, if you can get a hard cure of fish that can be tied up in bundles and carried on the natives' heads up country, there are great possibilities. When an industry finds itself in a bad way—it does not matter what industry it is—the first thing to look for is the possibility of extension to new markets, and I want very strongly to press these possibilities of the tropical markets of Africa, because I am sure, if we can once devise a method of cheap curing of fish for the natives, the possibilities of the markets that might be opened up are staggering. I should like to ask the Secretary of State to see that that question of research into methods of cure suitable for tropical markets should be pressed forward.
  A question that is of vital interest to the whole industry is that of credits. This is a very difficult and thorny sub-

  1755
  ject, and it is very closely connected with the question of new markets, and the recovery, particularly, of the Russian market as far as herring fishing is concerned. The last report of the Fishery Board for Scotland states that 82 per cent. of the drifter fleet are pre-War boats and that 41 per cent. are more than 20 years old. The whole fleet is ageing rapidly and will have to be replaced. It may be argued that it is a wrong method to increase the catching capacity of the fleet when its capacity now is more than sufficient to meet the demands of the markets that are available, but we hope shortly to recover some of these markets, and also to provide new ones, and it would be an extremely serious thing if the existing fleet were allowed practically to become useless. You have this fleet getting older every year, having to be patched and repaired, costing more to run and getting less efficient. I wish to direct attention to the importance of not letting the fleet down. I do not say increase it or give credits for building boats which will be in commission in addition to those now in commission, but steps ought to be taken shortly to inquire into the position and see how credits can be best applied for replacing the existing fleet as they gradually go out of use.
  Before the War a drifter cost £3,600; now it costs about £6,000, and that is a figure entirely beyond the powers of the ordinary share fisherman, and, if some assistance is not given, I am afraid we shall see boats going out of commission, those engaged in the industry going into other lines, and the younger men who ought to be following on going abroad, in fact, we have seen that already. There has been a good deal of emigration from the Scottish fishing ports, because the younger generation do not see the chances that their fathers had of becoming share-owners and eventually owners of boats, and it would be an exceedingly serious thing for Scotland if this industry, supported by what I may call the cream of our population, should be allowed to get down below a point at which it would find difficulty in recovering. Of course, if we get back the Russian market, the question of credit would very largely solve itself. The difficulty is finding credit for an industry that is on
  1756
  the down grade. An industry that is on the up grade can much more easily get credit than one that is in difficulties. The serious problem that has to be faced is that the fleet may get to a point at which it will be extremely difficult and costly to replace it, and, worse than that, that we shall not have the fishermen ready to take the part in the industry that their fathers used to do. The Prime Minister, in his election address, promised an inquiry into the whole matter. When I raised the question a short time ago, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries said the English Department was inquiring into it. Although no actual commission of inquiry has been appointed, they had always got their eye on the question of credits and were ready to consider any proposition that might be put up. I should like to know what has been done in Scotland in this matter. Has attention been given to this question which is said to be so seriously engaging the attention of the Fishery Board.
  4.0 p.m.
  I should like to refer to the very vexed question of the trawling area in the Moray Firth and the Clyde. The Secretary of State for Scotland will have realised what great interest and excitement has been aroused by the proposal to throw open a certain area on the Clyde. I understand that no final order has yet been made with regard to it. I do not know whether the time has yet expired after which an order would be made with regard to the Clyde area, but the questions which were raised by the proposal to throw open that area are in their nature very similar to those questions which have been raised in the Moray Firth. Although the question of the territorial waters within which fishing may not take place by foreign fishing boats is one of international importance, and any question of making arrangements whereby foreign and British boats may receive at least equal treatment in what may be called home waters, is not one entirely for ourselves, but also concerns other countries. I should like to ask the Secretary of State if he can give us any information as to what is being done to arrive at some satisfactory solution of the very thorny problem to which I have referred. I have endeavoured to confine my remarks to the smallest possible compass, but

  1757
  the questions on which I have touched are questions of very great and vital importance to the fishing industry of Scotland, and I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will be able to give us some satisfactory replies to the questions I have raised.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I am sure that although there may be, on the part of some Members of the House, some surprise at the choice by the party to which I have the honour to belong of Scottish questions again for the subject of this afternoon's Debate, seeing that we have spent several weeks to a large extent in discussing Scottish local government, that surprise, I am sure, will be confined to Members from England and Wales; for Scottish Members, irrespective of party, will agree not only as to its importance, and the very wide range of matters for discussion, but also that if you consider the condition of the people, the state of trade, the unemployment statistics or any other criterion of the material well-being of the people of these islands, you will find that, although there are very black spots in England and Wales, broadly speaking the conditions are far worse in Scotland than they are in England or Wales. That is not very surprising if you consider that it is upon those industries which have suffered worst from the policy or the neglect of the Government—coal mines, agriculture, the fishing industry—that we in Scotland depend in far larger proportion for our prosperity and the health of our economic life than is the case in England and Wales. The problem is, of course, to some extent a matter of administration, but it goes very much deeper than that. It is really bound up with the whole policy of the Government and with their attitude towards these problems.
  I do not wish to refer to the fishing industry, which has been so adequately dealt with by my hon. Frind the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir E. Hamilton). There is, however, one point to which I would like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State, because it is a point which particularly affects that very important fishing harbour, the first of the fishing harbours on the East Coast of Scotland which happens to be in my own constituency, namely, Wick. Whereas my hon. Friend was absolutely right, and
  1758
  I support every word he said as to the importance of this harbour debt question, and the importance of having it thoroughly dealt with, so as to get this crushing load of debt off the back of the harbours, we in Wick, and I believe one or two other harbours, have a special claim upon the Government, because our harbour at Wick was closed during the War. Not only did that mean that we were unable to get the revenue which we were otherwise entitled to get, but, although it was closed during the War by the fiat of the Admiralty, by the action of the Government, during the time it was closed the Treasury officials actually went on totting up the arrears of interest and the instalments on the loan, until they came to the figure of £18,000, in addition to our ordinary debts, for the time the harbour was closed, and when no revenue could possibly come in. Although I thoroughly support what my hon. Friend said about the importance of dealing even more generously with this crushing load of debt upon the harbours, that certainly is an urgent question which ought to be tackled without delay.
  I was going to refer more particularly, however, to the question of agriculture. I am very far from denying that the position of agriculture in Scotland is not quite so disastrous as it is in England. I think that is very largely due to the skill, energy and vigour of our Scottish farmers and smallholders, and to the farm servants, who are recognised all over the world as some of the finest skilled labour to be found anywhere. Their loyalty, their hard work and their love of their calling have been conspicuous, and have been one of the mainstays of the industry in that country. But although things are not quite so bad in Scotland as they are in England, we do feel that, to a large extent, we are fighting a losing battle. It has been fought with great pluck, and on some fronts we are making ground, but there are other fronts where, if only we could get a little of that help that we feel the Government can give, that the organised community can give at this turning point, to deal with certain questions to which I shall refer, it would open up new prospects of hope to the industry. I said that there were some fronts on which we were advancing, and there is one matter in which this

  1759
  Government, and particularly the Secretary of State, has done a large amount of good work. I refer to the question of agricultural research. It is one which, I know, has been very near the heart of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), who did a great deal to advance the cause when he was Minister of Agriculture in England, and we see now in Scotland those splendid institutes, the Plant Breeding Institute, the Animal Breeding Institute, the Animal Disease station in Edinburgh, the Animal Nutrition station in Aberdeen, and, I would add, the Seed Testing station in Edinburgh, all doing admirable work which, by conferring some degree of immunity from disease upon plants and animals, and by finding means of curing disease and destroying noxious pests, will tend to reduce the costs and to increase the potentialities of agriculture.
  All this work has been pushed forward with energy during the last few years, and we are undoubtedly, in these ways, making discoveries which will affect the health of future generations. In saying that, I have in mind particularly the very important research into milk consumption and its effect upon school children which is familiar to all Members of this House, and which, I hope, will provide a starting point, a spring of activity, which will be used by this Government, or by future Governments, to bring home to the people the physical advantages of milk consumption and its advantages in conferring upon the youth of the country greater mental energy, as has been proved by this research; and, therefore, increase its consumption to the advantage of the producers of milk in Scotland. I hope that these labours will be pressed forward, and in all this research, as I say, the Government have done very good work, and have assisted to the best of their power in the last few years.
  Although this research work is admirable, there are two very strong criticisms which have to be made of the Government's agricultural policy, even viewed from this angle, which, as I say, is the most favourable angle for the Government it is possible to find. First, the means of conveying to the farmers the results of this research are deficient. It
  1760
  is being done to a very considerable extent and, considering the resources at their disposal, with great ability by the three agricultural colleges of Scotland at the present time, but they are hampered in their work by the exiguous resources at their disposal, and by the fact that they are unable to pay salaries equal to those paid in other educational establishments of comparable value, or anything approaching the salaries paid to men and women for doing similar work in England. All this is hampering their work at the present time, because they have no assured or adequate source of income on which to rely. It is time that the whole organisation of this research and educational work was taken in hand. I have reason to believe that the Secretary of State himself is to some extent of that opinion, and I should like to know if he can make any statement to the House as to what his intentions are, and whether he does not think it is time to take the organisation of this research and educational work in hand, so as to render more efficient and to accelerate the conveyance of this information in a useful form, so that it can be demonstrated practically in the sight of the farmer in the locality in which he lives.
  Secondly, and far more important, is the fact that the farmer is so weighed down, and so hampered by antiquated, unnecessary and obsolete restrictions, that he is not merely stopped from making the best use of such products of this research work as are conveyed to him, but he has not been offered opportunities or means to enable him to adapt his practice to the new truths which science and hard experience are bringing home to him. On the contrary, so far from this being done at the present time, we see on all hands the deterioration of the land. We see it getting more and more waterlogged, and we see less and less use being made of it, and we cannot acquit this Government of responsibility for what is a disastrous tendency in our economic life. In no direction has this apathy of the Government been more striking than in their attitude towards the question of smallholdings and land settlement. I believe that it is a vitally important policy. They treat it as an unimportant policy, as a little side-show of agriculture, a little Liberal fad. It is my submission that smallholdings and family farming should be the foremost

  1761
  feature of a national agricultural policy, It would be a favourable opportunity for the solution of some part of our unemployment problem, and to my mind it should be regarded as a great Imperial policy without which there will be no adequate solution of that question of Empire migration for which this Government have, for the past four or five years, been trying quite ineffectively to find a solution.
  Some hon. Members opposite talk, more often outside than inside this House, as if the Empire is the appendage of their party, and yet with this vast majority of 200 over all parties in this House, and with an incalculable majority in another place, they have been in power for four or five years, and not only have they produced no new policy to deal with this question of Empire migration, but they have not even been able to work the policy which was provided for them by the Coalition Government. They have not even been able to spend the money and use the resources provided for them under the Empire settlement scheme. Why? It is my submission that there can be no solution of the problem of Imperial migration until you tackle it from the angle of settlement here at home. They tell you in the Dominions and in the Colonies that they do not want our unemployed dumped there. They want men with some knowledge and experience of the land. How are you to get those men unless you settle them here at home first? Give them some knowledge of the land, reclaim some of our waste and waterlogged acres first, give them knowledge it that way, settle them on small holdings here; then you can rely upon their sons and daughters willingly going forth in that old Scottish spirit of enterprise and help to solve this great question of the distribution of population in our Empire. At the present time, instead of spending our racial income we are dissipating our racial capital, and the emigration agents are going round the countryside scouring it, taking away the best men, men we cannot spare at the present time, the men we want at home to populate and to cultivate and make the best use of our national resources. That is why I think we are tackling this question from the wrong angle. You will not get a solution of that great Imperial question unless you first of all tackle land settlement here at
  1762
  home and make the best use of our land resources in our own homeland. So much for the Imperial standpoint.
  I would look at it mainly from the standpoint of our own interests at home. On the importance of small holdings and family farming, we have a mass of testimony to which the right hon. Gentleman cannot shut his eyes. There are the lessons of other countries, countries like Holland, Belgium, and Denmark, which have made great strides, which have reconstructed their agricultural life, and which are now holding out against agricultural depression far better than the countries which are depending on a system of large scale farming. I could quote a great many authorities, but I do not want to waste the time of the House. I will, however, quote one authority which the right hon. Gentleman cannot ignore, and that is the agricultural tribunal of inquiry which was appointed by the Conservative Government in 1923. One of the principal recommendations of these very authoritative Commissioners was that the Government should formulate a scheme which could be put into operation at an early date for settling suitable applicants on the land. Discussing another possible policy of giving subsidies to farmers of arable land, in connection with the policy of small holdings, they say that the former depends on certain broad decisions of policy, but that:
  "As a measure of efficiency for the whole industry and in fairness to the skilled labourer, the small holdings policy is right, in any case."
  That is very important testimony. It is the testimony of very able men, and it is the testimony of the tribunal to which the Government of that day, of which the right hon. Gentleman himself was a member, appealed. Since then, we have had the appointment of the Nairne Committee. This was a committee appointed by the present Government the year before last. The committee reported last year. We on these benches were very suspicious of that committee. We knew that a number of men appointed to that committee had openly criticised small holdings. We knew that on the whole their feelings were adverse to small holdings, but they proved themselves to be a very "Daniel come to judgment," for when the Report was published, we found that they proclaimed the benefits

  1763
  of small holdings. I need hardly add, because it is known to hon. Members in all parts of the House, that the Board of Agriculture, now the Department of Agriculture, in successive reports, have pointed to, and have illustrated by facts and figures, the success of small holdings in Scotland. Why has there been no advance made? Why, far from any advance being made, far from matters remaining stationary, have we steadily gone back under the administration of the right hon. Gentleman?
  It certainly cannot be said that there is no demand for land in Scotland. I have here the figures which were brought out by the Nairne Committee. We can see from these figures that there are at the present time 7,600 unsatisfied applicants for land. The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is not a fair figure to take and that some of these people—one often hears it said by hon. Gentlemen opposite—are unfit for farming, that they are inefficient, that they have not the capital; there are all sorts of difficulties about them. At any rate, it is perfectly fair to say that there are these 7,600 applicants, and the Nairne Committee divides them into three categories. The first is the active list of people suitable in every respect, with the capital, able to enter the holdings now, willing to take holdings anywhere. Of the people situated like that for whom there is no possible excuse for not providing small holdings at the present time there are 2,129 ready to go in at any moment. Of these, no fewer than 676 are ex-service men who have been reported on as having capital and being in every way fit to enter upon holdings at the present time.
  Take those who are what you call on the suspense list; that is to say, those who are in every way suitable in character but have insufficient capital. If you have a man who is suitable and who perhaps has been a farm servant on a holding and has proved himself to have the capacity for working a holding, or who perhaps is the son of a smallholder who is known to have the capacity. I say that there ought to be a means of preventing insufficiency of capital from being a bar. There ought to be a means of giving a man a commencing credit enabling him to equip and start his holding. Taking this category of men who have either insufficient
  1764
  capital or who are without sufficient experience but other wise suitable as regards character and capital and in every other way if that disqualification with regard to experience can be removed, you will find that there are 4,300 men who are in every respect, except either capital or sufficiency of experience, capable of carrying on a holding successfully at the present time, and who are longing to get the land.
  Let us take the numbers of ex-service men. There are no fewer than 1,073 ex-service men in the first category, men fitted in every way, men who when they were at the War or when they were going to the War were told that the first thing that would be done for them when they came home would be to provide them with some land. That was the solemn obligation of the country to the ex-service men. Of those men suitable in every respect, there are 1,073 who cannot get land at the present time. If you add the second category ex-service men, the qualifications being the same as I described in speaking of the Suspense Category, there is a total of 2,430 unsatisfied ex-service men at the present time. If you come to the number of holdings which have been provided by successive Governments, you find, if you take the number of new holdings and enlargements together, that they rose from 317 in 1920 to 737 in 1922, but since 1922 the total number has steadily declined year by year. In spite of all these recommendations of the committees which the Government set up to advise them, in spite of the hunger of these men for the land, in spite of the obligation to the ex-service men, they have diminished until in the last two years the average, instead of being 737, as it was in 1922, is only just over 100.
  Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: Why?
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: That, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, is not a question for me to answer. It is for the right hon. Gentleman to provide an answer. For my part, I think that this question should be tackled and tackled now vigorously. That would be one of the best hopes of solving the problems and difficulties of agriculture at the present time, of introducing a better and stronger structure into agriculture, and of helping to solve our unemployment

  1765
  problem. There is another reason why I commend this policy to the House. It is that of justice to the farm servants. Some hon. Members may say "Oh, that is merely a sentimental politician's way of talking about the farm servants and justice." Let us take the hard-headed economists and see what they have to say on this question. Here, again, they are men appointed, not by the Secretary of State, but by the Conservative Government in 1923—the Agricultural Tribunal of Investigation. Talking of the smallholdings policy, they say:
  "This rests on the grounds of general efficiency and justice to the labourer. There is not evidence to show that smallholders are either more or less efficient and productive than large farmers, but new energy in agriculture does not come into the industry from other industries. It must arise within the industry, and the aim should be to give it opportunity. The limitation of the land is the reason why a public policy is necessary to ensure this."
  For that reason—justice to the farm servant, to give him the feeling that farm service is a calling which is worthy of the best energies of men and women in Scotland—the policy of land settlement is amply justified. It would hold out prospects to them of having holdings of their own to cultivate, and an independent status on the soil of their own country. That is one great justification and strong reason for going ahead vigorously in prosecuting the policy of smallholdings. In failing vigorously and effectively to prosecute the policy of small holdings and family farms, this Government have ignored Scottish public opinion, they have flouted the recommendations of their own committees, they have failed to honour the country's obligations to ex-service men and have shut their eyes to the necessities of the country and of the Empire.
  I turn now from the question of land settlement to that of drainage, which is a far more important and far bigger question than some hon. Members fully realise. I will refer to a commission for which the right hon. Gentleman was personally responsible, because he set it up namely, the National Conference on Agriculture in Scotland. That Conference was appointed by the right hon. Gentle, man. They assembled in Edinburgh and produced a report which was framed on very orthodox lines. The first necessity that they put forward for agriculture in
  1766
  Scotland, if more and more land was to be saved from going to waste and from becoming waterlogged, was drainage. What have the Government done, as a result of this proposal? They have done one thing, not unimportant, but relatively small; they have dispensed with the stipulation that the men employed on the drainage must be unemployed ex-service men, if the grant was to be made.
  The vital thing was to give grants to farmers and smallholders on an adequate scale, to enable the work to be done. We find that, far from larger grants having been given, the grants have been reduced. It is not that we want larger grants given to individual farmers and smallholders, but that we want more money to be available so that a larger number of farmers and smallholders can get their share. At the present time an immense numbers of applications are being made, but only a relatively small number are being granted. It is because the Government are actually putting less money at the disposal of agriculture in Scotland for this purpose than before the Committee reported so strongly in favour of additional resources being made available, that we object so strongly to their actions. In the year 1922–23, the sum granted amounted to £38,000, in the following year £32,000 and in the next year £29,000. Then came the year when the Scottish Committee was set up, and the resources available dropped from £29,000 to £9,000. Subsequently, it rose to £13,000, but it dropped again last year to £8,371. That is playing with the situation in Scotland. Here is a need which all the expert people in Scotland declare is the greatest need of the soil; here is a recommendation made by their own Committee, a recommendation which the Government have flouted, and they only provide these meagre resources out of which the work can be continued.
  In addition to the ordinary grants given there is now a special grant given for the employment of men from the distressed areas. In many rural districts in Scotland there is at the present time an immense amount of distress. There is a great deal of under-employment and in some districts, owing to the position of the fishing industry, there is a great deal of unemployment. It was calculated, not long ago, that one man in seven is unemployed in Wick, and yet we

  1767
  in Caithness are expected to import men from the distressed areas away to the South, bringing them up at expensive railway fares, and then they have to find expensive lodgings in Caithness. That is a wholly unsuitable scheme from their point of view, whereas we in Caithness, and particularly in Wick—in which, owing to the state of the fishing industry there is much unemployment—we have plenty of men who could work upon the soil of their own native county if the limits of the scheme could be enlarged.
  The chief point, is the need for a vigorous drainage policy. The water is catching up on the land and the position of the land is becoming worse. Deterioration is going on, and there is great and urgent need for action if the land is to be saved. There is not only the question of drainage of farm lands, but there is also the wider question of whole areas of land which are exposed to flooding at the present time. There is the famous case of Garmouth on the Spey, where vast acres of land are exposed to destructive floods, and there is the case of Killermont, on the Kelvin, near Glasgow. There are many other areas which, if we had the drainage areas properly delimited and a proper policy were pursued throughout the whole of Scotland, could be drained, and as a result we should get a great deal more land into good condition.
  No wonder that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland are protesting against this aspect of the Government's policy. I hold in my hand a copy of a resolution which they have passed, recording their emphatic protest against the inaction of the Government in regard to the grave problem of the drainage of agricultural land in Scotland, and calling upon the Government to introduce without further delay legislative measures to confer the requisite powers upon suitable authorities for the compulsory removal of obstructions in water courses which are presently rendering useless many thousands of acres of land. That resolution was passed on 15th March. Drainage is vitally necessary to the prosperity of agriculture, and it is a pre-requisite of land settlement. Here, again, the Gove-ernment substitutes for action an exhibition of unblushing helplessness and senile impotence.
  1768
  I would refer also to the great problem of unemployment, which hangs over the whole of Scotland like a pull at the present time. Not only does it oppress the industrial districts, but we feel it in the countryside. We feel it in the fishing centres in particular, and in the agricultural centres. The amount of underemployment which exists is very severe. The situation is much worse in Scotland than in England. The total number of insured persons in Scotland is 1,263,000, and the proportion of unemployment is 14 per cent., whereas in England the total number of insured persons is 10,026,000, and the proportion of unemployment 12 per cent. Our unemployment is worse by the very substantial fraction of about one-sixth. This is a source of misery and demoralisation to those who suffer under this great evil, and it is also a menace to those who are more fortunately situated. So far as the countryside is concerned, just as much as in the towns, it would help if, instead of things getting worse, if instead of the land deteriorating and instead of the countryside emptying and the population of the country streaming into the cities and aggravating the unemployment problem in the cities, we could reverse those tendencies and get the people working on reclamation schemes and settled on the land as a result partly of reclamation schemes and partly by using land which is now derelict.
  If we could also tackle a question which is vital in the Highlands and all over Scotland, that of communications, roads and bridges which are unfit for traffic; if we could effect such an improvement in the communications as would reduce the charges upon industry; if, at the same time, there could be set up in Scotland a national marketing system, to be linked up with a more efficient system of transport which would enable the farmer to market his produce on much fairer terms, and if we could extend the telephone system, which is greatly needed in Scotland, we should do a great deal towards solving the question of unemployment in the country. Add to that the question of housing. I am not going to speak to-day of the seriousness of the housing situation in our great cities, although that is in the minds of all Scottish Liberal Members who read the Report of the

  1769
  Scottish Board of Health which was issued last year, with its terrible description of slums in Glasgow. It is also in the minds of those who know something of housing, from personal visits to the housing conditions of our great cities. Housing is also badly needed in the countryside.
  Then there is the need of electricity for the development of the countryside and for helping the people who live in the countryside. I understand that there are certain electricity schemes going forward in the Highlands which will not enable the people who live in those districts to benefit. It will merely mean that the power will be roped off to the South, and the people living in the country districts will get very little benefit from the scheme. We have the capital, the credit and the labour available. Let us use it on these great constructive schemes; schemes which will leave behind them assets of permanent value to the community which will strengthen the whole structure of agriculture and our economic life in Scot-land generally. That could be undertaken at once. For a very long time after the War, and when the unemployment came first upon us, public opinion was, undoubtedly, sunk in a certain measure of lassitude, but now that we have put off our national failing of waiting for something to turn up, now that public opinion is waking up, there is a demand in Scotland for these questions to be handled vigorously and with greater energy, drive and imagination than this Government are showing or have shown since they came into office.
  Unemployment is a hideous peril, like the peril of defeat in war. There is a great opportunity for this peril to be tackled now. We feel that on the lines which we have described in the country, and which will be described by us on every suitable occasion, this great evil could be tackled successfully, in a way which would lead to the absorption of the unemployed and leave behind a strengthened economic structure in Scotland, and an enriched people. I do not appeal to this Government to tackle the question, because they have not shown the drive, the energy or the vision which would fill me with the confidence that they can handle it successfully. I do not refer to the Secretary of State
  1770
  or the Under-Secretary of State. They very often appear to me to be like good men struggling against adversity. There is an inland sea which is so full of salt I am told that if a man falls into it he is buoyed up and quite unable to swim, and the gestures of the right hon. Gentleman opposite remind me of a man who is trying to swim in, I think it is, the Dead Sea, which makes the analogy all the more appropriate. Therefore, I do not ask the Government to take up this question on the large scale which I have outlined; but I do think that even now, in the last moments of their administration, that they should do something to redeem their record by setting on foot the beginnings of a policy in Scotland which would at least give us a chance of witnessing some absorption of the unemployed, a strengthening of the position of agriculture by increasing the number of small holdings and family farms, the reclaiming of waste land, and an improved marketing system. If not, we shall await with confidence that day, which cannot now be long postponed, when the Government will receive the inexorable judgment of the people of Scotland.
  Mr. T. JOHNSTON: The state of the benches on all sides of the House indicates how far vitality has gone from our proceedings and how near we are to a General Election. The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) whose eloquence has just stirred vacancy, concluded his remarks with the fervent hope that the Government in its dying days would change its attitude towards Scottish agriculture and make a last moment amendment of their four and a-half years' policy of inaction. Whether the hon. and gallant Member expects to get anything as a result of his appeal I do not know, but, personally, I have no hope that a Government which in 1928 deliberately cut down the small holdings grant by one-third, cut down by £100,000 the amount spent upon the resettlement of people of Scotland—will in its dying weeks be the least likely to make any amendment in the direction which the hon. and gallant Member desires.
  I should like to ask the Secretary of State some half a dozen questions which I am sure large sections of people in

  1771
  the rural areas of Scotland will be glad to have answered. For example, I should like to ask a question with regard to the MacBrayne Company. I should be glad if he can tell us the name of the Government director who is to represent the Treasury on the Board, and also what steps the Government propose to take to ensure that the 10 per cent. reduction in fares and freights, which the MacBrayne Company promised should operate over their area, will apply to all parts of the Western Islands. There are parts of the Western Islands where the MacBrayne Company do not operate. For example, the traffic to and from the North and South Uist and Barra is handled by the McCallum Company and the Martin Orme Company, and neither of these two companies have yet been incorporated with the MacBrayne Company. I shall be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the traffic to and from these parts of the Western Islands is not penalised to the extent of 10 per cent. as a result of leaving Messrs. McCallum and Martin Orme out of the. MacBrayne agreement. It was certainly the intention of the Select Committee which discussed this matter that all the companies operating in the Western Islands should be brought into the agreement and we understood from the representatives of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, and the Coast Shipping Lines, that they were in touch with Messrs. McCallum and Martin Orme. Every member on the Select Committee hoped, as a result of these negotiations, that all the transport companies operating in the Western Islands would be incorporated in the MacBrayne Company and that every part of the Western Islands, including North and South Uist and the West of Skye, would receive the benefit of this 10 per cent. reduction in fares and freights. My information is that up to last week there are parts of the Western Islands, North and South Uist and Barra, where this 10 per cent. reduction does not obtain, and the people are feeling very sore in consequence. The Secretary of State is perfectly well aware that Messrs. McCallum and Messrs. Martin Orme do not get the subsidy which is given to the new public utility MacBrayne Corporation,
  1772
  and we are entitled to ask that the Government will take steps to see that every part of the Western Islands is treated on the same footing.
  Then, can he give the House any information as to how far the experiment in the afforestation of peat land has gone; whether it is likely to be a profitable undertaking. We have been told that the experiments which have been made in the afforestation of this land give some hope of success, and I should like to know what have been the results so far of this experiment. If we could get some kind of an afforestation scheme in Lewis there would be some prospect of economic prosperity there. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to tell us how far these experiments hold out any prospect of final success. The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland has directed public attention again to the scandal of the flooding in the Spey Valley. May I put in a word to reinforce his remarks. It is amazing that at this time of day great tracts of land should be under periodical flooding and not only that, but that farm buildings should be swept away, and the Government stand helpless; although their attention has been repeatedly directed to these floods at Question Time by myself and other hon. Members. But it is not only in the Spey Valley that these floods occur. I have repeatedly drawn attention to the periodical flooding in the valley of the Kelvin, and I am glad to see that the Farmers' Un on of Scotland have begun to pass resolutions on the subject, which, I understand, they have sent on to the Secretary of State. From my bedroom window, ever since I was a boy, I have seen these floods; anything up to 14 miles of land are flooded, perhaps eight times every winter; agricultural land wasted, soured and sodden; and public roads swept away. I have endeavoured, without the slightest success, to discover what amount of public money has been spent during the past 20 years in maintaining and repairing the public roads which had been destroyed as a result of the flooding of the Kelvin, the Luggie and the Glazert.
  The remedy is simple. There is the question of the weir at Lambhill. What is to be done with that? Further up the valley of the Kelvin you have three streams choked with sludge and coal gum. It is nobody's business, under private

