Sitting of 2 May 1929

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
South East Lancashire Tramways and Omnibus Board [Lords].
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Metropolitan Water Board Bill,
Lords Amendment considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 30th April, and agreed to.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill,
Great Western Railway Bill,
Llanfrechfa Upper and Llantarnam Water Board Bill,
Royal Victoria and Other Docks Approaches (Improvement) Bill,
Westminster City (Millbank) Improvement Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 30th April, and agreed to.
Gosport and Fareham Omnibus Services Bill [Lords],
Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords],
Haslingden Corporation Bill [Lords],
Jarrow and South Shields Light Railways (Abandonment) Bill [Lords],
Preston Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Consideration deferred till To-morrow.
Derby Corporation Bill.
Ordered,
"That, in the case of the Derby Corporation Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Yeovil Extension and Water) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).
  Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Minister of Pensions the number of ex-service men who are still receiving hospital treatment for wounds or other disabilities arising out of War service, giving the separate figures for in-door and out-door patients; and what has been the decrease in numbers owing to deaths and on account of cures, respectively, since 1st January, 1928?
  The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): At the 31st March last there were 11,785 in-patients in institutions of all kinds at the charge of the Ministry (including cases in mental hospitals) and 2,688 cases in attendance for out-patient treatment. These figures are lower than the corresponding numbers of patients under treatment fifteen months earlier by 1,360 in-patients and 2,142 out-patients. I have no precise information

  1687
  as to the extent to which this decline has been brought about by the two causes mentioned, but I may say that, while the numbers under treatment fluctuate considerably, there has been a persistent decline in the demand for hospital treatment for several years past.
  Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. and gallant Member give the number of persons who are referred to as mental patients?
  Major TRYON: Six thousand.

  POLICE EVIDENCE.
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any regulations in the Metropolitan Police Force from which police officers understand that they may give their evidence in the police court from notes that they take in their books; and, if so, will he consider having this rule cancelled?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): No, Sir. The instructions are to the contrary effect—that is to say, the constable must not read his evidence from his note book but may refer to his original notes in his book if necessary to refresh his memory.
  Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the remarks of the learned stipendiary-magistrate, last week, where he asked a constable not to read evidence from a notebook?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is consistent with the statement I have made as to the way in which he ought to give evidence. The proper practice in regard to giving evidence is laid down in police instructions. In giving his evidence, if the officer desires to refresh, his memory and he has any notes, he may refer to them for that purpose.

  MOTOR TRAFFIC NOISES (PROSECUTIONS).
  Sir R. THOMASasked the Home Secretary the number of motorists who
  1688
  have been prosecuted for causing undue noise since 1st January; and how many of these were motor-cyclists?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In the Metropolitan Police District from 1st January to 31st March last there were 3,651 prosecutions, all except two being for silencer offences; separate records are not kept in respect of motor cycles. Figures for England and Wales generally for that period are not yet available.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Has anything transpired out of the consultations which the right hon. Gentleman has had with his right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Transport about street noises?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There have been conferences, but I am bound to admit that in many cases there are very grave difficulties. I can deal with the noisy motor car—there are laws to that effect—but it is most difficult to deal with the ordinary traffic without causing great inconvenience to His Majesty's subjects who have a right to travel on the roads.
  Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement to the House on this important subject before he runs the risk of losing his office?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it is better not to make a statement until I am in a position to carry it out in my Department.

  CRIME LOSSES.
  Viscount SANDONasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider arrangements whereby prisoners whose crime involved pecuniary loss to anyone can be made to do work of a marketable character, from which the financial proceeds can go to the parties who have previously suffered such losses until the whole of them are worked off?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Suggestions of this kind have been frequently considered, but there are many difficulties, including the consideration that when from the value of a prisoner's labour is deducted the cost of his maintenance and supervision, there is no margin for compensation to injured parties.
  Viscount SANDON: Is it not a fact that it would be easier for the State to bear these losses than many poor people who are robbed and get no return?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have told my Noble Friend of the initial difficulty. If he likes to come to see me I can explain a good many other difficulties in the matter.

  WHIST DRIVES AND LOTTERIES.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions have taken place on account of whist drives, raffles, draws, sweepstakes, and the like during the last 12 months; and in how many cases have convictions been secured?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This information is not available, and to collect at specially would entail an expenditure of time, money and labour that would not be justified.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the figures for the Metropolitan area if I give him a week's notice?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will try to get them.
  Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Home Secretary whether he will issue similar instructions in relation to Derby sweepstakes organised on behalf of the funds of bona fide organisations as he has already given to the police in relation to whist drives, namely, that the police should not interfere unless real harm was being done?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot give binding instructions to the police in general, but upon occasion I direct their attention to important decisions in the Courts or pronouncements in this House. I have found no difficulty in saying that ordinary whist drives had better not be interfered with unless harm is being done, e.g., unless they are conducted for profit or are a cloak for gambling of a serious kind, but sweepstakes on the Derby are another matter altogether. The line I have suggested to the police, which I believe they act upon, is that they should not interfere with a private or quasi-private lottery honestly conducted. By a quasi-private lottery I mean one promoted by a genuine club or society,
  1690
  not publicly advertised, where tickets can only be obtained by or through a member and the prizes are usually paid to members. It should not be difficult for bona fide organisations to keep within this line, but I ought to add that in the event of a prosecution any question of law involved would of course be for the Courts.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Is it not the case that the majority of sweepstakes referred to are run by societies who sell tickets to their members, and that they cannot control their members reselling tickets to their friends? Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that these are not bona fide; that they are for the purpose of private profit?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member and the House will realise that this is a very difficult question and the law is very involved. I have tried to draw a line which I think is fair, that a sweepstake conducted in a club is private. Obviously it is quite impossible to know whether a member sells a ticket to somebody outside. I draw the line to prevent the public purchasing these tickets. It is the best line I can draw in the present very difficult state of the law.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is now the position in regard to sweepstakes at bazaars to raise funds for charitable purposes?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Member will forgive me for saying that the position in regard to sweepstakes at bazaars would be better if he had not asked the question about it. Where no real harm is being done, it is not necessary for the law to take notice of small technical infractions of that kind.
  Sir R. THOMAS: If the right hon. Gentleman is returned to the next Parliament, will he then tackle the law on this question?

  BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary what progress has been made with the provision of extra Borstal accommodation for juvenile offenders?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Prison Commissioners are actively engaged in examining various sites for the building of the new Borstal institution, but no final decision has yet been reached.

  COMPANIES ACT (SHARE-PUSHING).
  Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Home Secretary if he has received intimation that certain share-pushers are endeavouring to avoid the penalties of the new Companies Act, which forbids house-to-house canvassing, by making extensive use of the telephone system; and if he proposes to take any steps to counteract this?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have been asked to reply. I have seen statements in the Press from which it appears that share-hawkers are sending letters to persons whose names appear in the files of companies, asking them to supply their telephone numbers for the purpose of receiving information by telephone with regard to investments. If persons assist these share-hawkers by answering the letters and communicating their telephone numbers, it is difficult to afford them any more effective protection than is now being given by the warnings published in the Press. But I should like to say that I think the Press have performed a public service by giving these warnings to inexperienced investors; and I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my entire agreement with the warnings which have been given.
  Colonel WOODCOCK: May I ask whether any steps can be taken to stop persons who are endeavouring to circumvent the law and the Companies Act, and, further, whether in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman it is not the same thing to canvass by telephone, and within the meaning of the Act, as it is to canvass from house to house?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am advised that an offence would not be committed if a person rings up on the telephone, gives his name and address and telephone number, and says, "I should be glad if you will communicate with me about my investments." That is not an offence under the Act, and it is impossible, consistently with allowing ordinary business to go on, to protect everybody, however unwise, against the results of their own folly. What we can do, and what I am glad the Press is doing, is to warn investors, particularly inexperienced investors, that when they get communications from unauthorised
  1692
  on unprincipled persons, it will be much better to pay no attention whatever to them.
  Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman advise the hon. and gallant Member that this is a form of private enterprise which the hon. and gallant Member usually supports?

  PROCESSION (DISPERSAL BY POLICE).
  Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Home Secretary the extra number of police detailed on duty at and around Victoria Station on Friday last on the arrival of the Simon Commission from India; is he aware that on that occasion about 200 Indians and their sympathisers, who had marched down in a peaceful and orderly procession, and then taking their stand outside quietly either singly or in groups of two or three friends in a large crowd of several hundred sightseers, were individually picked out mostly first by plain-clothes men, and were then roughly hustled out of the crowd by the uniformed police several hundred yards away; that small banners and printed handbills explaining an Indian political view were snatched away by force from their rightful owners and destroyed by the police, as also a national flag held in High esteem by the Indian Nationalists; were the above measures taken with his sanction; and on what grounds did he authorise removal from a public crowd of persons of a certain nationality or political view regardless of their individual behaviour?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Three hundred police officers were detailed for duty. Persons who were trying to create a demonstration, which must have led to disorder, by showing black flags and distributing handbills, were moved on, and the flags and bills were taken away. Nothing is known of any national flag. The police measures, which were quiet and effective, have my sanction and complete approval, and it is not the case that they were taken regardless of the behaviour of the individuals concerned.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that each and every Indian, the large majority of whom had neither a black flag nor a leaflet, without exception was moved out of the crowd

  1693
  without any personal behaviour justifying it; and is it not true that, if the right hon. Gentleman had not agreed to assist the reception of so-called Indians inside the station, he would not have been compelled to make this debasing political use of the police force?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is no foundation whatever for the hon. Member's statement. I have explained that the police force acted with my entire approval and carried out their duties to prevent a breach of the peace admirably.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the fact that each and every Indian standing in the crowd outside was removed; does he deny the statement that the large majority of them had neither a black flag nor a leaflet, nor were they moving their lips, but were standing perfectly still? Does the right hon. Gentleman deny these facts?
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: We do not trouble to deny them.
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The information in my possession is that there was a large body of Indians assembled there with black flags and distributing handbills, and it was the duty of the police to prevent a disturbance, which must have happened if the black flags had been flown and the handbills distributed. It was the duty of the police to move on these people who were a cause of possible disturbance, and I can tell the hon. Member that a considerable number of Indians impeded the traffic by lying down in the middle of the road and refusing to move.
  Mr. SAKLATVALA: May I still have an answer to my question? I am not asking about the removal of Indians who had black flags in their hands. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that there were a large number of Indians who had neither black flags nor leaflets in their possession, but who were standing perfectly still, not lying down in the road, and who were removed simply for being Indians under the right hon. Gentleman's instructions?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have nothing to add to the full statement I have made.

  EDUCATION.

    TALKING FILMS.
    Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLENasked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that in the view of teachers all over the country, the speech of children is being corrupted by slang introduced in film sub-titles, and in view of the rapid development of sound and talking films, his Department will cooperate with the Film Board of Censors-in exercising vigilance over film sound and speech?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): The Board of Education will, of course, be glad to give any advice or assistance in their power in this matter, but my right hon. Friend must disclaim any competence to exercise an educational censorship, nor does he think that any censorship will be found to provide a remedy for the very real evil to which my hon. Friend calls attention. For a remedy we must rely mainly upon the film industry itself, which will, I hope, give serious attention to the problem.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Will the Noble Lady consider whether the Board of Film Censors are worth consulting; would it not be better to change them completely, seeing that they have failed to stop these horrible films being exhibited?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: I am afraid that that question is outside my province.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not the fact that the Chairman of the Board of Film Censors is a respected Member of this House, and a Privy Councillor?

    DEFECTIVE SCHOOL BUILDINGS.
    Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the President of the Board of Education how many pupils there are in the schools condemned by His Majesty's inspector as unfit for school use, that is, on black lists A. B and C; and how many of these are in schools in black list A, that is, on premises so defective that recognition ought to be withdrawn?
    Duchess of ATHOLL: The number of pupils in schools which are still on the black list is about 560,000; of these about 120,000 are in schools on list A. The hon.

    1695
    Member will understand that only a small minority of these schools can be described as having been condemned and that plans for removing the school from the list have already been approved in a substantial proportion of the remaining cases, especially the cases most urgently requiring treatment.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    STREATHAM CEMETERY.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the representations made to him with regard to the irregularities that have occurred at the Sreatham Cemetery, he will state if it is now proposed to hold an inquiry?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I am in the first instance awaiting the observations of the borough council.
    Mr. DAY: Having regard to the statements made by the grave-diggers at this cemetery does not the right hon. Gentleman think that some action should be taken, and, in the event of his not holding an inquiry, will he receive a deputation of the people who have made these serious statements?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have taken action. I have called the attention of the borough council to the statements and asked for their observations, and I think it would be proper to await their reply before taking further action.

    SMALL-POX.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health if he can now state the vaccinal history of the fatal cases of small-pox in the s.s "Tuscania"; and, if not, will he make an official statement on the subject at an early date?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of the seven deaths from small-pox amongst the passengers and crew of the "Tuscania," three were of persons who had not been vaccinated and four of persons who had been vaccinated only in infancy. Two of the former were vaccinated and three of the latter were re-vaccinated during the incubation period of small-pox. The
    1696
    ages of the persons who had been vaccinated in infancy ranged from 28 to 37 years.
    Mr. MALONEasked the Minister of Health whether he has at any time refused to sanction funds to any public body for payments made to persons who may be small-pox contact cases; and whether he has any information that several municipalities are so doing?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that in ordinary circumstances it is not necessary for small-pox contacts to refrain from following their occupations, if they are subjected to regular medical supervision during the incubation period of the disease. It is not, therefore, the practice of my Department where my sanction is required to sanction the payment of compensation except in those cases in which it is necessary for the protection of the public health that the contacts should abstain from work. As regards the second part of the question, I am aware that this practice has been adopted in certain boroughs where my sanction is not required.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a widow living in Scotland, and having her children educated in the Isle of Man, has been refused the widow's pension and whether this is according to the instructions of his Department?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Residence of children outside Great Britain is not in itself a ground for the refusal of widow's pension. If the hon. Member will furnish me with further particulars of the case to which he refers, I shall have inquiries made.
  Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this case Has been fully stated and has been before the authorities in Edinburgh three times, and that the woman has been told that she cannot get the pension?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: If the hon. Member will give me the facts of the case, I will have it investigated.
  Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Health the number of persons

  1697
  in the city of Birmingham who have benefited by the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act of 1925 up to the end of the first quarter of 1929?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I am unable to give the information desired by my hon. Friend, as the records of pensioners are not arranged on a territorial basis.

  HOUSING.

    COBHAM.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, in spite of the request of the Cobham Parish Council, the Epsom Rural District Council has refused to build any more houses; and whether, in view of the admitted shortage of houses in the district, he will make inquiries into the matter?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not received any representations from the Cobham Parish Council on the subject referred to. According to the latest return furnished by the Epsom Rural District Council, 16 houses are now in course of erection by them, and they have erected or have in course of erection a total number of 522 houses, of which 84 are in the parish of Cobham. I see, therefore, no reason for making special inquiries in the matter.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. BARRasked the Minister of Health what was the total number of houses, as for England and Wales, completed with State assistance from 1919 till 1st October, 1927; and the amount of State subsidy paid in respect thereof?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total number of houses completed in England and Wales with State assistance from 1919 to 1st October, 1927, was 684,748. The amount of the Exchequer contributions paid to the same date was £58,028,513.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Does that statement include steel houses?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.

    SUNDERLAND RURAL DISTRICT.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is a serious shortage of
    1698
    houses to let in the Sunderland Rural District Council's area besides a large number that are unfit for habitation, and that the council have approached the Ministry for power to erect further houses to meet the needs of the locality, and such appeal has been refused; and on what grounds the Ministry have refused the appeal?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the conditions prevailing in the district in question and of the application made by the local authority. I have been unable to accede to this application on account of the financial difficulties of the district at the present time, but I will keep the situation under review and in the event of an improvement would be glad to give further consideration to the matter.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman at once give consideration to this matter? There are hundreds and thousands of dwellings not fit for habitation. The council have been pressed by all manner of people to provide houses somewhere.

    SOUTH SHIELDS RURAL AREA.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the rents charged for houses in the South Shields rural area; and whether, as the rents are beyond the ability of the occupiers to pay without hardship to the feeding and clothing of these people, he will inquire into the matter with a view to a reduction of the rents?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Proposals have been made by the South Shields Rural District Council for the reduction of the rents of houses erected under the Assisted Housing Scheme under the Act of 1919. After careful inquiry I have concurred in the proposal in the case of the houses at Boldon Colliery, but I am advised that there is no sufficient ground for approving a similar reduction at Whitburn.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people who reside at Boldon are in practically the same position as those at Whitburn, and that their wages will not permit them to pay the rents that they paid in 1919, when their wages were higher? To-day their wages are one-third of what they were in 1919, and they cannot afford to pay the

    1699
    rents. The council would lower the rents if the right hon. Gentleman gave sanction. Will the right hon. Gentleman take the matter into further consideration?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that the conditions are different in the two places. Whereas in the case of Boldon Colliery practically the whole of the people are miners, that is not the case in the Whitburn district, and there is no difficulty in getting the present rents.
    Mr. PALING: Have there been reductions in other cases similar to this?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the approximate liability at the last convenient date of accrued interest of national savings certificates?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The interest accrued and unpaid on the 31st March last was about £122,000,000.

    NOTE ISSUE (GOVERNMENT SECURITIES).
    Mr. GILLETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any detailed information will in future be available as to the composition of the Government securities held against the note issue?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to Section 3 (3) of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928. The Bank of England must furnish the Treasury with such information as the latter require but are expressly exempted by that Section from publishing the information.

    WAYS AND MEANS ADVANCES AND TREASURY BILLS.
    Mr. GILLETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the reduction in Ways and Means advances and the increase in Treasury Bills issued, as reported on 31st March, 1929, are due to the transfer of the note issue into the hands of the Bank of England; and, if so, has the change resulted in increased
    1700
    interest charges to the Treasury, due to the discount rate on the Treasury Bills being more than the interest rate paid on Ways and Means advances?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The substitution of Treasury Bills for Ways and Means was made possible by the change from the Currency Note issue which fluctuated day by day to the present fixed fiduciary issue. In reply to the second part of the question there is a fixed rate of interest on these securities which does not follow market fluctuations. Whatever the rate of interest, 0 or 5 or 20 per cent., it would both be paid by the Exchequer and received back by the Exchequer as profits of the issue. It is simply a matter of book-keeping convenience. Neither the amount of the floating debt nor the interest was in fact-affected by the technical change in the form of the securities held.
    Mr. GILLETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the amount of the Sinking Fund would not be affected if the rate on Treasury Bills was higher than the amount of interest which was being paid on Ways and Means advances?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that has anything to do with the question on the Paper.
    Mr. GILLETT: Seeing that the total figure for the Sinking Fund and Interest charges is fixed, would not this increased interest charge automatically reduce the amount of money available for the Sinking Fund?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: When the interest upon Treasury Bills increases that of course adds to the expenditure on debt and consequently affects the fruitfulness of the £355,000,000 fixed debt charge. In so far as any portion of this interest on the Treasury Bills increased or not increased, is actually received by the Exchequer, there is absolutely no change in the account on either side.