  1773
  ownership of land, to clean these streams. If one proprietor chose to employ unemployed colliers to lift this sludge out of the river and use it for banking purposes, he would not solve the problem; he would only drive the floods farther down the valley and on to other people's land; and the land behind the embankment would be flooded again. Everybody seems to be helpless. Private ownership prevents anything being done, and at the minimum certainly 2,500 acres of the finest agricultural land in central Scotland is wasted, soured and useless, and in addition public roads are torn up certainly two or three times every winter with considerable inconvenience to traffic. It is perfectly true that if the Government employed unemployed colliers to drain the sludge out of these rivers and use it for banking purposes the added value of the land would immediately accrue to the private owners of the soil, who would have done nothing for it; but nevertheless it is the duty of the Government to take steps not only to see that this land is brought into fruitful cultivation, but also to prevent these increased land values going to private owners. The enhanced values which would be secured as a result of these improvements should accrue to the public authority. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State proposes to continue his policy of masterly inactivity in face of these, periodic floodings of the Kelvin and Spey Valleys.
  5.0 p.m.
  Finally, I should like to ask whether his Department have considered taking steps to develop the markets in the move distant rural areas. I am all for the policy of planting people on the soil, but if when people get on the soil they are going to have tremendous difficulties in marketing their produce; if the cost of marketing eggs from Skye, for example, is going to be prohibitive then, surely, a condition precedent to a further development of small holdings is an efficient transport system and an efficient co-operative marketing system, which the Government should organise. It is perfectly simple and easy. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is not an egg merchant. It is quite true that the Secretary of State is not an egg merchant, but when we discover that in parts of Skye during certain parts of the year eggs are sold at 6d. and 8d. a dozen to the local
  1774
  gombeen man, the local merchant who goes about with his van and exchanges tea and sugar and the rest of his goods for the eggs, I ask the right hon. Gentleman what are the wholesale prices of eggs in the large cities at that period of the year, and he tells me that the wholesale prices are 2s. 6d. and 3s. a dozen. Surely then it is obviously the duty of the Scottish Board of Agriculture to assist co-operative marketing of that produce by becoming itself, if necessary, with the assistance of the Post Office, the merchant who would market for these producers, and return to them by postal order or otherwise the exact amount that is received for their produce. There might be a depot established at Edinburgh and one at Glasgow, and so on in the large centres. Let the Secretary of State use the Post Office. The postmen are going on their rounds anyhow, and in some cases carrying one or two postcards and a letter or two. Why cannot we have properly devised egg carriers?
  Why cannot the Government agree to market the eggs for these people, and to return to them the wholesale price, less a small charge for the cost of marketing? If the Government would take steps along those lines—it has been done in other parts of the world—they would begin to make it possible for smallholders in the Outer Islands and the more distant parts of the country to earn an economic living, they would begin to encourage co-operative marketing in a co-operative spirit, which would not only ensure an economic living but, as in other countries, would ensure a prosperous living. When that is done, when the Government operates along those lines, we shall begin to hear less of the steady drift from the rural districts to the towns. I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take any steps whatever to assist in this matter.
  Then is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman actively to assist in the development of Scotland as a health resort? The Governments of Switzerland, of Italy, of France, of Norway, and of Sweden all actively help in the development of those countries as tourist centres. Could the right hon. Gentleman not see his way, as an experiment, to assist in the erection of perhaps half a dozen or a dozen summer chalets and to advertise them, and so keep at home some of that British money that presently goes

  1775
  abroad? Let us see the beauties of our own country. If along these lines the right hon. Gentleman would make a beginning we should have some hope that in Scotland we should begin to have a nation once again. But nothing is done; there is not even a pretence of a policy—just nothing, no new idea. I hear a voice interrupting about the MacBrayne subsidy. That business was forced upon the Government by protests from all sides of the House. The one bright thing that the Government have done during the past four years, so far as rural Scotland is concerned, has been to set up a public utility corporation and to take over the assets of the MacBrayne Company.
  Let the Government develop that idea. Let us have a tourist agency set up. Why not? Why not attract some of that £50,000,000 or £100,000,000 of money that is alleged to be spent on the Continent every year, in order that tourists may see scenery that is no better than that in Skye. The spectacle of the Coolins coming down from Carabost is as wonderful and magnificent and memorable as anything to be seen in Switzerland. Why cannot our Government do what the Swiss Government does? Why cannot it experiment with an expenditure of comparatively few pounds a year in order to attract employment to the rural districts of Scotland, to keep labour on the soil? It would mean the making of a new industry, and would do more perhaps than any of us dream to tackle the unemployment problem in rural Scotland. I would like the Secretary of State to enlighten us on the several points to which I have referred.
  Mr. JAMES STEWART: I would like, if I can, to emphasise the points that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), more especially in regard to the opening up of Scotland and making it more attractive to tourists. Probably it will be said that that is a matter for private enterprise. I would point out, however, that in several of our Dominions they do not leave the opening up of the country for tourists entirely to private enterprise. In Ontario, at Niagara Falls, there are a hotel and a large restaurant, and in the National Park at Rupert there are hotels and chalets and everything to make the place attractive. What is true of the Dominion of Canada and of the
  1776
  Province of Ontario is equally true of some of the States and the Commonwealth of Australia. In the United States also there are many large national parks, and the State provides chalets, hotels and every convenience for the traveller who wishes to visit these places and to see the wonderful sights and great natural beauties.
  I am convinced that there is no part of the world that has more beautiful scenery or more grandeur in it than our own country of Scotland, and yet there is no part of the world that is less advertised. Everywhere in the City of London you will see the agencies of Continental countries, Holland, Germany and others, all with attractive advertising to catch the eye of the tourist. We hear of tourists coming from America with many millions of money to be spent in Europe, but so far as Scotland is concerned, except that the Cunard Company takes a portion here and there for shipping purposes, there is nothing done. I would refer also to the question of the sparsely populated parts of the country and the development of roads there. There are men of far more ability who know far more about roads than I do—I know very little—but in my travels I have seen places where I have thought it would be possible to start industries and draw the population away from the ever-growing industrial centres. To scatter industry in this way would be beneficial from a health point of view, and in many other ways.
  In the United States one sees a place with a little waterfall, capable of generating electricity. There industries are set up because of the cheapness of the water power and of the electricity. A wonderful road system is also developed there, so that the industries can flourish under the best conditions. I read the other day in the "Times" that the State of New Jersey—it is one of the smallest of the States—has planned to spend in the next seven years no less than £36,000,000 on the development of roads. I do not think that State is larger than Scotland, but it is going to spend more money in the development of roads than we are to spend in the whole of Great Britain. The beneficial result of that enterprise will soon be obvious. I suggest to the Secretary of State that he should make a closer inspection and see what can be done to help in the transformation of our

  1777
  country by the development of roads, by making it possible for industry to settle in the sparsely populated Highland districts, and by assisting agriculture.
  I wish now to refer to one or two matters which are perhaps rather parochial in their nature. I find in the Report of the Board of Health, dated 1928, but dealing with the year 1927 a long and elaborate article—if I may so term it—on sewerage and the pollution of rivers. At the beginning it says:
  "Continuous pressure has been brought to bear upon local authorities to have existing conditions improved."
  Further on it says:
  "The trouble from sewage, broadly speaking, arises from putrefaction, and the problem is to render the effluent non-putrescent."
  During the last 20 years or so, Glasgow has incurred a capital expenditure of over £3,500,000 on works and on everything that science can provide, in order to clear away from the Clyde that smell which anybody who went down the Clyde 30 years ago will remember. Once felt, it could never possibly be forgotten. It was a smell the memory of which lingered with one as if it were a fragrant perfume. Glasgow has spent this money, but three local authorities who are connected with the scheme have absolutely refused to co-operate with us in trying to bring about the day when the salmon shall once again pursue its lordly way up the Clyde. These authorities are responsible for pouring untreated sewage into the Clyde. Then there is Dumbarton and the burghs which lie on the banks of the Leven. There again you have a source of pollution, and when the tide is going up the river, it carries all that untreated sewage up the river, and, in some degree, renders ineffective the efforts which Glasgow is making at such expense. What is true of Dumbarton it true of Paisley.
  There is also the case of Bearsden, a residential suburb, having its life and being outside of Glasgow, which, I suppose, considers itself a little bit above us. The corporation of Glasgow offered to treat the sewage of that district at a price but the offer was refused, and the Board of Health, instead of acting according to the words of the report, that "continuous pressure should be brought to bear upon local authorities to
  1778
  have existing conditions improved," and insisting on the local authority agreeing to that course, has allowed this stuff that is coming from Bearsden to be poured, in an untreated state, into the Kelvin. The Secretary of State's Department has sanctioned that procedure. They have said that while this stuff will be poured into the Kelvin in an untreated state, it will be carried in such a way that all its bad effects will be removed. It is to be carried in a pipe and poured from the pipe into the Kelvin, and we are told that this process will remove its obnoxious and dangerous qualities.
  We all know that no matter how bad sewage may be, if it is poured into a river and then allowed to go for some distance, the natural filtration that takes place, in the course of a few miles will cause the obnoxious conditions to disappear. But in the present case that is not being done, and Glasgow's expenditure of over £250,000 a year is practically being wasted through the action of these local authorities who are allowed to pour this sewage into the Clyde—because that is ultimately what it means—thus endangering the health of the whole community around and about the Clyde. But the Department of Health, instead of supporting Glasgow in this matter, has given Glasgow a very nasty knock. They have said in effect to Glagsow, "We can do nothing for you." They never even offered to conduct an arbitration or to consider the matter. They just sanctioned the thing and the thing was done.
  There is another matter which, though it may be regarded as a minor matter, is nevertheless one of some importance to which I would direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention. Some 20 years or more ago Mr. Archibald Cameron Corbett, afterwards Lord Rowallan, one of the philanthropists who has been of advantage to the City of Glasgow, made a present to the people of the place known as Argyle's Bowling Green at Lochgoilhead—an estate of many thousands of acres but not very accessible. The people were glad to get the opportunity of visiting this spot and the gift was for the betterment of Glasgow, but now we are being told that Lochgoilhead is to be made more difficult of access to the citizens of Glasgow. The steamers going from the Broomielaw to Lochgoilhead have now been stopped. That is

  1779
  the ground of my complaint. Those steamers carried people at comparatively cheap fares. As a result of the stoppage of these steamers the people will have to go by train, either to Gourock or Craigendoran, and there they will have to take steamers at fares which are, if I remember aright, more than double the former cost of going all the way by steamer. This will interfere with the enjoyment by the people of what was intended to be a health resort for them.
  In this connection I may mention that the Y.M.C.A. of Glasgow set up a large building there and advertised throughout the country that they could give a cheap and healthy holiday in the midst of beautiful scenery with many advantages. Now the accommodation for 500 or 600 guests which they provided is to some extent rendered useless because of the extra cost of the fares. I believe that Scottish Members generally have received protests from the Y.M.C.A. against what is being done and we are anxious that the Secretary of State for Scotland should take some action in this matter with the steamship companies. He is now going to have some control over the companies and we hope he will see to it that the director or directors representing the State, on companies in which State money is involved, will see that something is done to assist the people in this matter.
  I wish to ask one or two questions on health matters. I observe that puerperal fever is still taking as large a toll of deaths as it did 40 years ago. Apparently science, which has reduced the death rate in other directions, has failed in regard to this disease. I should be glad to learn from the right hon. Gentleman that there has been at least some reduction in the number of deaths and I should like to know what action the Government are taking in this matter. I do not like to use the word "compel" but it may become necessary for the central authority which is finding the money, to use some sort of forceful persuasion on these local authorities to induce them to develop their maternity hospital accommodation. It should be possible for every woman at the time of child-birth to have the opportunity of getting the best accommodation and
  1780
  treatment. We should not have them living in single apartments as they are living in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, and perhaps also Aberdeen. We should not have women, in this state, living in single apartments, in a foetid atmosphere and in places where the proper hygienic preparations cannot be made for the most important event in a woman's life.
  I hope therefore that the Government Department will use the money force to compel local authorities to increase the hospital accommodation for the treatment of this disease. I gather also from the report covering the year 1927 that instead of pulmonary tuberculosis going down in that year, there was an increase. It is true that the ground which was lost in regard to pulmonary tuberculosis is balanced by ground gained in other respects, but while we have made great progress, progress which everyone is glad to see, we would like to know more about what is being done. I would like the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever is going to reply, to give us reasons, and not merely to tell us that he thinks the death rate has been due to the bad winter. My explanation of the failure of the tuberculosis death-rate to recede still further is the condition of poverty in which so many people are living. I believe that in this matter we have reached as far as we can reach until the conditions of the people are improved. There is not a medical officer in Scotland who when lecturing on this subject fails to say something to the effect that it is a poverty disease and that its main cause is not merely bad housing but other bad conditions of almost equal importance. What are the Government doing to accelerate the progress which we know can be accelerated with the proper conditions, in regard to both the diseases to which I have referred? I should be glad to have a statement on behalf of the Government covering all these points.
  Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I wish to reinforce all that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir E. Hamilton) on the questions of the fisheries and of our harbours round the coast of Scotland. I am sure the Secretary of State for Scotland knows that

  1781
  the inshore fishermen are going through an extraordinarily bad time. I do not know if in recent years those men have been up against difficulties such as they are having to face to-day, and I want to ask if the right hon. Gentleman cannot do something to help them. The men whom I represent have made definite proposals and have asked for definite help, but up to the present they have been denied this help. I am talking now of those men who have been prohibited from fishing in that large area of water known as St. Andrew's Bay. Deputations of fishermen from Arbroath and all down the coast have laid their case before the Fishery Board, and I am satisfied that, in justice to those men and to help them over a time of extreme difficulty, it would be a very gracious act on the part of the Secretary of State for Scotland if he could see his way to go back to the conditions of 1921, when certain regulations were laid down for the size of boats fishing in that particular area. Those regulations were not enforced, and the men were allowed to use boats freely over 40 feet in those waters, but suddenly, in 1926, those boats, built on the assumption that they would be allowed to enter that area, were prohibited from going into it.
  The result has been that those boats are either completely out of commission or, in many cases, that they have been mutilated by cutting, so as to reduce them to a purely artificial measurement of 40 feet. Only 10 days ago I went down to the harbour to see boats that were actually in process of being cut, where both the stern pillar and the bow were being cut back "V"-shaped in order to come within the measurement. These men will do anything in order to be allowed to pursue their calling and get some result from their labours in that area, because the rest of the fishing at the present moment is largely non-remunerative; and, having in view the statements that have been made that there are more plaice fish in that area than ever before, as is proved by recent catches by other boats that have come within the regulations, and having in view the fact that it does not alter the system of fishing one bit whether a boat measures 40 feet or 45 feet, it would be an act of sympathy for those men if those regulations could be amended in
  1782
  some small way. At any rate, I hope that this particular aspect of the fishing in the area in which I am interested will be looked into by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the sympathy which I am sure he is always willing to give.
  The second question which I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is that of a loan of money to replace broken, damaged, and lost gear. The fishermen there have formed themselves into a co-operative society, which during the last year and a half has progressed wonderfully, but they are limited in their resources, and they ask for a small loan of money, at a reasonable rate of interest, with fair terms of repayment. They are quite willing to consider that, and, knowing these people, I know how sound they are from the point of view of carrying out obligations entered into. They ask for a small loan, and they suggest something like £1,000 for their society in order to replace gear. I believe there is an Act under which the right hon. Gentleman can do that if he thinks the case is a good one. The money would not be used to build new boats, but to replace gear. There have been in recent times considerable losses of valuable nets. I noticed in the newspaper only the other day that, during the foggy weather, large numbers of nets, have been lost by certain fleets in the North Sea, owing to the passage of steamers through the nets during fishing operations, but in addition, over a period of years, ever since the War, the fishing gear has got old and out of repair, and it requires replacement if the fishermen are to get the best results out of their hard calling. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into the question of a loan, and, if he can help those men in that way, I am sure they will be more than grateful.
  The third point with regard to fishing which I would like to put is the question of railway rates, which has been so well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland. I refer to railway rates on fish, and especially on small consignments. I believe that special rates are given from places like Aberdeen and other large trawling centres, but I speak for the small fishermen, who are not able to deal with the railway companies as those

  1783
  larger fishing companies can, and whose rates, therefore, are sometimes too heavy. I would like to see these co-operative societies of small bands of fishermen encouraged. This band consists of about 300 or 400 members, dealing with the various towns and large populous centres, and sending their fish off daily. They are consigning fish to London and to Manchester for sale; they are trying to cultivate a trade direct between themselves and the consumers, not through the usual channel of the broker, and anything that we can do to encourage them in that way would be all to the good of those men. I hope the question of railway rates will be looked into, because we do want to preserve and keep the inshore fishermen, who were so very valuable, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for East Fife (Commander Cochrane) can testify, during the War in mine-sweeping and elsewhere.
  The last question I wish to put, which is not quite a question for the Secretary of State for Scotland, is this: How far are the lifeboats down our coasts really up-to-date and able to preserve the lives of those who go into seas that are subject to sudden storms? I know that the Lifeboat Society has been doing a good deal down the coast in the way of giving motor lifeboats, but there are many of our harbours which are ill-provided with the best type, and I think a little pressure by the right hon. Gentleman, a little pushing along, with the society, of the needs of these harbours, would be a very good thing This need has been put before me by the fishers themselves. They realise that everything cannot be done at once, but the old row-boat type of lifeboat is very often too heavy to be moved in a hurry. The men who man the boat have to drag it sometimes considerable distances before it can be launched, and very often they are exhausted before they actually take up the oars to manage the boat. In addition, it takes time, and the lifeboats, as regards the fishing fleet, are very often required at quite short distances from the harbour. It is a question that wants looking into, to see whether you can house your lifeboat closer to the actual launching place and
  1784
  whether the motor type of lifeboat cannot be more generally used down our hard East Coast. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, if he looks into the question, he will find that there is something required to be done in that way.
  Now for a moment I want to turn to an agricultural question which has not been dealt with to-day, and that is the question of the arable farmer. My right hon. Friend knows our country well. I have reason to know the financial condition of the farmers in that part of the country of which I speak, and I venture to say that the large arable farmer is in a very bad way at the present moment. He is up against great difficulties, and even people who have large credit at their backs are getting into a state where they not only cannot make ends meet, but where they are losing money and beginning to look for plans whereby that loss, which has gone on now for two years, can be met. They have overdrafts of very considerable amounts on their farm accounts at the bank, and they are now looking round to see where they can cut their overhead charges. Several men who are farming large tracts of land—one to whom I talked the other day farming 800 acres of his own, another farming 500 acres, and another 450 acres—are beginning to consider the advisability of taking some of their arable land and putting it down to grass, which means fewer men employed on those farms, and they are seriously considering the question of reducing the number of cattle that they keep on the farms.
  That is the first time I have ever come across suggestions of that kind in arable farming in that good part of Scotland, and I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope), who knows his country as well as I know the country further South, will agree that these farmers are getting no return on their cattle with the present price of fat cattle. There is a danger that unless something is done to assist or carry through those arable farmers, you are going to get less employment on the land fewer cattle fed on those farms, and, therefore, less substance to go back into the soil; and it is really a very serious situation. The value of produce has gone steadily down in the last two years, and at the same

  1785
  time the overhead costs, the cost of implements and the cost of petrol, owing to taxation and other causes, have gone up, the wages have remained constant—they are low enough in any case—and the farmers find that all they have to buy for the production of the various crops, cereals and others, have gone up, whereas the return they are getting for their produce is going down. If we are to preserve our most important industry in Scotland, and keep it in the flourishing condition in which we would all like to see it, I am satisfied that the time has come when the Government have got to do something, because we are up against a situation that is indeed serious and that may at no distant date become almost critical. I would ask my right hon. Friend to look most carefully into what the Government could do in order to assist that type of farmer.
  Lastly, I would like to ask, in regard to the Research Department which has been set up, how far are the expert people who are working in this Department available to visit farms at the request of the farmers, to advise them as to suitable new forms of agriculture, and suitable manures for their land, or to give them any advice for which they may ask? In England, experts come down at the request of farmers to consult with them and give advice. I was asked by two farmers last Friday if it were possible to get these experts to look at their land, and to answer questions as to improving their farming and bringing it into line with modern science. The question on land drainage which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) so ably put forward is long overdue in Scotland, because we are more advanced than England. I believe that we have had a survey with definite results, whereas the excuse for not having a scheme in England is always that they must wait until a definite survey of the land has been made. I see no reason why we could not get on with a scheme, and now is the time to make definite plans for a particular area. If we took one or two areas and carried out the scheme as a sample, it would show exactly what could be done. The situation of agriculture not only in Scotland, but in England, is very serious, and if we are to preserve what is, after
  1786
  all, our greatest industry, we have to look to the Government to give us some definite sign that they are prepared to help us.
  Commander COCHRANE: I wish to refer to the case of the fishermen in St. Andrew's Bay as it affects my constituents. The hon. Gentleman took exception to regulations which made the length of the boats a test of whether they should be allowed to fish in St. Andrew's Bay. I agree that that is a rule-of-thumb method of determining the matter, but when the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Sir It. Hutchison) said that he wished to go back to the position as it was before 1921, I do not think that he appreciated the implications of this suggestion, because if we went back to that position, we should have to abolish the modern methods of fishing, and particularly the use of the Danish seine net which has been brought into use since then.
  Sir R. HUTCHISON: I said from 1921, after the regulations were issued.
  Commander COCHRANE: I cannot carry in my mind the date when the Danish net was brought into use, but it is because more efficient means of catching fish by small boats have become-more generally used in Scotland, that these regulations have become necessary.
  Sir R. HUTCHISON: It is not trawling, but seine net fishing.
  Commander COCHRANE: Certainly, but, as I understand it, there would be-no objection to any length of boat fishing with the type of net used before the introduction of the Danish seine net; it is because a more efficient net has been introduced that some form of regulation has become necessary. Therefore, it is a much wider question than the length of the boat. It is a question of regulating the more efficient method of fishing so that the stock of fish is not unduly depleted. It is far better that the fishermen of Arbroath should put up with the disadvantage of not being allowed to fish with boats over 40 feet long and retain the stock of fish in St. Andrew's Bay rather than that the restrictions should be withdrawn, in which case I am certain that the stock of fish, which has given a livelihood to the fishermen round that coast for many

  1787
  generations, would be quickly depleted and the fishermen would be in a much worse position that they are at present.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN: There is an administrative question arising out of the Debates on the Local Government (Scotland) Bill which I will take this opportunity of bringing to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. In those Debates we did not have opportunity of making certain points which concerned various parts of Scotland. Particularly I wish to raise the matter of the policing of the harbour at Aberdeen. Owing to the arrangements made for policing the harbour—which is accessible to the public in every way, and is an ordinary open harbour—between the Town Council and the Harbour Commissioners, the police grant will not rank for the rate relief under the general Exchequer grant arrangement of the Local Government Bill. I understand that the general Exchequer grant is to be calculated upon the rate revenue for the standard year, and that the standard year does not terminate until the end of May. I understand also that under the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman has the power, as explained by the Lord Advocate to me when I raised the matter in Debate, to alter the character of this private arrangement, and to permit the payment for this service to assume the natural character of a rate service and thereby to qualify for the Exchequer grant. Could not the Secretary of Slate consider carefully whether it be not possible, between the enactment of the Bill and the end of the standard year, to exercise his administrative powers, and so to alter the arrangements in this particular case as to enable the police expenditure to rank for grant? Owing to the special character of this arrangement, which applies not only to Aberdeen but to other docks, the police grant is not received in respect of this service. I assume that if the right hon. Gentleman finds it possible to follow the course which I urge, Aberdeen may profit by receiving on this expenditure the equivalent police grant which is made by the State to the municipalities carrying out these police duties. In this case they do not get it, because the services are not in the common form subject to the special rate.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I believe that I have been described at various times as a sheep-farmer, a fishmonger and a schoolmaster. I find myself to-day called upon to answer a Debate of considerable diversity, but, as my colleagues from Scotland know, it has been my duty during the last five years to endeavour to familiarise myself to the best of my ability with a great many of the problems which we have discussed to-day. I may fail, of course, to answer all the questions to the satisfaction of those who have put them, but I shall address myself within such limits of time as appear reasonable to the occasion, to reply to what has been asked of me. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) spoke in the main upon the problem of the fishing community. I would say not only on my own behalf, but, I am sure, on behalf of the Government and of all my colleagues, that we are very sensible of the important place which the fishing community takes in the life of our country. Anyone who can carry back his mind to the circumstances of the War realises the immense value of the services which it rendered to the country. The harbours of which the hon. Gentleman spoke are, in a great many cases, admittedly small and widely scattered. It is one of the most difficult problems which anyone has to solve at the present time, and having regard to the fact which the hon. Gentleman also emphasised, that there has been an alteration in recent years in the character of the boats employed, it becomes a very clamant problem as to whether it is wise on the part of the Government or of the Department to endeavour to maintain all these harbours, scattered and small, along the coast of our country, or whether a policy of greater concentration should not be the right policy.
  This is a matter which must be of great concern to everyone who takes an interest in this industry. I agree that a great many of these harbours are suffering to-day under a heavy burden of debt. I am not in a position now to say how some of these problems can be solved. Undoubtedly, the undertakings which were entered into were made at a time rather different from the time in which we exist to-day, and it is true that the intervention of the War has added to

  1789
  the difficulties which these harbour authorities have to face. I am not entirely satisfied that it would be a wise thing to hold out the hope that the Government were immediately coming forward to abolish the whole of these liabilities on the harbours, but this is a problem which undoubtedly calls for the sympathetic consideration of the Government. Anything which I can do, in spite of the fact that this is the end of a Parliament, in moulding, or in leaving behind me in the Department, some scheme or some idea as to how in future if, and when, the funds and the means are available, this problem can be tackled, I will do. That has been in my mind, and in the minds of the Department and in the minds of the Government, and to-day we are reviewing this problem.
  6.0 p.m.
  Then there is the question of credits for the replacement of fleets. All I would like to say on that is that I do not think the time has quite arrived when it would be wise or desirable to proceed along those lines. Here, again, we are in a stage of transition. Here, again, we have reached the stage where experiments are being made. It is doubtful whether the present form of steam-drifter is the one which will be regarded as most suitable in the future, or whether some more economical method of propulsion or some alteration in the size of the boats may not be advisable. Experiments are being made to find an answer to these questions, and, in view of the fact that the existing fleet is more than adequate for existing conditions, and makes catches in excess of the demands of the market which it has to supply, I think we must adopt a measure of caution as regards any question of replacing the fleet.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman has just made an interesting announcement that experiments are going on with regard to these vessels. Will he tell us whether they are being conducted by the Government, or assisted by the Government, how long they have been proceeding, and whether they have reached a promising stage?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that certain boats have been built—not by the Government, but in close consultation with the Fishery Board. I do not think the experiments have been carried
  1790
  so far that we can be sure of the results, but the experiments are being continued, and it is recognised by those who are in the industry that the Department are prepared to do anything they can to encourage and assist in carrying out those researches.
  On the question of dredging harbours, we cannot be quite sure whether we should deal with all the harbours or concentrate on a few. The fact that these harbours are small and that there is not much capital behind some of them, makes it impossible to carry out any dredging operations. We have placed the dredger at the disposal of the harbour authorities, but we find that in many cases they are not able to avail themselves of this service. The problem is still engaging our attention.
  I have been asked questions about the marketing of fish. I agree that this is a problem which both the Department and the industry should carefully study. The hon. Gentleman spoke of certain cases where high transport rates are charged in this country—8s. for a barrel, and 1s. 2d. for a box of kippers. Is it not the case that if the problem within this country is to be solved it must be on the lines of bulking consignments of fish? Fresh fish is perishable, and it is the essence of proper marketing that it shall be conveyed as rapidly as possible from the ports where it is landed to the centres where it can be sold. Clearly this is a problem in the solution of which the agents who buy the fish and others in the industry can materially assist by taking measures to despatch their fish in as large quantities as possible. Unless action comes from within the trade itself, I do not think there is much the Government can do materially to assist the trade. There are signs already that the trade is realising this.
  Regardng the problem of the herring, which constitutes one big aspect of this question from the point of view of the markets outwith this country, the hon. Member said he was satisfied that something more ought to be done as regards Russia. He invited me to express a kind word towards Russia in connection with this problem. I would be loath to refuse any kindly word which I could feel would be useful in helping the sale of the herring in Russia, or anywhere else, but I would beg the House to remember the recasting

  1791
  of Europe which took place after the War, and remind hon. Members that we are sending our herrings in great quantities into many of the parts of Europe which before the War were within the bounds of Russia. By sending representatives of the Fishery Department to the markets of Europe we have endeavoured to bring to the fishing industry of this country the most up-to-date knowledge of conditions there and to propagate the sale of herring on the Continent. The Empire Marketing Board have constructed a film upon the subject of the herring. I understand that this film will shortly be released, and it is encouraging to find that the Polish Government have asked to have it for use within Poland in order that they may encourage their people to buy fish.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: Will they reduce the duty?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: It is by those means, I think, that it is most likely we shall encourage sales of herring. The hon. Member spoke of Canadian developments and of what is known as "hard-curing." All I can say on that subject is that we are keeping closely in touch with the work being done in Canada, and we have had in this country representatives of that industry from Canada with whom the Board have conferred. I believe there are certain climatic circumstances which make hard-curing in this country difficult and, it may be, of uncertain value; but, at any rate, that problem is being investigated. The hon. Gentleman also dealt with the question of trawling in territorial waters. The whole problem of territorial waters is at present being considered by the League of Nations. A committee has been investigating certain scientific aspects of this matter as far as fish breeding and the spawning beds are concerned. The findings of that international committee have been published and have been communicated to the various Governments. Those interested in these problems may think that slow progress is being made towards a conclusion, but I must remind the House, and those outside the House who are interested, that, in the main, these are problems which do not solely concern this country, and that it is of the essence of things to secure co-operation
  1792
  and, so far as we can achieve it, agreement if the solution is to be a satisfactory one. With regard to the Clyde area, I announced in the House yesterday that I did not propose to confirm the proposal of the Fishery Board with regard to that particular question.
  Sir R. HAMILTON: I must apologise I was not in the House yesterday.
  Sir J. GILMOUR: As I said in my answer yesterday, I came to that conclusion because the whole question of these areas is at present under consideration, and it would be inadvisable to take a step dealing with one particular issue when there may be others to be considered. I feel constrained to add, in view of the fact that a certain section—and I want to make it clear that when speaking of the trawling industry I refer only to a certain section—have misbehaved so flagrantly and repeatedly towards the officers of my Department who are carrying out duties entrusted to them by this House, that until there is some indication that those who represent and are responsible for that industry are prepared to abide by the laws as laid down, however irksome they may consider them, I shall not feel constrained to give them any advantages.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) made a truly characteristic speech, reminding one most forcibly, by action and emphasis, if by nothing else, that he realises that we are approaching the period of a General Election. I do not wish to deny the hon. and gallant Gentleman any opportunity of making a platform oration. It is only to be regretted that the slow progress of television has made it impossible for his features and action in this House to be portrayed before his constituents. Though that is denied him at the moment, the difficulties in the way of it may be overcome in the future. We were told by the hon. and gallant Member that Scotland has suffered both from the inaction and action of His Majesty's present Government. Indeed, there is nothing which His Majesty's Government have done which is right, whether they have acted or refrained from acting. That view, of course, is permissible, and I take it at its true value. In speaking of agriculture the hon. and gallant Mem-

  1793
  ber asked me about research. He was good enough to admit that he thought we had made some progress in this direction during the last few years. I think the House will agree that we have made a certain degree of progress, though I am not claiming that we have reached the full fruition of the hopes with which we are all inspired. We have at Aberdeen one of the most efficient institutes, presided over by very capable people, to deal with animal feeding and nutrition.
  We have at Edinburgh, under equally industrious and efficient scientific investigators, an institute dealing with the breeding of animals. And now, happily, owing largely to the co-operation of the Government but due also to the generosity of a private individual, Mr. Hannah, we have established in the West of Scotland, or are in process of establishing there a new farm to which will shortly be transferred the well known milk school at Kilmarnock. We shall be taking out of the crowded and growing town of Kilmarnock right into the country the work upon this important problem, and by that very fact we shall bring this research work into line with Mr. Hannah's efforts and those of the men who are working on the land. One of our main problems is bringing across the footlights the results of the investigations of these scientists and putting them into language understandable by the working farmer.
  I look forward to the time when, as one of the fruits of the Bill which this House has just parted with, we shall give a certain measure of relief to the farming industry. I regret that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) voted against the Third Reading of that Bill, but I look forward to the time when by that Act we shall establish larger county authorities and bring into closer working contact the representatives not only of the countryside, but of the town as well. We want all these local bodies to realise what is the common interest and the necessity of assisting agriculture in marketing the produce of agriculture in a more cleanly and efficient form than in the past. I look forward to the time when these authorities will be able to assist the agricultural colleges to arrive at a solution of these problems and give the information to the public. It is too
  1794
  early to be dogmatic as to how this problem will be solved, but I see research work more and more being conducted by highly trained experts with the advantage of the laboratories in our great universities.
  I look forward to a possible recasting, after a full discussion of the work of the agricultural colleges in so far as they deal with higher scientific research; and, when they have gained the advantage of the knowledge which I hope they will obtain, I trust that in return they will devote their attention more and more towards ordinary everyday education and carrying out the duties of agricultural colleges. I hope that, outside all that, there will be a strengthening, and increased power given to those expert and trained individuals who can go into the countryside and convey by word of mouth and actual tests the knowledge that they have gained. We may be some distance from reaching that ideal, but I hope that, at any rate as soon as the new authorities have got into the saddle, and as soon as it is possible the executive, or whoever is in my place, will with common consent be able to arrange a conference. I should like to bring into that conference the great leaders of agricultural thought in Scotland, including the representatives of the Chamber of Agriculture and the Farmers' Union and all those who take an active interest in this branch of the subject.
  Sir R. HUTCHISON: Are there any experts available now to advise farmers?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, there is a county officer working under the Agricultural Department, and, if my hon. and gallant Friend will communicate with the Department of Agriculture, I have no doubt that he will obtain the information which he requires. With regard to agriculture, we have not only to consider the problem of drainage but also the problem of using the best fertilisers. One of the things which my Department have set themselves to do in the last few years has been to make a survey of certain counties and areas. It is quite evident, from the results of that survey, that there are some parts of Scotland where the land requires the application of lime, and there are equally large parts of perhaps the same county which do not require the application of lime, but may gain advantage from other fertilisers. When we

  1795
  have these districts classified, I think steady progress will be made. We have had a consultation with the representatives of the United States who came over to this country and worked with officers of my Department. We have a certain number of men trained in this country in the comparatively simple but often laborious task of testing the soil, and farmers will be able at a very small charge to have their farms surveyed. If farmers will take an active interest in this problem, I think they will be doing something which will be of enormous advantage to agriculture as a whole.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Montrose spoke of small holdings. I have always believed that this problem of small holdings was one which must be envisaged with a broad outlook and in relation to its relative value to agriculture as a whole. I think that no greater mistake can be made than to endeavour to set up small holdings without due thought of the possible markets available for these people, because they must inevitably fail unless they are carried out on a really sound basis. It is evident that in many cases these holdings cannot be successful unless there is a close measure of co-operation among the holders themselves. Everyone who is acquainted with the conditions of Scotland knows how difficult it is to overcome the little local, personal jealousies in regard to these matters. I am glad to think that we are making considerable progress in the matter of co-operation. We have pursued a steady course, and, compared with the years immediately after the War, we are making progress. I would like to say that, when we were setting up the research station at Auchencruive, we took a certain amount of land in conjunction with that station. I am anxious to place in close proximity to that station a certain number of small holdings in order that the holders may gain the full advantage of being in close and actual touch with those who are carrying on research work.
  The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) complained that we had reduced the amount of money for land settlement by £100,000. The reason we allowed that money to go to the Treasury was that, judging by our experience in dealing with this problem in the past, we
  1796
  should not require that money during the financial year, but at the same time we have maintained the interest. We have made steady progress, and we have saved £100,000 to the taxpayers. The hon. Member for Dundee asked me a question about the new MacBrayne contract. All I have to say about the Government director is that we hope to have that appointment made within a very short time. This question concerns another Department as well as my own. Therefore, I am not in a position to announce the name of the director, but I think it will be found, when that name is announced, that he will be a gentleman who will commend himself to all my colleagues.
  The hon. Member for Dundee asked me a question about the case of Mr. McCallum and Messrs. Martin Orme. Negotiations are now going on with the representatives of this firm. From the first, it has been clear that there were two possible policies. One was that this particular gentleman should run these boats and join up with the larger existing company. My advice to them was that they should at the earliest possible moment get into touch with the representatives of the company. I understand that that has been done, but at the moment, at any rate, no great progress towards amalgamation has been made. It remains to be seen upon what terms and how best this service can be continued with a due regard to the interests of the places which they are at present serving, and I hope before long that a satisfactory solution may be found. I am not unfriendly to the continuance of this service. I recognise that this company has done a very valuable service in going to some of the outer islands in very difficult circumstances and through very heavy seas.
  I have been asked a question about research in peat lands. The Government are greatly indebted to the generosity of Mr. Macaulay, who has placed at the disposal of the Government certain moneys for research in this connection. It is too early to be dogmatic as to the result. We have sent over to the continent certain representatives to investigate what is being done in Denmark, Sweden, and other parts. On the continent the circumstances are not entirely the same, and all

  1797
  we can say is that we are making researches, and experiments are being carried out in the island of Lewis and also in Aberdeen. I am sure the experiments will be very interesting, and we must await the results.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before he will be able to make a statement on this question?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I am afraid I am not in a position to say when that will be possible. Reference has been made to the question of drainage, and the problem of the Spey, the Kelvin, and other rivers in Scotland. The rivers of Scotland differ, of course, from those of England, in that they are as a rule much more rapid; they are not sluggish like a great number of the English rivers, which present peculiar problems of their own. The fact, however, that the rivers of Scotland are more turbulent presents its difficulties in the solving of this problem. I confess quite frankly that, having had on hand a very large and complicated Measure dealing with local government and the relief of rates, I have found it impossible to introduce the necessary legislation which would be entailed by this problem. The House must not disguise from itself the difficulties of framing that legislation, and of obtaining any measure of common consent in carrying it into effect.
  That the problem calls for the very careful, and, indeed, the urgent attention of the House, is true. I speak with a slight knowledge of farming, and I realise that we have reached a stage in farming procedure when the drains which were laid down by, say, my grandfather or my father, are now becoming inadequate or insufficient in a great many cases, but at the same time it must be recognised that, the more efficient we make our land drainage, the more necessary it is that we should find an outlet for it into larger channels. I am not without hope that we may be able, in a future Parliament, to deal with this problem, and in the meantime I invite my colleagues in all quarters of the House to consider the matter and form, if they can, some kind of idea as to how they think it ought to be dealt with. It is not quite so easy as it looks at first sight. A vast number of interests—both private interests and the interests of local authorities—are concerned, but I
  1798
  hope that, under the new system, where the interests of the burghs and the intersts of the counties will be combined, the fact that this problem can be dealt with upon a larger platform by the local authorities than has been possible in the past may lead to some measure of progress and agreement.
  I was asked about the development of efficient marketing, and particularly of co-operative marketing. We have tried to stimulate such developments by every means in our power, and I think we can congratulate ourselves in Scotland on the fact that we have now established on a large scale a better form of marketing and co-operative effort in regard to milk supplies, at any rate in the West of Scotland. The movement will, I hope, spread to other parts. We have also an increasing number of egg societies, and we hope shortly to be able to apply to the products of those societies the national mark. In the South of Scotland a co-operative meat society has been instituted, and I look forward to the time when there will be an increasing number of these societies; a grading of the meat by them into first and second grades would be of great and material advantage. We have, in addition, the wool-growing associations. Therefore, we are making progress. It has been an uphill fight, as those of us who have been associated with it for many years know, but we are indeed making progress.
  Then I was asked, why not develop my country as a great health resort? I find myself, among my multifarious duties, the manager and controller of a large number of Government public houses. During the past five years I have interested myself in the improvement, I venture to say the material improvement, of the condition of these hotels—as they are in some cases—and inns in Scotland, and I invite all those who are interested in this problem to go and stay at these hotels. I think, however, that it would be wise to leave fuller developments in this direction to such bodies as the "Come to Scotland" movement, and so on. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. J. Stewart) referred to the fact that a good many of the sporting properties in Scotland had been taken by the Cunard Company. I am not sure that that is an enterprise which I

  1799
  altogether support, but, at the same time, I should be glad to see anything take place which will develop our country and bring to it a larger number of tourists.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Mont-rose spoke of the St. Andrews Bay problem, and I think he was very truly answered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Fife (Commander Cochrane). Really, this problem comes down to one of maintaining the fish supplies and the breeding grounds for our fishing industry. It is quite certain, from the scientific investigations which we have made, that in St. Andrews Bay there are to be found large numbers of very small and immature fish. I regret that, against my desire to accommodate the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have had steadily to refuse to give way upon this problem. All that I would say to him, and I hope that he will convey it to those for whom he speaks is, that while I recognise the feelings that exist on this matter, I have to be guided by the advice of the Fishery Board, and by the fact that it is a breeding ground and that it is, indeed to their advantage, as well as that of others, that it should be retained as such, at any rate for a time. The question of a loan for broken and damaged gear I shall, of course, consider. We did try a loan for nets, but not very much advantage was taken of it. On the question of railway rates I have already spoken—
  Sir R. HUTCHISON: Is the question of a loan still open?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, not at present, but I will take note of the points which have been raised, and the matter will be considered. It may be that something might be done in that direction, but I can make no promise on the matter. I was also asked about the lifeboats round the coast. I am not myself able to answer with full knowledge of that matter at the moment, but I am satisfied that the lifeboat service generally has been vastly improved. More and more motor lifeboats are being brought into use, and the gallantry of the crews who man those boats is acknowledged by all. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke in rather sad terms of the position of the arable farmer within the counties which both he and I know well. I, of course,
  1800
  know to my cost the difficulty of producing cattle and selling them to advantage when they are fat. All that I would say is that I think the farming community can do a good deal to help themselves in regard to this problem. It is quite clear that the modern market demands younger stock and smaller beef than in the past, and, in my judgment, one of the essential things is that we should get rid of the scrub bulls, and should see to it that we breed the very best stock. I am certain that, if that be done, it will be of material advantage to the arable farmer, and I hope that the rather improved prices for good-class stock which have been evidenced at the recent sales in Scotland may be some encouragement. We are doing what we can to lighten the burden upon the arable farmer by rate relief, by the result of our research work in animal breeding and nutrition, and by giving what other assistance we can.
  The hon. Member for St. Rollox spoke of the development of roads in Scotland. I agree entirely that we must develop our roads, but I would say that that should be done upon a sound and considered policy. At any rate, I can assure the hon. Member, having looked into this matter carefully, that we are getting our full share out of the road money for the development of these roads. It may not satisfy the hon. Member, but at any rate it is a little better than the mere letter of the law, and, perhaps, the less we talk about it across the Table of this House the better. At any rate, that matter is not being lost sight of. I would also point out that, of course, in improving the roads, we have to be very careful that we do not do it altogether to the detriment of our railways, and of the large number of men who are employed upon those services. The hon. Member for St. Rollox also asked me some questions about sewage disposal at Bearsden. I admit at once that is a difficult problem, but, after very careful consideration and investigation, we came to the conclusion that in fact we had not the power to force Bearsden to go into an arrangement with the City of Glasgow which they considered to be financially detrimental to them. The fact is that the sewage from Bearsden, carried, as it will be, through a pipe over a long distance, will be, in our opinion, sufficiently

  1801
  aerated and broken up to enable it to be discharged into the Clyde—not the Kelvin, as I think the hon. Gentleman suggested—in such a condition that it will not be deleterious or offensive. The matter will be most carefully watched by my Department, and there is this further thing to be said, that the procedure proposed will gave a large amount of employment in the district.
  I was also asked about the Lochgoil-head steamer service, and its effect upon the Young Men's Christian Association holiday resort upon Lochgoilhead. The fact is that the steamer "Lord of the Isles," well known to a good many of us during our boyhood, has recently been broken up, but I understand that there is a daily motor boat service, and that during the summer that will be increased. The hon. Member for St. Rollox also asked me what advance had been made in dealing with puerperal fever and tuberculosis. I regret, as I am sure everyone must regret, that greater progress has not been made in dealing with the very serious problem of puerperal fever, but we have taken steps to ensure that in future on every death certificate these facts shall be notified, and that in itself will be an advance in giving us information which can be tabulated. In addition, I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention, and, indeed, that of the House generally, to a report by Dr. Kinloch, the new Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health for Scotland, who speaks with peculiar knowledge on this subject. We desire to draw the attention of the whole medical fraternity in Scotland to his report—
  Mr. J. STEWART: Is that report available?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: It will become available. There is the further problem of the increase of hospital accommodation. I hope that, by the steps which we have taken recently in the Bill which has just left the House, we shall make further progress in this matter. On the problem of tuberculosis we have made some progress. The death rate has fallen from 99 per 100,000 to 97 per 100,000. That, of course, has been mostly in the pulmonary type of tuberculosis. In that alone it has fallen from 71 per 100,000 in 1927 to 68 in 1928. We have the highest number of beds in the hospitals of local authorities that we ever had—4,634—and
  1802
  hospitals have been opened in the Shetlands. Something like £600,000 per annum is being spent by local authorities. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Benn) asked me certain questions about the position of the Aberdeen police. I am indeed encouraged when I hear an hon. Member opposite asking me to make full use of what our English colleagues call the Henry VIII Clause, but what I prefer to describe as the James VI Clause. In spite of the hon. Member's encouragement, I fear I can hold out little hope of an accommodation or arrangement being made on that point. I have discussed this very difficult problem with the best will in the world with the authorities. Of course, it varies from place to place. Some of these harbour authorities who have made arrangements with the local authorities, as they have in Glasgow, are in a fortunate position. In some other cases, they are in a less fortunate position. I will consider what the hon. Member has said, but I am afraid I cannot hold out hope that we shall be able to meet his proposition.
  Mr. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that these powers will not enable him to do anything before the end of the standard year, or does he mean that even within the four years we shall not have an opportunity of considering it?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: I should like to examine the problem a little more carefully, but I should be less than candid if I did not say from what I recollect of the numerous discussions I have had that I am afraid I can hold out little hope.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I Have followed closely what the Minister has said, but he is unable to answer the ease that has been submitted. It is not enough simply to put up in a general way that what has been said from the Opposition benches is altogether condemnatory of the Government and that we have to take it for what it is worth. Facts have to be faced. It is true we have heard such a speech from the right hon. Baronet before, and it is just the necessity for traversing some of the points that establishes the inability of the Government to make an answer. Reference has been made to unemployment. We have been sincerely hoping for a specific statement of actual plans

  1803
  to be submitted to the country whereby we can get a substantial change in the present deplorable situation within the next twelve months. How comes it that the Government, with its powerful majority, after five years of office has nothing to say on that question at all? When the Liberal Leader is telling us that if given the opportunity he can raise money by loan to procure employment for half-a-million men, we are bound to urge upon the Government that here is a project which was perfectly within their power and which they have neglected.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Surely the raising of a large loan, such as the hon. Member refers to, would need legislation, and consequently would not be in order on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am submitting that before they had reached their deathbed the Government ought to have taker-some such project in hand. That is all the argument I am making on that matter. Unable, as we are, in view of the rules of Order, to advocate anything which would involve expenditure, we are entitled to urge that there is no substantial contribution on the part of the Government towards the interests of Scotland as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman, referring to the project of making Scotland a health resort, said that he had charge of a number of public-houses. Does he reckon that that contributes towards making Scotland a health resort? Is it not likely to detract from the benefits of Scotland? What I am concerned about, first of all, is not the interests of those coming from America, or any other country, but that we shall try to make our country a fit place for the people who belong to the country and who have to find means of livelihood in it. There are between seven and eight thousand in Dundee who are denied an opportunity of earning their daily bread. The right hon. Gentleman evidently has it in his mind that he will try to do better if we give him a chance again. I should say: "God help us from such a prospect." We have had five years of it, and it is undoubtedly necessary for the country to get an opportunity—and I am glad the opportunity is coming—of returning a new Government. We want a flood which will sweep every Tory
  1804
  Member out of the country, and this country as well, and then we shall have a chance of getting something done.
  Mr. BOOTHBY: The hon. Member says that my right hon. Friend has not answered satisfactorily the questions put to him. He may not have answered them satisfactorily in the hon. Member's opinion, but I do not remember hearing such a comprehensive speech which answered, at any rate to our satisfaction, practically every single question that was put to him. I will do my best not to make an election speech, as did the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), but there are one or two remarks I must make about the herring fishing industry as I have not spoken on it for some weeks. I quite believe what the right hon. Gentleman said about the supply of credits for the replacement of the fleet. It is premature to think of anything of this kind now. First of all, I am not sure that the catching part of the fleet at the moment is not, on the whole, too great for the foreign market. Secondly, we do not know what type of craft is best suited for the needs of the industry. The right hon. Gentleman said that experiments are being carried out. I hope that he will give, through the Fishery Board, every encouragement to these experiments, so that we may really have, as the result of it, the very best type of craft for the needs of the industry in the future.
  I am very sceptical about the value of loans for gear or anything of that kind. The Labour Government gave a loan for gear which was a dismal failure. Not 5 per cent. of the fishermen took advantage of it. Far the best thing the Government can do for the fishing industry at the present stage is to evolve something in the nature of a harbour policy. It is no part of my business to advocate increased expenditure—at any rate, if I do I shall hear about it tomorrow morning—but I think it is not a question of spending money. It is a question of writing off debts, which I do not believe in many cases can ever be recovered by the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman practically admitted that a good many of these debts were incurred by these northern harbours owing to the wholly abnormal conditions of the country. Many were actually closed down for naval purposes between 1914 and 1918 and

  1805
  could not make any revenue at all. They were practically in the war zone, and these northern fishing harbours correspond to some extent to the villages in the devastated areas in France. They were in the war zone, so far as we had a war zone. The North of Scotland was cut completely into half by the naval services during the War, and that war was the chief cause of the appalling amount of debt in which they have been plunged. I do not ask for the immediate expenditure of money; I only ask for a sympathetic consideration of this problem. Take the case of Fraserburgh, for example. They have a dead-weight debt of well over £100,000 and they have no chance whatever of paying off the whole of that debt. They have to pay year by year to the Public Works Loans Board what they can. They are not wiping off any debt, paying off sinking fund, or improving their position, and, if anything can be done to put these harbours on a satisfactory basis so that they have a chance of paying these debts off, it would do more good and do more to hearten the fishing industry than anything else.
  7.0 p.m.
  I do feel that we should concentrate on the larger harbours. Many of the little harbours are doing no good to man or beast in Scotland. There are considerably-sized harbours useful for sheltering and tending the Fleet during the winter months, but I urge the necessity of concentrating the major part of our expenditure and developing the maximum for the big harbours which have to sustain the herring fishing during the summer months. Both Fraserburgh and Peterhead are in my constituency; there it is, and I cannot help it. Sometimes, in my more gloomy moments, I feel the responsibility of representing these two remarkable burghs is becoming too crushing, but for the moment I do represent them, and the middle summer fishing is carried out from these harbours. In Peterhead, which has to contain about 50 per cent. of the international fleet which conducts the summer herring fishing, it is essential that the ports should be deepened, and also that a slipway should be constructed for the repair of drifters. They have made application to the Development Commissioners for a loan and grant for the
  1806
  work, and all I want to do is to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this question on its merits, and I am sure he will do what he can to facilitate a grant of such a loan.
  The final point in connection with the herring fishing is the well-worn topic of the Russian markets. In all statistics given by the herring fishing industry by hon. Members opposite, the fact seems to be ignored that Poland is now no longer a part of Russia. Without taking that into consideration, the statistics are absolutely false. I believe we are going to get back into trading relations with Russia sooner or later, and I am certain that, after the smoke screen of political propaganda is removed, nobody will be more bitterly disappointed, when full trading relations are resumed, than the fishermen themselves, because this market is nothing like what hon. Members opposite have led them to expect. The Russians are very poor, and the vast majority of herring exported before the War went to Poland. I want to tell hon. Members opposite that some of our curers have recently asked the Bolsheviks to give quotations, and they quoted prices which were half the amount prevailing among Scottish curers at the present time. The Russians are concentrating upon buying cheap Norwegian herrings at half the prices of our best Scotch herrings, and they will go on doing so for a considerable time. If, and when, hon. Members come into office, they will find that they will not be able to deal with them. The opinion of Bolsheviks of the Members opposite is far lower than their opinion of us. I can assure hon. Members opposite that the observations they made about the present Chancellor of the Exchequer were highly laudatory compared with the remarks they made of the present Leader of the Opposition.
  That leads me to the firm conviction that the only satisfactory relationship with Russia is a relationship which is based 100 per cent. upon trade and commerce. The most wonderful thing that has happened for months past is the despatch of the industrial delegation to Moscow. If anything can be done with regard to Russia, they will be able to do it. But I am afraid that there are many things that the Russians place prior to herrings on their list. There is agricultural machinery, textile

  1807
  machinery, and every sort of thing; and I would not like our fishermen to build up false or exaggerated hopes of the recovery of a large market in Russia. The European market without Russia has been slowly and steadily extending in the last four or five years, and, if we can concentrate on affording the fisher-men good harbours and good bases, and, when the time came, adequate facilities for purchasing the best type of craft, I am confident that the industry will regain the prosperity which it had before the War.
  Mr. HARDIE: I am not going to raise any question on the marketing of herrings. I want to show where there is a market for these herrings. It is not a question of going far, the payment of better wages would ensure the greater buying of herrings in this country. I should like to refer to the wages paid to the workmen at Lennox Castle. I do not know whether it is the parish council that controls these wages, or whether it is the Control Board, or the Health Department in Edinburgh, but these men are being paid 35s. per week. They are able-bodied poor, and they do not come under the Employment Exchanges, having exhausted their benefit. This work has been accordingly given to them, I understand, by the Glasgow Parish Council. The wages paid are totally inadequate. In addition to the wage, there is, of course, money for taking the men from Glasgow to their work, but it is well enough known that such a wage is insufficient to keep a family, with the need for paying rent, coal, and light, small as the quantity of the latter is that they can afford to pay. This question has been raised privately with the Secretary of State for Scotland, but we could not get a clear idea as to which was the body responsible for determining the scale of wages. In the Glasgow Parish Council, the members are told it is a matter for the Health Department in Edinburgh, and that Department in Edinburgh say it is a matter for the Board of Control. I understand that the Glasgow Parish Council is the Board of Control for the moment. Why is it, then, that the chairman denied having any power to deal with this basis of wages? I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us just who is the directly
  1808
  responsible authority for determining the amount of money to be paid in wages, and also the body that employs these men.
  We are told that the rate of wages is that paid in the area where the men work. But, taking this rate of 35s., you must remember that you are dealing with a place like Lennox Castle, where the conditions are altogether different from Glasgow in regard to the cost of living. We ask that there should be a sense of fair play and justice so far as these men are concerned. It is not as if they were criminals or had committed some offence. It is not the men only, but the wives and the children that are affected. Last week, I visited many of the homes, and, if hon. Members could see the faces of the children, I am sure that they would not haggle about the 35s. per week. We ought to have some relation to common decency. You are going to increase the poor rate in Glasgow if you do not pay these men a sum which enables them to get the quality of food necessary for their health. You will get mothers and children coming on to the rates as necessitous sick poor. That seems to me to be a blind policy. If the men are doing the work, that work has a value. If contractors were taking the men out of Glasgow to do that work, conditions would be altogether different. Are the Government going to say to these men that 35s. is the rate and that nothing more can be done; and, that being the rate, the Government have no further responsibility for the state of the children at all? I have had great experience on the Education Committee in Glasgow with regard to elementary schools, and, as visiting members, we can always tell when a child is having food which is not of proper value. We can tell by the appearance of the children when they are getting the wrong kind of food.
  These conditions obtain among these men. They are the victims of a society which compels them not only to be un-employed, but to become able-bodied poor. I should like the Secretary of State to say whether anything more can be done. I want to know which is the responsible department. Is it the Glasgow Parish Council, the Glasgow Parish Council acting as the Board of Control,

  1809
  the Board of Health operating in Edinburgh, the Scottish Office in Whitehall, or the Secretary of State himself? I want to know, because this thing has been dragging on for months. It is of no use our own representatives on the Glasgow Parish Council raising the matter. They are told that a letter will be sent to Edinburgh. When it comes back, they are told that nothing can be done. When we come here, we are told that it is the Board of Control.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) touched upon a very important point. There is no doubt whatever that the food of the people generally does not contain the proper nourishment. That applies practically to the food of all classes. A good deal of the food supplied in towns is not fresh and is doctored up in some way. We have had lessons in the Press for years on the evil effects of white bread, and I believe that, if the question of suitable food was looked into, not only by the Board of Health in Scotland, but by the Ministry of Health in England, we should take an immense step forward in regard to the health of the people. The same applies to herrings which ought to be far cheaper than they are. It is not that the fishermen get the money, but the price which the retailers charge makes herrings almost a luxury. I do not know where the money goes, but it goes somewhere.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) spoke about large harbours. I want to say a word for one or two small harbours, not those which are in existence, but those which ought to be in existence. I represent, with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown), a number of what may be called small fishermen with small boats; not sailing boats, but motor boats. They catch the finest herrings in the world. They have recently had a menace revealed to them by the Fishery Board, which Board ought really to protect them. Fortunately, the pressure of public opinion is such that this threatened menace is not to be carried through to fruition. I suggest that the authorities ought to give more careful consideration to the suggestion that these men's only means of livelihood should be thrown open to Fleetwood trawlers. The Scottish trawlers do not want to invade their
  1810
  territory. I have had a word with the Lord Provost of Aberdeen, who, representing hundreds of Scottish trawlers, told me that he had no thought of sending boats to the Moray Firth. The offending trawlers are those which have been caught again and again, and have been fined inadequate sums. This is one aspect to which we ought to pay attention. They ought to be treated as they are treated in Iceland and Denmark, where they are fined £1,000 and have their boats laid up for months.
  I want to say a word about the small harbours. A year or two ago the Duke of Montrose very generously offered a harbour free in the Island of Arran, where the men could leave their boats and take the steamer to Campbeltown for a small charge instead of having to leave them in Tarbert Harbour and then take a char-a-banc for 40 miles home to Campbeltown. It is a harbour which a comparatively small sum for dredging would put in order for fishing boats. The harbour is simply silted up by the river coming down the hills. The Fishery Board made an inquiry and said that the necessary work would cost a sum of £7,000, but the Duke of Montrose assured me that he could do it locally for half the money. He was willing to give this harbour free for the benefit of the fishermen. There has been a long agitation for a harbour in Carradale in Kintyre. I believe that in war time it could have been built for a comparatively small sum, but I understand that the estimates obtained since the War are practically prohibitive. While I prefer a harbour at Carradale, I think that the one in Loch Ranza in Arran would to some extent supply the demand. It is offered to the Scottish fishermen and to the Fishery Board free of charge, and they would have to spend only a comparatively small sum to dredge it and put it in order.
  I wish the Secretary of State for Scotland would look into this matter and see if he cannot convenience that large body of fishermen. These men are the finest and hardiest type of fishermen, because they are real sailors. They are a great recruiting ground for His Majesty's Navy. They came, just as did the trawlermen and driftermen from Fraserburgh and Peterhead, in large numbers to His Majesty's forces during

  1811
  the War. Here is an opportunity at a minimum cost of giving them a harbour which would serve that large and unprotected area. I do hope that the Secretary of State will take up this matter again and reconsider it. I hope that the Fishery Board, instead of being the friend of the trawler, will prove the friend of the small fishermen, who, after all, catch the best fish. I do hope that my right hon. Friend will assist these men.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will take note of the suggestions which have been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten), and I rise only for the purpose of answering questions which have been put by the hon. Member for Spring-burn (Mr. Hardie). The Lennox Castle scheme is under the local board of control, which is the parish council acting under a definite Statute. That authority is responsible for the rates of wages which are paid. The hon. Gentleman asks who is responsible in this case. The responsible authority is the authority employing the men. If they were to lay down an extravagant scale of wages, it would be subject to surcharge and review by this Department. I am not suggesting that 35s., or a scale round about 35s. is extravagant, or that it is not within the power of this authority to make certain modifications. That question has not been raised. The immediate point is that the local authority is the board of control. That authority has power to lay down the scales. It is not within the power of the Department directly in any way to raise the scale. To do that, would require legislation of a pretty drastic nature, and therefore it would be out of order to pursue it further on this occasion. It is not within the power of the Secretary of State for Scotland to direct that higher wages should be paid. As for the local authority, it has a discretion in fixing wages, subject to the scales paid, not merely locally, but in the city of Glasgow. These are things which it has to take into account, and the local authority has the responsibility for, and the power of, fixing the wage scales.
  Mr. MAXTON: Have the Board of Health made any representation in any
  1812
  way, directly or through their officers, intimating to the Glasgow Board of Control that this was an appropriate scale of wages.
  Major ELLIOT: Oh, no, they have not exercised any pressure on the local authority. We have, of course, discussed the matter, and I had a word with the clerk to the Glasgow Parish Council as recently as last week, and I received a deputation. No member of the deputation raised the matter of the wage scale specifically with me at all. The clerk to the parish council said that he himself was not in receipt of anything about the wage scale. On the specific question as to pressure, we have not exercised pressure on the local authority, but the matter has been frequently under discussion and consideration both by letter, by telephone, and by word of mouth between the central department and the Glasgow Parish Council, or in this case the Glasgow Board of Control.
  Mr. SHINWELL: In the event of the parish council raising the wages beyond the level of wages in the area, would the Scottish Board of Health intervene?
  Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that that is a hypothetical question on which the hon. Member will not expect me to commit myself. As I said before, if they raise the wage to an extravagant amount, we have to intervene, but I have confidence in the decency and good sense of the Glasgow Parish Council.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Does it amount to this, that, when the local authority raises the wages beyond the level of wages obtaining in the area, the Scottish Board of Health intervene, but that, when the wages are low, the Scottish Board of Health refuses to intervene?
  Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member must understand that we are dealing at the moment purely with the legislative powers of the central department and the action which the Secretary for Scotland can take under the powers entrusted to him by this House. He has not the power to compel the local authority to pay a higher rate of wages. That is not his discretion or the discretion of anyone else. That is the law. It is his duty to intervene if extravagant wages are paid.