  IRAQ (EXPENDITURE).
  Mr. BARKERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total expenditure from the Imperial Exchequer arising out of the occupation of Iraq by His Majesty's forces during the late war, and the amount for each year since that occupation?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am not in a position to give information as to the exact expenditure incurred during the War. As to expenditure since the War, I would refer the hon. Member to the very full statement circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 27th February (col. 2016) in pursuance of a reply given by my right hon. Friend on the 13th February to a question by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock).

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY VOUCHERS).
  Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what arrangements have been made in regard to the use by Members of their railway vouchers after the Dissolution of Parliament?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The following arrangements, which are identical with those of 1924, have been made, and I would ask hon. Members to co-operate as closely as possible with the authorities of the House in securing their observance:

  1. A Member may, if necessary, use one voucher for the single journey to his constituency immediately after the Dissolution. (Where, of course, a Member holds the return half of a ticket entitling him to return to his constitueny, the use of a further voucher will not be necessary.)

  2. A Member will retain possession of his current book of vouchers and will be at liberty to commence using them as before immediately on re-election.

  3. A Member will not use any vouchers during the period between the use of the special voucher under No. 1 above and his re-election.

  4. Member defeated at the poll will return his book of vouchers immediately after the declaration of the poll.

  5. A Member in possession of a book of vouchers and not seeking re-election may retain one voucher for use as under No. 1 above, and will return the remainder of his book to the Fees Office.

  1702

  6. Member will be asked to reimburse the amount of any fares covered by vouchers the use of which is not in accordance with the above provisions.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CLERICAL OFFICERS).
  Mr. CADOGANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the resumption of the examination system of entry into the Civil Service for the executive grades and of the existing stagnation in promotion, he will consider the question of the promotion of clerical officers of ex-assistant clerk origin who have shown sufficient individual ability and who have attained the educational standard requisite to enable them to secure at least the qualifying mark fixed in open competitive examinations for second division clerkships?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply on this subject which I gave on the 26th February to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Captain Fraser), a copy of which I am sending him.

  AGRICULTURE.

    WORLD'S POULTRY CONGRESS.
    Mr. MORRISasked the Minister of Agriculture whether a national committee for Wales has been appointed in connection with the World's Poultry Congress to be held in London in 1930; and, if so, the names of the members of the committee?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The interests of the Principality are at present represented, on the Finance and General Purposes Committee of the Congress, by the Welsh Secretary to the Ministry. The question of the appointment of a Welsh Committee is under consideration.
    Mr. MORRIS: Is it a fact that a Committee has been appointed in Northern Ireland, and, in view of the fact that Wales is mainly an agricultural country, is it not desirable that a special Committee should be appointed for Wales?
    Mr. GUINNESS: If there is evidence of a wish that Wales should have a separate Committee, of course we shall gladly consider the proposal. We are examining the matter.

    PLANT DISEASES (IMPORTED BULBS).
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any evidence that plant diseases are brought into this country by imported bulbs; and what steps are taken to ensure that all imported bulbs are free from disease?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am aware that bulb diseases and pests have been brought into this country on imported bulbs, but since the coming into operation of the Destructive Insects and Pasts Order of 1922, which requires all imported bulbs to be accompanied by a certificate of health issued by a duly authorised official of the country of origin, there has been an appreciable improvement in the standard of health of imported bulbs.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Where is the inspection made?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We inspect them in this country.
    Mr. LOOKER: Have steps been taken in recent months in regard to the inspection of bulbs to make quite sure that all possible precautions are observed in order to free bulbs in this country from infection by imported bulbs?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We are taking all the steps that we can to ensure that only healthy bulbs are brought in. I would remind my hon. Friend that there is no question of bringing in fresh disease. If these diseases come in, they are of the same kind as those which are already endemic in this country.

    SMALL HOLDINGS, ROSS-SHIRE.
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he is aware that the Forestry Commission have taken over grazing and arable land at Inchnacroe, Kintail, Ross-shire, held by two smallholders, and that these two holders had some time ago been granted security of tenure by the Land Court appointed by Parliament to give such security; and under what powers and by whose authority one
    1704
    Government Department has violated the right granted to these holders under Statute by another Government Department?
    Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The area acquired by the Forestry Commissioners at Kintail includes land at Inchnacroe occupied by two smallholders. Their land-holding rights are unimpaired, and the Commissioners have no intention of disturbing them.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: In view of the disquietude in this district, will my hon. and gallant Friend assure me that the pledge given to me last year by his predecessor remains, and will continue to be honoured?
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: Yes, Sir.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    FOREIGN MUSICIANS.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Labour how many foreign orchestras and bands have been admitted into this country since 1st January, 1928, with the number of persons comprising them; and whether, in view of the unemployment existing among British musicians, he will consider means to discourage foreign orchestras from visiting this country professionally for long periods?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): During the period from 1st January, 1928 to 30th April, 1929, permits have been granted for limited periods in respect of seven foreign bands and orchestras, comprising 58 persons. In addition, the band of the Royal Belgian Guards consisting of 81 persons was permitted to give one concert at the Royal Albert Hall. Permits are only granted in cases where my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the interests of British musicians will not be adversely affected. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the replies to questions by the hon. Member for Central Hackney (Sir E. Gower) on 31st January and 11th February last in which my right hon. Friend explained at some length the main conditions governing the grant of permits for alien bands.
    Sir R. THOMAS: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by giving permission for a short period?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon baronet to the White Paper which was issued on Tuesday—Command Paper 3118, entitled "Procedure Regulating the Entry of Foreigners for Employment in Great Britain."—which gives all the information on this matter.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that conversion is taking place on the Liberal benches at the present time?
    Mr. DAY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as far as our bands are concerned, reciprocal treatment is not granted by America and that one very famous English band—Jack Hylton's Band—has been asked not to apply for permission to enter America for the purpose of giving orchestral concerts?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am not aware of those facts, and I do not understand what the hon. Member means by "our bands."
    Mr. DAY: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that I mean our eminent British bands, composed of British artists, which are not permitted to appear in America, and I am asking him to make an investigation to see why our British bands are not allowed into America while he gives permission for American bands to come here.
    Mr. BETTERTON: I can give the same answer to the hon. Member as that which I have just given to the hon. baronet the Member for Anglesea (Sir B. Thomas). All the information relative to this matter is contained in the White Paper.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman not assuming in his answer that there are no British musicians out of employment, and is he aware that a large number of British musicians are out of work?
    Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon. baronet reads the White Paper, he will see to what extent we go in order to safeguard the interests of those who are out of employment in this country.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the point that the Liberal party do not believe in Safeguarding?
    Sir F. HALL: They do now, and so do the Labour party.

    DOCK LABOURERS.
    Mr. MONDasked the Minister of Labour what principle is applied in deciding whether dock labourers coming under the terms of Lord Shaw's award are included in the unemployment returns; whether they are shown as unemployed although they may have worked three days in the previous week; and whether, without excessive extra labour, this class could be shown separately in the weekly returns?
    Mr. BETTERTON: In general a casual dock labourer is included in the return of persons unemployed if he is known to have been unemployed on the previous Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. I should mention that in general workers of other classes are only included in the return if they are known to have been unemployed on the Monday to which the return relates. It follows that a dock labourer may be included in the return notwithstanding that he worked on three days of the preceding week other than the first three days. The weekly retains of the Live Register published by my Department already give separate figures for persons normally in casual employment, the majority of whom consist of dock labourers.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. MONDasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider adopting a more satisfactory method of calculating the weekly statistics of unemployment by basing the Return on the numbers unemployed in the previous week and not upon the number signing-on on Monday morning as unemployed, dividing the total figure into two principal categories of persons totally and persons partially unemployed, and further into sub-divisions showing for each category men and women and persons over and under 21 years of age?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The statement issued each week by the Department already gives separate figures for persons wholly unemployed, those temporarily stopped, and those normally in casual employment, and for men and women, boys under 18 and girls under 18. I am doubtful whether it would be an advantage to substitute figures relating to persons under 21 for those relating to per-

    1707
    sons under 18. As regards the numbers unemployed in the previous week, I am not sure what this means, but I should be glad to discuss the point with the hon. Member.
    Mr. MONDasked the Minister of Labour whether physically unfit, mentally unfit, and partially disabled persons are included in the unemployment Returns; and whether, with a view to obtaining a more accurate representation of the condition of the labour market, he will consider the omission of the figures of such persons in future Returns?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The published totals do not exclude any person on the ground that he or she is of a low degree of employability, and I doubt whether it would be practicable to apply a discrimination of this kind in the figures regularly tabulated. Some idea of the extent to which such persons appear on the registers may be got from an inquiry made in April, 1927, from which it appeared that 2 per cent. of the total were "verging on the unemployable" owing to age, infirmity, or other reasons, while an additional 4.9 per cent., though not verging on the unemployable, were persons "who would not, in normal times, obtain a fair amount of employment."
    Mr. MOND: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the figures, as shown now, do not give an accurate view of the unemployment situation?
    Mr. BETTERTON: The questions put by the hon. Member are, I know, based on certain resolutions passed the other day by the Associated Chambers of Commerce. I shall be quite ready to discuss, either with them or with the hon. Member, any matter which he, or they, think would make the figures more accurately represent the true state of affairs.
    Mr. PALING: Is it the hon. Gentleman's opinion that if the suggestions contained in these questions were carried out the Conservative Government would be able to show that there is no unemployment at all?
    Mr. STEPHEN: Does the Minister not think that the best way to remove these people from the list would be to provide them with adequate pensions?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: It is an insulting question to put on the Paper. The Member who put it should be examined by a medical specialist. Is a Member entitled to insult the unemployed by putting down a question of this kind?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is no insult to the unemployed in the question.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: He is not entitled to put down a question insulting to the unemployed even though his father happens to be a lord. He has no right to do it.

    TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
    Mr. TOMLINSON (for Mr. HORE-BELISHA)asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the protest made by the Liskeard Rural District Council meeting on the transfer of miners to that area, seeing that there are a number of local unemployed men awaiting the opportunity to secure work; and whether he will take steps to see that miners are not transferred to localities already burdened with unemployment?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am not aware of the protest referred to. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on this subject on the 14th March.
    Mr. PALING: In cases like this, where miners are transferred to a district and meet with vigorous protests because they are supposed to be supplanting other unemployed people, and they refuse work under those conditions, can the hon. Gentleman say what happens to them? Are they denied benefit?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I do not think that that arises out of the question on the Paper, but the answer to it, of course, is that it would be a matter in each case for the consideration of the statutory authority.
    Mr. TOMLINSON (for Mr. HORE-BELISHA)asked the Minister of Labour whether any transferred miners have been registered as unemployed at the Devonport and Plymouth Employment Exchanges, respectively?
    Mr. BETTERTON: I am having inquiries made and will send the hon. Member such information as is available.

  SCOTLAND.

    FORESTRY WORKERS, DRUMTOCHTY (WAGES).
    Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEYasked the hon. and gallant Member for Eye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he is aware of the low rates of wages paid to the forestry workers at Drumtochty; and if, in view of the fact that they are only guaranteed work for half the year and that, owing to local conditions, their other means of obtaining an income are very limited, he will consider the possibility of increasing their pay?
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: The rates of wages paid to the forestry workers at Drumtochty are considered to be satisfactory and no increase is proposed. Those forest workers to whom tenancies of holdings are granted by the Forestry Commission are guaranteed not less than 150 days work annually, but most of the forest workers are employed more than half the year. No complaints have been received from the workers at Drumtochty.
    Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: What is the rate of wages paid, and how many people get more than 150 days work in the year?
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: The average weekly wages paid during the last financial year were 39s. per week which is 2s. more than the local weekly rate. I am informed that the forest workers on holdings can have work for practically the whole of the 12 months in the forest if they so desire.
    Mr. PALING: Are we to understand that the wages in any district are calculated on the wages existing in the district, and that they vary accordingly?
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: I do not say that they vary accordingly, but certainly local wages would be taken into account.
    Mr. KELLY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the many requests made by forestry workers in all parts of Great Britain for increases in wages?
    Sir G. COURTHOPE: No.

    LAND SEIZURE (RE-ARRESTS, LOCHMADDY).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware
    1710
    that Ewan Maclennan and Neil Macdonald have again be re-arrested and sent to Inverness prison; and why the arrests were made, in view of their previous liberation?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The arrests were made on a warrant issued by the Sheriff Substitute at Lochmaddy in obedience to a remit contained in an Interlocutor of the Court of Session dismissing an appeal by the men referred to.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the warrant issued on 27th March, when they re-arrested these men, does not state what time is to be served nor who is to decide what time is to be served, and since the original date of the expiration of the term was at first contained in the sentence of the 14th June last, who is to say what term they are to serve now and who is the deciding factor in that matter, which is not contained in the warrant?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer is that they will serve the period which is un-expired.
    Mr. STEPHEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that now that this decision has been come to it would be advisable, before the General Election, that he should extend clemency to these two men and release them, in view of the fact that there will be another Government after the election?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: This is not a matter over which I or my office has any jurisdiction.
    Mr. HARDIE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any precedent, where liberation has taken place and such an amount of time has elapsed between liberation and re-arrest, of a re-arrest without giving the reasons for it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how long they have served, and what is the sentence?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, I cannot without notice.

  POST OFFICE.

    WIRELESS LICENCES.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Postmaster-General what definite arrangements have been made concerning licences for portable wireless sets, both as regards one licence only being necessary and the temporary removal of a portable wireless set from one place to another?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The answer is rather long, and I will, with the permission of the hon. and gallant Member, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Have any changes been made in these regulations?
    Viscount WOLMER: No, not beyond what has appeared in the Press.
    Following is the reply:
    The following revised arrangements for wireless licences have recently been introduced:

    (1) A wireless licence covers the use in the premises occupied by the licensee of any number of sets of receiving apparatus of any character by the householder, his family and his domestic staff. (A separate licence is necessary for a separate building such as a lodge or gardener's house, or for a portion of the same address under a separate tenancy.)

    (2) A wireless licence covers the temporary use (for example during holidays) of receiving apparatus of any character at another residence, provided that no receiving apparatus is being worked at the home address.

    (3) A wireless licence covers not only the use of wireless sets at one fixed address but also the use (whether simultaneously or not) of one portable set at any place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland by the licensee or any member of his household. When a portable set is used away from the home address (for example on a motor car), the person using it must carry the licence with him and produce it if asked to do so by an authorised officer of the Post Office.

    The concession in regard to portable sets takes effect immediately; but no re-
    1712
    bate will be allowed in respect of a separate licence already taken out for a portable set. The conditions printed on the licence form will be amended in due course.

    TELEPHONE FACILITIES, DEVONSHIRE.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Postmaster-General the approximate number of new call-offices which will be established at railway stations and in villages in Devonshire under the new scheme for telephone development?
    Viscount WOLMER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply on the 22nd April to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Sir W. de Frece).

  AVIATION.

    COMMERCIAL AEROPLANES.
    Colonel WOODCOCKasked the Secretary of State for Air how many miles were flown by commercial aeroplanes in 1928 by the following countries: Germany, France, and Great Britain?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The mileage flown on regular routes in 1928 by commercial aeroplanes was as follows: Germany, 6,750,000; France and French Colonies. etc., 4,500,000; British Empire, approximately 1,750,000. The two former figures are estimates.
    Colonel WOODCOCK: Does my right hon. Friend expect that this year we shall increase our commercial route mileage very considerably?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes. The opening of the India route will add a very large number of miles.

    SEAPLANE SERVICES (NORTH AND IRISH SEAS).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Air what consideration, if any, is at present being given to the establishment of a seaplane service between the Yorkshire coast and the Continent and also between Liverpool and Ireland?
    Sir S. HOARE: It will doubtless be within my hon. Friend's knowledge that an experimental service between Liverpool and Belfast was operated for a short time last year, but no concrete proposals for a permanent service over

    1713
    either the Irish or the North Sea have, so far as I am aware, as yet been formulated.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope in regard to this important matter?
    Sir S. HOARE: I have received no definite proposals on the subject, but, if we do receive any, we will certainly consider them.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not part of the right hon. Gentleman's business to make proposals himself?
    Sir S. HOARE: No. I think that in a case of this kind, of a service between England and Ireland, some proposals ought to come from the Irish side.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Cannot my right hon. Friend do something to stir up Hull?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that steps have been taken both for a seaplane base and for a land plane base in Hull, in face of very great discouragement from the Ministry?
    Sir S. HOARE: Very likely after the General Election we may see changes.

    AIRSHIPS.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Secretary of State for Air at what date, respectively, the two airships now nearing completion are expected to be ready for trial, and to what point each is to make its maiden voyage?
    Sir S. HOARE: As regards the first part of the question, R. 100 is expected to be ready for shed trials about the end of May, and R. 101 about the end of June. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) on the 16th April.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these two airships will bear names before their first trial voyage, or will they continue to bear numbers?
    Sir S. HOARE: I gave an answer on that subject two or three days ago.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will my right hon. Friend accept a name if I send it to him?
    Sir S. HOARE: I will certainly consider it.

    AIR SERVICES (SOUTH AFRICA).
    Lord ERSKINE (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is in a position to make any further statement as regards contributions by the various African Administrations concerned towards the cost of the projected air service between England and South Africa?
    Sir S. HOARE: I am glad to be able to announce that the Government of Southern Rhodesia have just intimated their willingness to arrange for a contribution of £10,000 a year for a period of five years. In addition, as I stated some weeks since, the Union Government have undertaken to provide a very substantial proportion of the requisite subsidy, whilst definite offers to contribute have also been received from the Administrations of the Sudan, Kenya, Tanganyika, and Uganda. The House will, I am sure, be gratified to know that, as a result of this ready co-operation on the part of the various Administrations mentioned, the finance of the service is now assured.