  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.
  Captain CUNNINGHAM REID: I should like to digress from the trend of the Debate to say a few words concerning the Empire as there are so few occasions on which a private Member can draw attention to this particular subject. The question as I approach it may not prove so exhilarating as that of herrings in Scotland, but I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is quite as important. As is well known, the Empire Marketing Board was the direct outcome of a promise that was made to the Dominions not very long ago; it was, in fact, a quid pro quo for certain tariff preferences. The time has now come when we should seriously consider the broadening of the scope of the Empire Marketing Board. At the present time its activities are confined to stimulating the marketing and purchase of certain Empire goods in this country; but neither the Empire Marketing Board nor any other organisation, to the best of my knowledge, makes any attempt to place English goods into Empire markets.
  I would suggest that there is only one barrier in the way of broadening the scope of the Empire Marketing Board, and that is that many of our manufacturers give the powers that be no encouragement to do so. I should like to give one or two examples of what I mean. What would be the use of spending immense sums of money advertising English motor cars within the Empire when our own English manufacturers refuse to instigate a proper policy of their own—when they persist in sending out motor-cars that, on the whole, are unsuitable to the conditions that are to be found overseas. Either the chassis clearances are too low, or the horse power, in many instances, is too small, or spare parts are not readily available in the various parts of the Dominions. I could give innumerable other exampples in various parts of the Empire. I will take the House, for instance, as far as the Solomon Islands. There, the homely razor is in great demand, but the British manufacturers are only prepared to supply a standard size of razor. The Solomon Islanders, for peculiar reasons best known to themselves, do not require a standard size of razor but an outsize in razor. Unfortunately, the British manufacturers not being prepared to provide
  1814
  them, the French, I am led to understand, have stepped in and are now supplying the islanders with that particular form of outsize razor that they demand. As the Solomon Islanders know nothing of the nimble art of honing and stropping, one can well believe that the number of razors that are required per native per year is not insignificant. In fact, the trade in the South Seas as a whole is a considerable one.
  An American commercial traveller told me recently, when I was in Australia, that the only sphere in which the Americans now find difficulty in competing with the English is in the liquor trade in the United States of America itelf. That, undoubtedly, is somewhat of an exaggeration, but the fact remains that we are very slow these days in comparison with other countries in adapting ourselves to overseas conditions. Our industries themselves should show sufficient initiative to overcome this sort of thing. I am inclined to believe that what with export credits, various forms of subsidies and the like, many industries are now content to rely too much upon spoon feeding of successive Governments. If it were not for the unemployed that are concerned, I would welcome in certain specific directions the recent period of depression, brought about to some extent, in particular instances that I have in mind, by the manufacturers themselves failing to move with the times and to introduce modern machinery, in fact by generally allowing initiative to become sterile.
  From studying this question—I might even say on the spot, because I recently had an opportunity of taking a comprehensive tour round our Empire—I know that there are markets within the Empire waiting for many of our products. Therefore, I would suggest that for the benefit of those go-ahead, wide-awake industries that are prepared to take advantage of it, that the Government should at the first opportunity—they may not get an opportunity before the election, but I am certain that they will get another opportunity before the year is out—promote a permanent representative committee for Empire trade and development; or, failing that, that they should, alternatively, widen the scope of the Empire Marketing Board. In other words, the Empire Marketing Board

  1815
  should work both ways, as its name leads one to understand; that it should advertise English goods within the Empire and instigate extensive research which will enable our industries to know with more certainty where they can place their products within the Empire, and exactly the class of goods that are required.
  Mr. DUNCAN: It would be very refreshing to me if we had more speeches from the opposite benches of the kind just delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for Warrington (Captain Cunningham Reid). There can be no doubt that the present Empire Marketing Board, although it is doing very good work, is a bit lop-sided. There is just as much reason and just as much need for activity at the other end as there is at this end. If we are going to buy the products of the Dominions and the Colonies, it is only reasonable to assume that the same operation should take place at the other end of the scale, and it would be to the advantage of the industries of this country. Whilst saying that, I do not think there can be much doubt, having regard to the illustrations which have been given by the hon. and gallant Member, that our manufacturers are somewhat lacking in initiative.
  I have been tremendously disappointed over the inability of our manufacturers to take advantage of the opportunities that have come their way. It is particularly unpleasant to think that an American gentleman, whose name I need not mention, came to this country and raised capital of £7,000,000, in order to make motor cars here and to export them to Europe and all parts of the world. The reason for that state of things is obvious to anyone who cares to study the motor industry. The reason is that there is no coalition amongst the manufacturers in that particular industry. They are all on their own. They are following the old fatuous English policy of each one looking after himself, and the devil taking the hindmost; but instead of the devil coming along it is the foreigner, and he collars the whole caboodle. The foreigner is doing an enormous business in this country, not so much in supplying this country with his goods but in supplying the greater part of the Continents of Europe and Africa and other parts of the world.
  1816
  There is a far bigger possibility of trade development, particularly in the motor industry, than is generally realised. I am an engineer by trade and have been on wheels and among wheels, so to speak, the whole of my life and, naturally, I have taken an interest in the motor industry and see its wonderful possibilities. It was only in 1902 that Henry Ford made his first car. I suppose that Henry is not one of the poorest men in the world to-day. That instance indicates the possibilities of development. This country can make the finest motor car in the world. We had an instance, recently, of a Britisher breaking the world record for speed, but he went to America to do it. He put up a record which will take a great deal of beating, and he did it on a car which shows that we are capable of turning out the finest machine and of devising and planning a kind of machine that has never been planned before, and one which delivers the goods when it is put to the test. That is a very high testimonial to the engineering ability of this country, particularly when one considers the disparity between the pay of the workpeople who make motor cars in this country and the pay of workpeople engaged in the motor industry in America. From 25s. to 26s. a day is the average pay of a man in the motor industry in America. That sum would be equal to two days' pay for the highest skilled mechanic in this country, whose wages are 46s. 6d. to £3.
  Notwithstanding these different conditions—there may be some difference of opinion with regard to the models which are made in this country, and about the ground clearance and the rest of it—there can be no doubt that in this country any kind of model can be produced to suit any kind of country, provided we have the manufacturing facilities and the capital behind them. What America can do on these lines, the manufacturers can do in this country. What is particularly aggravating to me is to see this country, which was in the motor industry long before America started, in such a position to-day in competing with America that we are beaten absolutely to a frazzle. That is because they work on the mass production system in America. That system has given America

  1817
  a lead in the manufacture of motor cars which will take this country some time to catch up. That system is there to be copied; it is not the patent of anybody. Anybody in this country can take it up, and some manufacturers are doing so, with great success. Good luck to them! My complaint is that there is not greater combination amongst the motor manufacturers in this country. If we had better combination amongst them, not only would they be able to compete with but they would be able to beat the Americans at their own game.
  There is a good deal to be done in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and other parts of the world, where this country is directly interested, and where anybody who cares to study the motor industry can see, from the point of view of this country, what enormous developments are possible in the future. It is not a question of a few thousands but millions of motor cars will be required in the next 10 or 20 years. So far as I can see the manufacturers in this country are sound asleep, with the exception of one or two. They do not seem to want to make fortunes but are satisfied to go on making a multiplicity of models to suit the man who can pay the highest price, and to cater for a restricted market, thereby leaving our competitors in other countries to produce an article which can sell in tens of thousands, even in millions. Whilst we carry on in this pettifogging way, our manufacturers cannot make money out of their multiplicity of models in their restricted market, and they cannot pay the wages that are paid by their competitors. A wonderful amount of good could be done on the lines suggested by the hon. Member, that is, to broaden the activities of the Empire Marketing Board. It is just as necessary to call the attention of the Colonies and Dominions to the products of this country as it is to call the attention of this country to the goods which the Dominions produce.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The two speeches to which we have just listened contain valuable suggestions, and it cannot be too often repeated to all concerned with industry in this
  1818
  country that there are still great opportunities in our Empire markets which have not yet been sufficiently realised. I am not personally familiar with the details of the motor industry but I do know that in the part of the Empire which I visited—namely, the British Colonies—a very commendable effort has been made by British motor producers to meet the demands of these Colonies, more particularly in regard to lorries and commercial vehicles, in respect of vehicles for use in tropical climates with larger radiators, special spring requirements for going over rough roads, and the necessary type of hood which we do not want in this country. In these respects great efforts have been made by a few manufacturers in this country which deserve all praise. At the same time I agree that the tendency in this country has been the production of high speed engines which are very useful on our type of roads. With the exception of the Malay States there is no other country in the Empire which has roads as good as those in this country. You do not get the modern car road overseas, which is partly responsible for the creation of the modern light motor car. You do not get conditions in any part of the Empire which encourage that type of car to be put on the market. The far rougher land stronger machines which are produced in America have an advantage in our Dominions and Colonies where the roads are rough.
  The question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Warrington (Captain Reid) was an extension of the activities of the Empire Marketing Board. My hon. and gallant Friend is still under a misapprehension as to the exact dividing line between the Board's work and its expenditure. The limit of the Board's work and expenditure is a limit as to the type of article, rather than a limit of geography. It is often though that the function of the Empire Marketing Board is to encourage the better production and sale of all types of goods from the Overseas Empire into Great Britain. That is not so. The dividing line is one of material. The Empire Marketing Board is restricted by the terms agreed upon with all the self-governing Dominions to the marketing of agricultural produce. We extended it to include raw forest products, and a question was raised as to

  1819
  whether cocoanut palms was a raw forest product or an agricultural product. Its functions do not include the marketing of the manufactures of Canada or Australia or South Africa; they are confined to the marketing of agricultural produce only; not merely for the encouragement and better marketing of overseas agricultural produce but also for the better marketing of home-grown agricultural produce as well.
  An extension of the functions of the Empire Marketing Board to cover all manufactured articles not merely in this country but throughout the rest of the Empire, would, of course, change the whole character of the Board, and I am sure that it could not be done by the existing Empire Marketing Board. You would have to have a Board on which industry was represented, and you would have to associate it quite definitely with the Department of Overseas Trade and not merely with the Dominions Office, the Ministry of Agriculture in England and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. But the idea is certainly one which is being canvassed up and down the country. I think we can say that not merely on the advertising side, which after all is only a very small side of the work of the Empire Marketing Board, but that the encouragement and stimulus it has given to research institutions connected with agricultural production and better transport of agricultural produce throughout the Empire, that the extremely valuable work of the Empire Marketing Board might be reciprocated if you could get the necessary structure.
  The matter is essentially one for the next Imperial Conference. When it comes to spending public money in the self-governing Dominions, it is obvious that you cannot do that merely by the will of His Majesty's Government only. Obviously, you must have the willing assent and co-operation of the Overseas Governments as well as that of the British Government. I have no doubt that the question of the further development of British overseas trade in the Dominions and reciprocal trade between the Dominions will be one of the main questions for the Imperial Conference next year. The question has many ramifications, and I am satisfied that the experience
  1820
  of the last three years in the development and working out of the Empire Marketing Board will be extremely suggestive and helpful in guiding and stimulating an interchange of products of all kinds between the different parts of the Empire. In saying that I should like to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend and the hon. Member for Claycross (Mr. Duncan) on raising a matter which cannot be too often debated. However we may differ in this House as to how industry should be internally constructed and how the profits should be divided, we can never get away from the fundamental fact that in these islands we are absolutely dependant on an ever-increasing overseas trade, and with the rapid development of markets in our own Empire and in our Tropical Dependencies every effort should be made by all connected with industry in this country to get the best share of these developing markets. This can only be done by vigilance, energy, perseverance and the pioneer spirit.
  Mr. MAXTON: I listened with interest to the Under-Secretary's statement regarding the limitations of the operations of the Empire Marketing Board. The member of the Government who last spoke from that Box told us about the film which the Empire Marketing Board was producing in regard to the herring industry—
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As we have a Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, fisheries and agriculture have always gone together.
  Mr. MAXTON: You seem to have extended it through agriculture into fisheries and then into the cinematograph industry, and I am just wondering whether you have the power to extend it into the motor industry.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Sir F. Thomson.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, 25th March.—[Mr. Buff Cooper.]
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir F. Thomson.]
    Adjourned accordingly at one Minute before Eight o'clock.

TRANSPORT.
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES.
  ROAD IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES.
  MOTOR CYCLE NUMBER PLATES.
  MOTOR CYCLE NUMBER PLATES.
  PRISON SERVICE.
  PRISON SERVICE.
  POOR LAW RELIEF (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  POOR LAW RELIEF (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (SCOTLAND).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT (SCOTLAND).
POST OFFICE.
  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  UNION OF POST OFFICE WORKERS.
  UNION OF POST OFFICE WORKERS.
  SAVINGS BANK (STATISTICS).
  SAVINGS BANK (STATISTICS).
CIVIL AVIATION.
  SUBSIDIES.
  SUBSIDIES.
  EASTERN SERVICE.
  EASTERN SERVICE.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE RESERVE.
  ROYAL AIR FORCE RESERVE.
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTION (WEEKLY REST DAY).
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTION (WEEKLY REST DAY).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
  EXCHANGE PREMISES, LEICESTER.
  EXCHANGE PREMISES, LEICESTER.
  SCHOOL RE-ORGANISATION (HEAD TEACHERS).
  SCHOOL RE-ORGANISATION (HEAD TEACHERS).
  RELIEF WORK, HARRIS.
  RELIEF WORK, HARRIS.
  BRAINTREE.
  BRAINTREE.
ROYAL NAVY
  ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARY SERVICE (PENSIONS).
  ROYAL FLEET AUXILIARY SERVICE (PENSIONS).
  GENERAL ELECTION.
  GENERAL ELECTION.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  SICKNESS INCIDENCE (FOREIGN OFFICE).
  SICKNESS INCIDENCE (FOREIGN OFFICE).
  PROPERTY (INSURANCE).
  PROPERTY (INSURANCE).
  GRATUITIES.
  GRATUITIES.
  IMPORT DUTIES (REVENUE).
  IMPORT DUTIES (REVENUE).
  INSURANCE POLICIES (INFANTS).
  INSURANCE POLICIES (INFANTS).
  STAMP DUTY (STOCK AND SHARE TRANSFERS).
  STAMP DUTY (STOCK AND SHARE TRANSFERS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
TORQUAY EXTRAMURAL CEMETERY COMPANY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed for Tuesday next.
IMPERIAL CONTINENTAL GAS ASSOCIATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (RIVERS IMPROVEMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, before we enter upon business I should like to ask the noble Marquess who leads the House a question. He indicated yesterday the probable time when we might take our holiday. I want to suggest to him that if business requires it he should consider sitting a little earlier on Wednesday, which is not a day for judicial business, so that some of those who desire it, if all the business be finished on Wednesday, could go away on that day and not stay until Thursday. I do not know whether the noble Marquess has considered that at all.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): Does the noble Lord mean a morning sitting?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, a sitting at a convenient time. I understand there will be no difficulty, for instance, about sitting at two o'cock or something like that. There would be no judicial work. I have made inquiries of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The suggestion had not reached me until this moment.
LORD PARMOOR: That is so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not sure how far it would be possible to arrange that. The difficulty which occurs to me immediately is that there must be a Royal Commission on Wednesday and, therefore, your Lordships' House must be in session at that time. That would make a little difficulty; but if the noble and learned Lord would be good enough to give me a little time to consider it I will see if I can meet him. I will enquire whether noble Lords sitting in other parts of the House would find it convenient.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: If the noble Marquess will be good enough to make inquiries he will probably find that there is a very general desire to meet earlier on Wednesday, if possible. I do not know what he has in mind about sitting after dinner on Tuesday. If he wants to do that I can assure him that I shall offer no objection to it, and that might facilitate the passage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill in Committee. I can assure him that we are quite ready to meet his wishes, whatever they may be in regard to sitting on Tuesday. I hope we may be able to sit earlier on Wednesday, and I think, as I said before, that the noble Marquess will find it is in accordance with the general wish.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will not repeat what I have already said about Wednesday. I will make inquiries. As regards Tuesday, I am obliged to the noble Earl. It was in my mind to ask your Lordships to be so very good as to be ready to sit after dinner on Tuesday, in case it may be necessary. I think in all probability it will be necessary, to deal with the Amendments of the Scottish Bill, which will take rather longer than can well be compressed within the hours before dinner. Perhaps your Lordships would take this as notice from me that, so far as the Government are concerned, we shall propose to sit after dinner on Tuesday.

NORTH SOMERSET ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1929.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 12th instant be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 12th instant be approved.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
BRENTWOOD AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION, &c.)
ORDER, 1929.
TONBRIDGE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1929.
PEACEHAVEN ELECTRICITY
ORDER, 1929.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday be approved.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I desire to say that I am afraid there is a formidable list of Amendments in my name, but I can assure your Lordships that, with the exception of two or three, they
692
are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, judging from the number of Government Amendments that are down, the Government are still finding it very hard to satisfy themselves that they have really got the Bill in the form in which they want it. We can only wish that it were as easy for us to move Amendments from this side as it appears to be for the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to move Amendments from his Bench, and have them passed with very little discussion. I think it is hardly unfair to say that scarcely a single Amendment from this Bench has been accepted. It is, therefore, natural that we should feel that, even at this last stage, we must continue our opposition to the Bill, even into the Division Lobby. It is almost impossible, after there has been so much discussion of a Bill of this character, to lay any new material before your Lordships in order to persuade you at this last moment to change your mind. We can only as briefly as possible recapitulate our position, and place before your Lordships for this last time the reasons why we have opposed the Bill and will continue to do so.
We are all generally agreed that the whole of our rating and local government system needs a thorough overhauling. The whole structure is in such a faulty condition that any attempt to change it must begin from the very foundations. What we feel is that if these foundations are badly laid we may very well be worse off than we were before. It is not that we would contend that nothing good is done by the Bill, but that its main principles are unsound. In dealing with matters of principle a false start is even worse than no start at all. We contend that this Bill is not a real rating reform, and that it is not a reform of the Poor Law. It tackles the problem of the rates, as I shall hope to show in a minute, from the point of view of a subsidy, while it deals with the Poor Law merely in such a way as to effect a transference rather than a reform of its functions. The rating problem, as we see it from this side of the House, is that an injustice exists as between national and

693
local charges—between national and local taxation—and not as the Government maintains, as between productive and non-productive industries. The Government based their Bill on the distinction between productive and non-productive industries. It is, therefore, based, not on the needs of a rating system, but on what the Government contends are the needs of particular selected industries. It is, therefore, a subsidy, and not, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has stated, an act of justice.
This brings me to the main point on which we attack this Bill. If it differentiates as between one form of industry and another, if it is a selective subsidy, then, as we have asked before and shall continue to ask, why is it that the prosperous luxury trades, such as those that have been mentioned again and again—those of the brewers and the tobacco manufacturers and other prosperous luxury trades—receive relief, while the traders and shopkeepers, the householders and professional men, continue to pay rates on the same basis as before? We are told that we must not penalize efficiency. If this Bill were a real rating reform, that is, if it were a Bill for the removal from the rates of national charges such as main roads and unemployment, and if it applied to everyone who pays those rates, just and unjust alike, then of course there would be no case for criticism; but, being based, as it is, on an arbitrary selection as between one industry and another, the productive and the non-productive industries, it is quite another matter.
The Government have deliberately adopted a basis of selection and differentiation as opposed to wholesale reform, and what is more, they have adopted a particular form of differentiation which includes these prosperous luxury trades. When, therefore, the Government refuse to accept our Amendments on this point because they say they must safeguard the principle of their Bill, then they only further convince us of the essential unsoundness of that principle. Even granting the Government contention that these particular industries need special assistance, the moment you really examine what they are doing you must realise that their contention that this derating plan will be of any real assistance to in-
694
dustrial revival is a farce. I will give you one instance—the fact that it gives £3,000,000 a year in rating relief to the mining industry, which is losing over £13,000,000 a year. You will realise that the Bill in that case can give no real assistance whatsoever to relieve the unemployment problem in the milling industry.
Then with regard to the relief of agriculture, it has been shown by my noble and learned leader, Lord Parmoor, and by other noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, that ultimately every penny of that relief must go into the pockets of the landlords. It is not a question of the landlords being greedy and grasping individuals, who will at once raise rents. It is simply the economic fact that land as it is re-let will be re-let at its economic value. This is a perfectly fair point to make. Noble Lords on the other side of the House have told us that it is a mere electioneering point, fit only for the hustings, but it is a perfectly serious point that will have to be met on the platforms in the country at the next General Election.
Having very much reduced the revenue of the local authorities by this scheme of derating, the Government have had to devise a scheme whereby they could recoup them. Under this scheme they are going virtually to stabilise the expenditure of the local authorities for periods of five years. It is true that for the first period they have made a slight concession by reducing it to three years, and that the next, period will be four years, but after that they will go on the five years' basis. They are putting some of the social services, notably some of the health services, on a block grant basis, also based on this long period. The assumption is, of course, that, at the end of these periods, new money will be forthcoming from the Exchequer to meet the new demands of the localities. But it cannot be too strongly stressed that there is no guarantee whatsoever of that in this Bill. That is left purely to the future, to future negotiations which local authorities may be in a position to carry on with the Ministry at the time. Moreover, schemes of the local authorities start as from year to year, and not as from periods of five years or three years.