  PALESTINE (JEWISH POPULATION).
  Mr. BARKERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state, approximately, the number of the Jewish population of Palestine at the date of occupation, during the War, and the number of the Jewish population at the present time?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No figures are available for the period of the War, but at the time of the Armistice the Jewish population of Palestine was estimated at 55,000. At the end of 1928 the estimate was 149,554.
  Lord APSLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the successful colonisation of Palestine by Jewish people is being assisted by the fact that they have to pay 2½d. for a 1d. stamp?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

  RUSSIA (BRITISH HERRINGS).
  Mr. KELLYasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of herrings exported from the United Kingdom to Russia during the year ended 31st December, 1928?
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The exports of herrings consigned to Russia in 1928 amounted to 104,000 cwts, and to £76,000 in declared value. In the same year these exports to the Succession States, including Poland, were 2,635,000 cwts. in quantity and £1,880,000 in value.

  CHINA (BRITISH TROOPS).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to withdraw the British troops from Shanghai; whether any threat to the International Settlement is expected; and, if so, from what quarter or forces?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The additional forces in China have been very considerably reduced during the past year. There is no present intention further to reduce these forces. There is no indication at the moment of any imminent danger to the International Settlement or of any attack from any particular quarter, but conditions are still uncertain and subversive activities by no means extinct.
  Mr. LOOKER: Is there not in existence in Shanghai a very considerable element of Chinese Communists of subversive tendencies, which renders the position still a matter of great insecurity and makes it inadvisable completely to withdraw these forces at the present time?
  Mr. COOPER: That is what I intended to convey in my reply.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does it mean that Shanghai is to be a garrison town for the rest of time?
  Mr. COOPER: No.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. A. HENDERSON: May I ask the Prime Minister if he can now tell the House the business to be taken next week?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Monday: Motion to reduce the number of Allotted Supply Days from 20 to 13; Supply, Committee (11th Allotted Day), Board of Trade Estimates.
Tuesday: Supply, Committee (12th Allotted Day), Scottish Estimates.
Wednesday: Supply Report (13th Allotted Day), Ministry of Pensions Estimate.
If the House agrees to the Motion to reduce the number of Allotted Supply Days, on Tuesday at Ten o'clock, and on Wednesday at Ten o'clock, outstanding Votes will be put from the Chair.
Thursday: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, Second Reading.
Friday: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation Bill), remaining stages; Prorogation of Parliament.
Any outstanding business which it is necessary to dispose of before Prorogation will be put down for consideration in the early part of the week.
Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask if on the Scottish Estimates the Secretary of State for Scotland will be in charge, or will he be absent from the House?
The PRIME MINISTER: There will be competent Ministers to deal with them.
Mr. SAKLATVALA: Is the Prime Minister at liberty to insinuate that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not a competent Minister?
Mr. BUCHANAN: Has it not from time immemorial been the custom for the Secretary of State for Scotland, if in health, to be present to take charge of his Estimates, and why is he going to break the custom which has been laid down by long usage in this House?
The PRIME MINISTER: It is perfectly obvious that at the present time there are engagements which people have entered into which it is exceedingly difficult for them to get out of. The best way to get out of such a difficulty is to arrange the date for which an Estimate is asked on a rather more suitable day than seems to have been arranged in this case.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the engagement which keeps the Secretary of State for

1717
Scotland from attending this House is secondary in importance to that of being in charge of the Scottish Estimates, and will he not call upon the Secretary of State to fulfil that important post for which he is paid?
The PRIME MINISTER: I have just learned that the business which detains my right hon. Friend is of the nature with which I am sure every citizen of Glasgow will sympathize.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the business which will detain him in Glasgow is secondary in importance to that of looking after the Scottish Estimates, for which he is paid, and will he not ask the Secretary of State to attend to the business of prime importance for which he is paid? Mr. Speaker, cannot I have your protection in this matter? May I ask you if you have not any authority in this House to see
that Ministers are not away on an occasion like this? If he were an unemployed man, he would be refused his benefit for not genuinely seeking work. It is work dodging.
Mr. SPEAKER: Lord Erskine.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock, and that the Proceedings on Government Business and on any Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, any such Private Business may be taken after half-past Nine of the clock."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 67.

Division No. 292.]

AYES.

[3.47 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Albery, Irving James

Everard, W. Lindsay

Margesson, Captain D.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Meller, R. J.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

Fermoy, Lord

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

Fielden, E. B.

Mond, Hon. H.

Atholl, Duchess of

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. C. W.

Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. [Ayr]

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Ganzonl, Sir John.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Balniel, Lord

Gates, Percy

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

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

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Betterton, Henry B.

Hacking, Douglas H

Penny, Frederick George

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

Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Hammersley, S. S.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)

Bridgeman. Rt. Hon. William Clive

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Briscoe, Richard George

Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

Raine, Sir Walter

Brittain, Sir Harry

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Hilton, Cecil

Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

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

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

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Bullock, Captain M.

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

Ropner, Major L.

Burman, J. B.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Ross, R. D.

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)

Salmon, Major I.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Campbell, E. T.

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Carver, Major W. H.

Hurd, Percy A.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hurst, Sir Gerald

Sandon, Lord

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

Shepperson, E. W.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

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

Clayton, G. C.

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Smithers, Waldron

Colfox, Major William Phillips

Knox, Sir Alfred

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Lamb, J. Q.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Cooper, A. Duff

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Phillp

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Eraser

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

Long, Major Eric

Templeton, W. P.

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Looker, Herbert William

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Thomson, Sir Frederick

Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

Lumley, L. R.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Davies, Dr. Vernon

MacAndrew Major Charles Glen

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Eden, Captain Anthony

MacIntyre, I.

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

McLean, Major A.

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

Ellis, R. G

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Winby, Colonel L. P.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Womersley, W. J.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Major Sir William Cope.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

Ammon, Charles George

Hardle, George D.

Russell, Richard (Eddisbury)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Saklatvala, Shapurji

Barr, J.

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Batey, Joseph

Kelly, W. T.

Shield, G. W.

Bellamy, A.

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

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Lansbury, George

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Lawrence, Susan

Snell, Harry

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Lawson, John James

Stephen, Campbell

Buchanan, G.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Sullivan, Joseph

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

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

Cluse, W. S.

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

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Connolly, M.

March, S.

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

Day, Harry

Montague, Frederick

Tinker, John Joseph

Dennison, R.

Morris, R. H.

Wellock, Wilfred

Duncan, C.

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

Welsh, J. C.

Dunnico, H.

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Fenby, T. D.

Owen, Major G.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Gillett, George M.

Palin, John Henry

Windsor, Walter

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wright, W.

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

Potts, John S.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.

Question put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—

Marriages Provisional Orders Bill,

Falkirk Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,

London County Council (Money) Bill,

Great Western Railway (Air Transport) Bill,

London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport) Bill,

London, Midland and Scottish Railway (Air Transport) Bill,

Southern Railway (Air Transport) Bill.

Savings Banks Bill,

Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Bill, without Amendment.

Methodist Church Union Bill, with an Amendment.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Middlesbrough Extension) Bill,

Southampton Corporation Bill,

Nottingham Corporation Bill,

Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill,

Lewes Corporation Bill,

Soke and City of Peterborough Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Pacific Cable Board Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Local Government (Scotland) Bill,—That they do not insist on their Amendment to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill to which this House has disagreed.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to prevent difficulties arising in the event of the office of Stipendiary Magistrate for Chatham and Sheerness not being filled." [Chatham and Sheerness Stipendiary Magistrate Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain to make by-laws providing for the registration without examination of persons registered as Pharmaceutical Chemists in Northern Ireland." [Pharmacy Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Older under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Nith Navigation." [Nith Navigation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the London Electric Railway Company to execute works; to confer further powers on that company and on the Metropolitan District Railway Company and the City and South London Railway Company; and for other purposes." [London Electric, Metropolitan District, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill [Lords.]
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Middlesbrough Extension) Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
Nith Navigation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.
London Electric, Metropolitan District, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BILLS REPORTED.

  MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION BILL [Lords],
  GRIMSBY CORPORATION (DOCK, ETC.) BILL [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords],
  Reported, with Amendments; [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Leave given to the Committee on Group E of Private Bills to make a Special Report.
  Special Report brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  DARLINGTON CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES (ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS COMPANY (TROLLEY VEHICLES, ETC.) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  RHODES TRUST BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. Bill to be read the Third time.

  BEAUMONT THOMAS ESTATE BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  COUNTY OF CORNWALL BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
CHATHAM AND SHEERNESS STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]
PHARMACY BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 115.]

LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.
Special Report brought up, and read.
Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings to be printed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [10th ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  [CAPTAIN BOURNE in the Chair].

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1929.
      CLASS VI.

        MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £1,203,863, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Expenses under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, a Grant under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, Loans to Co-operative Marketing Societies, Grants for Agricultural Education and Research, Grants for Eradication of Tuberculosis in Cattle, Grants for Land Drainage, Grants-in-Aid of the Small Holdings Account, and certain other Grants-in-Aid; and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew."—[NOTE.—£1,750,000 has been voted on account.]
        The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): It is three years since I have had an opportunity of explaining in detail the agricultural estimates, and, glad as I am that hon. Members opposite have not found it necessary to put down this Vote and to criticise the work in detail, I welcome, even at this eleventh hour in the life of this Parliament, the opportunity of saying something as to the objects and results of our administration. The industry has been confronted in the last four and a half years with many and heavy difficulties, and, in common with every industry in the trough of depression, it has naturally looked to the Government to give whatever help was possible. Although we have had many remedies pressed upon us which it was not within our power to adopt, and although many people no doubt hoped that we could achieve more than was possible, I say with confidence that those who looked to us for assistance have not looked in vain, and that we have done everything possible to help the industry through its difficult time.
        Before I give a short account of our administration, I ought perhaps to present
        1738
        a review of the position. The monthly index figures of the general level of agricultural prices enable us to get some measure of the position of the industry. At the end of 1924 and the beginning of 1925 the general index number for agricultural produce varied between 65 and 71. There was a continuous decline until the last part of 1927, when the figure was as low as 40. Last year there was some revival, but even the improvement of the last few months has not brought the figure higher than 46. On the other side of the farmer's accounts the cost of his labour is greatly increased; his feeding stuffs, at 45, about balance the general agricultural price level; fertilisers are much cheaper, being only two points above the pre-War level; and arable rents have greatly fallen and in some cases are reported to be below what they were in 1914. The serious depression is mainly to be found in the arable areas of the East and South. In the Western and Northern districts, areas where stock raising, milk production and other side lines have been developed, and where there is a certain natural protection, things are not quite so bad.
        4.0 p.m.
        There is one feature which distinguishes agricultural depression from the depression in other industries, and that is that there is very little unemployment. This feature is not due to any big migration from the country to the town. From 1924 to 1928 there was a decline of 33,000 in the figures of those employed, and all of those were among the ranks of casual labour. Regular men, women, boys and girls increased by 7,000, and it is important to bear this in mind, in view of the suggestion which is now being pressed in certain quarters that we should extend unemployment insurance to the agricultural industry. The Committee may remember that we recently had a Depart-mental Inquiry on the subject, and the Committee recommended that no such scheme should be applied to Scotland, but by means of Scottish votes they carried by one vote a report that a special scheme should be applied to England and Wales. The objection, of course, to any scheme of agricultural unemployment insurance is that if it is put aside from the general scheme, it involves very great difficulty and disadvantages.
        If you once begin picking out industries for special treatment on lower con
        1739
        tributary terms, it is difficult to see how you could stop, and how you could avoid breaking up the definite, established scheme of insurance, and, obviously, it would be to the disadvantage of agriculture to come into the general scheme, because the agricultural worker, owing to his low incidence of unemployment, would take out far less than he would pay in. I think that many of those who suggest the extension of unemployment insurance to agriculture do not realise that it means a burden of 8d. on the employer and 7d. on the employed, in return for very little benefit. It was, no doubt, because of the very bad bargain which it would mean for agriculturists, that the Blanesburgh Committee reported that in this matter they were in favour of leaving things as they are.
        Of the many industries which are included under the name of agriculture, all are not depressed, but the industry is certainly as a whole not in a flourishing condition, and the Government have been facing the problem of how they can assist it to greater prosperity. Our attempts at reaching a political agreement having failed, we produced our own policy, which we thought to be the highest common measure of agreement, in the White Paper which we published in February, 1926. That programme ruled out protective duties and subsidies, and we concentrated on three objects—to strengthen the economic position of agriculture, to assist the producer by lowering his costs, and also to help him by improving his markets.
        For all these objects much has been done and will be done by research and education. It is impossible to exaggerate the immense value of this form of help, even though it is slow to reach fruition, and only shows itself in a marked degree over a considerable period. At the end of 1927 we held an Imperial Agricultural Research Conference in this country, and that has greatly stimulated agricultural research throughout the Empire. Owing to this development, we are losing some of the cream of our research workers, who are being attracted to other parts of the Empire. We are now spending on research and education the very large sum of £585,000. In the matter of research, we shall have to face
        1740
        increasing expenditure if we are to keep the excellent men who have been trained in this country, and we shall also have to develop what has been done in the way of agricultural education. The experiments in the matter of scholarships have been thoroughly justified. They have gone on long enough now to have been proved by the test of competition in after life, and many of those who got these scholarships are now in good positions. Undoubtedly, the agricultural education which has been developed in recent times is doing much to increase the technical efficiency of the industry.
        To help the economic position, we have passed several Measures. Last Session we passed the Agricultural Credits Act. The Committee is aware of the need of new capital in the industry and is familiar with the way in which we dealt with this matter. I am glad to say to-day that the system has got very well under way. The Agricultural Mortgage Corporation have advanced loans up to £1,250,000 already, although they only started work at the beginning of the year. These loans are being distributed widely throughout the agricultural districts. The Corporation is further examining applications for other loans to the extent of another £2,250,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the rate of interest?"] The rates vary according to the objects, and according to whether it is immediate credit or long term credit. Long-term credit is 5½ per cent. to cover all charges, including sinking fund and interest. The short-term system has also made a good start, and 1,200 agricultural charges have now been registered. This transition, obviously, could not take place suddenly. It would have been very mischievous and disturbing to the industry if it had; but there is no doubt that it is being gradually brought in with the co-operation of producers and traders, and in time it promises to achieve a revolution which should be of immense benefit to agricultural finance.
        Mr. NOEL BUXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the amount of money advanced?
        Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid I have not got that. We only get the figures from the Land Registry. The number of charges are distinguished there according to whether they are fixed charges or

        1741
        floating charges, but I do not think we have the figures of the actual amount advanced. I think the right hon. Gentleman will see how difficult it would be to get such figures, because often where there is a floating charge the amount advanced is complicated. It is the maximum, and may not be drawn to the full immediately.
        Efforts have been made, not only by us but by our predecessors in some degree, to modify the economic structure of the industry by the provision of small holdings. The Committee will notice in the Estimates a very large increase in the Vote under this heading, but the increase of £845,000 as compared with the previous year is due to the automatic operation of a postponement which we passed in 1925, and we are this year paying two years' charges under the Land Settlement Facilities (Amendment) Act, 1925, towards the final financial liquidation of our obligation to local authorities. The House has sometimes shown considerable interest in the number of applications which are registered for small holdings. I have never felt very confident of the accuracy of the figure we were able to give. I think the old figure was about 13,000, but recently we have got fresh returns from the local authorities, and it is evident that they were carrying on their lists many applications which were no longer effective. They have recently overhauled their lists, and considerable weeding out has taken place, so that at the end of last year the number of applications was 3,000. I should remind the Committee that the number of statutory small holders in the country is something over 30,000. The response to the Act of 1926 on the part of local authorities has been very disappointing. The State provides 75 per cent. of the loss involved in the provision of smallholdings, but the local authorities have not found it possible to take great advantage of these generous terms. The difficulties are not far to seek. The capital outlay which is necessary for building, owing to the greatly increased cost of bricks and mortar nowadays, is at least 50 per cent. higher than it was before the War. Interest charges are 5 per cent. as against 3½ per cent. under which the great provision of small holdings took place in the pre-War period.
        Mr. MacLAREN: Has it ever been above 5 per cent?
        Mr. GUINNESS: I am informed that it did go up to 6½ per cent. in 1920, but, at any rate, I am considering the present position, and the discouragement which undoubtedly exists to the provision of further holdings. Loan charges under present conditions for these inevitable outlays are now double what they used to be before the War, and the costs of repairs and management have gone up in about the same proportion. It is clear that new holdings can pay their way only if the rent is doubled. That, as the Committee will recognise, is out of the question. Rents, clearly, can be paid only at about the same level as before the War. It is difficult to see how we can quicken up the provision of these holdings. It is essential that administration should be local. We have had very sad experience of the results of trying to run small holdings from London, and if the administration is local it is essential that the local authorities should have some financial stake. Twenty-five per cent. is not a very big stake, and although only 30 councils so far have found it possible to work under this new scheme, I hope that the figure may gradually increase and that more confidence may grow up and enable them to launch out more boldly.
        On the economic side, what we have done is to help the farmer by relieving him of his rates. I know hon. Members opposite do not think that will do much good, and I also am aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has said that rates as such are no burden on the industry at all. We believe that rates are a burden on the land, and we believe that the removal of this burden will have a very stimulating effect upon the industry.
        We are trying to help the productive side of the industry by improving land drainage. A great deal of our land is waterlogged, and we have continued the long-standing system of devoting any available State assistance to arterial drainage through the statutory authorities instead of to field drainage. In the year 1926 we undertook a programme of land drainage which included a large part of the necessary provision for schemes which were in contemplation, such as the Ouse drainage scheme. Since the Select Committee threw out the proposals for the Ouse settlement in 1927, some of that expenditure has fallen into