695
Let us consider how this will work out. Suppose a local authority has a big housing scheme next year and has to provide new social services in connection with that housing scheme. Where will they get the extra money from until the end of the first period? Or let us suppose that one of their industries becomes subject to a period of depression and unemployment starts. How are they going to meet the increased charge of unemployment for the next two years or so until the re-arrangement comes? Or let us suppose that a new industry starts in their district. Then they will suffer a double loss. Not only will the new industry bring increased population and a greater demand for social services, not only will they not receive grants towards those increased charges, but they will actually lose the increased rateable value that they would normally get from this industry in order to meet those charges. The Government tell us that it is not fair to say that expenditure is to be stabilised, and that there is a fund of £5,000,000 which can be used for meeting any increased needs. But I gather that some of that £5,000,000 has already been allotted and, in any case, £3,000,000 of that £5,000,000 comes out of the Road Fund, which would already go to the local authorities. There is, therefore, only a sum of £2,000,000 at the very most which can be distributed among the local authorities to meet these increased charges. Therefore, it is perfectly fair to say that this scheme does amount to virtual stabilisation of local expenditure for those periods over which the scheme is to run.
We are told that there will be greater freedom for local authorities under the block grant system. That is not a fair contention at all. There will be less freedom. What actually is the main restriction on local government expenditure? The first consideration is that local authorities will know that if they increase local expenditure they will not receive any assistance for a number of years from the State. They will, therefore, be very much less free to undertake the provision of new services. You may say that the Minister will still be in a position to ensure that the local services are maintained in an efficient condition because he retains the power to withhold grants in the event of his not being satisfied. But if you consider for a moment you will see that
696
that concedes our main claim of the greater efficiency of the percentage grant over the block grant, because by this clause the Minister is making the grant dependent on the services that are rendered. That is exactly what the percentage grant does to-day, only in a very much more efficient and smooth-running way. All that the Minister is doing here is to take to himself the power to bully local authorities, instead of leaving things as they are, with the local authorities retaining a real incentive to go forward. The fact of the matter is that the block grant is introduced as an economy. The argument against the percentage grant—we have heard it repeatedly from that side of the House—is that it encourages expenditure. That is perfectly true; but only after Parliament has laid down that a particular social service shall be encouraged by national grants, and only after the Minister himself has approved the particular expenditure that the local authority proposes to make. Under the percentage grant system this country has built up a most magnificent system of social services, and, speaking personally, I most sincerely hope that in two or three months the Labour Party will re-introduce the percentage grant system.
We believe that expenditure on social services is profitable expenditure, both from an economic and from a human point of view. The Conservative Party apparently think nothing, judging from the way in which they have dealt with our Amendments, of giving hundreds of thousands of pounds to brewers and hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Irish loyalists, and then they look to the public services for the wherewithal to foot the bill. Only the other day we had an instance of this in the reduction of £12,000 for milk for expectant mothers and babies. We believe that it is in this spirit that the Government apply the block grant system. It is bound to have the effect that they desire of restricting expenditure, and to our minds it is only another example of the niggardliness of the Conservative Party in regard to the problems of social reform. When they came into office four and a-half years ago we were assured from every platform that there really was a new spirit alive in their ranks, and that they really did mean business about social reform. They said: "We will stick to our Conserva-

697
tive principles, but within those Conservative principles we really do mean to tackle these great problems that are facing the country to-day." They will not be allowed to forget this when it comes to the struggle that we are going to have in the country. Like our point about the subsidies to the prosperous luxury trades, this will be a perfectly fair and honest point, and not, as has been suggested from the other side, a piece of cheap electioneering, fit only for the hustings.
I come to the question of the payment of expenses to members of county councils. We discussed this matter in Committee, and your Lordships will have another opportunity of discussing it today on an Amendment that is upon the Paper. We attach enormous importance to this matter, because we consider that it really does affect the vital principle of representation and the question of who ultimately is to sit on these bodies. The clause, as it stands, is left permissive. What does that mean? It means that there are a great number of county councils in this country which are very keen on this clause and will adopt it, but those reactionary county councils which most need new blood will be the very ones who will not adopt it. They will be left with their constitution unchanged, and a great number of People in those counties will be debarred for financial reasons, and for financial reasons alone, from putting up for election to the county council. Nor is expenditure under this heading to rank for grant—a clear indication that the Government is determined at any rate not to encourage the county councils to adopt this clause. Then there is the question of payment for lost time. This proposal was also refused, although it was drafted in almost identical words with those that we find in the Scottish Bill.
We have heard a good deal about the Scottish Bill from this side of the House, and very little from the Conservative side. The Scottish Bill is more generous in a great many ways. In the present Bill local authorities are to lose their right of discrimination as to whether they should seek to recover expenses for maintenance in one of their institutions. This was justified in Committee by insisting upon uniformity with the Poor Law. When, however, it was pointed out that the words in this Bill were "it shall be
698
the duty of" and that in the Poor Law the word was "may," the Government were forced to fall back upon that unfailing majority which they have received from your Lordships throughout the discussion of this Bill. In the Scottish Bill the position is as we should like to see it in this Bill. The discussions on this point were particularly interesting in so far as they showed how far it is possible for two members of the same Cabinet to disagree and for one member of a Cabinet completely to disclaim responsibility for the opinions and actions of another member of that Cabinet. It is perfectly true that the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack referred vaguely to the differences that exist between English and Scottish law, but he did not give us, or attempt to give us, a single instance in which England and Scotland differed in circumstances with regard to the particular matters that were under discussion. No doubt when we come to discuss the Scottish Bill it will be of interest to hear the noble and learned Lord dealing with these completely contrary and opposite clauses, and justifying them to us with that same mingling of persuasiveness and complete confidence that your Lordships will support him with which he has dealt with these clauses in the English Bill.
The only further point that I want to mention concerns the Poor Law. The Poor Law will remain, after the passage of this Bill, very much the same as it was before. Its functions are transferred to other bodies, but virtually it remains the same. The only clause in the Bill which offers any hope is Clause 5, which holds out the hope that the so-called pauper population will be split up and dealt with in the various classes to which it belongs. That has been made permissive. It does not deal with the problem of the able-bodied unemployed and the separating of them from the pauper population. By repealing the Unemployed Workmen Act it actually restricts the power of the county councils to deal with these men in any way except as paupers, because it makes it impossible for them to give special training or special temporary work to tide them over while attempting to find jobs else-where. The old, the sick, the infirm, and the unemployed are all by this Bill left within the ambit of the Poor Law,

699
and any real reform of the Poor Law must separate these classes, take them out of the ambit of the Poor Law and of pauperism, and deal with them as separate classes on their own.
These Poor Law provisions neither remove the stigma of pauperism from those who should not be called paupers, nor face the national responsibility for Poor Law charges. At the present moment the Exchequer bears only about 6 per cent. of the Poor Law charges that the local authorities have to bear, and when I give your Lordships that figure you will realise that it is fair to say that in leaving that distribution of expenditure as it was before, this Bill is shirking a very great problem of Poor Law administration and reform. In our opinion this Bill tackles neither the rating problem nor the Poor Law problem from a right of view, and in so far as they do move we believe that the Government are moving very largely in the wrong direction, and in a direction which will make it very much harder to proceed from in future if any Party comes into power to deal with these matters from the point of view of introducing real rating and Poor Law reform. It is because we feel that, that, without going into the details of the Bill, I ask your Lordships to reject the measure on its Third Reading.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not think your Lordships will wish to have a long discussion on this stage of the Bill, having regard to the fact that the merits of the measure have been thoroughly thrashed out on the Second Reading in a long debate lasting over two days, and have been meticulously examined in a series of Committee and Report sittings, to which your Lordships have devoted a good deal of time. I only desire to say a very few words in reply to the noble Earl. He complains that comparatively few of the Amendments moved by the Socialist Party have been accepted. I think it is true that comparatively few Amendments have been accepted, and the reason is that those which were rejected were Amendments which, in the view of the Government and of your Lordships, were calculated not to improve but to wreck the Bill. He said that the Socialist view was that the real injustice did not lie in the
700
burden of rates upon industry, but in the division of expenditure between local and national resources. I gather his view is that what is required is the usual Socialist panacea of national extravagance, backed by a bureaucracy from Whitehall. Our view is that there is injustice in the existing system of rating, in the burden which it places upon productive industry, and, having that view, we have asked Parliament to correct that injustice, and I am glad to see that already the prospect of this Bill going through, and the measure of relief which the derating of railways has already conferred upon industry, are beginning to tell their tale in improving the industries of this country.
The noble Earl complains of what he describes as the niggardliness of the Conservative Government, which is starving the social services. Almost in the same breath he boasted of the fact that we had in this country a system of social services which is unequalled in the world. Under what administration has that been built up? Under that very Conservative administration with which he professes to find so much fault. In the scheme which we have submitted we have been careful first to secure that there shall not be undue extravagance, and at the same time to ensure that money shall go, not, as now, to whatever wealthy district desires to spend extravagantly, but to whatever poor district most needs help; and I think that that is more in accord with a true system of social services than any nostrum of the Socialist Party. He complains that the passage of this Bill will make it more difficult for a Socialist Government to bring in their so-called reforms. I dare say that is true, but it is also true that the passage of this Bill will make it much more unlikely, when people find out what the Bill does, that the Socialist Party will have any opportunity of introducing their proposals.
We have in this Bill designed, and we believe we have effected, improvements in the efficiency of our social services, improvements in the application of public moneys for those social services, and at the same time a remedying of injustices which have pressed too long upon productive industry. The remedy which we have

701
devised we hope will do more to cure unemployment than the wild-cat schemes which come from a Socialist or any other quarter. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Third Reading, and will then dispose of the Amendments which still remain to be discussed. I do not wish at this stage to take up further time in discussing the merits of the scheme, which I hope has been
Resolved in the affirmative, and read 3a accordingly.
Clause 2:
Special provisions as to functions of Poor Law authorities in respect of infant life protection and vaccination.
2.—As from the appointed day the following provisions shall have effect with respect to functions relating to infant life protection and vaccination formerly discharged by Poor Law authorities:—
(c) the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to administrative schemes, acquisition of land, and accounts and audit, shall not apply as respects the functions aforesaid.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in paragraph (c), to leave out "acquisition of land." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment
thoroughly examined and understood by all your Lordships, after the careful consideration given to it in all parts of the House.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 3a?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Scarbrough, E.

Desborough, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dynevor, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hampton, L.

Somerset, D.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Wellington, D.

Falkland, V.

Hindlip, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Bristol, M.

Lamington, L.

Knutsford, V.

Melchett, L.

Airlie E. [Teller.]

Peel, V.

Merthyr, L.

Cavan, E.

Templetown, V.

Middleton, L.

Cawdor, E.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Monson, L.

Clarendon, E.

Newton, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Abinger, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Fortescue, E.

Avebury, L.

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

Harrowby, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Biddulph, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Iveagh, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Remnant, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Byron, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Carson, L.

Sinclair, L.

Lichfield, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Suffield, L.

Lovelace, E.

Templemore, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cranworth, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Cushendun, L.

Wharton, L.

Morton, E.

Dawson of Penn, L.

Wraxall, L.

Onslow, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Wynford, L.

Plymouth, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Beauchamp, E.

Arnold, L. [Teller.]

Parmoor, L.

Buston, E.

Clwyd, L.

Sandhurst, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Thomson, L.

Russell, E.

Olivier, L.

is to enable councils to acquire land for the purposes of this Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, leave out ("acquisition of land").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Public assistance committee.
6.—(1) An administrative scheme shall provide for the constitution of a committee of the council (hereinafter referred to as the public assistance committee), and may provide—

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

(b) that any other committee of the council shall act as the public assistance

703
committee, or that the members for the time being of any other committee, with such additional members as may be provided by the scheme, shall so act.

(2) Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing section, all matters relating to the exercise by the council of the functions transferred to them under this Part of this Act, except the power of raising a rate or borrowing money, shall stand referred to the public assistance committee, and the council before exercising any such functions shall, unless in their opinion the matter is urgent, receive and consider the report of the public assistance committee with respect to the matter in question.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and to insert:

"(a) that any other committee of the council shall act as the public assistance committee, or, that the members for the time being of any other such committee, shall so act; and

(b) for the inclusion in the public assistance committee or among any members of another committee acting as such, of persons who are not members of the council, some of whom shall be women; so, however, that of the whole number of members of the public assistance committee or committee or body acting as such, two-thirds at least shall be members of the council."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to meet a point raised by Lord Arnold. If it is wanted to co-opt members on an existing committee which becomes a Public Assistance Committee, this Amendment will enable that to be done.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 27, and insert the said paragraphs.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, after ("functions") insert ("(other than those specified in section two of this Act)").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Guardians committees and sub-committees.
7.—(1) In the case of a county the administrative scheme shall provide—
(5) The scheme shall determine the place where a guardians committee and any sub- committee thereof shall sit, and any local authority shall allow a guardians committee
704
or any sub-committee thereof to use free of charge for the purposes of their meetings, at any time when not required for the use of the local authority, any premises belonging to the authority.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in sub-section (5), to leave out "and any subcommittee thereof." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to render it unnecessary to determine in the scheme where sub-committees are to sit. It is thought that they can well settle that for themselves.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 38, leave out ("and any subcommittee thereof").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13:
Consultation as to the provision, of hospital accommodation.
13.—The council of every county and county borough shall, before making provision for hospital accommodation in discharge of the functions transferred to them under this Part of this Act, consult with such committee or other body as they consider to represent both the governing bodies and the medical and surgical staffs of the voluntary hospitals providing services in or for the benefit of the county or county borough.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to leave out "before" and to insert "when." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is to meet a point raised by my noble friend Lord Donoughmore, and to show that the consultation should be continuous. We prefer to move it in this manner.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 42, leave out ("before") and insert ("when").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Of course, when I put my Amendment down I thought it was in perfect form. On the other hand, I have no doubt my noble friend thinks the same of his. I accept it gratefully. He has met a real anxiety of ours by moving this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to leave out "with" ["consult with such committee"] and at the end of the clause to insert "as to the accommodation to be provided and as to the purposes for which it is to be used." The noble Earl said: My Lords, these two Amendments are introduced by the Government with a view to meeting my noble friend opposite

705
as far as possible. We want to show that we really wish to meet in every way we possibly can noble Lords who represent hospitals, and we have endeavoured to do so by this clause. I understand that the noble Lord opposite will accept it. He said that he might not be well enough to be here to-day, and I am very glad to see him in place and to have the advantage of hearing what he has to say on the subject.
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 44, leave out ("with").
Page 11, line 3, at end insert ("as to the accommodation to be provided and as to the purposes for which it is to be used").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Earl opposite for trying to meet our view as far as possible. I do not pretend that it does all that we ask; but it is impossible to get all you want in this imperfect world, and what he proposes certainly goes further than the word "accommodation" only. Further than that, this clause does bring people into consultation. It brings the people who know into contact with those who have to administer. It is a beginning. I should like to point out that it does not go quite as far as it will be necessary for it to go in administrative matters. It has always been a very serious matter that the mass of the medical profession, has been divorced from having an effective voice in the health services. That did not matter very much so long as curative medicine was not concerned; but unless some steps are taken to bring the mass of the profession and those who know about these things into responsible contact with those who, for the first time, are to take such a large part in administering the Bill, I think the Bill is little likely to have the good effects that are hoped for from it. I recognise, however, that this clause gives the right of consultation, and I hope that out of this poor beginning larger things will grow as the years go by.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17:
Accounts and audit.
17. Separate accounts shall be kept by the council of every county borough of their receipts and expenditure in respect of the functions transferred under this Part of this Act, and discharged by the council as
706
such, and those accounts shall be made up and audited in like manner and subject to the same provisions as in the case of a county council, and the enactments relating to the audit of the accounts of a county council and to all matters incidental thereto and consequential thereon, including penal provisions, shall apply in lieu of the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, relating to accounts and audit.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There is a drafting Amendment on this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 14, leave out ("transferred") and insert ("(other than those specified in section two of this Act) transferred to them").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Application to London]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, all the Amendments in my name to Clause 18 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 27, after ("in") insert ("the county of")
Page 15, line 35, after ("in") insert ("the county of")
Page 15, line 42, after ("the") insert ("appropriate").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Application to unions with appointed guardians]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the two Amendments to this clause are also drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 18, line 3, leave out ("Part VII") and insert ("Parts VII and VIII")
Page 18, line 11, leave out ("Part VII") and insert ("Parts VII and VIII").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 21 [Transfer of functions under Registration Acts]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the Amendments standing in my name to Clauses 21, 22 and 28 are all drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 26, after ("hereinafter") insert ("in this Part of this Act").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Conversion of registration officers into salaried officers]:
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 1, after ("occurring") insert ("on or")
Page 20, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("an existing registration officer") and insert ("a registration officer appointed before that day").
Page 21, line 4, after the first ("the") insert ("transferred").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 28 [Construction and citation]:
Amendment moved—
Page 24, lines 40 and 41, leave out ("this Part of this Act").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29:
County roads.
29.—(1) Every road which at the appointed day is a main road, or which would, apart from this section, at any time thereafter have become a main road, and every road as respects which a county council become by virtue of this Part of this Act the highway authority, shall be termed a county road, and all enactments relating to main roads shall as from the appointed day have effect as if for references therein to main roads there were substituted references to county roads.
(3) Section one hundred and nineteen of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 (which relates to the maintenance of borough bridges), shall cease to have effect as respects any bridge which carries a county road, and notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section thirty-five of the Local Government Act, 1888, no borough shall be exempt from contributing towards the costs incurred by a county council for the purpose of the maintenance, repair and improvement of, or other dealing with, bridges.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Every road," where those words first occur, and to insert "The council of every county shall be the highway authority as respects every road in the county." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to secure that the county council should be the highway authority for main roads in urban districts. Of course they perform the functions, and have done so for a long time. This is really a technical Amendment, and it makes no difference whatever to their powers, but it puts them on the right footing.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 12, leave out ("Every road") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 15, after ("every") insert ("such road and every other").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, at the beginning of subsection (3), to insert:
"As from the appointed day, the council of every county shall exercise the functions of maintenance, repair and improvement of, or other dealing with, every bridge in the county repairable by the inhabitants at large which carries a county road, and."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to make it clear that the county council are responsible for the repair of bridges which are repairable by the inhabitants at large, and those which carry county roads.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 33, at the beginning insert the said words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Transfer of classified roads in urban districts to county council]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: All the Amendments to Clause 31 in my name are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 27, line 13, leave out from the beginning to the end of subsection (1), and insert ("classified roads which, immediately before the appointed day, were vested in the councils of urban districts within the county")
Page 27, line 15, leave out ("where") and insert ("when")
Page 27, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("Where a road is for the time being a classified road")
Page 27, line 22, leave out ("the road") and insert ("a road which is for the time being a classified road").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 32 [Rights of certain urban district councils to maintain county roads]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: All the Amendments in my name to Clause 32 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 28, lines 42 and 43, leave out ("a main road immediately before the appointed day or")
Page 30, line 28, after ("maintaining") insert ("and repairing")
Page 31, line 17, leave out ("any") and insert ("an").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 33:
Contributions by county councils to county roads maintained by urban district councils.
33.—(1) Where an urban district council are in pursuance of the last foregoing section of this Act responsible for the maintenance and repair of a county road within their district, the county council shall—
(a) make annual payments (by quarterly instalments) towards the cost of the maintenance and repair, and any reasonable improvement connected with the maintenance and repair, of the road of such amount as may be determined in manner hereinafter provided;
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "maintenance and repair" where those words first occur, and to insert "of the road and any reasonable improvement connected with the maintenance and repair thereof, of such amount as may be determined in manner hereinafter provided; and". The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 27, leave out from "repair" to the end of line 30, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Delegation of road functions by counts, councils to district councils]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The Amendments in my name to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 33, line 29, leave out ("every county council shall")
Page 33, line 30, after ("twenty-nine") insert ("every county council shall")
Page 33, line 36, leave oat from ("based") to ("and") in line 40, and insert ("and shall send to the council of every district who have made application under this section a copy of so much of the statement as affects the district").
Page 34, line 32, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, after Clause 38, to insert the following new clause.
Application of 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55. s. 308 in certain cases.
" .—(1) In any case in which a public utility undertaking sustains damage by reason of the exercise by a county council, in relation to any road vested in them by virtue of this Part of this Act, of functions which before the load was so vested were only exerciseable in relation thereto by district councils under the powers of the Public Health Act, 1875, section three hundred and eight of that Act (which relates to compensation) shall apply as if for the reference therein to a local authority there were substituted a reference to the county council, and as if the, functions had been exercised under the powers of that Act.
(2) In this section 'public utility undertaking' means any company or authority which carries on a gas, water, hydraulic power, electricity, tramway, light railway or trolley vehicle undertaking, and the expression 'trolley vehicle 'has the same meaning as in the Bead Transport Lighting Act, 1927."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, regarding the Amendment which stands in my name and in that of my noble friend Lord Askwith, I have to apologise to your Lordships that it was not brought forward at a previous stage. That was due to a misunderstanding between myself and my noble friend, and also to the rather sudden course that the Report stage took. I understand that His Majesty's Government are willing to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 38 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Power of county councils to act jointly]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 12, after ("or") insert ("under").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Extent of Part III]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The two Amendments in my name are both drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 40, line 18, at the beginning insert ("Save as therein otherwise expressly provided")
Page 40, line 18, leave out from ("Act") to ("shall") in line 19.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 45:
First general review of districts by county councils.
45.—(1) The council of every county shall as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, after conferences with representatives of the councils of the several districts wholly or partly within the county, review the circumstances of all such districts and consider whether it is desirable to effect any of the following changes:—

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

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

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

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

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

and shall forthwith after the review is completed as respects the whole or any part of the county, and before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, or such later date as the Minister may in any case allow, send to the Minister a report of the review, together with proposals as to the changes (if any) which they consider desirable:
Provided that, before making any such proposals the county council shall consult with the councils of the county boroughs adjoining the county, and the Minister shall give those councils an opportunity of laying before him their views on the proposals made by the county council.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (1). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I invite the special attention of noble Lords opposite to this Amendment. I will read the proviso which comes after the subsection. It runs:—
"Provided that, before making any such proposals the county council shall consult with the councils of the county boroughs adjoining the county, and the Minister shall give those councils an opportunity of laying before him their views on the proposals made by the county council."
712
I raised this question before, and I am driven to raise it again by the great strength of the representations that have been made to me by county councils outside and their indignation at this interference with their being masters in their own house. It is quite a new principle that county councils cannot re-arrange their districts without county boroughs, which have nothing to do with it, but happen to be in the area, having a finger in the pie. I would ask noble Lords opposite, many of whom, no doubt, sit on county councils and are interested in their work, whether they do not think that their own councils will resent such a proposal. The excuse made, or rather the explanation given by the Government, was that this was a recommendation of the Royal Commission, and that on that Royal Commission, I think, there were two representatives of county councils sitting.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Three.
EARL RUSSELL: I am obliged to the noble Earl. It has been represented to me that those three representatives had no authority whatever to agree to this on the Royal Commission, and that their agreement has been very much resented by other county councils. I do not know that we are particularly interested in preventing the Government before the Election embroiling themselves with county councils and getting themselves into ill favour; but we are interested in making this Bill workable, and I think many a county council, when it is faced with this order to consult the county borough as to how it shall arrange its own district, may say that it will have nothing to do with it, and that it will not, in that case, re-arrange its own district, but will leave the matter where it is. Except for the reference to the Royal Commission I have not heard from the Government any good reason why this obligation was put upon the county councils, or what useful advice the county boroughs are likely to give. I can assure your Lordships that it is very strongly resented by a great many county councils, and I think, even at this hour, it would be worth your Lordships' while to reconsider this provision. I beg, therefore, to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, leave out lines 8 to 13.—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this was a recommendation of a Royal Commission on Local Government which, as the noble Earl opposite said, contained three representatives of the county councils, who were appointed originally by my noble friend behind me, Lord Melchett, a long time ago when he was Minister of Health, to serve on this Commission. They were Sir Edmund Turton, Lord Strachie, who I am sorry is not here to-day, and Mr. Samuel Taylor, who succeeded Sir Ryland Adkins. The history of this provision is this: The various associations gave evidence before the Royal Commission, and it was generally agreed that the rearrangement of districts within a county was desirable. As your Lordships are aware, municipal boroughs have the right, when their boundaries are altered, to go before Parliament. It was represented by the witnesses that this right to go before Parliament would be inconvenient in the case of a general review of every county throughout England and Wales—a general review of all the boundaries of all the districts of all the counties—and in order to get that done well and satisfactorily this right to go before Parliament in the case of an alteration or a borough boundary should be waived. The municipal boroughs agreed to that. They saw no objection to it for this one particular and special case.
The noble Earl opposite said this is a new principle. It is not a new principle. This reorganisation of all districts is a totally different step from any that has ever been taken before. The Association of Municipal Corporations thought it would be desirable that when this reorganisation of the whole county was being considered its bearing upon the county boroughs within the geographical county should also be considered, and that they should be called into consultation and be given an opportunity of expressing their views. No change can be made in the boundary of a county borough. The Act which your Lordships passed as the result of the first Report of the Royal Commission some two years ago still holds good, but, if there are arrangements which by agreement can be conveniently made in order to make a
714
better apportionment of the boundaries of the geographical county, it seems to me it would be very desirable that the county boroughs should have an opportunity of expressing their views. The Commission was certainly unanimous upon that point. It seems to be a most useful provision, and the objections which have been made to it seem to me to be based on a misconception. It is thought the boroughs are going to be given the opportunity of taking a, piece from the county without the county's consent. It is nothing of the kind. It is merely an opportunity for the re-arrangement of the whole of the districts in the county on a sound basis, and to enable everybody who may be concerned to be consulted and have an opportunity of giving his advice.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I must confess I do not like the principle of speaking at the Third Reading stage upon Amendments which have already been settled and discussed in your Lordships' House on Committee Stage and on Report, but this matter is so important that I venture to ask your Lordships to allow me to say a few words upon it. It is an old question, and there are few questions which do stir county councils more than the fear of having a large quantity of their rateable value taken away from them by large boroughs on their outskirts. I have been personally acquainted with that fear as long almost as I have been in public life. I do not see very much difference between that fear on the part of the county councils and the expectation which was held out by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that there would merely be sonic re-arrangement of the boundary. It seems to me that there is very little difference between them and I am not surprised at the fear which is being expressed by the county councils in regard to this matter, nor at the strength of the protests which have reached me in respect of it from more than one direction in this country. I also think the Minister of Health would be overwhelmed by applications in regard to this matter. County boroughs who have been casting envious eyes for a long time upon desirable spots will seize this opportunity of beseeching the Minister of Health to allow them to take over these valuable spots. Quite apart even from the point of view of whether it

715
is desirable or not that this should be inserted in this Bill, I feel sure the Minister of Health will find himself almost overwhelmed by applications and by controversies upon this subject. I have very little hope, however, at this late stage, that His Majesty's Government will accept the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to be allowed to say a word on this matter, because it is a point which has been made from all sides of the House, and we have been overwhelmed by protests against the proposals contained in this proviso. Perhaps that applies to me in rather an especial degree, because in the old days I was very much associated with the discussions of readjustment as between the county council districts and the county borough districts. I thought after a good deal of alteration in the methods of procedure it was determined that this should be a question to be decided by Parliament itself, and by no other authority. There was a good deal of controversy in the old days when there had been a local inquiry in the first instance and the conditions of the local inquiry were brought before a Committee of this House which dealt with local government matters. I think in every case the Chairman of the Committee of this House held that it was for the Committee of this House to consider and determine these questions, and not for an outside authority. Under this proviso it appears to me that on every reorganisation within a county you give the right to object to an adjoining county borough. That is a very serious matter when you are dealing with county reorganisation. At the present time the adjoining county borough has no locus standi, nor ought it to have under those conditions; and so far from a provision of this kind assisting in reorganisation, as the noble Earl thinks, I believe it will have the opposite effect. It would in every case prevent necessary reorganisation being carried out. Reorganising within the county is one matter, and to raise on such an occasion all the questions of a very acute kind between adjoining borough authorities and county authorities would be a very serious obstruction to better reorganisation. I have often heard the noble Earl explain matters in a very lucid manner, but I admit I did not understand his explanation why a provision of this kind has been introduced, for it must
716
interfere with, and not help forward, that reorganisation which I understand he so much desires.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: There is a drafting Amendment next.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 19, leave out the first ("the") and insert ("a").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50:
Reports and returns.
50. The council of any county or borough, or of any district, and the common council of the City of London and the council of any metropolitan borough shall make to the Minister such reports and returns and give him such information with respect to their functions as he may require.
Drafting Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 30, after the first ("or") insert ("county").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after "metropolitan borough," to insert "and any joint committee or joint board appointed jointly by two or more such councils as aforesaid." The noble Earl said: This is to secure that the terms from Joint Boards and Joint Committees shall also be available for the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 32, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, at the end of the clause, to add "(2) This section shall extend to the county of London." The noble Earl said: This is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 35, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51:
Travelling expenses.
51.—(1) As from the appointed day it shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be lawful for the council of any county to defray any expenses necessarily incurred by members of the council or of any committee thereof to which this section applies in travelling to and from meetings of the council or committee or in travelling by

717
direction of the council or committee for the purpose of carrying out any inspection necessary for the discharge of the functions of the council or committee.
(2) No expenses which a county council have, apart from this section, power to defray shall be defrayed under this section, and this section shall not affect any such power.
(3) No expenditure by a county council under this section shall be taken into account for the purpose of determining the amount of any sum payable to the council out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(4) This section shall apply to any committee of a county council appointed for the discharge of functions throughout the whole area for which the county council is charged with those functions, and shall also apply to any sub-committee or joint committee so appointed as if it were a committee of the council.
(5) In this section the expression "subcommittee" means a sub-committee of a committee of a county council, and the expression "joint committee" means a joint committee or joint board appointed by a county council jointly with the council of another county or of a borough or with a court of quarter sessions.
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved to leave out Clause 51 and to insert as a new clause:
Travelling expenses.
" .—(1) It shall be lawful for a county council to incur expenditure in paying allowances at uniform rates to be prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State in respect of travelling and other personal expenses necessarily incurred and time necessarily lost from ordinary employment by members of the council or of any committee or sub-committee thereof in attending meetings of such council, committee or sub-committee.
(2) Any such expenditure as aforesaid incurred in respect of meetings of the council shall be defrayed in like manner as general administrative expenses of the council, and any expenditure incurred in respect of meetings of a committee or of any subcommittee shall be defrayed in like manner as expenditure on the functions for which the committee or sub-committee is appointed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I agree with what has been said about the desirability of not again raising matters which have already been raised in Committee and on Report, but the condition in this case is peculiar. This is the first time in considering this matter that the House has had before it the actual terms of the Scottish Bill, and, if our proposal is carried, the terms of the Scottish Bill will be substituted for the terms of the English Bill. From that point of view,
718
I think that a matter of considerable principle is involved. The point really is—it was referred to in the admirable speech of the noble Earl who voiced our opposition to the Third Reading of the Bill—that, unless you have these expenses paid, no member of the poorer classes or the working classes can become a member of a county council. That is a very serious matter. If a Bill of this kind is to work well, you ought to make your county councils entirely representative, because not only do they decide questions of policy as regards the Poor Law but they hold the purse strings and in addition make all the appointments of officers and officials. I do not think I ought to detain your Lordships because this matter has been argued before, but I do sincerely hope that the Government will realise that the position, as it is left by this Bill, is extremely unsatisfactory and that there is no reason whatever why, in this matter, there should be differentiation between the Scottish Bill and the English Bill. I beg, therefore, to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 51 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has quite truly said, this is a matter which has been discussed in Committee and I think also on the Report stage. The noble and learned Lord further said that, for the first time this afternoon, your Lordships' attention has been directed to the Scottish Bill. I cannot help thinking that he cannot have listened very carefully to the debates in Committee and on the Report stage, because the Scottish Bill was the main argument adduced in favour of this Amendment at those earlier stages, and I remember a strong protest was made from the Government Benches against the suggestion that whilst we were discussing the English Bill we should be troubled with the Scottish Bill which might be governed by quite different considerations. If it were true that this was the law in Scotland now and that we were endeavouring to assimilate English procedure to Scottish procedure it would be very relevant to see what the law at present in Scotland has to say. That is not so, however. The Scottish Bill has only had a Second Reading, and may or may not be amended before it is passed by your Lordships' House.