        1743
        abeyance, but no fewer than 63 schemes have been accepted at a total cost to the State of £420,000. All that was done under the original system of helping the authorities in regard to works of a permanent nature.
        At the end of last year we initiated another scheme to use these land drainage works for the advantage of transferred mining and other unemployed labour. A condition of grants under this new system was that 50 per cent. of unemployed from those particular depressed areas should be employed. There are two methods of finance in regard to these schemes. The Ministry in some cases helps directly by a 50 per cent. grant where the local body's quota is raised out of revenue, and that is an explanation of some of the increases in our land drainage appropriation. The alternative method is for assistance through the Unemployment Grants Committee, and under that scheme the Government's share takes the form of a percentage on the Sinking Fund charges. Already for these transference drainage schemes, £550,000 of expenditure has been approved, and several others, some of them very large schemes, are still in prospect. Apart from these major works the county councils have been doing a good deal of useful small scale work under the Act of 1926. There is no doubt that there has been a gradual improvement in recent years in the condition of the land.
        Mr. MacLAREN: Whose land?
        Mr. GUINNESS: I am using that word in the sense of national land from which all our agricultural crops are raised. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. Mac-Laren) seems very jealous on this matter, and he is afraid lest the owner of the land may get some benefit. I can assure him that the benefit of these works does not go to the landlord. After all, it is the landowner who pays rates for keeping up these works, and they would not be done for the benefit of the occupier unless the State came in and made such works financially possible.
        Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much the owners of the land have contributed towards the £480,000 which has been spent on land drainage?
        Mr. GUINNESS: It is very difficult to give the figure, but these schemes are entirely secured on the credit of the ratepayers, and as the landowners pay their share of the rates, they are responsible through the rates for the upkeep of these works and for financing their share which may be as much as two-thirds of the capital value. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has recently published a statement that the Government has done practically nothing in the way of land drainage, and the right hon. Gentleman has made proposals for very large and spectacular increases. If the right hon. Gentleman really gets down to the administration of his scheme, he will find that any large scale development in drainage is impossible unless practically the whole of the cost is borne by the State which is contrary to the principle of our long standing legislation on the subject, and it is also contrary to the principle which we have endorsed in our administration. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs will find it impossible to carry out the scheme he has suggested on the basis laid down, because he himself has admitted that those who get the benefit are to make a contribution to the cost. Under those conditions he will find, as we have found, that the local drainage authorities are not able to start these schemes at any greater rate than at the present time. Their financial position is such that the burden of existing schemes, the difficulty of financing the interest charges in view of the very heavy rates now borne by the land for drainage would make it quite impossible, provided the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs carried out his undertaking, for the occupiers and those who benefit to pay anything to the scheme, and he would find that it would be quite impossible to carry out his programme on the lines which he has outlined.
        We had recently a Report from a Royal Commission on land drainage which was set up two years ago, and that Commission recommended a fundamental alteration in the system of rating and also a general revision of our drainage law. Of course that would involve very complicated and difficult legislation, and that is the explanation of why we cannot go further with that question. We cannot

        1745
        tackle some of the bigger schemes like that of the Ouse area until we get new and comprehensive drainage authorities. As hon. Members know, we are pressing on with the necessary surveys in certain areas which must be the foundation for this new legislation.
        I will now deal with the question of the sugar-beet industry. A subsidy to that industry was the first action we took as soon as the present Government assumed office. In granting that subsidy we felt that we were justified in making an exception to the general rejection of subsidies, seéing that it was for a temporary purpose and was intended to assist those areas which were most seriously depressed. I think that legislation has been most fully justified. Before that legislation was passed there were only three factories in existence, which produced in 1924 13,200 tons of sugar on 16,900 acres of land. Last year we had 19 factories in operation, and instead of 13,200 tons of sugar being produced, we produced 195,000 tons. Instead of having 16,900 acres of land under beet, last year we had over 178,000 acres. Last year was a very critical time, because the previous season had been very depressing to the farmers owing to the fact that there had been a drop in the subsidy which had caused a chill on the part of the producer. I am glad to say that now we seem to have surmounted that crisis, and, as compared with 178,000 acres under beet last year, the contracts which have been made by the factories this year amount to 231,700 acres.
        There is no doubt that this new industry has proved a Godsend, and I am glad to say that any possible injury which may have been done to the old and valuable sugar-refining industry in this country has now been entirely removed owing to the steps which were taken in the Budget of last year. The result has been that the refineries have more than recovered their old level of output. Whereas the sugar refineries of this country were producing 64 per cent. of the total consumption of refined sugar before the subsidy was given, last year they had recovered most of the lost ground and they achieved the figure of 70 per cent. of the total consumption. We are working hard in order to try to improve the methods of the industry. Experiments are going on to find the
        1746
        best method of manuring, the best type of seed and the best system of growing, and so forth, and we are hoping that the industry may not merely assist the arable farmer who at present is having such a bad time, but may establish itself as a permanent and valuable part of British agriculture.
        One of the most encouraging sides of agricultural production in these years of difficulty has been that of milk production. It has had the advantage of being free from foreign competition, except in the matter of condensed and dried milk. I feel sure that it is not only to the benefit of agriculture, but to the advantage of the nation as a whole, that the dairying industry should be developed. The Committee are aware of the result of recent experiments in regard to the health of school children who were fed on milk, and a good deal has been done to encourage the demand in various directions. The freight rebate which took effect last year will in some degree help the producers, but consumption remains far below what it is in foreign countries, and much below what it ought to be in this country. We believe that the best way to encourage greater consumption is to reassure the public as to the purity of the supplies. A vast amount has been done by the industry itself in that direction, and the Government, by means of clean milk competitions, have done a good deal to assist in this movement. The distributors are taking up the effort, and are giving special payments for high quality and cleanliness of milk in London, Birmingham and elsewhere.
        The Diseases of Animals Act, which we passed in 1925, enabled us to give compensation for cows that were slaughtered on account of certain forms of tuberculosis. The figures which we have now compiled, after more than three years' working of that Act, are very reassuring. 700,000 cows were examined between September, 1925, and the end of last year. These cows and heifers were all suspect; they were not taken at random, but were cases in which the milk had been found to be impure, or in which notification had been given by the local sanitary or veterinary authorities and by the farmers themselves, who are called upon to notify any suspected case of this serious disease of tuberculosis as a condition of getting compensation, and are also subject to penalties if they are in

        1747
        default. Of these 700,000 suspected cows on suspected premises that were examined, 8.4 per cent. were found to be affected with scheduled forms of tuberculosis; but of that 8.4 per cent. only a very small proportion were giving tuberculous milk, and the figures and alleged facts which are so often published are grossly misleading. Of those 700,000 suspected cows and heifers, only 1.3 per cent. were giving tuberculous milk or suffering from tuberculosis of the udder. I would emphasize that this small result was found on this large number of suspected premises, and that these very satisfactory figures give the public ground for increased confidence in the purity of the milk supplies as a whole.
        We are also at work trying to reduce the farmers' losses in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. It is not, perhaps, always realised that, although the farmer gets compensation for cattle and stock seized and destroyed in connection with outbreaks, that does not see him through his indirect losses, and the amount paid by the State is only a small proportion of the loss borne by the industry in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. I am glad to say that there has been a steady reduction in the number of outbreaks. In 192–1 there were 1,440; last year there were 138. In the first four months of this year there have been 20 outbreaks, and I am glad to say that since the 24th March we have not had any outbreak, and the country is now for the moment clear; I do not know how long it will last. We certainly have had more periods of freedom in recent times than for many years past. This result is remarkable, considering that the disease continues to rage on the Continent. Last year Holland had 19,700 outbreaks, and France had 11,000 outbreaks.
        The reason for our comparative freedom is that our organisation for dealing with the problem has been greatly improved, and, I think I may say, is now nearly perfect. This is very largely the result of the advice of the Pretyman Committee, which reported in February, 1925. It is due, firstly, to improved organisation, and, secondly, to greater vigilance on the part of the farmers, who have realised that the failure of one man to give quick notification may cause a widespread disaster. One instance of careless
        1748
        ness or lack of knowledge or lack of notification may cause an agricultural disaster, just as one match thrown down during the recent drought could damage great tracts of fertile land and forest. Thirdly, we have been able to reduce the risk of infection by the embargo on continental meat which we imposed in 1926, and which was immediately followed by a very large drop in the number of outbreaks. Fourthly, we have been able to negotiate for very drastic arrangements in South America to see that no animal infected by foot and mouth disease, or in the incubation period of that disease, can reach the killing floor for export to this country. Lord Bledisloe negotiated these agreements in the first instance at the beginning of last year, and his work was followed by a delegation which visited the Argentine recently, and which included two hon. Members of this House, the hon. and gallant Member for North Cumberland (Mr. F. Graham) and the hon. Member for North West Camberwell (Mr. Campbell). They report that these South American States are doing everything that they possibly can to prevent the risk of export of infected carcasses to this country, because to them it is all-important that this trade should be allowed to continue, and they agree that we must insist on absolute safeguards. The fifth measure which we have enforced was an Order for the boiling of swill. I will not make any comment on that. We are very often pressed to relax the regulations which we have felt it necessary to impose, but the time for that is very far off, and under present conditions, it is absolutely essential that we should retain the full restrictions of our regulations.
        Mr. BUXTON: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman before he leaves the subject of foot and mouth disease? He alluded a few minutes ago to compensation for the indirect losses of farmers, but he did not follow that up.
        Mr. GUINNESS: Perhaps I did not make myself plain. I said that farmers suffered much more, in the way of indirect losses for which they get no compensation, than the State suffers financially by payment of compensation for the stock which are seized. I certainly do not wish to be understood to say that the

        1749
        farmer gets any compensation whatever for his indirect losses; those losses are borne by him without any compensation.
        The last way in which our administration has been trying to help the agricultural industry is by the improvement of marketing. We believe that there is no form of assistance within the power of the Government which is of greater value than this. We hear very much nowadays about the rationalisation of industry. The problems of rationalisation vary according to the type of industry. In agriculture the greatest need is probably for standardisation, and that, quite obviously, is far more difficult with natural products of the soil than with factory products. The success of imported supplies in our markets shows the advantage of standardisation. Of course, when products go through the bottle-neck of an export trade, it is easy to insist upon a high quality, a well defined grade and standard, and satisfactory packing, and we have to try to build up for the British farmer the benefit of this system which has been so long enjoyed by his foreign competitors. The hall-mark of quality is the sign of England and the Union Jack—what is now widely known as the National Mark. Our text is, "Empire Buying Begins at Home."
        We started to work a few years ago with a grant of £40,000 a year from the Empire Marketing Board, which appears among our appropriations-in-aid, and it has been so fruitful a means of assisting the industry that we are now making it a permanent feature. Farmers are taking up the movement with great interest and enthusiasm. Of course, the Ministry cannot possibly move in advance of the speed at which the farmers are prepared to go. We work by co-operaiton and consultation with the industries concerned. We normally begin by investigation, and we have published a series of Economic Reports, the orange covers of which are familiar to hon. Members, and of which we have sold 70,000 copies. [Interruption.]They are much more valuable than the smaller and newer Orange Book to which the hon. Member refers. We show in those reports what sells best and why it sells best. We are trying to discover and apply methods for making our own produce as easy to handle and to sell as imported produce. We work out the
        1750
        next stage of our operations in consultation with special committees—the Poultry Advisory Committee, the Pig Industry Council, the Potatoes Committee of the National Farmers' Union and the distributive trades—and we have also had discussions about marketing meat with the National Farmers' Union and the National Federation of Meat Traders. Then we have also a National Food Canning Council, by the assistance of which we have been able, in little more than two years, to start a very promising home canning industry. We only set up this Council in 1926—
        Mr. W. BENNETT: What are the products dealt with?
        Mr. GUINNESS: Fruit and vegetables, and we hope shortly, if we can get the necessary regularity of supplies, to begin canning fish, and to compete with fish which is caught in the same waters and canned on the other side of the North Sea. We have now 30 factories at work on fruit and vegetables, and this movement will not only help agriculture, but will also help the tinplate industry. When a product gets to the final stage, of not merely grading but of adopting a national mark, we have the advantage of administration by the National Mark Committee, presided over by Lord Darling. We have now applied this national mark to apples, pears, eggs, tomatoes, cucumbers and a few less important vegetables.
        I hesitate to mention broccoli, because I know the unwholesome excitement which that excellent vegetable causes on the benches opposite. It seems to sit as heavy on their political digestion as the pre-War mangel-wurzel. At the same time, it is a very enlightening example of what can be done by educational work on the part of the Ministry and the initiative of the local grower. In 1923, the broccoli producer was suffering very much from French competition. The French had the advantage of a better type of seed and better methods of packing. We sent over officers to learn the local methods, we imported some seed from Roxoff, in Brittany, and we educated the farmers in certain favoured areas as to the method of growing, and now in Cornwall alone there are 500 acres under that crop making a very good profit. It is uniformly graded and attractively packed and easily finds its market, and it is very satisfactory that,

        1751
        where the industry was very depressed a few years ago, it is now flourishing. Of course, the home market is the most important, but it is remarkable that, after having been overwhelmed for years by the rising tide of imports, we are now, not only holding our own, but are beginning a very profitable export. It is admittedly in its early stages, but we have every hope that the movement will extend.
        Sir ROBERT THOMAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any figures as to the exports?
        Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid that I have not the figures.
        Mr. GARDNER: How do you arrive at the conclusion?
        Mr. GUINNESS: We know that some truckloads have gone, and we know that they have been graded and packed under the national mark. We know that the farmer has been getting very good prices, and I can assure hon. Members opposite that we have had a good deal of correspondence on the subject from disgusted farmers who read the very contemptuous reference that has been made to this subject.
        Major OWEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence that this export is really profitable to the farmer?
        Mr. GUINNESS: Yes. I might be able to give it later in the Debate. Broccoli is extremely profitable. Of course, it has been a year of high prices and, as the Cornish producer escaped the blackening of the crops by frost, he reaped a large financial benefit when he was able to put it on the market in Northern Europe, where there was a shortage.
        Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many Cornish farmers who were on the verge of bankruptcy a few months ago and are now very flourishing?
        Mr. GUINNESS: It is common knowledge to anyone who is in touch with the position that the growers have really done extremely well.
        Mr. PILCHER: I can inform my right hon. Friend that the value of the crop in 1925 was £182,000, and this last season it exceeded £200,000.
        Mr. GARDNER: How much export?
        Mr. PILCHER: I cannot give that.
        Mr. GUINNESS: I am rather puzzled as to why hon. Members opposite should be so indignant.
        Sir R. THOMAS: The Prime Minister has been boasting about the big export trade, but the right hon. Gentleman can give no figures.
        Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Baronet is entirely wrong. If he will read what the Prime Minister said, instead of inventing words and putting them in his mouth, he will find that there was nothing about a large export. He mentioned that this was a development in agricultural marketing, and the longer the Opposition below the Gangway go on talking about broccoli, the more valuable it will be for us, because I am certain there is no more valuable political education for the farmer than the ridicule which hon. Members opposite have thrown on this very valuable movement which he has taken up for himself.
        Sir R. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman is throwing ridicule on the whole thing by refusing to give us figures.
        Mr. GUINNESS: This is a very good example of the contrast between the attitude of hon. Members opposite and the Conservative party. We believe in giving practical assistance to the agricultural industry. The Opposition believe in spectacular changes. We believe what the farmer wants is to be able to make a profit. Hon. Members opposite think what is needed is that we should transform land tenure, control cultivation, and expel the farmers of whom they do not approve.
        Sir R. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent the programme of the Liberal party. We do not advocate Government control of agriculture.
        Mr. GUINNESS: Really, I cannot keep track of it. The lack of enthusiasm in its reception has now produced a complete repudiation of the Green Book. If so, I must congratulate the hon. Baronet on having been freed from that incubus. If he does not mean control, why was there all this bother, why was there all this output of ink and paper on the subject of

        1753
        the inefficiency of the British farmer and the necessity of having committees? It may be that it has been thrown over, but that was certainly the policy that was placed before the country.
        Sir R. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it means assistance to the farmer and not control.
        Mr. GUINNESS: I can only go by the published programme. The whole argument of hon. Members opposite for years past has been that the British farmer is incompetent, and is getting a miserably low yield from his land, and they produce certain absolutely fallacious figures of comparison with foreign countries where conditions are different. The whole object to which that argument leads up, in innumerable speeches and publications, is that the farmer must be taught his job by the State, and, if he does not do it properly, he must lose his farm. We believe such convulsions in our system would only injure him, and our present administration and our future efforts will be concentrated on the practical needs of the industry. We shall go on strengthening weak places in technical equipment and in business organisation, and we shall seek to do so by co-operation and helpful advice, and not by methods of compulsion.
        Mr. MORRIS: The speech that has just been delivered was a survey of the whole position of agriculture, which we regret the right hon. Gentleman has not had an opportunity to make for such a long period as three years. The survey was a very interesting one, in spite of the misrepresentations of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I do not know that it could be fairly represented as pouring contempt on the Cornish farmers We are not sorry to see that the Cornish farmers are prosperous as the result of their export of broccoli. That is a very desirable thing. But broccoli was instanced in the Prime Minister's speech as one way of meeting the unemployment of 1,250,000 people.
        Major PRICE: Rubbish!
        Mr. MORRIS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should read the speech again and refresh his memory.
        Major PRICE: I have read not only that speech but the speech of last Saturday, when the right hon. Gentleman had broccoli on his table.
        5.0 p.m.
        Mr. MORRIS: That is exactly the position. The speech referred only to the question of unemployment. There is one other point in the Minister's speech with which I fully agree. He emphasised the desirability of extending agricultural research work throughout the country. Agricultural research stands on a very different footing from research in connection with other industries. It is on a different footing from manufactures, because of the nature of the industry itself. It is not easy for the scientific development or advancement of the age to make itself felt in agriculture as quickly as in the industrial field. The farmers are more scattered, they are not so easily got at, and the work is necessarily a much slower process than it is in a purely manufacturing business. But a great deal of work is being done. The farmer himself is naturally of a conservative temperament. He pursues the older methods. The method of agricultural education is most effective, as far as I have been able to observe, where agricultural colleges have been set up, and where the lecturer, or professor, has been able to make himself part and parcel of the community in which the college is founded. Where that has taken place, the college has made a profound impression upon the agriculturists in the surrounding district. But there is another and more interesting development going on alongside that, where the son of a farmer is sent for two or three years training and goes back home to work upon the farm. He is in a position to do very much more for farming by getting his father and the surrounding farmer to adopt new methods. There is the psychological factor which operates in that way, producing a far greater advancement than could be secured in any other way. Whether the right hon. Gentleman has done all that can be done in this direction is another matter, but that he is giving his whole-hearted support to it he has shown to-day, and that is something for which we may be thankful.
        Having said that, what are the reasons which he is putting forward to-day to justify the giving of assistance to this

        1755
        industry during the last four or five years? He surveyed the condition of agriculture during the past four years. There is one thing with which I can agree. He spoke about the efficiency of farming in this country being comparable with the efficiency shown in any other country in Europe. It has been the verdict of competent observers that farming in this country is as efficient as the farming in any other country in the world. Cases can be made out, no doubt, where farmers here and there are inefficient, but one cannot judge the industry upon that basis. Taking the industry as a whole, it is efficiently carried on, and, despite the period of depression, the figures of production in the country amply prove that. The average yield per acre is the test of efficient farming. The average yield of wheat in 1927 was 17.5, which was almost the same as the 1913 figure. The average yield of barley was 16.4, which was slightly higher than the 1913 figure, and the average yield of oats was 14.8, which was higher than the 1913 figure. That shows that if the yield per acre is a fair index the efficiency of farming is being maintained notwithstanding the very difficult times through which the farmer has passed.
        The farmer has passed through very serious difficulties, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, because prices have been coming down. Prices affect him in two ways. They affect him not only in regard to general marketing, but in a way in which other industries cannot be affected. It may be that the fanner sows his seeds at a higher level of cost than he is able to obtain when he sells his crops later on. Depression in prices often takes place between sowing and selling, and that makes his market an uncertain market. The drop in prices during the last few years provides an interesting study. The average price of wheat dropped from 18s. 10d. per cwt, in 1920 to 11s. 6d. in 1927. I have not the figures for 1928. Barley dropped from 25s. in 1920 to 11s. 9d. in 1927. Oats dropped from 12s. 3d. to 9s. 1d. These prices to some extent indicate the difficulties through which farmers have passed during the last ten years.
        What does the right hon. Gentleman say is the solution of the difficulty? What assistance have the Government
        1756
        given to try and meet that situation? The Prime Minister, speaking at Drury Lane, ruled out protection and subsidies. The right hon. Gentleman to-day has ruled out both those considerations. A logical case can be made out for granting protection and subsidies to agriculture if one takes the view that agriculture is not an ordinary industry and that it is vital for the preservation of the national character, or necessary for the preservation of the national safety. I do not accept that argument. I am merely saying that a case can be made out for it. I do not accept the argument from the point of view of national safety. Take the period of the War. This country was the only country during the War which was not rationed for bread. We should have had little if any food shortage if we had not had to divert our supplies in order to assist the Allies. During time of war we take away the able-bodied men who in normal times would be engaged in producing food. The argument is not a valid argument. You cannot treat agriculture from that point of view. Neither do I believe that the preservation of the national character is dependent upon agriculture. I know of no evidence at the moment which shows that deterioration takes place in the national character when a country becomes largely industrialised as this country has become. While I disagree with these arguments, I can understand a logical case being made out on that basis for protecting and subsidising the agricultural industry so as to enable it to hold its own in the home market.
        I can understand the position which to some extent is taken up by the right hon. Gentleman—and with which I agree—that you have to treat the industry of agriculture as you would all your other industries. Countries abroad send foodstuffs here because they want manufactured goods, and we send manufactured goods in return. If you take that view, agriculture can only be carried on in this country to the margin that is permissible as a counter-balance to your great manufacturing industries. You must treat it as one industry and treat it in the same way as you treat all other industries. That is the position which, I understand, is taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. He is not going to grant protection or a subsidy. If you take up that position,

        1757
        you must also be careful that, while you are not granting protection or subsidies, you do not penalise it by placing some of the other industries in a more favoured position. The right hon. Gentleman agrees with that. The unfortunate thing from his point of view is that he belongs to a Government which is safeguarding some of the other industries and thereby placing them in a privileged position.
        Mr. SHEPPERSON: The safeguarded article has not risen in price.
        Mr. MORRIS: I cannot accept as an argument that the safeguarded article has not risen in price. Unless you are safeguarding these industries against foreign competition, which I understand is the basic argument in favour of safeguarding, what is the object of safeguarding? We are putting certain industries in a privileged position not only in regard to the foreign competitor, but as regards other industries in this country as well, one of these being the depressed industry of agriculture I can understand treating agriculture in the same way as other industries, but I do not understand the position of a Government which treats agriculture from one point of view one moment and penalises it the next moment. That is the position which the Government have taken up. "Oh," said the right hon. Gentleman, "we have assisted agriculture in other ways." They have brought in an Agricultural Credits Measure. The most effective criticism of the long-term credits Measure came from one of the supporters of the Government—the hon. and learned Member for East Grin-stead (Sir H. Cautley)—while it was going through its various stages in this House. The right hon. Gentleman to-day said that the amount of money that has been advanced by the Mortgage Corporation is £1,250,000. The capital engaged in agriculture is estimated at something like £365,000,000. I do not know what proportion of that sum is borrowed capital. Agriculture does not get its capital in the same way as other industries do. Other industries get their capital by way of public subscription. That does not obtain in agriculture at all. It gets its capital by credit. What proportion of the £365,000,000 represents
        1758
        credit advanced to agriculture and what proportion does this sum of £1,250,000 bear to the amount advanced?
        Major PRICE: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Report of the Mortgage Corporation? The advance is on land and not on farming.
        Mr. MORRIS: Long-term credits to assist agriculture.
        Major PRICE: On the land.
        Mr. MORRIS: I want to know what proportion of the capital advanced on agricultural land is of the total amount advanced.
        Major PRICE: The hon. Member has mixed up the two things. One relates to agricultural capital, and the other merely deals with land.
        Mr. MORRIS: I quite follow the distinction. I want to know what proportion the £1,250,000 of borrowed capital on land is of the whole of the money on mortgage. I want to know the proportion in order to see how really effective is this Mortgage Corporation. The land charges amount to some 5½ per cent., and that gives no advantage to the farmer. The Government have brought in a derating Measure freeing agriculture from the burden of rates. The amount given back to agriculture by the additional relief of the burden of rates is about £3,500,000.
        Mr. GUINNESS: £4,500,000.
        Mr. MORRIS: Oh! no. I take the figures of the Minister of Health. If you collect the whole of the rates on agriculture they amount to £12,400,000. That was the figure given by the Minister of Health You have already de-rated land to the extent of three-quarters. That is, to the extent of some £9,000,000. There remains £3,500,000. If the right hon. Gentleman challenges that figure, he is challenging the figure of the Minister of Health.
        Mr. GUINNESS: I have not the figures but the Supplementary Estimate for this amounts to £4,100,000. I cannot give the actual figures here, but certainly £3,500,000 is too small.
        Mr. MORRIS: That Supplementary Estimate includes buildings, does it not?
        Mr. GUINNESS: Yes.
        Mr. MORRIS: I am dealing with agricultural land only. The estimate for buildings is an additional £1,000,000. The turnover from the agricultural industry is estimated at something like £250,000,000 a year, and £3,000,000 is not going to make much difference, assuming that they get the full benefit of it. That assumption is fallacious. Although the Act of 1926 and the Act of 1923 are both repealed by the Local Government Act, the provisions of those two Acts as far as the distribution of the money to the county councils is concerned still remain, and there is a deficiency under those Acts that will amount later on to nearly £7,000,000 or £8,000,000. With the increased assesments, consequent upon the increased services that are bound to take place, especially in the sphere of education and the sphere of the Home Office Vote the farmer, in the next ten years, will find himself called upon to bear a burden quite as heavy as, if not heavier than, he is bearing to-day, notwithstanding the abolition of the rates.
        Major PRICE: No.
        Mr. MORRIS: I will tell the hon. and gallant Member how that will happen. There is, in the first place, an impression abroad that the farmer has finished paying rates. Nothing of the kind is happening under the Local Government Act.
        Mr. SHEPPERSON: As a farmer, he has finished paying rates.
        Mr. MORRIS: He has not. He is still paying rates upon his house. The house is assessed. Under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1928, we have a position, first, where the assessment list is divided. There is a separate assessment for land and buildings and a separate assessment for the house. That assessment remains. There will be a reassessment upon both land and buildings, and they will remain in the assessment list. So far as rate paying is concerned, if the Act of 1896 had not been on the Statute Book the Local Government Act would have wiped out the whole of the farmer's liabilities in regard to rates. I am talking of land alone, for the moment. The Act of 1896 leaves a deficiency at the present moment of £5,000,000. The grant paid by the Treasury is £4,720,000, to meet the three-fourths de-rating. The full sum is over £9,000,000. There is an existing deficiency of £5,000,000 upon the land. The
        1760
        Treasury are not going to meet that. They are not meeting it to-day and they will not meet it under the Local Government Act.
        Major PRICE: What about the guarantee in the Act?
        Mr. MORRIS: The guarantee does not affect it. A Clause in the Act lays it down specifically how the money is to be paid, and it is to be paid exactly on the basis of the grants that are now being made. Therefore, in respect of the deficiency that remains upon the land, the farmer will have to bear his share in the assessment for rates upon his house.
        Mr. LAMB: There will be nothing additional, compared with the present time.
        Mr. MORRIS: If the cost of the educational service increases and if the assessment on the land goes up in value, there will be an increase in the deficiency. The deficiency will go up pro rata. The farmer is certainly not out of the wood so far as rates are concerned. I am speaking of land alone; I have not yet touched the buildings.
        Sir ROBERT SANDERS: The rate upon the land has gone.
        Mr. MORRIS: No. The hon. Baronet does not follow my argument. In form, I agree that the rate on the land has disappeared, but because of the deficiency upon the land, under the Act of 1896, that deficiency has to be met, not from the coffers of the Treasury—the Treasury does not contribute one penny-piece—but it will have to be found by the county authority from its own ratepayers.
        Sir R. SANDERS: Not upon the land.
        Mr. MORRIS: I agree that, in form, they do not get it from the land. Take my own Division. The deficiency there represents a rate of 1s. 7d. in the pound. The farmer is not going to get away from that deficiency: he will continue to pay, although he pays it upon his house. He pays it upon his house because it is a deficiency upon his land. That is the point that I am making.
        Major PRICE: If the de-rating Clauses were not in, the position would be exactly the same.
        Mr. MORRIS: The position taken up by supporters of the Government is "The

        1761
        Government have given you a great benefit. All your rates are absolutely wiped out."
        Major PRICE: What we have said is, that we have taken the rates completely off the land and farm buildings. That is the position. Assuming that the hon. Member is correct when he says that there is this deficiency because the re-grant from the Treasury has never been what it ought to have been, that does not alter the position adversely to the farmer. It puts the farmer in an infinitely better position than before.
        Mr. MORRIS: His assessments are going to be upon his house, to start with.
        Major PRICE: The Government have not done that.
        Mr. MORRIS: I am not concerned with whether or not the Government have done it. There is an assessment upon the land. The land will still have to be assessed. Buildings will still have to be assessed. Those assessments will go on, apart from the house.
        Mr. SHEPPERSON: The land is not going to be assessed.
        Mr. MORRIS: I do not know whether the hon. Member is going to repeal the Rating and Valuation Act for his own Division. There will be no rate upon the land, I agree, but it is going to be assessed.
        Sir R. SANDERS: There is no valuation.
        Mr. MORRIS: Then what has happened to the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928? Is that to be repealed?
        Mr. GUINNESS: There will be no valuation for the land. That valuation will no longer take place.
        Mr. MORRIS: Then what has happened to the Rating and Valuation Act? Has it disappeared from the Statute Book?
        Sir R. SANDERS: It does not apply to future valuations.
        Mr. MORRIS: Certainly, it does. The next position relates to the buildings. There is a deficiency, also, in regard to that. That deficiency will fall this year, for the first time, upon the local authorities. There will be no compensating grant in this Bill in respect of that.
        Major PRICE: The hon. Member means by October next.
        Mr. MORRIS: No. The definition Clause precludes that. The definition Clause defines what is a reduced rateable value, and the formula makes it impossible to calculate on the 1st October an item which is already reduced from the 1st April That is the position under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. Therefore, the local authorities will have to find from their own offers the deficiency upon the land and the deficiency relating to three-fourths upon the buildings themselves. What is the assistance that is being given? It is £3,000,000, with an additional one-fourth of one million pounds, namely, £250,000. Let us say that it may be £4,000,000, all told. What do the farmers say in regard to it? Naturally, they axe thankful for getting £4,000,000. Some of them are expressing their thanks, but they go a good deal further than merely expressing their thanks. After the speech delivered by the Prime Minister at Drury Lane Theatre, on the 18th April, the Secretary of the National Farmers' Union addressed a letter to the Prime Minister. After stating their thanks for the relief that had been granted in respect of rates, the letter says:
        "At the same time, we feel in duty bound to express the hope that further consideration will be given by the Government to the deplorable position of arable agriculture. The persistent decline in the area of land under arable cultivation has been a matter which has caused the Union the greatest anxiety for several years past, and it is our earnest hope that if returned to power the Government will take active measures to arrest that decline, which can only be arrested by measures on a larger scale than those, welcome as they are, which you mentioned in your speech yesterday."
        While they are thankful in one respect, they protest in another.
        Mr. LAMB: That letter, or the latter part, does not refer to the rating position.
        Mr. MORRIS: Certainly, it refers to the rating position. It refers to the Bill that was introduced by the Minister of Health last week, bringing forward the date, 1st of October, to the 1st April. They acknowledge that, and they say: "Thank you for the additional sum which

        1763
        will come to us." But having said that, they proceed with the second paragraph, which I have read.
        Mr. LAMB: The last portion of the letter does not refer to the question of rating.
        Mr. MORRIS: I did not say that it did.
        Mr. LAMB: The hon. Member tried to make out that it did.
        Mr. MORRIS: I said nothing of the sort. If I conveyed that impression, I did not intend to do so. I did not wish to convey any false impression. They say: "Thank you for what you have done in bringing forward the date," but, having said that, they are dissatisfied with the other measures which the Government have taken to assist them.
        Major PRICE: They say: "Thank you for the rating relief."
        Mr. MORRIS: I have said so. They say "Thanks," but at the same time they say: "This and kindred Measures are not Measures that will do much good to us, and we hope that you will do something substantial if you are returned at the Election."
        Major PRICE: Of course, they do. Surely the hon. Member knows the farmers perfectly well. They are not entirely satisfied; they always ask for more.
        Sir BASIL PETO: Has the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) read the Debate preceding the sending of the letter, in which the Secretary of the Farmers' Union said that they had been put into a very difficult position, and he would try to work something into the letter?
        Mr. MORRIS: Does the hon. Baronet want me to recite what the Farmers' Union has said about this Government at different times? It would be very interesting reading, but I do not desire to do that to-day. The Minister of Agriculture and other members of the Government have ridiculed the unemployment policy of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is quite competent to defend himself. The Chancellor of
        1764
        the Exchequer has ridiculed the whole of that policy. He treated it largely as if it was merely concerned with roads. It is not merely concerned with roads. I was interested in looking up an answer which was given by the Minister of Agriculture to my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Sir E. Thomas) in regard to land drainage in Wales. The hon. Baronet had asked what acreage of agricultural land in Wales was capable of being drained. I forget the exact figure mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman in his answer, but he did say that there were 115,000 acres in urgent need of drainage. The figure of the total acreage requiring drainage was much larger. My point is, that 115,000 acres were mentioned as being in urgent need of land drainage. That is a complete justification of that part of the scheme of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, especially at a time when there is a good deal of unemployment, even in rural areas. There is a good deal of unemployment in my own Division, although it is purely a rural division. It is idle for the Government to treat the scheme of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs as if it were a scheme merely to put people upon the roads. To that extent they are misrepresenting the scheme. It is much wider than that. The speech of the Minister of Agriculture today has shown us quite clearly that there is ample room for agricultural development, but the Government have not taken any steps to deal with it at any period. They have taken no step to satisfy the Farmers' Union or those engaged in agriculture. Take the list of prices for the years in which the Government have been in office, they have been going down steadily because the Government by their policy of safeguarding other industries has placed agriculture in a very unsatisfactory position.
        Mr. GUINNESS: Is not the hon. Member aware that prices have gone down all over the world, and unless he is prepared to adopt some policy of protection we cannot possibly avoid a reflection of world prices in the matter of British agriculture.
        Mr. MORRIS: I do not want to impose protective tariffs upon other industries and place agriculture in an unsatisfactory position. That is the position of the Government, and the rural districts are