719
Since the noble and learned Lord has again brought up the matter of the Scottish Bill, I should like to point out that the positions in England and Scotland are, in fact, quite different. I am not in the least arguing the Scottish Bill. I am not responsible for it in your Lordships' House, and no doubt any proposed Amendment will be discussed on its merits, but in fact in Scotland to-day with regard to the education committees the position is that the members do at this moment receive travelling and subsistence allowances, and also payment for lost time. Therefore, when the Scottish Bill was being discussed in another place it was thought desirable to maintain, with regard to the Scottish county councils to whom the powers of the education committees are being transferred, what is the existing law with regard to the education committees. For better or worse—personally I think very much for the better—we have not got that right in England. It is not the law to-day that in England members of county councils or of those other bodies whose functions are being transferred to the county councils, get their travelling expenses. Therefore, what we are doing in England is to introduce for the first time a power which does not at present exist in England, and we are saying that in England there shall in future be power, which there is not to-day, for county councils to pay travelling expenses if they see fit so to do. How it can be said that a Bill which introduces for the first time power to pay travelling expenses is a Bill which is depriving the working classes of the right of representation on the county councils passes my comprehension. It seems a pure piece of Socialist propaganda.
The fact is that we are conferring on county councils a power which does not at present exist, and when we are told that not only should travelling expenses be paid, but that lost time should be paid for, and that the absence of a provision making it compulsory for county councils to make these payments is a move to deprive the working man of representation on county councils, all I can say is that a great many county councils have a large number of Socialist members to-day, and that on more than one there is actually a Socialist majority. Therefore, that seems an idle argument. The matter has been thrashed out before, but since the Scottish Bill has been
720
brought before your Lordships I have thought it right to inform myself, as the matter is not within my personal cognisance, of what the position is in Scotland, in order to explain the apparent anomaly upon which the noble and learned Lord puts so much stress.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Lord has rather missed the point with regard to the Scottish Bill. When the matter was previously discussed, the Scottish Bill was still in another place, and all we knew about it was in the nature of rumour. Now it is in the possession of this House, and we can see the Bill itself. I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord himself did not make the suggestion that this provision might not be there when the Bill reached us. Therefore, it is rather interesting, now that the Bill is before us, to look at it, and it is particularly interesting to notice how far these Scotsmen who told us they did not want this power at all have gone in their Bill. All that the English Bill provides is that county councils shall be able to pay these expenses for travelling to members of committees which cover the whole county. I think that is the limitation. If you look at the clause which the noble Lord has moved, and which is taken verbatim from the Scottish Bill, you will see that it shall be lawful for a county council to pay allowances at rates prescribed by the Secretary of State in respect of travelling expenses without any limitation as to a committee covering a whole county or any part of the county. It does not stop there. It goes on to say "other personal expenses necessarily incurred." Nor, my Lords, does it stop there. It still goes on, and says payment may be made for "time necessarily lost from ordinary employment."
It is quite remarkable what an advantage the other part of the Kingdom has got over this part in this matter. I think it is perfectly legitimate to refer to this, and to ask why this remarkable differentiation is made. I do not quite understand the argument of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack as to this being an entire novelty in England and no novelty in Scotland. He said travelling expenses are now paid to members of education committees in Scotland. But there are

721
some statutory committees, such as asylums committees, in this country whose members have had their travelling expenses paid in the past. Therefore, it is not an entire novelty in this country. The novelty is to give county councils power to make a general rule. However, if your Lordships, without any explanation or reason, desire to pass these two Bills in different forms, we have no power to prevent you.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 52 [Borrowing and appropriation of land by councils of counties and boroughs]:
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 39, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Provisions as to expenses of rural district councils]:
Amendments moved—
Page 47, line 30, after ("apportion") insert ("in such proportions as they think just")
Page 47, lines 33 and 34, leave out ("in such proportions as they think just").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 56:
Relations between county councils and district councils in respect of public health functions.
(3) Where it appears to the Minister that the council of any district wholly or partly within a county have made default in providing their district or any part thereof with a sewerage system or sewage disposal works or an adequate supply of water, or in discharging any other function relating to public health which it is their duty to discharge, the Minister may cause a local inquiry to be made into the matter, and—
(b) if the function is not discharged by the time limited in the order, the Minister may by order transfer to the county council the function with respect to which default has been made either for a definite period or until he may otherwise direct, and the order may apply any of the provisions of section sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1894, with such modifications and adaptations (if any) as appear necessary or expedient.
The EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the Amendments which I have put down to this clause and to Clause 62 have the
722
same object. They are to enable superannuation and transference provisions to be applied in cases where functions are transferred from district councils to county councils.
Amendments moved—
Page 48, line 42, leave out from ("apply") to ("with") in line 44
Page 48, line 45, at end insert ("any of the provisions of this Act relating to the transfer, superannuation and compensation of officers and any of the provisions of section sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1894").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 62:
[Provision of hospital accommodation for infectious disease]:
Amendments moved—
Page 52, line 38, leave out from ("apply") to ("with") in line 39
Page 52, line 41, at end insert ("any of the provisions of this Act relating to the transfer, superannuation and compensation of officers and any of the provisions of section sixty-three of the Local Government Act, 1894").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after Clause 67, to insert the following new clause:—
Amendment of 18 d 19 Geo. 5. c. 44. s. 3 (2).
" .Subsection (2) of section three of the Rating and. Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, shall have effect as if there were therein inserted after the word 'Act' the words following, that is to say—

(a) a hereditament shall not be deemed not to be occupied and used as a factory or workshop by reason only of the fact that the owner or occupier of the hereditament is the only person working therein or that no other person working therein is in his employment; and

(b)"

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the question has been raised whether the Bill makes it clear that there shall be no distinction in the matter of rate relief between two industrial premises merely on the ground that in one a man works with assistance and in another by himself, or with a son or brother. This pro-posed clause makes it clear that the distinction does not exist. The addition of this clause will entail a consequential alteration in the Title of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 11, at end insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think I understand the noble Earl, and I entirely agree with him. This is to meet the case of which the illustration was given of a blacksmith working by himself in his own shop.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF IVEAGH THE EARL OF IVEAGH moved, after Clause 68, to insert the following new clause:—
Amendment of 15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 90, s. 11
" .It shall not be necessary for any rating authority in defining by resolution the class of hereditaments whereof the owners are to be rated instead of the occupiers, to define the class by reference to the interval at which rent from time to time becomes payable or is collected, and accordingly the following amendments, shall be made in subsection (1) of section eleven of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, that is to say, after the words 'and also' there shall be therein inserted the words 'where the rating authority so decide,' and in the proviso to that subsection the words 'the rent of which becomes payable or is collected at quarterly or any longer intervals or 'shall cease to have effect."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have ventured to put down this Amendment to meet a certain difficulty that arises in some of the East Anglian areas, where the present system of compounding will cease to have effect unless this Amendment is made.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 68 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Iveagh.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, before the Question is put, I should like to say one word. I imagine that this is an entirely new matter that has not yet been brought before your Lordships. We have had no very adequate explanation from the noble Earl of the purport and effect of this clause. If, as I rather suspect, it increases the burdens on agricultural landowners and cottage owners, I venture to hope, bearing in mind the very serious difficulties under which estates are conducted, that the House will not accept this Amendment. In any case, I think it requires a little more explanation than we have received.
THE EARL OF IVEAGH: My Lords, if I may speak again with your Lordships' permission, I will make a further statement. I was abbreviating my remarks only because I thought that the hour
724
was late and that your Lordships would like me to say as little as possible. This Amendment arises out of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, where provision is made for the so-called compounding of rates where the owner of the land or buildings pays the rate instead of the occupier. Owing to the fact that the Act was drawn with a limit of time as well as of the amount of money paid for a cottage, a number of cottagers in East Anglia will not have the privilege that they have enjoyed in the past. In East Anglia there are a number of districts where cottagers pay their rent, if it is less than £13 a year, once a year, often at the end of harvest or at some other appropriate time. Owing to the fact that the Rating and Valuation Act provides that the rent must be paid at periods of not less than a quarter, these people will not be able to have the privilege of having their rates paid by the landlord, and accordingly the proviso in the other Act which says that the rent must be paid at more frequent intervals than once a quarter requires attention. The purpose of this Amendment is to allow the old custom to go on, so that these people will not have their rate demand note served on them. I am told that there is one district where this point affects as many as 67 per cent. of all the hereditaments in the area. This would cause considerable difficulty to the particular rural council, it would cause a great deal more work than in the past, and it is therefore a matter of rural economy, as well as of convenience to all concerned, that we should carry on a custom that has obtained for a great number of years. I hope that I have made myself clear to your Lordships.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should simply like to ask——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD BLEDISLOE: I do not know if I am in order, but I should like to ask the noble Earl whether, if cottages are left vacant, as I take it they sometimes are in East Anglia, then under this compounding system, if this Amendment is accepted, the landowners in East Anglia will have to pay more than they are paying at the present time.
THE EARL OF IVEAGH: I imagine that things will go as they always have. I should not think that it makes any

725
difference at all. In fact, I am so advised.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am advised that it is thought that this Amendment will be in the interests of everybody concerned—of local authorities, owners and tenants—in order to avoid upsetting existing arrangements and to enable the status quo to be maintained as far as possible. I understand that this is the object of my noble friend's Amendment, and that it will have that effect. Without it you will have a new system introduced which would be inconvenient to owners, local authorities and tenants alike.
THE EARL OF IVEAGH: That is the object.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, all the Amendments standing in my name—and they are the only Amendments on the Paper—down to and including Clause 123 are drafting Amendments.
Clause 78 [Power to require copies of values in force under Schedule A of 8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 40]:
Amendment moved—
Page 62, lines 20 and 21, leave out ("of a sum not exceeding the rate of") and insert ("at a rate not exceeding").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 83 [Payment and apportionment of General Exchequer Contributions]:
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 5, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert the said subsections as a new clause after clause 84.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 97 [Contributions by council to voluntary associations in respect of maternity and child welfare]:
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 16, after ("the") insert ("London").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 103 [Government property]:
Amendments moved—
Page 80, line 26, leave out ("hereditament") and insert ("premises")
Page 80, line 28, after ("of") insert ("any premises which, if in rateable occupation would be")
Page 80, line 29, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")
Page 80, line 34, leave out ("hereditament") and insert ("premises").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 104 [Power to make regulations]:
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 17, leave out ("Part of this").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 107 [Power to adjust grants in respect of alteration of authorities or boundaries before 1st April, 1930]:
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 41, leave out ("county").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 113 [Transfer of road property and liabilities]:
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 31, after ("exercise") insert ("the").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 114 [Transfer of quarries, plant, materials and depôts]:
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 17, leave out from the beginning to ("to") in line 18, and insert ("claimed or are deemed to have claimed").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 115 [Transfer of Poor Law officers]:
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 32, leave out ("which") and insert ("whom").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 119 [Compensation to existing officers]:
Amendments moved—
Page 98, line 5, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act")
Page 98, line 12, leave out ("by") and insert ("between").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 120 [Superannuation of transferred Poor Law officers]:
Amendments moved—
Page 99, line 15, after ("subsection") insert ("as from the, appointed day")
Page 101, line 23, at end insert ("and for the purpose of the provisions of that Act relating to the return of contributions, contributions paid under the Act of 1896

727
shall be treated as having been paid under the Asylum Officers Superannuation Act, 1909").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 122 [Determination of questions as to transferred officers, etc.]:
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 16, at end insert ("any").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 123 [information to be given by Poor Law authorities and district councils to county councils]:
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 25, leave out ("their functions") and insert ("the functions transferred to them").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 130 [Definitions]:
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, my Amendments to this clause, to Clause 132 and to all the Schedules down to the end of the Eleventh Schedule are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 109, line 31, leave out ("fact") and insert ("facts that the bridge is repairable by the inhabitants at large and")
Page 112, line 2, after ("bridge") insert ("so repairable").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 132 [Transmission of benefit of rate-relief in respect of freight-transport hereditaments]:
Amendments moved—
Page 114, line 9, after ("enactment") insert ("whether passed before or after the commencement of this Act")
Page 114, lines 16 and 17, leave out ("the enactments") and insert ("Part V of this Act and of any such corresponding enactment as").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule [Discontinued Grants]:
Amendment moved—
Page 120, line 1, leave out ("the grants heretofore") and insert ("grants").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Provisions as to certain payments which heretofore have been payable out of Local Taxation Accounts or out of money which would
728
have been payable to those accounts or have been required to be charged to Exchequer Contribution Accounts]:
Amendments moved—
Page 121, line 16, leave out ("have hitherto been") and insert ("were before the appointed day")
Page 121, line 22, leave out ("such") and insert ("that")
Page 121, line 26, after ("that") insert ("any")
Page 121, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("the duties of such officer") and insert ("his duties")
Page 121, line 29, after ("under") insert ("either")
Page 121, line 31 and 32, leave out ("a sum equal to such") and insert ("the said sum equal to one")
Page 121, line 43, leave out ("have hitherto been") and insert ("were before the appointed day").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Ninth Schedule [Transitional Provisions]:
Amendments moved—
Page 136, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert ("person elected or nominated for election before the appointed day as a rural district councillor during the term of office for which he was so elected or nominated")
Page 136, line 25, leave out ("acquired")
Page 138, line 14, leave out ("aforesaid").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Tenth Schedule [Adaptation of enactments]:
Amendments moved—
Page 143, lines 29 and 30, leave out ("As from the first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine")
Page 144, line 23, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
("(a) from subsection (3) of section twenty-seven the words (' in which the place') shall be omitted and in that subsection, for the words ('the parish in which he is adjudged to be settled is situate') there shall be substituted the words ('to the county or county borough in which he is adjudged to be settled')")
Page 147, line 20, leave out ("in") and insert ("from")
Page 147, line 39, leave out ("within the area")
Page 149, line 6, leave out ("board of guardians")
Page 149, line 9, after ("require") insert ("as if for references to 'board of guardians' there were substituted references to rural district council'").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule [Provisions for securing allowance of rebates to selected traffics corresponding to rate-relief of certain companies]:
Amendments moved—
Page 159, line 22, leave on from the second ("charges") to ("for") in line 24
Page 159, line 25, after ("railway") insert ("or light railway")
Page 163, line 16, leave out ("not being situate") and insert ("situate elsewhere than").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

TWELFTH SCHEDULE.

Enactments repealed.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

PART III.—REPEALS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART III OF THIS ACT.

41 & 42 Vict.c. 77

The Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act 1878.

In section sixteen, the words "in pursuance of this Act."

PART VI.—REPEALS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART VI OF THIS ACT.

1 & 2 Geo. 5.c. 2.

The Revenue Act, 1911.

Section eventeen, except so far as it relates to Scotland.

In section eighteen, subsection (1).

PART VII.—REPEALS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART VII OF THIS ACT.

9 & 10 Vict. c. 74.

The Baths and Wash-houses Act, 1846.

In section twenty-four the words "and of the "guardians of "the poor of the "parish (if any) "and of" and the words "such "guardians or "in."

THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in Part III after "in pursuance of this Act," to insert (in the third column)" Section twenty." The noble Earl said: My Lords, in certain counties, I think in the North of England, the roads are occasionally charged upon the hun-
730
dreds. That is provided in the Act of 1875. Owing to the provisions of this Bill, that section should be repealed, because the roads all become a county charge. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 172, after line 25, insert (in the third column) ("Section twenty").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 172, line 34, at end insert ("in section eleven, in the proviso to subsection (1), the words 'the rent of which becomes payable or is collected at quarterly or any longer intervals or'").—(The Earl of Iveagh.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The rest of my Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 176, leave out lines 44 and 45.
Page 178, line 38, leave out ("and of").
Page 179, line 30, at end insert:

("15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 59.

The Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1925.

In proviso (a) to sub-section (1)of section two the words 'the Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act, 1896, or'")

—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Title:
An Act to amend the law relating to the administration of poor relief, registration of births, deaths, and marriages, highways, town planning and local government; to grant complete or partial relief from rates in the case of the hereditaments to which the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, applies; to discontinue certain grants from the Exchequer and provide other grants in lieu thereof; and for purposes consequential on the matters aforesaid.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My two Amendments in the Title are consequential on the new clause after Clause 67 which your Lordships were good enough to insert in the Bill, on my Motion.
Amendments moved—
Line 4, after ("government") insert ("; to extend the application of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, to hereditaments in which no persons are employed;")
Lines 6 and 7, leave out ("Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928") and insert "that Act").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords I beg to move that this Bill be now passed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

DEAD SEA SALTS CONCESSION.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN rose to move to resolve, That a Permanent British Control be established on the Dead Sea, and the subsidiary industries arising therefrom; and that any group to whom the concession is granted shall be required to have British finance and British control and have no connection, direct or indirect, with the German potash monopoly. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should like to say at the beginning that in bringing this matter forward it is not my intention to attack races, nationalities or individuals, or their religious beliefs. As your Lordships are aware, the Dead Sea is to-day the centre of a drama destined to rivet the attention of nations. Situated in the world's most historic land, it has been for many years a magnet for chemists, whose labours have now revealed great potential powers, which, allied with the enterprise of science and civilisation, will transform a place of desolation into beneficent activity; and Palestine, which once lay at the cross roads of ancient civilisation, becomes anew the highway between east and west.
There is potash, magnesium, bromine, in millions of tons. From the waters of the Dead Sea alone the amount of potash, so essential both to agriculture and to war, would supply the world with one million tons a year for 2,000 years. The values are enormous, and enormous still, were they (to suit the matter-of-fact British imagination) reduced a thousandfold. The Dead Sea has no outlet, and lies in a cleft 1,300 feet below sea level. Six million tons of water pour into it every day, and a fierce sun has promoted the process of evaporation through countless years. Great subsidiary fertiliser and chemical industries will arise. Soap and glass industries will flourish, railways will be built, and potash can be brought to London at £4 10 s. a ton, to bring a renaissance to revive our British agriculture, which, due to the German monopoly and government neglect, has been the Cinderella of English industrial
732
life. "Whoever holds the Dead Sea holds the Key of the Middle East." It might be said that the Haifa Harbour, and the electrification and irrigation of the Jordan Valley, and the Dead Sea, constitute a unique industrial trilogy, which can unlock to the world great beneficent powers, and revive again an active civilisation from the River of the Nile to the River of the Euphrates.
These long vistas of development lay a heavy responsibility upon England as the Mandatory Power, and much interest naturally exists as to how the sacred trust to civilisation for the well-being and development of Palestine is to be fulfilled. It has to be remembered that the boundary line between Palestine and Transjordania runs through the middle of the Dead Sea, and that half the Dead Sea, therefore, belongs to Transjordania, a wholly Arab country, and the other half to Palestine, at present 85 per cent. Arab and 15 per cent. Jewish. Palestine was possessed by the Arabs many centuries before the Jews entered, and the land is rich in historic association to Arab and Christian as well as Jew, and is sacred to the three great World religions, Christian, Moslem, and Jewish.
Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations states:—
"To those Colonies and Territories which as a consequence of the late War, have ceased to he under the Sovereignty of the States which lately governed them, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation."
To the Arab peoples, Great Britain has given the MacMahon pledge of 1915, later endorsed by the British Prime Minister in 1919. "The Arab Forces have redeemed the pledges given to Great Britain, and we should redeem our pledges," and Mr. Churchill on June 14, 1921, stated:—
"In order to gain the support of the Arabs against the Turks we, in common with our Allies, made, during the War, another series of promises to the Arabs of the reconstitution of the Arab nation and as far as possible of the restoration of Arab influence and authority in the conquered provinces."
And the same spirit of benevolent guardianship was embodied, even after the Balfour Declaration, in the Allies' declaration of November 7, 1918, in the Proclamation posted in every village throughout Palestine and Syria.

733
"The War is to assure the complete and final liberation of the people so long oppressed by the Turks, and the establishment of Government and administration deriving their authority from the initiative and free desire of the native population. They are far from wishing to impose any form of Government against their will."
Then there is also the Balfour Declaration of November 17, 1917:—
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish Communities in Palestine or the right and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
In a situation so complicated, permanent British control becomes essential, in order that we may fulfil to all these people the obligations by which we are bound. Only a British control can do justice amid the varied interests and ensure for this great wealth the development due to the inhabitants. It therefore becomes a matter of grave concern to the British public in what way, and under what influence, the Dead Sea and the most strategic areas of Palestine are being dealt with. The Rutenberg Concession, which gave a Russian Jew a stranglehold on the economic life of Palestine and Transjordania, for 70 years, in spite of determined protests in both Houses of Parliament, indicates the undue influence of Zionists and international financiers. In the question of the Dead Sea, which, owing to its vast wealth and power, is the key of the Middle East, the same undue influences are at work, and in spite of the fact that first-rate British plans have been available since 1918, it has been announced that Mr. Novomeysky has been chosen as the favoured applicant.
Who is exerting pressure on His Majesty's Government to prevent their action in this most important matter according to the dictates of common justice and fair dealing? England still stands for justice and fair dealing, and the rights of the weak, and once the English people understand this question, they will realise their national honour is at stake. Not only Palestine's future, but England's destiny lies in this question. Whatever the wording of my Resolution may be, I hope it is not in any way
734
against what I have said or am going to say. I want to point out that my only reason for standing here to-day is to say that we have given the pledges which I have read out, and our honour is at stake in fulfilling them. If they are not fulfilled I want to know what the Government propose to do to fulfil them.
I referred to a British group. I have been handed a statement not long before I came here showing exactly what was done in reference to this British group. I should like to read this statement. Though I have not been able to verify every point of it, I have received it from people in whom I have every confidence, and I therefore venture to put it before your Lordships:—
"In response to the nation's urgent need at a critical time in her history, Dr. Homer and Mr. Bicknell in 1916 turned their attention to the illimitable deposits in the Dead Sea. They were specially interested in breaking the power of the German potash monopoly and from 1916 to 1918 worked steadily on their research and plans and finally presented their schemes to the Ministry of Potash. The Potash Controller, after expert examination of the schemes, gave his sanction for them to proceed with the application for a concession, and certain assistance was promised. They also asked to send a Commission of Experts to the Dead Sea to verify in situ.
"The British plans were on a wide scale and included schemes for (1) the exploitation of the minerals of the Dead Sea and the locality; (2) the development of hydroelectric power from the Jordan and by bringing Mediterranean water by canals and tunnel to the cliffs overhanging the Ghor; (3) the irrigation of the Jordan Valley and (4) the development of subsidiary chemical industries, using local raw material.
"The first formal application, together with a scheme, was made to the Foreign Office on October 4, 1918. The Foreign Office reply was to the effect that His Majesty's Government had then no power to deal with Palestine Concessions, and the necessary passport for proceeding to Palestine were withheld. Subsequently, verbal applications were made to the Colonial Office for a concession. To all the above applications, the same official reply was given, that, until Peace with Turkey was signed, no investigations of any kind could be carried out in situ, and no commercial concessions could be granted in Palestine.
"As Peace with Turkey was not signed until 1926 it would be interesting to know, first, why Mr. Novomeysky was allowed to work in situ, whereas the repeated requests of Dr. Homer's group, from 1918 to 1926, to send out commissions to work in situ

735
were as often refused. Nevertheless, although Dr. Homer's group was not allowed to work in Palestine, the results of their many years of expert investigations and researches still stand, and have been verified by the Government's own Commissions and others. Secondly, why was a concession granted to Mr. Rutenberg in 1920 to produce hydro-electric power in Palestine, a request that had been included in the British group's application of 1918 et sequor, and had been refused several times?
"By official request some of the British group's papers relating to the scheme were sent out to the High Commissioner at Jerusalem, where they remained for several months during the winter and spring of 1920 and 1921. The papers were subsequently returned with the remark that nothing could be done in the matter until Peace with Turkey was concluded. A Government Commission of Inquiry and investigation of the Dead Sea scheme was instituted in 1923–1925. The findings of the Commission, consisting of two Reports, of which the one was printed, but the latter one was only typed, fully confirmed the intensive researches and assertions of Dr. Homer's group in 1918 et sequor.
"The Crown Agents made advertisements for tenders for a concession, the closing date being October, 1925. Dr. Homer and her associates, being surprised at the above action, interviewed the officials of the Colonial Office and the Crown Agents for the Colonies. It was explained to Dr. Homer's group that, in the years that had intervened since the said group had approached the British Government, several applicants for a concession had come forward, some of them being nationals of other countries. It was, therefore, deemed politic to throw this concession open to public tender. However, Dr. Homer's group, now usually referred to as the British group of tenderers, were strongly advised by the officials of the Departments concerned to send in a tender. They were assured that, if they had a reasonable scheme to propose, they would have preference, as their applications had been on the table for so many years. Dr. Homer, acting on the above assurance, forthwith gave up all other work to formulate a tender to meet the requirements of the Governments concerned.
"The British group's fourth formal application for a Dead Sea concession was registered with the Crown Agents on October 24, 1925. The British group's 1925 tender was designed on lines calculated to offer every prospect of commercial success, and at the same time offered a generous royalty plus 50 per cent. share of the surplus profits to the countries possessing the Dead Sea. It was proposed to start operations on a preliminary scale for producing 125,000 tons KCI per annum, and the other salts in amounts required by the markets. After a period of five years the scale of operations was to be increased to an ultimate output of 1,000,000 tons of KCI per annum. A scale on which the power of the German potash
736
monopoly would be broken! The fully developed schemes would also include the initiation of important subsidiary chemical industries.
"Between 1925 and 1926 the British group of applicants were asked to furnish further information in regard to their tender. In April, 1926, it was intimated to the British group, verbally, at the Crown Agents for the Colonies, that their tender was the best of those that had been submitted. In July, 1926, the British group offered to send out forthwith their proposed preliminary Commission to report on the local conditions, the prelude to the development of the first stage of their scheme. On October 27, 1926, the Crown Agents for the Colonies officially informed the British group that they were prepared to consider further the propositions made in the group's 1925 tender. The British group was asked to disclose its financial support, etc. The Crown Agents officially informed certain of the other groups of tenderers that their 1925 tenders were unacceptable; the Crown Agents for the Colonies invited these groups to send in revised tenders or to form an Association of Tenderers.
"On November 2, 1926, the British group was asked to absorb Mr. Novomeysky. In November, 1926, a meeting took place between Mr. Novomeysky and two members of the British group to discuss the suggested fusion. Mr. Novomeysky adopted the attitude that in case of fusion with the British group he and his financial associates (not disclosed)—"
I should very much like to know who they are—
"would want control.
"In November, 1926, the British group informed the Crown Agents that Mr. Novomeysky's demand could not be entertained by their financial associates. The British group continued discussion with the Crown Agents, inserting in their tenders the alterations required by the Governments concerned. Amongst other changes, the Government insisted on the insertion of an experimental stage, although neither Dr. Homer nor her technical associates could see what could be effectively gained from the course that was advocated. The British group were urged to present their altered tender with estimates by the end of November, or as early as possible in December, whereas the other groups' revised tenders were not called for before December 31, 1926. The representatives of the financial supporters of the British group gave their verbal assurances to the Crown Agents and to the Colonial Office on December 20, 1926.
"The revised tenders from the various groups of applicants were submitted to the Crown Agents on December 31, 1926. The British tender still remains the best. This was acknowledged verbally at the Crown Agents' in 1927. It has also been officially acknowledged in reply to pertinent questions

737
by Colonel Howard-Bury in the House of Commons. It was also privately acknowledged by a partisan of Mr. Novomeysky at a debate on Concessions in Palestine on November 13, 1928.
During December, 1926, January, February and March, 1927, an intensive political and financial intrigue was engineered against the British group. Doubts were widely circulated as to the technical feasibility of the scheme. These emanated from German and other sources. It is understood that the British group's plans were under discussion in Berlin. On February 14, 1927, the British group informed the Crown Agents that, as the above-mentioned financial support had been with-drawn, they were negotiating elsewhere for guarantees. While the British group was still negotiating in other quarters the Dead Sea concession was offered to Mr. Novomeysky and Major Tulloch in April, 1927."
It is to be deplored that official utterances and criticisms of the value of the deposits and the feasibility and potentiality of the scheme were such as to shake the confidence of British capitalists. Until after February 14, 1927, the British group were restricted to British financial support, and it was only after the sudden withdrawal of their supporters' guarantees that the stringent conditions with regard to finance were lightened and only British control was insisted upon. The reason behind the official desire to give the impression that the scheme was of a doubtful or a speculative nature is difficult to fathom, as neither the Palestine nor the Imperial Governments was asked to contribute towards the capitalisation of the scheme.
Moreover, the attitude of the Colonial Office in insisting on a preliminary period of experimentation has had a depressing effect on British financiers who are likely to be interested in the development of the scheme. It is interesting and significant to know that the German Potash Syndicate, through its agents, has been trying to stop American investors from having anything to do with the scheme. It is difficult to understand why the British group, which admittedly had the best tender, were not given a reasonable time in which to furnish their guarantees; whereas up to date—that is to say, after a period of nearly two years latitude—the Novomey-sky-Tulloch Group apparently have not yet satisfied the Government on certain essentials. This "secret diplomacy" may possibly be useful in a squabble over
738
the building of a parish pump; but when Great Britain is being publicly challenged to do common justice to the nationalities under her Mandate, it looks to me like "secret diplomacy" run to seed. If mischief is done under the terms of the Concession we are not to be informed of them until the Concession is a fait accompli.
What is required, and what I feel sure your Lordships will insist upon, is a clear statement of the basic principles to be laid down and maintained for the safeguarding of Arab rights to the satisfaction of the British people. England stands before the world, I need hardly say, as the champion of justice and fair play, and of the rights of the weak. Her word has ever been her bond all the world over, and I do not doubt for a moment that your Lordships will see to it that her high reputation shall not be tarnished by a wrong done to those that she is bound in honour to protect.
Moved to resolve, That a Permanent British Control be established on the Dead Sea, and the subsidiary industries arising therefrom; and that any group to whom the concession is granted shall be required to have British finance and British control and have no connection, direct or indirect, with the German potash monopoly.—(Viscount Templetown.)
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the noble Viscount has called attention to a question of very grave importance, as it appears to me. It has been debated already several times in your Lordships' House, and rightly so, because this concession is one of exceptional importance, not only by reason of the great and serious financial questions which are involved and the great value of these deposits of which the concession has been given, but of the far-reaching political consequences which may follow from the granting of this concession. Fortunately, there are some points on which we are all agreed in this matter. In the first place, there is general agreement, and His Majesty's Government do not for a moment dispute it, as to the immense value of these deposits of Dead Sea potash especially and other chemicals of great value. Then we are all agreed that especially in the matter of potash there is grave danger of the supply falling into the hands of a monopoly. We know what happened in the War. During the