        1765
        not likely to support them at the next election. In 1923, the Government offered the farming community a bribe of £1 per acre on agricultural land. The party opposite talk about the purity of their election cries, but if there is a party which is capable of offering a bribe it is the party of hon. Members opposite. They offered a bribe of £1 per acre in 1923, which not only the country but the farmers themselves turned down and repudiated with scorn. They will repudiate it again. The Prime Minister has said that Protection is not possible and that he is opposed to subsidies; that is because he knows the farmers will turn them down again. What the farmers want is an opportunity to carry on their business at a reasonable rate of profit, and the Government by their tariff policy are depriving them of that opportunity.
        Sir R. SANDERS: Is the hon. Member aware that one agricultural product has a tariff upon it. Is he anxious to withdraw that tariff?
        Major OWEN: Is the right hon. Member aware that the Farmers' Union have already drawn the attention of the Government to this policy?
        Sir R. SANDERS: I was asking the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) whether he was aware that the is one agricultural article upon which there is already a tariff, and whether he wishes to withdraw that tariff?
        Mr. MORRIS: I am fully aware that there is a tariff upon hops, and I am in favour of withdrawing it. The Minister of Agriculture in his speech referred to the question of marketing. What has the Government done to assist farmers to market their produce? What have they done to assist them to eliminate the margin, the great margin, between the price the farmer gets for his produce and the price which the consumer pays? There is an opportunity for the Government to assist agriculture. If you take the figures given in the Report of the Linlithgow Committee there is a difference of £750,000,000 a year between the price which the farmer obtains and the price which the consumer pays. I do not suggest that you can eliminate all the middle men, as a large number of them perform a useful and necessary service, but, if you eliminated 10 per cent. that would give the farming
        1766
        community £75,000,000 a year more than they get to-day. What have the Government done to explore this avenue of assistance? There is more hope of assisting agriculture in this direction than by subsidies or Protection. The farmer wants to be able to run his business independent of Government control. I fully agree that no man knows more about the business of agriculture than the man actually engaged in it. They never asked for derating, and the only reason why they asked for de-rating now is because the Government by their tariff policy of the last four years have weighted the scales against them to such an extent that the farmers said that the Government must give them some countervailing advantages.
        Mr. SHEPPERSON: Are you prepared to de-rate agriculture?
        Mr. MORRIS: Not if you keep the legislation which the Government have passed. Agriculture is entitled to ask for some countervailing benefits.
        Sir B. PETO: When you repeal the Safeguarding Duties you will put rates on the land again?
        Mr. MORRIS: The position at the moment is that argriculture has suffered through the legislation of the Government and they are entitled to the benefit of de-rating. What you do in the future has nothing to do with the losses already sustained. One thing the Government should do and that is to leave agriculture alone and at the same time take care not to interfere with other industries so as to make it impossible for the farmer to make a living on the land.
        Mr. SHEPPERSON: With regard to what the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) has said, I should like to put this point to him; that Safeguarding, as applied to other industries, has not in any single case been detrimental to the agricultural industry.
        Mr. MORRIS: Does the hon. Member suggest that the imposition of the Petrol Duty of 4d. a gallon has not affected agriculture?
        Mr. SHEPPERSON: I was referring to Safeguarding.
        Mr. MORRIS: The Petrol Duty was put on as a protective duty. If you will look up the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he said that he was going to protect industry in this country.
        Mr. SHEPPERSON: I am referring to the Safeguarding of Industries, and I submit that the Petrol Duty has nothing whatever to do with the Safeguarding of Industries. The hon. Member has suggested that the Government have done nothing during the last four years to increase the receipts of farmers. May I put it to him that in regard to research and in education the Government has, by the attention they have given to these matters, increased the receipts of farmers. The result of education and research has led to an increase in the yield of crops, and if you increase the yield per acre you are increasing the receipts of the farmers without in any way increasing the cost of production. Research has made this possible in the case of many agri-Cultural products.
        Mr. MacLAREN: You are increasing the rents too.
        Mr. SHEPPERSON: I am aware that the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) will always draw the inference that if you increase the farmer's receipts, it will eventually find its way into the pocket of the landlord. I do not agree with him. Then there is the point referred to by the Minister of Agriculture; the help which the Government has given to the sugar beet industry. I come from that part of England, the Eastern counties, which has been practically saved from ruin during the last two or three years by the establishment of this industry. It has been said by hon. Members opposite in a certain pamphlet that the whole of this money is going into the pockets of the sugar beet manufacturers and will do no good either to the farmer or the labourer engaged in agricultural operations. They are absolutely wrong. I am not concerned so much as to the proportion which goes into the pockets of the agriculturist and into the pockets of the manufacturers. What I am concerned with is that the establishment of this industry has assisted agriculture to an enormous extent in the Eastern counties and saved a great many farmers from ruin during the last two or three years.
        It has also been a very great help to the agricultural labourer. The industry of sugar beet growing makes a great demand upon labour. The estimated value of labour on an acre of land devoted to sugar beet growing is between
        1768
        £8 and £10, and hon. Members will appreciate the importance of this when they realise that land under grass only absorbs something like 10s. in labour per acre, whereas the same acre under sugar beet will absorb £10 in labour. If this fact is realised it will be seen how valuable the sugar beet industry is to the labouring section of the agricultural community. I should like to add my appreciation to the action the Minister of Agriculture has taken in regard to land drainage. I have had practical experience of the help which the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give towards the drainage of our lowlands in North Cambridgeshire, and we are making use of that assistance and also of the opportunity given us for the employment of ex-miners. It has been a great help to that part of the country.
        The only other matter to which I want to refer is the question of marketing. British agriculturists have always suffered from the fact that they only get a small proportion of the amount the consumer pays when he buys agricultural products in our various towns, and any method by which we can get more of the money which the consumer pays for agricultural products into the pockets of the agricultural producer will be a direct step towards increasing the receipts of the farmers. The marketing arrangements are, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, a practical step by which more of the money paid by consumers will find its way directly into the pockets of the producers. It has been successful in the case of eggs and fruit and I am confident that the agricultural community will apply it to other products as well, because it is a definite method by which an increase in the receipts of farmers is made possible.
        Not only has the Minister taken practical steps to increase the farmers' receipts in that way, but at the same time he has decreased the farmers' cost of production by such methods as a reduction of railway transport charges under the derating proposals, and the relief of rates on agricultural land. It is possible that all these steps may not be enough to bridge the gap, but I am an optimist with regard to the future of British agriculture, and I am confident that the practicable proposals for increasing the receipts of farmers which the Prime

        1769
        Minister put before the country only a few days ago are going to be a definite help, so that that gap may be bridged. I feel as an agriculturist that we can express our gratitude to the Government for what they have done during the past four years, and I am satisfied with the proposals with which we shall go to the country in a few weeks, because I have the knowledge that we shall have at the back of us the agricultural community of the country.
        Mr. BUXTON: The Minister of Agriculture called attention to several items of satisfactory progress, milk and others, on which we may congratulate the country, but he very adroitly kept our attention from wandering too often to the great depression which prevails in farming. The right hon. Gentleman would be the last, I think, to say that the crisis in agriculture is soluble by such means as those which he described. Indeed he did not claim them as a solution. While progress is to be noted in various directions, it is roughly true that the Minister has not succeeded in meeting the crisis or at all events in satisfying the farmers. We cannot forget, unless deluded by the brilliant picture that the Minister gave of certain items, that the depression is much worse now than it was when he first came into office. Whereas 4½ years ago our eyes were dazzled by the picture drawn by his predecessor, of a further million acres of arable land, we have had to deplore a great decrease.
        We have been told that heroic remedies would be of no use. It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have not had a free hand to bring forward measures of a drastic kind. If we consider in a broad view what the crisis consists of we find that it is a crisis, first, in world prices. But no one will deny that it is a crisis due largely to the deterioration of our farm lands. To balance these movements what can we recall in the way of progress? The Ministry is fighting against the world depression of prices, in the first place by education. We are all agreed about that and I should hope that we are safe, whatever party is in office, from such disasters as the Geddes Axe in regard to agricultural education. Secondly, the Government might deal with the crisis
        1770
        by such means as the better equipment of land. In regard to that I see no means of counteracting the failure of owners to maintain and improve the equipment of the land, other than by an extension of public control. Thirdly, it is necessary to recognise the fact that a large proportion of our land is very slackly farmed. The Minister is attempting to deal with that by means of an extension of bankers' credit. He shrinks from adopting any measure of control.
        There is, fourthly, a means by which he might shorten the time of depression, and that is by improvement in marketing. As to that he has told us what interesting things he is doing. Grading is a method which, I hope, has the ardent support of the whole House, as it certainly has of the party for which I speak. But there is another method by which marketing might be improved, and that is in the promotion of farmers' combinations and co-operative societies. The right hon. Gentleman shrinks from giving that method governmental support. The Ministry of Agriculture offers information but not by way of definite advocacy of those methods of combination which in almost all parts of the agricultural world have been the main means of improved marketing. In short the Minister shrinks from greater control of the land by means of acquisition—he shrinks from control by county committees, for instance, and has even denounced it—and he shrinks from the definite advocacy of co-operation. We can imagine that there are interests which would stand in his way if he attempted to do so. What he has done in the way of promoting credits and drainage is entirely to the good, but at least he ought to have done those things and not to have left the others undone.
        Can it be said that, on the whole, satisfactory progress is being made in face of the evils of falling prices and the deterioration of farms? It seems to me that the interests of agriculture are like a boat seeking to make progress against the stream. It is a pair-oared boat. One oar is represented by such things as education and improved grading, and that oar is well worked. But the other oar ought to keep time. It represents the equipment of the farm and the assurance that the farms are in the hands of men who are making the best of them;

        1771
        in fact that we have good estate agency. That oar is not working in time and with similar force to the other. The result is a great measure of failure. That can be proved, I believe, by the Report of the Drainage Commission and many other evidences. If not, I hope the Minister can give us proof that our agriculture is keeping pace with the improvements in agriculture abroad.
        I must say a word on the Minister's indignation against the proposals for control. If I am not mistaken, it was a Conservative Minister, Lord Lee, who proposed that the control established during the War should be made a permanent and general element in our agriculture. I do not know why the Minister should be so indignant as to wax eloquent against it. Is it because the Minister was in a rather peculiar position of a party kind when he came into office? Ardent hope was roused in the farming community at the last Election. That was followed by keen disappointment, represented by the running of candidates, including, I believe, a candidate against the Minister himself. There was a sort of debt owing to the farmers on account of those disappointed hopes. What is that which precluded the Minister from going back to such proposals as those of Lord Lee? An hon. Member who has spoken from the Liberal Benches to-day has said that the farmer has a further grievance in that a measure of Protection was given to other industries, but that that it was of no advantage to agriculture. I wonder how the Minister can go on platforms and argue that the protection, for instance, of the motor-car industry has been of necessity followed by a fall in prices, and that the same argument ought not to apply to other trades, including agriculture? It is a very natural grievance of the farmers.
        Something drastic had to be done; some gifts had to be made in order, if possible, to secure the farmers' votes, and the last possible gift which was readily accessible has just been given to the farmer in the shape of immediate de-rating benefit. It is interesting to speculate as to what will happen next time, when further encouragement is needed and special and, as I think, non-agricultural gifts are necessary to encourage the farmers' support. What will
        1772
        there be to give them? It is hard to tell. The national wealth in agricultural resources has not, of course, been affected by the de-rating proposals. If the Government were debarred from large and real remedies, which ought to have been very much larger, indeed, and on a different scale from that undertaken, the Minister would admit that among the aims which must be accomplished are these: The resources of the country must be maintained, the population on the land must, if possible, be increased, and the standard of life of those who live on the land must be maintained and increased too.
        6.0 p.m.
        The Ministry with which we are concerned to-day has itself furnished fresh evidence of the urgency of the needs which I have been indicating. The Royal Commission on Drainage which the Government appointed has shown the facts—more serious even than the country had thought—about the extent of the acreage of our agricultural land which is badly in need of drainage. Turning to the question of equipment of land in other respects, not long ago Sir Henry Rew—whose loss we all deplore—pointed out how owners were increasingly unwilling or unable properly to maintain farm buildings, and every one knows how there are, on the one hand, many excellent farmers unable to obtain farms, and, on the other hand, farms potentially excellent which are not occupied by men who are making the best of them. It is very strange, indeed, that when I turn to great authorities on agriculture, I always find that the one with whom I agree is an eminent Conservative. Lord Selborne, when he was Minister, appointed a committee which, among its main proposals, advocated a rigid survey of the whole of our agricultural land and the institution of control of an organised and systematic kind. There followed later the tribunal, and I would ask the Minister to tell us something about the progress of an experiment of which the tribunal made a great deal, namely, the proposed further trial of arable stock farming. It was a surprising proposal but one of cardinal importance. The Ministry as far back as my own time was instituting experiments, and it would be interesting to know the results of those experiments.

        1773
        We had another inquiry, also Conservative in origin, namely, the Linlithgow inquiry, and it indicated, as we have already heard to-day, many fields of production in which much better profits should be secured. For instance, in many classes of vegetables, if we could dispose of our surplus, according to the Linlithgow Committee we could easily make the cultivation so profitable that we would supply the whole of our vegetable needs. In connection with that point, perhaps the Minister will tell us what progress has been made, as a result of bringing together the organised consumers, represented by the co-operative bodies and the Co-operative Wholesale Society, and the representatives of the farmers co-operative bodies. I think that one of the most hopeful means of securing an improved market for the farmers is for them to get in touch with the consumers who are organised on such a gigantic scale in the co-operative movement. It is a notable fact, in these days, in connection with marketing that the National Farmers' Union has taken up the promotion of co-operative societies, and I should like to know how far in the view of the Ministry that movement has gone.
        The Ministry has no general report of its proceedings, and we are therefore limited to these occasions for opportunities of acquiring information, so that we are compelled to ask a good many questions. The Minister told us something about drainage, and mentioned that the grants had amounted to £420,000, but I notice that two years ago, in answer to a question, he told us they were then £340,000 odd. How is it that the increase in the last two years has been so small? Has there not been greater urgency for encouraging drainage authorities by grants in these last two years than there was in the preceding year and a half? The Minister might also tell us if the county councils are exercising the powers of control—none too great—which they possess already. In the suppression of noxious weeds, for instance, are they using their powers in anything like an adequate manner, as represented by convictions, and is the Minister encouraging them to use those powers? There were a few counties not so long ago which still had no institutes. Is it the case that, by this time, all the counties have insti-
        1774
        tutes of some kind? In regard to small holdings, the Minister said that the results of the 1926 Act had been disappointing, but perhaps he will give us particulars as to the allocation of land. I remember that, two years or 18 months ago, he told us that the number of approved applicants was then 194, but when the Measure was passed into law, the expectation was held out that it would lead to the creation of 2,000 holdings per annum. Everyone is interested in knowing what has been done in the actual creation of holdings.
        In regard to grading, I should like to ask—because it is only decorous that in every speech to-day some reference should be made to broccoli—how far the Minister can regard that foreign trade as being established on a business footing. He may not be able to give figures, but we should like to know if it is to be regarded as more than an experiment, because it is more or less as an experiment that it is described in the Journal of the Ministry. In connection with grading, too, the development of the egg industry is of extraordinary value, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might have told us more about it. I am a little disappointed that among the packing stations there are not more co-operative stations, and I should like to know if there is any prospect of encouraging cooperation in connection with the packing stations for eggs. Nothing has yet been said about the Election proposal to feed the Army and Navy for a certain time on home-grown meat and flour. In reply to a question on that subject at the Agricultural Council not long ago, the Minister said that the proposal was most unlikely to be realised because it would cost, in regard to meat alone, £640,000 a year—I think that was the sum named—and that was a prohibitive price. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us some of the factors in that cost, and some details as to what is involved.
        In connection with sugar beet, I felt myself when I first brought forward the proposal, which was exactly the same as that adopted by the Government, that its main justification and value would lie in education and in the improved methods that farmers would be led to adopt by the fact that it paid them to grow sugar beet. That view has to a

        1775
        great extent been confirmed. There has been a great change in methods over large areas of land, and if the Minister has any evidence to give on that subject it would be of very great interest. Perhaps he can tell us something about the prospect of success of the desiccation system, which perhaps is destined to prove the solution of the whole question. One further subject on which I desire to question the Minister is that of wages regulation. There is a great deal of anxiety in many quarters as to whether the Act is being duly enforced, and certain facts in this connection are notable and call for further inquiry. In 1926 there were 688 test inspections, and in 659 cases it was found that a wage less than the minimum had been paid. Things ought to have been improved since then. In 1927 there were 1,988 complaints compared with only 1,626 in the previous year. These figures call for an explanation. The arrears recovered in 1926 were, I think, £1,600 odd and in 1927, that had risen to £2,280. The Committee ought to have the latest facts and figures in regard to this matter, and I hope the Minister can disprove the charge and allay the fear that there is rather widespread evasion of the Act. I have no further points to raise, but I think that this matter of the enforcement of the wage regulation is surely the most obvious duty of the Minister in the whole sphere of his administration.
        Mr. PILCHER: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken gave us a very interesting analysis of the causes of some of the difficulties in which the farmer finds himself to-day, but I think he omitted several important factors in that analysis. Although I did not catch everything he said, I listened carefully to his speech, and I think I do him no injustice when I say that he omitted from his analysis the effect of the new wages paid to the farm workers. Surely one of the chief causes of the farmers' difficulties is the agricultural wages rate. You cannot arbitrarily increase the major factor in the cost of production and in price, while putting nothing on the other side to counterbalance that effect and to help the farmer to compete with the foreigner, without producing some tremendous economic dislocation. I am not advocating, and never would advocate,
        1776
        a reduction of farm workers wages to the pre-War level. I have no desire that we should return to the terrible state of affairs then existing, but we cannot make a comprehensive and satisfactory analysis of these difficulties and leave that factor completely out of account.
        The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some other causes of depression to which allusion might be made. There has been during the past four or five years a tremendous influx of South American meat due to causes which could not have been foreseen a few years ago. One of those causes is the exclusion of that meat from the American market. With the passing of that cause, it is possible that we shall get better meat prices and so gradually come to slightly better conditions for the agricultural producer. Another factor is the increased purchasing value of sterling, and yet another, of course, is the increasing application of science to agriculture overseas. Last year in Canada I studied, rather hurriedly, certainly, but at sufficiently close quarters to realise what it meant, the evolution of that wonderful combine or combination which is now being used in the production of wheat on the Canadian prairies, a machine which can be used in those vast territories and which carries out the whole thing, from cutting to bagging, all in a single operation, which must seriously affect our markets on this side.
        But the chief factor in our distress at the present time is the high cost of production, mainly due to the higher wages fixed under the Agricultural Wages Act. The only complete corrective for that would be the protection of the farmer against the foreign producer, against low foreign prices, and that is out of the question, mainly because the town population of this country will not accept even the temporary set-back in its standard of living that might be involved in higher prices for foodstuffs, although ultimately everybody would be better off for the change. But the Government were precluded and have always been precluded from adopting that particular remedy. It seems to me, however, that almost everything else that the Government could have done to assist the farmer they have done. If you cannot reduce that major factor in the high cost of production, high wages and high prices, which are the real causes of the farmers' dis-

        1777
        tress,you have to go to the minor factors, and to attack them one by one, which the Government certainly have done.
        It is the fashion of the two Opposition parties to treat de-rating as a dodge for getting the farmers' vote, but it is nothing of the kind. Rates are the one big factor in the farmers' overhead charges, and that is the single big factor which could be and has been attacked. It has been said sometimes, although not to-day, by Liberal speakers, in defiance of history, that all that relief will go into the landowners' pockets. We have the authority of Sir Josiah Stamp, who carefully analysed the aggregate rents in the pre-War period between 1896 and 1914, for the statement that the aggregate rents after that first measure of rating relief from that period to the outbreak of the War fell by £2,000,000, and that the aggregate of rents received in a year three or four years after the War was only 13 per cent. above the 1914 figure. That rating relief is a genuine relief to the farmer.
        One of the right hon. Gentleman's remedies was that of greater control of the farmer, but I should have been very interested indeed to hear any concrete case in which control anywhere in the world has helped the farmer. There is no control at all in France, which has perhaps the best agriculture in the world. The amazing renascence of Denmark since its war with Germany has been brought about by peasant co-operation, completely independent of Government control from first to last, except perhaps in the sphere of education, and there their Government have helped the Danish producers. I see no hope whatever from greater control of the farmer in this country, but there are other ways in which the Government have helped the farmer.
        I am sure that all of us, on this side, appreciated what the right hon. Gentleman said in praise of the Government's grading and marking Measures, because those two little Acts, the Merchandise Marks Act and the Grading of Agricultural Produce Act, have always seemed to me to be two of the most important Acts of the past generation in relation to the farmer. The fact that the Government have passed those two Acts and begun to put them into force in relation to so many products surely belies the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that
        1778
        the Minister of Agriculture is opposed to the encouragement of co-operation. Co-operation must be and is being encouraged by the enforcement of the marking and grading Acts, which depend for their success on co-operation. Wherever they have been applied they have produced co-operation, and they are producing very good results and a great deal of prosperity to the farmer. Incidentally, too, it seems to me that the adoption and working of those Acts belies the statement made by a Liberal speaker behind me when he suggested that the Government had done nothing to reduce the difference in prices between the actual agricultural producer and the ultimate purchaser. The whole of the grading and marking Acts and the scheme of co-operative distribution are intended to cut out, and succeed in cutting out, a good many of the distributors between the producer and the ultimate consumer.
        In all these ways the Government have carried out a perfectly astonishing programme during the past four or five years, a programme the achievement of which explains the appreciation of Conservative work by agriculturists all over the country, but the fact that they have done so much makes it the more exasperating that their work should be so misunderstood, as it often is; and here I am going to refer to the almost inevitable commodity, broccoli. Surely it is exasperating when, on the Liberal and Labour benches, we hear the suggestion that practical work must be done to assist the farmer in producing more cheaply, in distributing better, and in cutting out the middlemen's waste, to hear that sort of criticism; and it is more exasperating still to hear this sort of sneer, because when we suggested that the Leader of the Liberal party sneered at this particular experiment in grading and marking, we were told that nothing was said at all derogatory to the broccoli trade. This is what actually was said by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George):
        " The Germans found their broccoli withered, and they began to think of some more equable climate."
        That is not a terminological inexactitude; it is a barefaced untruth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Whatever is Parliamentary language, I should like to use about it. There is not a word of truth in it. It is not true that the

        1779
        initiative in this work of encouraging the broccoli producer came from Germany, from the frost in Germany, or from conditions there at all. It is the result of three or four years of careful, cumulative, constructive, thoughtful work by the Ministry of Agriculture and by the agricultural committee of the Cornwall County Council. This criticism went on:
        "They heard that in Cornwall broccoli still grew, so they ordered a few. The Prime Minister says trade is reviving."
        This is the comment of the right hon. Gentleman:
        "What a programme! A few hampers of broccoli for frost-bitten Germans!"
        Very complimentary to the Germans, and quite an inaccurate analysis of what actually happened.
        Sir R. THOMAS: What did happen?
        Mr. PILCHER: I have already, in an interpolation, told the Committee that the value this year of that trade to Cornwall, a county with a population of less than 320,000, is nearly £250,000.
        Sir R. THOMAS: What is the value of the export?
        Mr. PILCHER: I cannot give the precise value of the export, but it amounted, at any rate, to a very considerable number of complete truck loads which have gone to Brussels and Cologne.
        Sir R. THOMAS: How does the hon. Member know, if he has not got the figures?
        Mr. PILCHER: I was at the Penzance Exhibition, where I saw some of this broccoli in the new crates which have been evolved as a result of the Department's help. I heard an agricultural expert sent down by the Minister to that exhibition, and I have his speech here, in which he discussed the whole procedure and congratulated the county of Cornwall and the broccoli growers on what they had done. This frost, which is supposed to have suggested to the German mind that they might possibly find a few hampers of broccoli in Cornwall, was, in point of fact, a very disturbing element. It upset the plans of the Ministry and of the local people there, who would have sold possibly several complete train loads of trucks
        1780
        into Germany if it had not been for that very devastating cold and frost, which ruined the white head of the broccoli and spoiled the product. This policy has been in operation for three or four years past. The suggestion did not come from Germany, and the frost was a factor against the success of the experiment. The actual sales to Brussels and Cologne were quite satisfactory and were very considerable in volume, and I submit that even if the experiment is small, all experiments must begin in a small way.
        At the present time we buy £30,000,000 of foreign eggs and consume them in this country, and it is scandalous that we should do such a thing when every one of those eggs could be produced in this country. They are sent in by other States, which, in a particularly careful manner, started co-operative movements to produce the sort of eggs most likely to be consumed, and to grade them and sell them in those markets, and ultimately they projected their selling organisations into this country. Unless we begin in a small way, we shall never take advantage of our opportunities, we shall never make good, and we shall never resist this enormous inflow of vegetables and other products which makes agriculture unsuccessful in this country. Last year we imported something like £13,000,000 worth of vegetables, practically all of which could be produced in this country if we only turned our minds to it and went on the lines followed by the Minister and his advisers and the expert committee of the county of Cornwall in the case of broccoli.
        May I call the attention of my right hon. Friend to one other sphere in which already his own Department and other Departments have done something to assist that particular county in the West and also the bulb-growing counties in the East of England? have here figures showing the increase in the importation of foreign bulbs in recent years. In 1925 we took 254,000,000 foreign bulbs, and in 1927 we took 384,000,000 foreign bulbs; and as the result of a question that I put on the Paper, I learned that the total value of the importation of flowers and bulbs into this country is now well up in the second million sterling. The whole of that work, I am certain,

        1781
        could be done in this country. We have recently made a beginning in the right direction through the Empire Marketing Board by photographing and putting up coloured pictures of English bulbs actually growing and flowering in this country, and I believe that those placards have done a great deal of good, but I would like to suggest to the Minister that that bit of work should not be allowed simply to die away and fall fallow.
        The bulb producers know that they have a chance, and that the interest of the people all over the country in English bulbs has been stirred. Most of the bulb selling is done by catalogues, and they find the production of catalogues extremely difficult in the teeth of the intense Dutch competition. They want help from the Empire Marketing Board and from the Ministry of Agriculture in the work of classifying and grading bulbs for the market. The Ministry have done much in other directions, and in the case of eggs there are 150 grading stations, and I want to see the work go on. In the climate of the western counties we have such a valuable asset that if the Minister will continue giving the growers encouragement, big results will accrue from that small experiment which has been slighted, unfortunately, by a political leader of one of the parties.
        Mr. R. J. RUSSELL: It is with considerable diffidence that I rise as a new Member to continue the Debate on this great subject of agriculture. I am conscious, as every other Member of the House at some time has been, of being a new Member, and I trust that the Committee will therefore give me a sympathetic hearing. I want to say a few things with regard to the excellent statement that has been made by the Minister of Agriculture. He is the representative of the Government for the greatest basic industry of this country, and he has given an indication to-day that there is full justification for what is known as the agricultural unrest of the present time. Perhaps one of the outstanding indications of that unrest is the fact that I am here. If I wish to have justification for that unrest, surely I cannot seek it in a better place than in the words of the Minister himself, for he had to admit that it is three years since he was placed in the position of having to explain details with
        1782
        regard to his Department. No greater censure could be placed upon the Government than the fact that the House has passed through a period of three years without a discussion upon the country's greatest industry.
        Mr. GUINNESS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it does not rest with the Government of the day, but with the Opposition?
        HON. MEMBERS: This is a maiden speech!
        Mr. RUSSELL: I was going on to say that if I am in any sense responsible for bringing forward this discussion today, I am gratified for that action on my part. The Minister also stated that his Department had done everything possible to help the industry. It is my privilege to bring to the attention of the Minister certain directions in which he has not helped agriculture in general. He has not helped agriculture by not standing up to his colleagues in other Departments when they have brought in measures or done things which were a menace to agriculture. A great deal has been said this afternoon about the derating scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer produced a scheme by which he was going to restore industry by changing the incidence of rating. To a very large extent I agree with some of the principles underlying that scheme, but in no circumstances will it be possible to enrich people by taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another.
        What has astonished me in the discussion on the subject this afternoon was not the very able contribution that we heard on this side of the Committee on the application of the De-rating Act, but the fact that we did not get from the Minister any revelation as to the amount of money which was taken from agriculture and from the farmers individually, through the Petrol Duty and in one way or another, out of one pocket and returned to them in another pocket. If we had the returns, we should find that directly or indirectly the agriculturist is paying in tax as much as, and in many cases more than, he has returned to him by de-rating. I had made some inquiries into this matter, and this morning I had a letter from a Northern agriculturist who is responsible for two farms. I

        1783
        asked him whether he could give me any figures which would indicate what was the incidence of de-rating on his farms as compared with the increased cost to him of petrol by way of tax and increased transport. He very candidly said that one of his farms paid a great deal more in tax than it got back in derating, and that the other farm had a substantial amount returned by de-rating; so that, taking the two farms together, they pretty well balanced each other. If that is the best that the Government have done for agriculture, they have not done a great deal up to the present.
        The other point to which I wish particularly to draw the attention of the Committee is the inaction of the Minister with regard to the attacks made upon this industry by other Departments. A comparatively sound place in agriculture has been dairying, and that part of the country for which I happen to sit is peculiarly responsible for that branch of agriculture. Eddisbury and the centre of Cheshire are taken up by dairying, and the industry there, compared with many other parts of the country, has been perhaps in a good position. A year or two ago, however, the Minister of Health issued an Order against the use of preservatives in food. That Order was the outcome of inquiries conducted by specialists for the Ministry of Health, and, in consequence of their inquiries, cream was brought under it. I have read with great interest all the reports of these specialists, and I find that while they are filled with probabilities, surmises and suggestions, there is little or no evidence that the small trace of preservative, which it would be necessary to use in cream sent out from the farms or from the country dairies into the towns, is harmful. In spite of that, the Minister applied the Order to that commodity.
        What has been the result of the application of that Order? I asked the Minister of Agriculture the other day if he had kept in touch with this industry in order to see what was the effect of the Order. He told me that he had no figures, and that no figures were available. He may, perhaps, be interested to know that in one dairy alone there has been a shrinkage in demand of over 350,000 gallons of whole milk. In another dairy there was a shrinkage in demand
        1784
        of over £1,000 worth a month in the demand for cream. When one recognises that this is-the outcome of reports of specialists, one wonders whether the Minister has resisted, as he ought to have resisted, the action of other Departments, and defended those who are under the direction of his own Department. I have spent most of my time with specialists, and I think that this would be a fair description of them as far as their administrative capacity goes—that they are at all times men with a very large amount of specialised sense, but very often an almost complete absence of the common variety. Yet we have their word taken and put into operation, with the result that they have practically destroyed, or are rapidly destroying, an industry of such importance as this.
        I want to safeguard myself against an attack that might come from the other side. I do not suggest that it is wrong to do what we can to protect in all circumstances the food of the people from contamination. What had to be considered in coming to a decision with regard to cream? On the one hand the cream, which has one of the highest food values possible, was being contaminated with 4 per cent. of boric acid; on the other side there was the high food value of cream. The high food value has been ignored, and the low percentge of preservative has been the ruling factor. That is not where it finishes, because, as the result of this Order, the use and preparation of synthetic cream have grown up throughout the country. It is difficult to control, and the Government have done very little to control it. We have, therefore, the position that the Government have, by an action of the Ministry of Health, interfered with a very valuable industry and stopped the output of a large amount of food product; they have, at the same time, by no desire of their own, encouraged the making of a synthetic article of which the food value is not as high as real cream.
        Members are well aware that a very considerable amount of Dutch cheese is brought into this country. Representations have been made along certain lines with regard to the action of the retailers of this commodity. It comes into the country marked according to its quality. If it is Dutch half-meal cheese, which is

        1785
        stamped with its butter fat percentage, the wholesaler knows what he is buying and the retailer knows what he is buying, but the consumer does not. Pressure has been brought upon the various Departments to take action and see that, as far as possible, the consumer, equally with the wholesaler and the retailer shall know what is the commodity he is buying, but the Departments have done nothing along those lines.
        There are many defects in administration. The Department has failed from time to time to protect the agriculturist against disease. I was glad to hear the Minister's account of the improvements which have taken place in regard to foot-and-mouth disease. It was time there were such improvements. It fell to my lot to pass through that great plague of foot-and-mouth disease which occurred in the centre of Cheshire in 1924 and spread throughout the country. I never knew more defective administrative machinery than was in operation at that time.
        Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: That was in 1924.
        Mr. RUSSELL: Yes, it was in 1924, and I want to congratulate the present Minister on the progress which has taken place. At that time the condition of affairs was phenomenal as regards laxity of administration. I was on one of the farms, and close to another farm, where the first outbreak occurred, and after a week or a fortnight spent in watching what took place upon that farm, I went home and declared that Cheshire was in for the greatest outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which it had probably ever known. I said that because of the lax administration that one saw at the time. It is encouraging to know that since then there has been a tightening-up of the administrative machinery and that things are better than they were, but are we satisfied with present conditions? Take the question of tuberculosis, of infective abortion, and Johne's disease. Are we satisfied with what is being done at the present time? If you ask the dairying industry throughout the country, I certainly think you will get a negative reply. They are not satisfied. There is enormous loss taking place in the dairy industry as a result of these diseases, and much more needs to be done. But there is always a danger that in the work we are doing we may forget the end which we seek. The
        1786
        end is not a perfect laboratory; the end is an efficient farm. I am afraid that sometimes our administrative Departments forget the link, which ought to be so strong, between themselves and those whom they are supposed to serve.
        I turn aside to another point. We prohibit the use of even a trace of preservative in cream, but what about the unhealthy cowsheds to be found throughout the country? We all know that there are cowsheds which are a menace not only to the cow but to the cowman. What are we doing to secure that our buildings shall be brought up to the high standard which they ought to attain? I shall be reminded of the Agricultural Credits Bill. All I say on that for the moment is that there is plenty of machinery, but not quite as much money as there ought to be, and I hope that efforts will be made to stimulate the improvement of the cowsheds of the country, so that the farmer will be able to provide that high-grade milk which we all desire he should furnish, for the sake of the children and others in the country. The fact of the matter is, there has been a danger of our looking upon agriculture from two points of view. We have looked at it, on the one hand, from the point of view of the amenities of ownership and sporting proclivities, and, on the other hand, consideration for party politics has too often ruled our actions.
        The strange thing to me is that we keep on discussing agriculture instead of trying to come to some basic unity in order to try to carry it on. For too long the farmer has said to the Conservative party: "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him"—and very often we have come very near to slaying him. In a speech in 1924 the Prime Minister made a remarkable statement, one with which I, at all events, agree right up to the hilt. He said:
        "I regard it as vital that the great basic industry of agriculture should be not merely preserved but restored to a more prosperous condition as an essential balancing element in the economic and social life of the country. For a permanent solution of the agricultural problem a common agreement between all parties is desirable, and the Unionist party, if returned to power, will summon a representative conference in the hope of arriving at an agreed policy by which arable acreage may be maintained and regular employment and adequate wages secured to the agricultural worker."

        1787
        I am quoting from the National Farmers' Union Year Book. The passage is marked with a star, and at the end we find this comment by the Union:
        "No attempt has ever been made to convene that conference of the political parties."
        Why has it not been done? We shall never solve our problems until we lift the question of agriculture to a higher plane. The Minister has a great task before him, and we ought to encourage him—at all events I want to do so. I am not here to criticise for the mere sake of criticising. We go through our country and we see its beauty and its delights, and it is dear to us sentimentally, but underneath those sentiments there is an anxiety and very often a tragedy which must, which should and which can be removed. The question is, when are we going to quit fooling and remove it?
        I am no pessimist in regard to agriculture. I agree with the hon. Member opposite who said he was an optimist. I believe that with the restoration of industrial prosperity there will come an increased prosperity on our farms, but, meanwhile, we can be doing a great deal by securing efficiency on those farms. The Ministry of Agriculture has too long waited upon the other Ministries in all matters relating to the countryside, and what I want to suggest is that the Minister occupies such a position that in all questions relating to the countryside his voice should be paramount. When education is under consideration, he should be able to say to the Board of Education; "You are wrong in your attitude towards elementary education in the elementary schools in the country, and you ought to bring those schools more into accord with the work they have to do." When housing is being discussed, he ought to take a stronger line than he does. Far too long has the farmer rested his meekness on the controlling influences that are about him. He is learning at last to stand on his feet, and the Minister needs to do something of the same thing. Recognising how much the Ministry of Agriculture can do and should do to stimulate agriculture in this country, I, for one, hope that every effort will be made by co-operation, by sympathy, by instruction, by research—
        Mr. B. SMITH: To run their farms for them.
        Mr. RUSSELL: —to back up the efforts of those who are engaged on the land to bring back to it that prosperity which we all know can be brought back, and which we all desire should be brought back.
        Major KINDERSLEY: I am sure I shall be expressing the feelings of the Committee in congratulating the hon. Member who has just sat down on his contribution to our discussion this afternoon. He has brought a great knowledge of agriculture with him to this House, and we shall always look forward to any contributions he may make on this subject. He spoke of raising the question of agriculture out of party politics, and quoted a passage from the Prime Minister's last Election address, but put upon it an interpretation which, I think, it does not bear. I think if he reads that passage more carefully he will see that whereas the Prime Minister did hope to be able to get a conference of all parties, the conference of which he spoke in the latter part of the quotation was a conference of those interested in agriculture to try to get an agreed policy which could then be put before a conference of the three political parties. That was not carried out because, as we all know, one of the parties, that is to say, the party representing Labour, would not come to the conference. Nobody regretted that more than myself, for I had advocated that policy in my constituency and it had received the very widest support. Ultimately we must come to that if we are going to do anything effective for agriculture.
        7.0 p.m.
        I am now going to express what is purely my own view. I know the policy I am going to advocate is not the policy of any particular party, including my own, but my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) hit the nail on the head when he said that the principal factor in the troubles of agriculture to-day is the artificially fixed agricultural wage. Wages are the chief element in the cost of production. There is no man, on this side of the Committee certainly, who thinks agricultural wages ought to be lowered, and I should like to see them higher, but, at the same time, we have to recognise the fact that

        1789
        with wheat at its present price that wage is an absolutely uneconomic one. What is happening is that the nation is saying: "Our consciences do not allow us to pay less than 30s. a week." The nation has no right to satisfy its conscience at the expense of the farmer, for that is what it means. The economic wage to-day is something like 22s. Those who pay the higher wage are largely out of pocket. That is the situation, and it is no good blinking at it. It has to be faced. One hon. Member has stated, and I agree, that Protection is ruled out, but there is another policy besides Protection which would not raise the price to the consumer. I refer to subsidies. There is the case of sugar beet, but that was a new industry. I think that if we are going to look at this question as it ought to be looked at, that is to say, from the national standpoint, then a case can be made out for a subsidy on wheat, because wheat is the key of the situation. The nation has got to consider and to make up its mind whether it wishes to see arable farming continue to decline, labourers thrown out of work and all the social and political evils that arise from such a state of affairs. Is it in the interests of the nation that arable farming should be maintained? That is the first thing to be considered. If you say that in the national interest arable farming should be maintained, then you have a case for giving a subsidy to wheat in some form or other. The form I suggest would be to fix an economic price, and for the Government to find the difference between that price and the market price of the day. If that is done, and the market price rises, then the Government will have to pay less; if it falls, they will have to pay more.
        I do not think it is of the least use playing with this matter, and pretending that by small measures we can restore agriculture. Unless we are prepared to do something to make the simple crop, wheat, which is the key of the situation, a paying thing to grow, then I see no hope for arable agriculture. The nation may say: "We do not mind." Well and good, but they must make up their mind, for I cannot see how one can expect anything but a general decline on the present basis. I know that that is not a policy of any political party, and I am merely expressing my own view, as I have
        1790
        a right to do, whether it coincides with that of my own party for the time being or not. It is one, however, that has got considerable support outside this House. It had the support of the conference held at the Mansion House the other day. It was a representative conference on this question. I do not know whether such a policy would have the support of the National Farmers' Union; I am inclined to doubt it. The difficulty is to find something which will get the support of farmers all over the country. That is a problem. Therefore, if one is to put forward a policy of agriculture, we must not go round asking people what they think is right, but we must have one and tell them it is our policy, and that they must take it or leave it. Otherwise, you will get nothing done. For my part, although I do not know whether this policy will be adopted, I have come to the conclusion that it is useless pretending that arable land can be put on a paying basis by any lesser measure, and I propose, both inside and outside of this House, to advocate the policy I have indicated.
        Mr. MacLAREN: It has interested me to listen to this Debate. I was the more encouraged to do so when I heard the opening speech of the Minister of Agriculture. One of the most touching and moving passages in his speech was when he asked us to drink more milk. I think it most appropriate that he of all men, with the name he has, should ask us to take more milk, because outside, on the hoardings, he is telling us something else in pictorial form. That apart, I want to say how much I enjoyed his speech this afternoon, although there were many points from which I differed. After listening to the Debate this afternoon, I find myself in a bit of a mix-up. Some Members have told us during the Debate that the farmers want to be left entirely alone. That was an expression of opinion which found much approval on the other side of the Committee. They wanted freedom. I will frankly admit that I believe in the ideal state of society where we shall all be free. I do not like being kept on a sucking-bottle supplied with milk from Whitehall. I hate it, and I admire men who come here and say they want more freedom.