739
War potash was chiefly in the hands of a German monopoly. The price of potash went up in this country from something like £8 10s. a ton to £80 or £90, and it rose in the United States from something like £7 a ton to £100 or £120.
That strong German control of the supply of potash of the world has not yet ceased. I am informed that they control something like 70 per cent. or more of the potash of the world. Therefore, it is absolutely essential in the interests of this country, of our Dominions, and of the world at large, that if there is to be this new and immense supply of potash and other chemicals there should be safeguards and restrictions to prevent that supply falling into monopolistic hands.
As I said before, there is general agreement. My noble friend has mentioned what rather lies at the root of the whole discussion—that the Dead Sea is half in the region of the mandated area of Palestine and half in the area of the mandated territory of Transjordania, for both of which we have the Mandate. In the case of Palestine the percentage of Arabs in the population is something like 87. In the case of Transjordania, which is under an Arab King, practically the whole of the population is Arab. When I come to speak, as I shall in a few moments upon the question of the Mandate, I think your Lordships will agree that those proportions of Arab population in the two countries are of considerable importance.
Such being the agreed facts, I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment what has happened. His Majesty's Government have told us that provisionally, at any rate (I do not know whether it is final or not), they have granted this concession to two persons, a Major Tulloch and a Mr. Novomeysky. It is not without importance to remember that Major Tulloch is now nothing but a mere name. I understand that by power of attorney or otherwise he has handed over all his interest in this concession to Mr. Novomeysky, who is the controlling power in the concession, if he can get it. Therefore, it becomes exceedingly important to ascertain who this Mr. Novomeysky is. My noble friend Lord Islington and others made several attempts during previous discussions in your Lordships' House to find out something about Mr. Novomeysky. We were vouchsafed no information; and at any rate I and those with whom I am concerned know nothing
740
about him. Indeed, His Majesty's Government knew very little about him as late as May last. They may have found out since, and we shall, perhaps, hear. In May last the Secretary of State for the Colonies said this in reply to a question in another place:—
"Whether Mr. Novomeysky is in a satisfactory position to carry out the terms of the tenure"—
I think he means "concession"—
"is a matter still under discussion."
Still under discussion! They apparently knew nothing about it themselves; at any rate, they did not give any information either in another place or in your Lordships' House. But I hope we shall receive a little more enlightenment today.
There was another question raised in your Lordships' House, and I think in another place also, as to who were the financial group behind Mr. Novomeysky. I think it is agreed on all hands that he was not in a position himself to finance a gigantic concession of this character, and we were told that there was a group behind him. On the last occasion when there was a discussion in your Lordships' House, namely in May last, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, whose absence we deeply regret to-day, told us that there was this group. And he said this—
"The names of the group will be given publicly before any binding agreement is signed."
I hope my noble friend Lord Plymouth, who will probably answer for the Government, will be in a position to-day to give us the long-desired and anxiously awaited names of this group. It is of very great importance, because I suggest that we want to he perfectly satisfied before this concession is granted that the group behind Mr. Novomeysky will have no probability and no chance of dealing with the concession in a manner that would favour a monopoly, and thereby greatly injure this country and the Dominions and the world as regards potash and other chemicals. Therefore we have to know the names of the group.
An important Question was put and answered in another place as recently as Monday last. I think I ought to call your Lordships' attention to that Question, and the answer given by the

741
Colonial Office, because it bears very closely upon the points I raise to-day. The Question was:—
"CAPTAIN CAZALET asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the final agreements now being considered by the Palestinian Government in regard to the Dead Sea Concessions contained provisions to ensure permanent British control and the avoidance of a monopoly control by any group or organisation interested in the production or sale of potash."
May I ask the close attention of your Lordships to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies? He said:—
"In view of the terms of the Mandate"—
meaning the Palestine Mandate—
"my right hon. friend does not think that it would be practicable to enact such provisions as are indicated in the first part of the Question."
In other words he does not think it would be practicable to have British control. I will say a word of two about that in a moment. As regards the second part—the avoidance of monopoly control, the answer was—
"Any concession that is granted will provide that the operating company shall not, without the previous written consent of the Palestine and Transjordan Governments, enter into any arrangement for the restriction of output, or the raising or keeping up of prices, in such a manner as to restrict output."
That was not the question. The question was: Would there be a restriction to prevent this concession getting into the hands of monopolists? and he merely said there would be a restriction upon the price. That really was not the question he was asked, and it is not the question which is of vital importance, because there are a great many ways in which monopolists, if they get this concession into their hands, could use it in a most prejudicial way to all concerned, besides some temporary raising of prices which it might be difficult to control.
May I say a word upon the two points which were raised by the reply of the Under-Secretary. First of all, I should like to know why the Mandate makes it impracticable to ensure British control. So far from being impracticable I should ask your Lordships to say that, according to the terms of the Mandate, it is the only way of getting a proper control. The British Government is Mandatory, and, as Mandatory, it is trustee primarily,
742
as I think, for the inhabitants of both Palestine and Transjordania, but it is also a trustee of this country, and, to a certain extent, of the whole world which is interested in having a cheap supply of potash and these other chemicals. The British Government are trustees, and I think no one in this House will dispute that they cannot delegate their trust to see that this concession is given to proper persons, with proper restrictions. They cannot delegate their trust to any other body whatsoever. It is quite true that by Article 11 of the Palestine Mandate the Administration of Palestine—that is the British Government—may consult with the Jewish Agency as to developing the material resources of the country. Quite true, they may consult, but there is nothing to compel them to consult, still less is there any compulsion upon the British Government to accept the advice, if it is given, of either a Jewish Agency or of a Zionist organisation. Therefore I suggest to your Lordships that there is nothing whatever in the Mandate to prevent this concession being kept under British control. I entirely agree with my noble friend who introduced this Motion that this is the only way by which you can get a just, beneficent administration of this great concession. Once let it out of British control, once let it out of the hands of the trustees who have been appointed by the League of Nations—that is ourselves as the Mandatory Power—once let it get into other hands and under other control and you are not carrying out your duty as trustees, and I think you are guilty of a breach of trust which may have disastrous results upon those for whom you are trustees.
So much for the Palestine Mandate. May I say one word about the Transjordan Mandate, remembering that half the Dead Sea is in Transjordania. The Transjordan Mandate differs in some very remarkable respects from the Palestine Mandate. The way that the administration is put into British hands and that the British are really trustees is the same, but all mention of the Zionist organisation or of the Jewish agencies or as to consulting one or the other, is totally and entirely absent from the Transjordan Mandate, so that that consideration does not come into that Mandate at all. More than that, the British Government made an agreement on February 20

743
of last year with the Emir—the King of Transjordania—and by Article 16 of that Agreement it was provided that the Emir will be guided by the advice of His Majesty's Government in all matters concerning the granting of concessions and the exploitation of national resources. So that we have in this matter to act fairly and properly and justly in the interest of all parties—not only the inhabitants themselves, not only all those others who are concerned in this concession, but the Emir himself, who has undertaken to be guided by our advice, naturally, I presume, because he thinks the British Government are worthy of confidence.
So much for the suggestion that British control is inconsistent with the Mandate, either of Palestine or of Transjordania. I will now deal with the other point which was raised by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies when he was asked whether he would take steps to avoid a monopoly control. He merely said that without the previous consent of the Governments of Palestine and Transjordania the operating company could not make any arrangements for the restriction of output. I venture humbly, but as strongly as I can, to submit that that assurance is wholly insufficient. What we really want, if this concession is to be properly worked in the interests of all parties, is some restrictions placed upon the concessionnaire, or upon any group or operating company into whose hands the concession may come. We want some restriction placed upon them so that they cannot join with any monopoly interest which already xists or which may be hereafter established; and to tell me that they are going to try and prevent an alteration of output is really—disagreeable as it is to say—almost playing with the question. I ask the Government if they will, in any concession they may grant, take steps on this paramount question to prevent the concessionnaires joining with any monopoly; and I would also ask—this has been urged before in your Lordships' House, and I think it is a perfectly reasonable request—that before any concession of this enormous magnitude and far-reaching importance is granted, they will undertake to place it before Parliament, so that Parliament may either give its consent or suggest modifications in it. If the concession is a reasonable one, and such as ought to be
744
sanctioned by Parliament, I urge upon His Majesty's Government that they ought to have no hesitation in taking the opinion of Parliament. It is a right and proper thing to do and it would satisfy all those numerous people and interests who are very anxious as to how this matter will be dealt with. I trust that the Government statement on the matter will satisfy some of the doubts and difficulties which have arisen.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I should not have intervened in this debate had it not been that perhaps I know more about the Dead Sea and about the chemical industry than some of the noble Lords who have addressed the House. I think it is a very dangerous thing that statements should be made in this House which may be used afterwards by company promoters and groups of financiers, some of them none too scrupulous, to lure unwary investors into the idea that there is a golden fortune in Dead Sea potash. There has been a great deal of exaggeration, both as to the monopoly in potash and as to the scarcity of potash. Potash, as a matter of fact, is a mineral of which there is a large surplus in the world. It is only by very great restrictions and reduction of output of German potash to-day to something like 50 per cent. of capacity that the price has been kept at a fairly moderate figure. Anyone, therefore, who sets out to make and deliver potash in any part of the world, in Europe or anywhere else, in competition with German potash has to remember that, if any serious competition threatened, the price would probably drop at least £2 a ton, and what might appear to be a profitable business would be turned into a loss. There are large deposits of potash in France and in Spain, in some of which I have been asked to take an interest, and there are large deposits in Poland, which are only now being seriously developed. Therefore the picture of a German potash monopoly is one of exaggeration.
Having said that, I would say that the Dead Sea is an interesting proposition. I know it well myself. I have been there often, and I have discussed these matters with experts who have done some work there. I know Mr. Novomeysky, and I have discussed the matter with German, French and English experts. None of them recommend that large financial groups should invest in Dead Sea

745
potash. It does seem a curious fact that we hear a great deal about this concession, and yet not one important group of financiers in the whole world, in either hemisphere, has thought it worth while to claim a concession. Noble Lords seem to have allowed themselves to be carried away by information which must have been supplied to them, and on which they can have no personal or technical knowledge. I say that is dangerous. They draw pictures which, if formulated in a prospectus, might lead people with insufficient knowledge to embark money in what I must describe as a somewhat speculative enterprise. I do not know the group to which the noble Viscount referred. I have never heard of it, although I have had many people approach me on the subject, and although many financial friends in many countries have asked me whether I thought they ought to take this matter up.
The attack of the noble Viscount is rather unfair to Mr. Rutenberg. I happen to be a director, with the noble Marquess opposite, on a company formed to supply Palestine with cheap electricity. Why was that concession given to that gentleman? It was given because he happens to be a very competent electrical engineer, who applied for it. The noble Viscount cannot know the years of difficulty we had to find the necessary capital, and cannot know how Mr. Rutenberg was thanked by three successive High Commissioners. I think he might withdraw the kind of expression he used. Might I ask whether no Palestinian subject is to have a concession in Palestine, because both Mr. Rutenberg and Mr. Novomeysky are Palestinian subjects? To have a concession in Palestine you must apparently be a subject of another nation. Surely such a claim cannot be substantiated. It is time people recognised that there is such a thing as a Palestinian nation. It is not true to say that Mr. Rutenberg is a Russian Jew. He is a Palestinian Jew. I must enter a protest against the endeavour to create prejudice against men who have gone to develop Palestine, and who have become Palestinian subjects.
I am not advocating that a concession should be given to anybody. I personally have no interest in anybody's concession—I want to make that clear—but I must enter a protest, and ask how in the name of Heaven we can appear before the Mandates Commission at Geneva and
746
gravely inform them that all the members of the League of Nations are quite incapable of fairly administering anything except ourselves. What kind of reception would the noble Lord have if he went to the League of Nations Council and made such a statement? Such a statement may be accepted within these hallowed walls, but it would not be received with acclamation in a very difficult body like tae League of Nations Mandates Commission. Palestine is mandated to us. It is not a British Dominion. For many reasons I wish it were, but you have to face the fact that it is mandated territory and it is before the Mandates Commission that the concession has to go.
The Palestine Government has the greatest of difficulties to-day, and I know difficulties have arisen lately because of endeavours to allow nothing except the freest international competition for any contract or tender or concession in that country. To say that a concession should only be given to British financial interests is to advocate something which is impossible The noble Lord suggested that unless this concession was given it would seriously affect the price of potash in Great Britain. You cannot bring potash all the way from the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean and then on to this country at a cheaper rate than we can get it from Germany. The German people will see that that does not happen. I have studied this problem on the spot. The problem is not going to be such a difficult one, and I am quite certain that the Government cannot accept the Resolution in the terms in which it has been put. It has neither the power nor the authority to do so. I hope that, if this concession is given to anybody, it will be seen to that it is given to people who are financially capable of carrying it out, who will see that it is not just hung up, but properly worked. That is a very important point. For the rest, the position of the Government is quite clear, and the whole matter is really elementary. It is well known for what we are responsible as trustees. It is quite another question how far we can be responsible, in addition to the terms of the concession, for the details of its management and working. I am sorry to have taken up so much of your Lordships' time, but this is a matter which has got so much into

747
the realm of fiction and phantasy during the last few years that I thought it might be useful to bring it back to the few simple facts of which it really consists.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, while I cannot support the Resolution standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Templetown, I think that he has rendered public service in once again calling your Lordships' attention to this matter. I cannot agree with the Resolution because, in spite of all the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Danesfort, I do not accept his interpretation of the Mandate as justifying us in insisting upon entirely British control in a mandated territory. I entirely agree with Lord Melchett upon that point, but I submit that the vacillation of the Government in this matter is certainly worthy of condemnation. An almost incredible amount of time has been wasted over this matter of the Dead Sea concession. Ten years have elapsed since the matter was first mooted. I doubt if there has ever been a parallel case of delay, except perhaps that of Lot's wife, who was turned into a pillar of potash for very much the same sort of conduct. Time and again various groups have put in their applications for this concession and some excuse has been found for delaying the matter. Only the day before yesterday, in the House of Commons, when the matter was again raised, this is the answer that was given by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies:
"My right hon. friend hopes to be in a position to make a definite offer to the prospective concessionnaires at an early date. If it is accepted, and if other connected matters are satisfactorily arranged, the concession will be duly signed."
That is what may happen within a period of two months, but it is by no means certain, and I have therefore several definite questions to put to the noble Earl who will answer for the Government.
My questions are these. What are the connected matters? Are they concerned with other claims to this concession, claims even more remote than the particular one that is referred to as that of the "prospective concessionnaires"? Is it a fact that a purely British group has made an offer to merge the various claims, if any, that may be substantiated? There are claims that go back to 1914. If
748
this be so, would the Government entertain such a proposal? My reason for asking that question is that, if there are other claims that may be pushed by influential people, or even foreign Governments, before the International Court of Justice at The Hague, the British might find themselves in a very difficult position, involved not only in litigation but possibly in large compensation. If there are these other claims—and the rumours are to that effect—surely it will be worth while to have this matter cleared up now. Has the Government in mind the necessity for safeguarding the position of the inhabitants, and notably of the Arabs? Will the Government make sure that, whoever the concessionnaires may be, they will be able to undertake the work on an adequate scale, and that the concession will result eventually in no group holding a virtual monopoly in potash?
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has made some rather discouraging remarks about potash. From his account I gather that this commodity in a drug in the market; that those who purvey it do so as philanthropists; that they are presumably selling it at a loss; that in any case there is no point in either discouraging the development of potash or of encouraging it; that there are millions of tons of potash readily available within close distance of these shores; and that the Dead Sea deposit really amounts to nothing as a factor. That may be so. I should be the last person in the world to cross swords with the noble Lord on these chemical matters. I am sure that he knows a great deal more than any of us about the position in potash. But, if this concession is so utterly worthless, why has it not been possible for the Government to deal with it earlier? Why has so much attention been directed to it from all parts of the world? To hear the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, one would think that only a born fool would develop the Dead Sea, and yet we have seen reports upon the Dead Sea which show that it contains not only potash but other substances of very great value. I hesitate again to make a suggestion on this subject to the noble Lord, but I was personally attracted to this matter by the report, on very high chemical authority, that magnesium was obtainable

749
from the Dead Sea salts, even in paying quantities and as a commercial proposition. I need hardly say to your Lordships, still less to the noble Lord, that if magnesium is obtainable it is going to make a very great difference in various forms of engineering. I admit that we cannot claim that these deposits should be put under purely British control but, if I may say so with respect, there was a good deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, said that appealed to me. I believe that, as regards the Trans-Jordan part of the Mandate, there certainly is justification for British control and development on that side of the frontier line.
What appeals to me most in this matter is the consideration that we want to safeguard ourselves against a possible repetition of what happened in the early part of the War, when potash went up—however valueless it may be in the eyes of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—to the fabulous price of £80 a ton. We do want to stop that, and it seems to me that if we are going to give a concession, and if we ought to give a concession, the first object in view should be the carrying out of large scale experiments, to find out what is the real value of these deposits, to know exactly where we stand with regard to them, and also to provide transport, so that should an unforeseen emergency arise we shall not be victimised again as we were in 1914. I am sorry that I was not able to give fuller notice of these questions to the noble Earl, who I understand will reply, but I really think he would be doing a public service if he would give definite answers to the questions which I have put to him.
THE EARL OF HALSRURY: My Lords, I had not intended to enter into this debate, and my only excuse is that the noble Viscount who raised the subject sent, me an amount of literature which convinced me that I was quite unable to vote in his favour, and when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, say that among the chemicals said to be found in this locality was magnesium, I could not help wondering who was responsible for the statement. When I also see that it is stated that there is a considerable amount of sodium bromide, which would make tear gas easier to manufacture in
750
the next war, one wonders whether the person who puts that forward does so as a person familiar with the subject. Surely the answer to Lord Thomson is that you have not only got to see that you have these particular chemicals there, but also whether it is commercially possible to bring them back, and, as Lord Melchett said, in his opinion—and we must all assume that he knows what he is talking about—it is very doubtful. Can Lord Thomson wonder why the Government have taken ten years, and may take considerably longer, before they think it is worth while to give a concession? What do we know about it? Yet we are asked to resolve that there should be permanent. British control—if we have any power to do it, and I rather doubt it, and Lord Melchett, I think, showed quite clearly that we have not.
We are also asked to resolve that any group to whom the concession is granted shall be required to have British finance and British control, and have no connection with the German potash monopoly. Where are you going to get that British finance and control? We only know, from the papers which we have received from the noble Viscount, that the British financiers who thought at one time that they would be prepared to go into it, when they were told by the British Government that there might be difficulties, withdrew their financial help, and I have not heard of any other financiers going into it. Yet we are to resolve that there shall be British finance, and if we cannot get it we are to have the minerals unworked, and there is to be no connection with the German potash monopoly. Assuming that was a possibility, is it to be said that under no circumstances might it be advisable to take two companies, or rather two groups, for the purpose of working the potash for the world at large, although such two groups might be quite prepared to enter into some sort of rapprochement? Ought it to be said that the whole thing is to fall through because there is a Resolution by this House that under no circumstances should a British group and a German group help one another? I should have thought that a Resolution of this kind really on the face of it was such that none of your Lordships could possibly support it.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I do not profess to know anything about the claims made on one side or the other as to the value of these deposits, but I speak simply as a farmer, and one who for many years presided over the oldest and most important agricultural research station in this country, whose business it is to demonstrate to the agriculturist of this country the value of potash and other artificial fertilisers. I want to say this, and I say it a propos of what fell from Lord Melchett, when he suggested that there was no longer, or ever had been, any potash monopoly in the world: I venture to tell your Lordships that long before the War and the results of War conditions upon the price of potash, which came to he required for War purposes, there was undoubtedly a monopoly in Germany and Alsace—a world monopoly of potash, which operated most detrimentally to the scientific agriculturist and progressive agriculturist, not merely in this country but throughout the world.
It is common knowledge, and your Lordships know it perfectly well, that potash is absolutely indispensible to the raising of one of the chief crops throughout the world, namely, potatoes, and also to the maximum output of such leguminous crops as peas and beans; and we know also that the more intensive becomes your system of agriculture, the more potash is likely to be employed, because it is the chief plant medicine. It is particularly necessary when plants are raised under abnormal conditions, such as in glass houses. The agricultural community, not merely in this country but throughout the Empire, will look with a jealous eye upon the development, or possible development of another German potash world monopoly. I do not say—and after what Lord Melchett has said I should not venture to say—that you have here the making of another such monopoly, but we have had a monopoly which has operated very seriously to the disadvantage of agriculturists of the world in the past, owing to the main supplies of potash being under the control of the German Government, and we have to thank those who have secured, as a result of the War, that Alsace passed into the hands of France and out of the control of Germany. I am certain of this, that the
752
supplies in Spain, Tasmania and elsewhere have not sufficed in days past to prevent a great and serious monopoly being in the hands of Germany which has operated to the disadvantage of the farmers of the world.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I make no complaint whatever of the words in which the noble Viscount, Lord Templetown, recommended his Resolution to your Lordships, but he did go at very considerable length into the past history of this question, which is admittedly a very complicated and rather difficult one. I would prefer to address myself, at any rate to begin with, to the actual terms of the Resolution which he has set down upon the Paper. There are various reasons why the Government are unable to accept this Resolution. In the first place, there is this difficulty, which has already been emphasised this evening: The waters of the Dead Sea are divided equally between Palestine and Transjordania, both territories in respect of which His Majesty has accepted a mandate. In this Mandate it is provided that His Majesty shall see that there is no discrimination against the nationals of States, Members of the League, as compared with nationals of the Mandatory Power, and other foreign Powers, in so far as the exercise of commerce and industry in those territories is concerned. Therefore, even if His Majesty's Government and the Governments of those two territories were completely free at the present moment, I think it would be impossible, in view of the terms of the Mandate, to accept the first part of the Resolution of the noble Viscount
Nor would it be possible for them to require that any person, to whom the concession may be granted, should be financed and controlled by British interests. It is right and it is intended that, of any public issue that may be made to raise capital for the company which is to operate this concession, Palestinian citizens and Transjordanian nationals shall have a prior right of allotment to a certain percentage. But to insert a similar provision for giving preferential treatment to British sub-

753
jects would quite clearly be contrary to the provisions of the Mandate I have mentioned. In the second place, the Palestine and Transjordan Governments are committed in principle to the grant to Major Tulloch and Mr. Novomeysky of a concession based on an offer made by them at the end of 1926 in response to a public advertisement. Negotiations in regard to the terms and conditions of the proposed concession and in regard to the provision of satisfactory financial guarantees are now approaching conclusion and, unless and until these negotiations prove to be abortive, no alternative offer for the disposal of the concession can be entertained. That really answers the second question which the noble Lord opposite put to me. Though, as I have said, it is not possible for His Majesty's Government to insist upon British control, we are informed that it is the intention of Major Tulloch and Mr. Novomeysky, if granted the concession, to provide in the Articles of Association that the chairman of the company shall be a British subject, and that British subjects or British subjects and Palestinian citizens shall form a majority of the board of directors of the company.
In reference to the last part of the noble Viscount's Motion, it is suggested that the group to which the concession is granted should be required to have no connection, either direct or indirect, with the German potash monopoly. This aspect of the problem has from the first received very careful consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government, but they are advised that it would not be possible to discriminate by name against a German undertaking. There are various difficulties. There is the difficulty which has already been referred to, namely, the fact that it would be practically unworkable. In the second place, I very much doubt whether any group of persons would have taken up a concession of this kind if they had been restricted and limited by such a condition. That is the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, referred when he spoke when this matter was last raised in this House. Thirdly, there is the point that in a matter relating to mandated territories, discrimination against a particular firm or combine would be almost impossible to defend
754
unless it was proved at the same time that, the interests of the natives of those territories were being deleteriously affected.
If you approach the matter from the point of view of the interests of the natives of the territories concerned, the question resolves itself into one of framing conditions for insertion in the concession which would safeguard the interests of Palestinian citizens and Transjordanian nationals. It is quite clear that, if the company which operates the Dead Sea concession were to enter into an arrangement for the restriction of output or the raising or keeping up of prices in such a manner as to restrict output, or if the company were to make such arrangements for the disposal of their products as to deprive the Government improperly of any of the profits in which they would otherwise have participated, their action would prejudice the interests of the natives of the mandated territories, which will in a large measure take the form of the receipt of revenues derived from this concession by way of royalties and a share of the profits. It is therefore intended to provide in any concession that may be granted that the company which operates it shall not, without the previous written consent of the Governments of Palestine and Transjordan, enter into any arrangements of such a character. The Government are advised that conditions of this character, when taken in conjunction with the draft concession as a whole, afford such measure of control by the Government as is possible to prevent the company which will operate the concession from making arrangements which would have the effect of retarding the full development of the resources of the Dead Sea. It is for these reasons that the Government feel they are quite unable to accept the Resolution proposed by the noble Viscount.
The noble Viscount has gone in considerable detail into the past history of this question. He delivered his speech at such a rapid rate that I found it very difficult to make a note of all the points he made in the course of it. I am quite unable to accept a number of the statements which he made. He implied that Mr. Novomeysky and Major Tulloch had been granted preferential treatment as against what is now known as the British

755
group. I should like very shortly to explain what took place, and what events led up to the present position. I need go no further back than 1924. In July of that year, Mr. Thomas, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, decided that a public notice should be issued inviting applications for the grant of a concession for the extraction of salts from the Dead Sea. In May, 1925, an advertisement was inserted in the newspapers. The offers submitted in response to that advertisement were found to be unacceptable, and the applicants were informed that the High Commissioner for Palestine was unable to accept their offer but that consideration would be given to any revised offers which they might submit before January 1, 1927.
Revised offers were made, and these were carefully considered, and the Palestine and Transjordan Governments. acting on the advice of the Secretary of State, decided in principle to grant a concession to Major Tulloch and Mr. Novomeysky based on their offer. It is quite true that in certain respects the offer of what is known as the British group was most satisfactory, but at the time they made that offer they were unable to furnish the evidence required as to their financial resources. On February 14, 1927, Mr. Tottie, who was then associated with the group, wrote saying that
"the financial guarantees which we, namely, myself, Mr. Bicknell and Dr. Homer, believed at that time to have been arranged have been withdrawn for reasons over which we have no control. It has therefore become necessary for us to negotiate otherwise."
Later on, in April, 1927, Mr. Tottie wrote to the Crown Agents in the following terms:—
"I have to say that various difficulties have arisen at this stage with regard to guaranteeing the money required, the chief being the doubt on the part of high technical authorities on the commercial side as to the feasibility of producing potash profitably on the lines indicated. This doubt renders the whole undertaking speculative, and appears to lend strength to the statement in the Government report in this sense.
Under these circumstances my friends decline to consider guaranteeing the money until after the concession has been granted and the proposed Commission has reported on various points which are at present in doubt."
756
Obviously, my Lords, it was impossible for the Government to accept those conditions, and I wish to assure your Lordships that the only reason, the only ground on which this application, this offer, of the British group could not be considered was that they could not produce, when it came to the point, the necessary financial guarantee.
Various points have been raised during the course of the debate. One was with regard to the interest of the Arab race in Transjordania. I should like to point out to your Lordships that the concession will be granted equally by the Palestine Government and the Transjordan Government. The Transjordan Government is entirely Arab, and has throughout been consulted, and has agreed to the present proposal as being the best in the interest of the territory. Another point referred to by the noble Viscount during the course of his speech was an allegation that Major Tulloch really had no further concern now with Mr. Novomeysky in the concession they have asked for. As a matter of fact, that is not strictly true. They are still joint partners in the undertaking. Mr. Novomeysky merely has a power of attorney to enable him to negotiate on behalf of both partners, and that is necessary because Major Tulloch happens to live away from London.
I should like to address myself for a moment to the points raised by the noble Lord opposite. He referred to answers which were given in another place the day before yesterday, and asked what the connected matters had been which were referred to in connection with the arrangements that are still to be made before the final agreement can be come to. I can assure him that they are not concerned with any other claim. They are really one or two small matters still outstanding, and when these matters are settled, as we hope they will be shortly, the revised draft concession will be communicated officially to Major Tulloch and Mr. Novomeysky for acceptance or rejection, but not as the basis of further negotiations. And the matters that are raised are, I think, in connection with the directorate and similar matters of that kind. The second question asked by the noble Lord I answered, I think, in the first part of my speech. He also wanted to know whether the financial backing of Major Tulloch and Mr. Novomeysky was satisfactory. I am able to say that the

757
Government are satisfied with the financial backing behind Major Tulloch and Mr. Novomeysky. It is impossible at the present stage, whilst there are one or two small matters outstanding, for me to give the actual names of those who are behind them; but I would remind your Lordships of this fact, that during the course of the last debate on this subject in your Lordships' House an undertaking was given that the list of the financial supporters of Major Tulloch and Mr. Novomeysky would be laid upon the Table before the final agreement was signed, and that undertaking., of course, holds good. I have endeavoured to answer the numerous points which have been put in connection with this very complicated matter. I trust your Lordships will agree that the Government have behaved perfectly correctly in the matter, and that in the circumstances it is not possible for the Government to accept the Resolution which the noble Viscount moved.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he could tell us when he can give us the names of the group behind Mr. Novomeysky? In other words, how long before the final agreement is to be signed shall we get the names? Can he give us any satisfactory assurance on that?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Obviously, my Lords, it is impossible to give a definite answer to that. I cannot say how long before; but the undertaking is that the names shall be laid on the Table of the House before the agreement is signed.
VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWN: My Lords, I have to thank my noble friend who spoke on behalf of the Government for the kind way in which he replied to the Motion which I made. I have been criticised with regard to a good deal that I said, but that leaves me quite unabashed. I dare say that I made mistakes here and there, as many of us do in dealing with very complicated questions with very little time in which to do it. But I am impressed by one thing—that the power under the Mandate is simply power to His Majesty's Government to obliterate themselves altogether from the control of this matter. It would be unfair to ask any further questions to-night, but on another occasion I shall
758
ask whether the ultimate power of the syndicate or company will or will not rest with Mr. Novomeysky and his associates. I think I shall be able to supply a few facts which, if they do not completely refute what has been said on behalf of the Government, will show at least that there are some criticisms made by the Government which are not altogether without the possibility of a reply. I do not know whether any other noble Lord is going to speak, but having regard to the evident sense of the House I propose to ask your Lordships to permit me to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

TRINIDAD LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I wish to call attention to the revocation, by Order in Council made by the Governor of Trinidad on July 30 last, of the disqualification for nominee membership of the Trinidad Legislative Council of persons holding contracts for the supply of stores to the Government, and to ask for an explanation of the grounds for this departure from an established principle; and to move for Papers.
In all the instructions or Standing Orders with regard to most of the Crown Colonies with which I am acquainted there has been established the very healthy principle that those members of the unofficial community whom the Governor selects to be nominee members of the Council shall not be in any financial relations with the Government, and shall not hold contracts for stores. That is a very simple and straightforward principle, and it is quite on all fours with the principle followed in the Imperial Parliament that Ministers shall not be directors of companies and shall not be pecuniarily interested in the holding of contracts from the Government by companies. It would require very strong arguments to convince me that it was useful or healthy to abrogate that principle in the Colonies. I was the more impressed by the matter because on the face of it when it first came up it appeared that this revocation had expressly been made in order to get a particular gentleman into the Council. When I placed my Question on the Paper that appeared to be the position. I had some communication with the Under-Secretary

759
of State for the Colonies and he said that was not so, but he would like further time for inquiry. He wrote to me again afterwards telling me that he thought there was more to be said for what had been done than appeared on the face of the matter.
I want to have a very clear statement from the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, as to what are the reasons for abrogating this very healthy principle. It is perfectly obvious, especially in these small communities, that the suspicion of "graft" and ill-natured implications against supporters of the Government are more rife than they are in more developed communities. If there is a nominee member of the Legislative Council who is under contract with the Government the general public are not going to imagine that he exercises his vote or uses arguments entirely independently on every possible occasion. They say that he knows very well on which side his bread is buttered, and that if he does not support his Government and argue in favour of their measures he would lose his contract. I do not say that would happen—as a matter of fact these contracts are given by contract committees—but you cannot avoid having that implication made.
Further, it is very necessary, in my opinion, that the Governments of Colonies should be completely independent in their choice of where they get their stores, whether direct from England or the United States, or locally. There is a good deal to be said for getting a good many stores locally, because it exonerates you from the cost of keeping a stores department, and having your balances locked up in stores. Nevertheless there is always a great pressure in these local communities on the Government to buy their stores locally in order that the local tradesmen may have the profit of handling them. Although that is sometimes to the advantage of the Government, it is not by any means always so. Whenever you have members of the Council who are interested in local contracts I do not say you get graft, but you inevitably get a suspicion of graft. Even in minor matters of controversy the same question may arise. This gentleman who has been appointed under the revoked Order in Council happens to be the contractor of the Government for the supply of condensed milk. In the Colony
760
with which I was connected there was a strong controversy at one time over the question whether the Government hospitals and institutions should be supplied with condensed milk, or whether the Government should develop its stockbreeding and dairy farm, and supply direct to its own institutions. Therefore, on such an innocent case as milk, you may get a Council question on which I presume this gentleman would not vote. But you may have a local question develop, and it is not in human nature either to feel or to believe that the fact that the man is a contractor of the Government may not influence his independence. In all these Colonies there has been the rule I mentioned, and I should like to know what are the very strong reasons why in Trinidad they have abrogated this very healthy principle. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, by the Trinidad and Tobago Order in Council of April 16, 1924, defining the constitution of the Legislative Council, nominated and elected members of council were disqualified from taking their seats, under Clause 12 and 20 respectively, if among other reasons they had any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any contract with the Government of the Colony for or on account of the public service, otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than 25 persons. As the result of repeated representations by the Governor it was decided to abolish these particular grounds of disqualification, and the two clauses were accordingly amended by the Trinidad and Tobago Order in Council of July 30, 1928. The reason for doing this was that the continuance of the disqualification clause would have operated as a distinct handicap in a place like Trinidad, where the selection of suitable candidates for nomination to the Legislative Council was necessarily very limited.
It has been suggested that the disqualification clause was abolished on considerations applying only to the case of Mr. Huggins, to which the noble Lord has referred, who happened to be interested in the supply of tinned milk. This is not the case at all. The particular instance which brought the matter to a head did not constitute the

761
whole, nor indeed any large part, of the case for the reform. This instance had been immediately preceded by three other instances in which prominent business men, whose membership would have been an asset to the Legislative Council, had been ruled out by the clause in question. It has also been pointed out that under the provisions of the clause any member with commercial connections might find himself at any moment disqualified by a fortuitous, and to him an unknown, transfer of shares which might reduce the company to one of less than twenty-five members. This, I think, the noble Lord will admit is very anomalous and ridiculous. I think I may add that the Port of Spain Gazette, which is often very critical of the Government of Trinidad, congratulated the Government on the abolition of this clause, and expressed the view that this amendment was the only sensible and straightforward and logical way of meeting the situation. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes me to go into the question of the supply of tinned milk. It does not have a direct bearing on his Motion on the Paper. I think I ought to add in conclusion that there is, of course, a Standing Order which precludes a member from voting on any matter in which he has a pecuniary interest. I hope my explanation will satisfy the noble Lord.
Loan OLIVIER: My Lords, I cannot say that I feel happy about the change. It seems to have been thought in Trinidad that they were very short of good men and true. In a Colony a good deal larger, like Jamaica, we did not have that difficulty. I cannot press for Papers, because I cannot expect to upset or alter the decision of the Colonial Office, but I am not at all impressed by the fact that the Port of Spain Gazette supported this. The Port of Spain Gazette is the principal newspaper there, and I rather suppose it has the Government advertising. I do not know whether the noble Earl is aware of it, but a newspaper in that position in most Colonies does possess a fairly lucrative business from the Government. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

FEUDATORY CHIEFS AND INDIAN REFORMS
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, following on his undertaking given on the 5th of December, 1928, to consider how the Feudatory Chiefs may make representations during the discussions on Indian reforms, he will now make a statement on the subject; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name is simple in character, and I will briefly state to what it refers. These feudatories are sub-chiefs of the greater chiefs scattered throughout India, and possess certain privileges. Those privileges vary one from another, and very often difficult questions arise in regard to the interpretation of the privileges. These feudatories, by reason of their position as sub-chiefs, are not able to make representations before the Simon Commission, just as they were debarred from appearing before the Butler Committee. They do think that in this re-settlement of the Indian Constitution they ought to have the opportunity of appearing before some body so as to secure their own position, otherwise they would be worse off than the meanest low caste mail. They have no locus before the Simon Commission, and could not appear before the Butler Committee, and all they ask is to have some chance of making representations, so that they should not lose their rights through any default of action on their part. That is a very simple proposition. I admit that it may be a rather difficult one for the Government of India to deal with, but I think it is a very simple proposition to put before your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL): My Lords, I think I should explain to your Lordships that since I gave an undertaking on December 5 last I have had an opportunity of consulting the Government of India on this rather complicated subject. I should like to make it clear by way of preface that my reply to the noble Lord refers only to those feudatories with whom I understand his inquiry is concerned—those Jagirdars or feudal tenants of certain Indian States such as the Kolhapur State for example, who by

763
agreement of usage have acquired a special right of intervention on the part of Government in regard to their position and privileges. I also understand that by "discussions on Indian reforms" the noble Lord does not refer particularly to discussions following the Report of the Statutory Commission under Sir John Simon which is now conducting inquiries in British India, but rather that he has in mind the Report of the Committee under Sir Harcourt Butler, which was charged amongst other things to report on the relationship between the Paramount Power and the Indian States. As your Lordships are aware, the Butler Committee has recently presented its Report, but until a preliminary examination of the Report has been made it is impossible to say whether the recommendations of the Committee will be found to have any bearing upon the relations between the Jagirdars to whom I am referring and their rulers.
I should like, however, to make it clear that this question of the relation of such feudatories with their suzerains is itself outside the scope of the inquiries conducted by the Committee. If, however, the Government of India had any reason to believe that any change which they might contemplate as the result of the Report would react upon the position of the Jagirdars they would consult the durbars specially on the point, and arrangements would be made to enable such Jagirdars to submit representations. It is open to such Jagirdars to make representations to their durbars with regard to apprehensions which they may entertain with regard to their privileges. I can assure the noble Lord that, if such representations are made, the Government of India's political officers will not remain in ignorance of them, and it would be the duty of these officers to keep the Government of India informed of the progress of such representations. I trust the answer which I have given will commend itself to my noble friend.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I am afraid that what the noble Viscount has said is no answer at all. I do not think the Jagirdars enter into the question at all. It is extremely unsatisfactory to the section of the Indian people to which I am referring to have no chance of seeing where they stand under any reform
764
system. They want at least some chance of appearing before some tribunal. All they ask is that they should have some chance of making representations so that they may have some idea of where they stand under any Indian reform scheme. I do not think my noble friend has given me any answer. He refers to the Jagirdars, but I think my noble friend Lord Harris will agree with me that they have no bearing on the case.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I do not remember the title Jagirdars being used in Western India at all. They were chiefs or sub-chiefs, and I am bound to say that I agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench that they have ample opportunity of dealing with the Government of India. I should imagine that if no provision has been made for their representations being put before any Committee they would have full right of appeal through the political department of the Province in which they are living, and full opportunity of representing their case to the Government of India directly. I should not have thought it necessary for them to go to a Committee at all.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I shall not press my Motion but I hope my noble friend will bear this point in mind. At present I think his answer is extremely unsatisfactory.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

TWENTY-FOUR HOUR SYSTEM ON RAILWAYS
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they would consult the railway companies as to the desirability of introducing the twenty-four hour system, a change recommended in The Times by a distinguished body of signatories on behalf of the Royal Astronomical Society; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Motion relates to a matter which I have thought for many years ought to be dealt with, but I should not have ventured to bring it before your Lordships' House had it not been for two letters which appeared in The Times, one in December and one in February. The letters were signed by Sir Frank Dyson, the Astronomer Royal, and by the Rev. T. E. Phillips, President of the Royal Astronomical Society, and

765
Professor Turner. I may say that this matter is not brought forward for the first time now. Forty years ago at the instance of some American authority it was proposed that the twenty-four hour day should be substituted for the present cumbrous system of a.m. and p.m. That proposal forty years ago was endorsed by the then Astronomer Royal. Eight years ago the Home Secretary set up a Committee to consider the matter and that Committee approved the introduction of the twenty-four-hour-day system for official and public purposes. For some years past scientific societies such as the Meteorological Society and the Seismological Society have had a, twenty-four-hour system. Their twenty-four hours started at midnight. The astronomical societies also had a twenty-four-hour system, but that started at noon, because, as their work was done chiefly at night, they naturally did not want a break in the very middle of their proceedings. In 1925, however, the International Union of Astronomical Societies brought themselves into line with the other scientific societies. They saw that, although the twenty-four-hour day beginning at noon was a convenience to them, it was desirable to have the same day as other scientific bodies. Therefore they count their day from midnight to midnight, and by so doing they have brought themselves in line with the "National Ephemerides" That means those astronomical tables dealing with the daily position of the heavenly bodies, and I think it is a publication issued by the Board of Trade.
Having thus cleared the way for all scientific and learned and national purposes these three gentlemen connected with astronomy whom I mentioned as having written to The Times thought it desirable that they should ask the railways whether they could not conform to the system. They wrote to Sir Josiah Stamp, the Chairman of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, and he very courteously approached the general managers of the other railways. Their reply was that they would not oppose the introduction of the system, but they did not think it was their place to take the initiative. The astronomers on their side did not see how they could go any further than they had gone. The result of their first; letter to The Times
766
was to create a considerable amount of correspondence. They classified the result of this correspondence, and they found that twenty letters were written in favour of the change, and six against it. One very notable letter showed the difficulty of planning a through railway-journey from the South of England to the North of Scotland or to Ireland owing to the present cumbrous system, and showed the particular difficulty in the case of journeys from the Continent.
I need hardly tell your Lordships that since the War both the Navy and the Army have adopted the 24-hour system. It has been in use for some time on the Indian railways, the Continental railways and in the United States, and I should imagine that the various aviation companies serving the Continent have either adopted it or are about to do so. I am told also that the Southern Railway uses the system in relation to Continental traffic. I would remind your Lordships that my proposal deals only with railways, and not with the general details of our ordinary life. I should like to lay stress upon the point that people who fear great inconvenience and complexity should remember that the system deals only with one half of the day, and that the first half remains as it is. It is only for the hours from noon to midnight that there would be any change. I am quite confident; that the system will be introduced at no distant date, and I do not know why, since it would solve the problem so readily, it should not be introduced now for the benefit of the public. I hope that I shall have a satisfactory reply from the Government. I beg to move.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, my noble friend's Question is of a very simple and modest character and I should like to say a word in favour of it. At the same time I do not altogether understand why the Government should be dragged into this question at all. It would not make any difference to my view if I heard—I will not say that some noble Lord on the Front Bench, but that the Home Secretary, for instance, was in favour of this change. That would not affect my opinion at all. It seems to me that this is a question which might very well be decided by the authorities themselves, without dragging His Majesty's Govern-

767
ment into the discussion. The railway managers appear to be a singularly modest collection of persons and, for some reason or other, they seem averse from moving in this matter unless they obtain what I suppose may be described as official support. I have never taken any particular interest in the question, but I have read some of the correspondence regarding it, and I observed that there are only two arguments advanced against it. The first argument is that the mental effort of calculating on a 24-hour basis is so great that it is beyond the capacity of the ordinary person, let alone the ordinary traveller. I was surprised to find this argument addressed to me by a member of this House. A noble Lord remarked to me that, it would be a most inconvenient thing if, for instance, I invited him to luncheon at 13.30 o'clock, and that he would find it exceedingly difficult to make the calculation. Of course there is no necessity, as my noble friend has pointed out, for doing anything of the kind.
The only other objection that I noticed in the Press came from an ultra-patriotic gentleman who said in effect: "For Heaven's sake do not let us do this. If we do we shall be doing the same as everybody else." He said we should be doing the same as every other country, including the Dominions, and for the credit of this country we should retain our system and be different from everybody else. I think he concluded his letter with the words: "Let England to herself be true." These ultra-patriotic views do not make much impression upon me or, I think, upon anybody else. There is no question of interference with the ordinary mode of expressing time, or with engagements. It is merely a question of altering time-tables. All I can say on that subject is that a British time-table—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Monks-well, if he were present, would agree with me—is a sort of statistical jungle in which it is most difficult to find your way about and very easy to go wrong. On the other hand, the Continental timetable is simplicity itself, and for that reason I hope that, if His Majesty's Government are going to use any moral influence—and I do not suppose that they can use anything else—they will use it in favour of my noble friend's proposal.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the noble Lord behind me has raised a subject of a certain amount of interest, and it is very unfortunate that it should come before your Lordships at this very late hour. I think that my noble friend who has just spoken has really answered the Question that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Lamington. In the speech in which he introduced this Motion Lord Lamington told your Lordships that this matter had been the subject of letters which had appeared in The Times in the recent past. He gave us a short history of the matter, showing that it had been before this House on more than one occasion. But I hardly think that the noble Lord will claim that very much interest has been demonstrated throughout the country in regard to it, nor has any pressure been brought to bear for the introduction of this system. The noble Lord has told us that two letters have recently appeared, one in The Times of December 6 and another, I think, in the month of February. From the former letter, which was signed by some very eminent names, it can be seen that an approach had already been made to the railway companies and that the reply that they gave was not really a very encouraging one. It was to the effect that they had no objection. Without committing themselves to any definite approval of the 24-hours principle of time notation, the railway companies stated that they would not oppose any steps that were taken with the object of facilitating its introduction into their time-tables. That really does not give the encouragement for the movement which the noble Lord's speech would lead us to expect.
Speaking for myself, I am quite sure that I should value very much the simplification of time-tables, and I am certain that most of your Lordships would take exactly the same view; but, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has said, this is really a matter for the railway companies themselves. If they decided to alter their time-tables in the direction suggested by the noble Lord, I am quite sure that none of us would object. We should congratulate them upon the steps that they had taken. In the Question which the noble Lord put to me he asks the Government to approach the railway

769
companies again, and I think he will agree with me on reflection that as the railway companies have been asked their opinion once there is no further object to be gained by their being again approached by the Government, when I feel sure they would furnish us with exactly the same answer. The noble Lord at the end of his Question moved for Papers, but I am not quite clear what Papers he is asking for, as the Question confines itself merely to asking whether the Government will approach the railway companies, and I think he will agree that, as the railway companies have already expressed their opinion, no good object can be served by the Government acceding to the request of the noble Lord.
LORD LAMINGTON: I agree with my noble friend that there may be no Papers. I thought the reply of the railway companies to the distinguished astromoners was very encouraging indeed, and I thought also that, with very little encouragement front the Government, the railway companies would see their way to adopt the change. That change is bound to come sooner or later, and I think the sooner the better for our convenience. I have no wish to delay the House, and I will therefore ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

THE IMAM OF YEMEN.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government the position of our relations with the Imam of Yemen: and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the last time I raised this question a very satisfactory answer was given, namely, that the Imam had cleared his forces out of the Aden Protectorate, except with respect to a very small tract of country in the far North East, which was not very important. I believe that position is still maintained, and that no portion of our Protectorate is in the occupation of the Imam at the present time. The next step is to know whether we have improved our relations with the Imam, or are on more friendly terms, and as to the possibility of an understanding or treaty being framed between ourselves and the Imam, so that our trade and position in Aden may be benefited. It is an important matter that we should be working in
770
harmony with the Imam, and I should be very glad to hear whether it is the case that there is a probability of a thorough understanding being arrived at between ourselves and the Imam.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the position has not materially altered since the date on which the noble Lord last raised this matter in this House. The position is that in September last a communication was received by the Resident at Aden from the Imam, intimating his readiness to reopen negotiations, and that the Resident in reply invited the Imam to send a representative to Aden, to confer with him as to the terms of a preliminary agreement. It was proposed that this agreement should include on the one hand a recognition by His Majesty's Government of the complete independence of the Yemen and the Imam's sovereignty, and, on the other hand, a clause relating to the frontier of the Aden Protectorate, and defining the actual situation of the boundary. It was hoped that, if a preliminary agreement, on those points could be arrived at, a more comprehensive treaty might be drawn up subsequently, disposing of such other disputed questions of detail as might then remain outstanding. A full power has been prepared and forwarded to the Resident, authorising him to negotiate a preliminary agreement on the proposed lines, but, so far as I am aware, the Imam has not yet despatched any representative to Aden. I think I can only add in conclusion that since the date when the matter was last raised in this House there has been no further aggression against the Aden Protectorate.
LORD LAMINGTON: I thank the noble Earl for his fairly satisfactory answer. I suggest that the Imam might be invited to send a representative to this country, or else to Cairo, and by this means we might facilitate some agreement. Meanwhile I thank the noble Earl, and ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion for the Second Reading made yesterday by Lord Cushendun.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, this debate was adjourned yesterday evening

771
about 8 o'clock in rather remarkable circumstances. My noble friend Lord Arnold had addressed to the Government a long series of questions with regard to the principle of this Bill, and asking for their interpretation in regard to it. Due notice had been given to the Government at the beginning of last week, and again yesterday, that these questions, which were perfectly legitimate questions, were going to be asked. They were questions of principle, namely, as to how this Bill differed from the principle of unemployment insurance in this country. Lord Cushendun was asked for a reply, and the noble Lord for some reason sat in an attitude of despondency—perhaps it was due to the state of the House—and made no reply. Under those circumstances, although in the state of the House we had no desire to obstruct the reasonable passage of the Bill, and wished to deal courteously with the noble Lord if he had dealt with the points, we felt that we had no alternative but to challenge a Division, well knowing that it would retard the progress of the Bill. The points put to the noble Lord were perfectly definite, and one of them was really important, namely: Why are the Government making this large grant to the Northern Ireland Unemployed Insurance Fund as a free gift, and not debiting it against the account, as they should do? There are two other questions which the noble Lord has put on Paper, and which I will not, read, to which we want a definite reply. We want to know why the Government are dealing differently with the Northern Ireland Insurance Fund from the way in which they are dealing with the English Fund. I am sorry to see that Lord Danesfort is not here this evening, because only a week ago he made a protest against the continual giving of doles to the Irish, of one class or another. I see no reason why the Government should depart in this Bill from the principle which we follow in the case of England.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD CUSHENDUN): My Lords, I must apologise for not having answered these questions last night. The fact was that owing largely, I think, to the acoustic qualities of the Chamber, possibly assisted by insufficient acoustic qualities of my own, I did not realise
772
that the noble Lord was putting questions to which he wanted an immediate reply. I thought he was putting questions, in the well-known manner, as rhetorical questions, for the purpose of bringing out his points, and I did not realise that he wanted an immediate reply, or I should, although the hour was very late, have answered him. I can assure him that my not doing so was a quite unintentional discourtesy, if a discourtesy at all, and I will proceed to answer the questions put to me.
The whole of the criticism of Lord Arnold, reinforced as it is by that of the noble Lord opposite, rests upon an entire misconception of the whole situation. We are not giving a dole or present, or anything of the sort, to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Let me try to explain how the matter arises. When unemployment insurance was first started, the natural thing would have been to have had one Fund for the whole of the United Kingdom. That was not done, though many persons thought it should have been done at the time. I was one of them, and spoke to that effect in another place in 1926 or earlier. I thought the Fund should have been one and indivisible in this country and in Northern Ireland, and I was very interested to see, when this Bill was debated the other day in another place, that that view was endorsed by no less an authority than Mr. Snowden, who also took the view that an amalgamation of the Funds would be the proper remedy. I have been told—and it was on that ground that the Government of the day acted—that it would have involved great administrative difficulties to have had one indivisible Fund for the whole of the United Kingdom. Consequently they separated the Unemployment Fund for Northern Ireland from that of Great Britain.
I suppose it was not realised at the time how great ate divergence would become between the positions of the two Funds. Owing to the extraordinarily larger proportion of unemployment in Northern Ireland as compared with Great Britain, due to the fact that their insured population is almost entirely employed in two trades which are greatly depressed, the percentage of unemployment to population in Northern Ireland

773
has been for several years very much greater than in this country. It became necessary, therefore—the ideal always having been that the two Funds should be on the same footing—to have some formula of payment from one side to the other by which you could keep the two Funds stabilised as far as possible on an equality. It is not true, therefore, to say that we are relieving Northern Ireland. We are not relieving them of their existing debt, nor treating their Fund preferentially in any way. All that we are doing is to make an arrangement for an equalisation payment which will keep the two Funds, so far as possible, on the same footing.
Let me refer, first of all, to the debt of the Unemployment Fund in Northern Ireland. I will divide it into two portions in order to explain the situation. Before 1926 the existing debt, that is to say the debt over and above what it would have been on terms of equality with this country, amounted to £3,424,000. That represents the portion of the whole debt, which is out of proportion to the debt on the British Fund. May I say, as showing the excess of the debt, that, if the debt in this country was equivalent to the Northern Irish debt, it would amount now not to £33,550,000 but to no less than £200,000,000. This debt of £3,424,00ft was in 1926, when the principal Act which we are now amending was passed, put on suspense account and had to pay interest, which was part of the liabilty of the Fund. Under present agreement that debt will be written off by the Northern Ireland Government. There is no relief from this country at all. It will be written off, first of all, by a "write off" of £400,000 odd within the next few days before the 31st March, and hereafter by "writes off" of, £100,000 a year, interest in the meantime being paid on a diminishing amount. Under the ordinary equalisation plan, two-thirds of that interest falls in the ordinary course to be paid by Great Britain, and one-third to be paid by the Northern Ireland Parliament. The Exchequer of Northern Ireland thus assumes responsibility for the whole of that pre-1926 debt which it will gradually clear off, and as the interest is paid off—£113,000—it will wipe off that, amount of the liability of the British Fund until it is all extinguished.
774
The second part, of the debt is a balance of £791,000. That remains a liability on the Irish Fund, and exactly the same as the debt on the British Fund. That is to be treated in exactly the same way as the debt in this country, the only difference being that the amount is to be kept at an equalisation standard by periodical payments from the British Exchequer. Under conceivable circumstances, the payment might be the other way. That was one question which the noble Lord put to me. He used very strong language, saying that there was a paragraph in the White Paper which was false information. It was not false at, all. It was perfectly correct and perfectly clear. Of course, I admit that the circumstances are never likely to arise when a payment will be paid by the Northern Irish Exchequer to the English Exchequer, but there is a liability which might arise.
LORD ARNOLD: Is it not the case that there is only a liability if we alter our whole method of conducting the finance of our Fund?
LORD CUSHENDUN: No, it is a, liability which would arise if the proportion of unemployment became greater in this country than in Ireland, and we here called for an equalisation payment. It is perfectly clear in the White Paper. I quite admit that the circumstances are not likely to arise, but it is a thing for which we may respect the Northern Irish Government that it was at their desire that this provision was made, because they wanted to have the arrangement, so far as it could be made, reciprocal on both sides. This matter was fully explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1926. He admitted then, as I have admitted now, that no payment was ever likely to be made on that account from the Northern Irish Exchequer to the British Exchequer, and he explained that it was done at the desire of the Northern Irish Parliament. The effect of this agreement will be that this portion of the debt, this sum of £791,000, will be kept strictly proportionate to the British debt on a basis of the respective insured populations of the two Funds. It will be calculated what the proportion of difference between the insured population and the unemployment of the district is, and they will be adjusted so that there will

775
be an equal liability in each case in proportion to the extent of their unemployment. This amount has grown from £190,000 in 1926 up to the present figure, and the British Fund has grown in the same time from £8,000,000 to £34,000,000, showing that in both cases there has been a very large rise. This sum of Irish liability will increase or diminish in future just exactly as the British Fund diminishes or increases. There is, therefore, no question of dole, or gift, or anything of the sort in this matter.
Any noble Lord who complains of the arrangement which is being made ought to be ready to show what plan would have to be adopted in its place; because the members of the Labour Party in another place have reiterated that it was not their desire to force the Northern Ireland Insurance Fund into a position in which the workpeople would be required to pay larger contributions or to receive diminished benefits. It is quite clear that would be the only alternative had this arrangement not been made, or had it been made by way of loan, as is proposed; though that would have upset the whole arrangement so far as insurance is concerned. If by any chance it
776
had been arranged to make a loan to enable the Irish insurance to be carried on at the old level that would have made the Fund bankrupt. The only way of avoiding that bankruptcy would have been to diminish the benefits and to increase the contributions, which no one wishes to do. Consequently, I think it is fair to say that we have adopted the only feasible plan, and the only possible alternative to allowing the Northern Ireland insurance to fall into the condition of diminished benefits and increased contributions. That is the answer to the complaint made by the two noble Lords that we ought to have proceeded by way of loan. There was, I think, one other question which the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, put to me, but I cannot recall it at the moment. But the question about the loan was, I think, the most important and the one to which he attached most importance, and I think I have given a very full answer on that point.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eight o'clock.

IVEAGH BEQUEST (KENWOOD) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
NEWPORT (SALOP) URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
MANSFIELD DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
CHELTENHAM DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
HASLINGDEN CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
CHATHAM AND DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
GOSPORT AND FAREHAM OMNIBUS SERVICES BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

WARRINGTON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
The King's Consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
YORKTOWN (CAMBERLEY) AND
DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
GRIMSBY CORPORATION (DOCK,
ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Monkswell be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Wyfold: Read, and agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Leave given to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, which are not Private Bills, to report from time to time. First Report being a report upon the Government Annuities Bill [H.L.], made and to be printed. The Minutes of Evidence (with the Proceedings of the Committee) laid upon the Table, and to be printed.
GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills which are not Private Bills, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.