        1791
        I confess, however, that I cannot understand many who have taken part in this Debate. They want freedom to throw off the shackles of State control. They want to be free to govern their own affairs, free to grow bulbs or broccoli, yet they have been asking for what? The Minister in his speech told us that local authorities, the farmers and the associations combined could not possibly pay for the-draining of the land. Public money was required. The draining of the land has been made possible by public money. Then we have small holdings and the putting of men on the land, and the State has had to pay 75 per cent. of the cost. In fact, it is being borne in on my mind that the farmer is becoming the spoilt child of Parliament, is being spoon-fed, and since this party came into power he has got more than his share. I put it to the farmers; how, in the name of justice or in the name of heaven, can they claim absolute freedom and no Governmental control, and yet be constantly on the doorstep of Parliament begging for more doles? If you are going to have public money, then you must put up with public interference, public inspection, public control. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) said he wanted Governmental control, and could not understand why the Government rejected it. I agree. If you are going to have all this money, then you must take Governmental control. The Danish farmers have a voluntary system; they have co-operation because the Danish farmer is not a lazy and suspicious chap who watches his neighbour over the hedge.
        Mr. LAMB: Does the hon. Member say that the British farmer is lazy?
        Mr. MacLAREN: No; that is leading me into a trap which will get me into trouble in my own division. But I would say to the hon. Member that if he remembers a private conversation we have had together, then his question is answered; and I will not tell the Committee what he said to me. But it is commonly understood by any one who understands the British farmer that he will not co-operate; he is suspicious of his fellow. He is never making money, but I recall being in the hon. Member's division, and on entering the market square of a town there, I was nearly run
        1792
        over by limousines and Daimlers. I said: "Who are these people who are coming here?" and I was told they were farmers. The poor farmers! I advised them that the next time they intend coming for help to do it properly, to come in Fords and not these expensive cars, or they would spoil the game. It is the poor, wretched farmers who ask for no Government control. I think the term is "No State control in agriculture." No, but plenty of State money if you please. The Danish people have none of this State control; they have a voluntary system from the planting of the seed to the distribution of the produce to the consumer. The English farmers, however, wave the Union Jack, and say they want no Socialism.
        Let us have another look at this strange individual that is well down in John Bull's pockets. What has been done for him this year? There is sugar beet—£3,000,000 for that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who brought it in?"] I agree that it was originated in another place, but it was the party opposite who brought it in. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, your own party."] In any case I do not care who brought it in; whoever it was ought to be ashamed of himself. I am not able to apologise for nonsense. I am here to oppose it. £3,000,000 for sugar beet this year! That is part of the little drop of £20,000,000. Then as to education. We are told by an hon. Member opposite that agricultural education is aiding agriculturists to bring the best out of the soil and he said it would add to its value. £585,000 a year for education; land drainage and settlement, £1,891,300; marketing, £20,000; cost of administration and other items, £15,000. These are just a few of the little items this year for these independent men who do not want State control, the men who have come to the State and into whose pockets the State has dropped £5,511,485. Again, these free independent individualistic farmers and agriculturists have had their little advantage anticipated, and they will receive de-rating.
        Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: The hon. Member said it would go to the landlords.
        Mr. MacLAREN: Hon. Members know perfectly well what I mean. I am speaking now about the nominal recipients of

        1793
        these benefits, and I am referring to the farmer. By de-rating and all these other little items the sum of about £16,000,000 will be handed to the farmers, and I will not mention the other chaps. The farmers are getting £16,000,000 of public money, and they do not want State control or State interference. If I were a farmer, neither should I, but I say to the farmers and agriculturists, "If you do not wish State interference, do not beg for State money, but put your own brains in your industry, and market your own goods." When one listens to a Debate on agriculture in this House, you could almost imagine you were in a provision store. One hon. Member asks, "How are you going to mark ham?" Another hon. Member has been dealing with bulbs, and another hon. Member has been making apologies for broccoli. What a falling off there is in this House when hon. Members have to ask questions about bulbs and broccoli instead of dealing seriously with agriculture!
        I am afraid I have treated this subject with a little levity, but that is about all it is worth. If the farmers of England put their brains into their industry, and exhibited as much administratve ability in the agricultural business as the Danes; if they spent less time in market towns and more on their farms; if they combined more among themselves and less in the Farmers' Union, which is simply the cat's-paw of the landlord; if they looked after their own interests as the Danes have done, and kept free from State charity, then I would support them in their demand to be free from State control; in fact, I do not know that I would not become a farmer myself instead of a half-baked Member of Parliament. If the farmers would do that, they would be able to make out a far more commendable case. What do we do in this House for the farmers? We simply lull them to sleep with more subsidies.
        Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. R. J. Russell), in his most interesting maiden speech, made one or two remarks which seem to me to need an answer. The hon. Member criticised the Government for not having given the House an opportunity of discussing the question of agricultural subsidies. It would be very unfair if that reflection on the Government were
        1794
        allowed to be repeated, because the Government do not control these matters. It is well known that the choosing of the Supply Vote for discussion is in the hands of the Opposition. It is also within the memory of hon. Members that, although we have not had Debates on the details of the Agricultural Estimates, we have had Debates on agriculture, on the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Supplementary Estimates, and upon other occasions.
        The hon. Member for Eddisbury referred to the subject of preservatives in cream, but that is a matter which must be left to the Minister of Health. The hon. Member would naturally wish to see a different scheme in operation, but, when the medical authorities say that small doses of boric acid are likely to produce in some people a form of disease, I am afraid it is impossible for the agriculturist to expect his own convenience to weigh against the public health. I would like to remind the hon. Member that when preservatives were forbidden in the case of milk the same objections were raised as have been raised in the case of cream. A man who treats his cream on modern lines at the present time is well able to carry on without boric acid, and the forbidding of that preservative will be just as much for the benefit of the cream producer as it has been in the case of the milk producer.
        The hon. Member also made some criticisms about synthetic cream, but I think he was probably referring to reconstituted cream. Personally, I deplore the production of reconstituted cream, which is made and sold at a very low price, because the raw material is practically a waste product from certain specialised agricultural industries in other parts of the world. I agree with the hon. Member that it is undesirable to form a substitute for the fresh materials of new cream. I had samples of that stuff brought to me long before the boric acid Order was issued, and I am convinced that there is no way of dealing with this difficulty except to ensure that there is no misrepresentation, and to see that this stuff is sold as such and not as cream. We are trying to deal with this question in another place to-day by the Reconstituted Cream Bill, which I hope will be passed. If the public choose to have this stuff instead of cream, they cannot be pre-

        1795
        vented, but we must see that when they ask for real cream they are not put off with a faked substitute.
        The hon. Member for Eddisbury spoke in favour of better cowsheds. There have been many complaints that local authorities in same cases are unduly severe about cowsheds, but I do not think that so far there has been any real grievance. I would like to say to the hon. Member that our experience in connection with clean milk has shown to my absolute conviction that you can produce clean milk in very poor buildings, and that the men and their methods matter very much more than the cowsheds. A good many questions were put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton). One question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman was in reference to arable dairy farms. I am sorry to say that the results of the research devoted to that question were disappointing, and, at the suggestion of the Institute of Research in Agricultural Economics at Oxford, further experiments were dropped. It has been proposed, however, that we should continue our inquiry as to the best methods of stock raising on arable farms by means of a survey of dairy holdings. I have been asked a question about co-operation. We have done a great deal in that respect, and we have given much information in our series of economic books. We have also provided loans and grants to enable co-operative societies to undertake experimental forms of marketing. Another question was put to me about the National Farmers' Union and co-operation. In the matter of co-operative wool marketing and hop marketing, we have made great progress, and nearly 90 per cent. of the hop growers are within the cooperative scheme.
        I have been asked what can be done to reduce the spread in prices between the producer and the consumer. I do not think that a remedy is to be found by doing away with any part of the chain of distribution. The remedy is standardisation, and that is just the kind of work we are doing in our marketing effort. We want to get production and distribution more efficient. If we cut out the expense to which the middleman is now put by
        1796
        fragmentary and bad organisation and get the whole operation on a more efficient basis, we shall be able to cut out the middleman's costs, and in that way reduce the spread to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk has referred. I have been asked what can be done with regard to linking up producers and co-operative societies, but suggestions in that direction should come from within the society itself. I am very glad to notice that the Co-operative Wholesale Society is now coming under our great scheme. It has been said that what we require is an annual report of this work, but unfortunately our work is very sectional, and, if we were to have a report to cover all the sections, it would be very voluminous, because we have six or seven different sections. I am afraid my time is now up, and I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk will not think that I have been discourteous because I have not answered all his questions.
        Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
        PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CO-ORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL [By Order].
  As amended, further considered.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CO-ORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL [By Order].

    CLAUSE 9.—(Audit of Accounts.)
    Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, in page 11, line 21, after the word "auditors," to insert the words:
    "(who shall have had no business or commercial relation with any of or all the parties to the agreement)."
    This Amendment and the next Amendment which stands in my name, and which is consequential, relate to the qualifications of auditors. Our submission is that it is vitally necessary to secure the complete impartiality of any auditors appointed under this scheme, whether to audit the accounts of the associated undertakings or whether to audit the accounts of the common fund. These two Amendments provide, firstly, that the auditors appointed shall have had no business or commercial relation with any or all of the parties to the agreement, and, secondly, in the consequential Amendment, that they

    1797
    "shall be disqualified from any other employment in connection with any of or all the combined undertakings."
    I hope that these Amendments will be favourably received by the power behind the Government, that is to say, by the hon. Members below the Gangway who appear to be determining the policy of the Government majority in this matter.
    I would like to draw attention to one or two analagous restrictions in other Statutes which provide, I think, some justification for these Amendments, Those who have followed the development of our company law will have noticed that in recent years the qualifications for auditors have been more and more tightened up, and I think that that is a very proper and healthy development. In the Companies Act, 1928, and in the Consolidation Act of this year, it is provided that the auditor of a public company must not be a partner of any person who is a director of the company—a very proper provision, pointing in the same direction as the Amendment which I am now submitting to the House. Other analogies can also be given. I do not wish to go into them at any length, but may briefly mention that, in the case of receivers appointed by the Court, the practice at the present time, although there is no strict legal rule, is that no person shall be appointed a receiver who is in any way connected with either of the parties; and, similarly, in the case of liquidators appointed by the Court, it is becoming increasingly the practice to insist that the liquidator, like the receiver, must be entirely independent of any financial or commercial relationship with the business or with either of the parties.
    I think that these analogies are apposite, and that, as we are starting upon this new experiment, under which very great liabilities attach to the various bodies who are coming in, and also possibilities for future profit, it is essential that we should recognise a principle which is being more applied in analogous branches of the law, and that these auditors should be wholly independent of any commercial relationship with either of the parties, so that we can ensure that what is really a quasi-public appointment shall in fact be marked by complete impartiality, and that the
    1798
    auditor dealing with very important duties, as he will be if this Bill becomes law, shall be entirely free from even the faintest suspicion of being in any way partial to any of the interests affected.
    Mr. GILLETT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    In view of the important duties that are going to fall upon the Minister, I am rather surprised that the appointment of auditors has not been placed in his hands. I should have thought that that would have got over some of the difficulties which have been referred to by my hon. Friend in moving this Amendment, because, when the Minister is asked to give his decision on questions of rates and fares, and also on the question of new capital, or certainly of ranking capital, it will be most important that he should have the advice of qualified auditors who know the full particulars in connection with all the various companies. Having regard to the fact that these matters may come before the Minister in the event of the interested parties failing to come to an agreement, I myself should have preferred to see the appointment of auditors made by the Minister. This Amendment does not go as far as that, but it seems to me that at any rate, in justice to the Minister as well as to the people of London, the auditor ought to be in an absolutely impartial position, and not in any way connected with any of the companies that are going to form a part of the Combine.
    Sir HENRY JACKSON: I regret that it is quite impossible to accept this Amendment. I need scarcely remind the House that public auditors who are engaged in auditing the accounts of the various undertakings connected with London passenger traffic are firms of very considerable reputation and status. They are familiar with all the intricacies of the undertakings, and are, therefore, able as all times to give advice on difficult questions of accountancy and finance. It cannot be suggested that these auditors would be in any way partial or prejudiced in favour of a particular company, and to insert an Amendment of this kind would seem to me to cast a very serious reflection on their integrity. On that ground alone I think the Amendment should be rejected. Moreover, if

    1799
    such an embargo were imposed, it might be quite impossible to obtain auditors of the front rank, such as would be necessary for these undertakings in the future. On these grounds I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. SCURR: I think that the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) is exceedingly unsatisfactory. This is one of the most reasonable Amendments that have been put forward from this side of the House. The hon. Member says that those who are engaged in business as public auditors, and especially those firms who are associated with the auditing of the accounts of large concerns, are firms of great integrity, but there has not been from this side of the House any suggestion reflecting on their integrity. What we contend is that in auditing accounts, and in considering, after the audit, the presentation of profit and loss accounts, what sums shall be placed to depreciation and reserve, and questions of that kind, it is only human that any person who is financially interested in the concern in question is going, if there are two alternative points of view, to take the one which favours his own interest. That is human nature. It is not a thing to quarrel with, nor is it a reflection on the integrity of the person who is auditing the accounts.
    The supporters of this Bill seem to ignore the fact that this is very extraordinary legislation. If it simply concerned the internal affairs of the combine or of the London County Council, there might be no reason for this Amendment, but the object of this legislation is to bring into close relationship with one another a municipal undertaking and a private enterprise undertaking. In such a case we want, above everything else, to conserve the public interest; and, in all matters involving the decision of technical questions, which will have very important effects in regard to the amount and distribution of the common fund, we desire that those responsible for the passing of the accounts should be entirely above suspicion.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I was hoping that someone on the other side would have said something more in defence of the rejection of this Amendment. The hon.
    1800
    Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) leaves out of account the fact that all municipal accounts, whether trading accounts or otherwise, are, certainly in the case of the Metropolitan boroughs and the London County Council, audited by auditors specially appointed for the work. There is no question of casting aspersions on a great profession. We are simply asking that the auditors who carry out this work shall not be associated with any of these companies, and I think the hon. Member and his friends know that perfectly well, What we are asking is that the same principle shall be applied in the case of the auditors who will audit these accounts as is applied to the audit of the accounts of a big electricity undertaking, or of the London County Council tramways undertaking. I think it is worth while asking someone to answer—perhaps the Minister might do so—the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr), that we are dealing with an extraordinarily novel procedure. We are setting up an authority in which the dominant power and control over municipal property and undertakings is going to be placed in the hands of a private company or companies, and we are entitled to ask that, in the auditing of what must be very complicated accounts, those who audit these accounts shall not have any interest, direct or indirect, in any of the companies, or in other companies of a similar character.
    It is only right to say, as I can from a long experience both on the London County Council and on local authorities, that, much as I sometimes disagree with auditors on matters of principle, the men who have been in charge of the auditing of municipal accounts in this Metropolis are men of the highest rank in their profession. [Interruption.] Then, why is it that you want to apply a different measure, and, when we ask that you should place one of these men in the responsible position of auditing these accounts, why should if he said that we are casting an aspersion on great firms of accountants and auditors? We are doing nothing of the kind. If there is any aspersion at all, this House cast aspersions on these honourable gentlemen long years ago when they took the auditing of municipal accounts out of their hands and put them into the hands of men specially appointed, I believe, by

    1801
    the Treasury. It is no use to say that they are going to audit very complicated accounts and, therefore, you must have men who are experienced in it. You have already men who do nothing but this complicated work in regard to tramway, electricity, and gas undertakings up and down the country.
    That argument will not stand for a moment. The argument that does stand is that you are going to have an agreement which many of us have never seen—this is legislation by reference with a vengeance—a scheme which will never come before the House. [Interruption.] We do not know, and we do not know what time the House will have to consider it. We know perfectly well the manner in which this sort of memorandums and articles of agreement are put before the House, but at this moment we do not know anything about it. London is buying, or being sold, a pig in a poke. There is no argument, and no one has put up any argument on the other side. You are relying on your big battalions. Although it may be a matter of great hilarity to the Minister of Transport, it is not a matter of hilarity to the ratepayers, whose property is going to be stolen from them under this precious proposal. We are, at any rate, going to claim the right to ask that the House shall, by vote, determine whether the people who will audit these accounts are to be free and independent of the Combine, or any of the allied concerns of the Combine, or whether they shall be people who may be under the control of those whose interest it will be to make as much profit and dividend out of the travelling public as possible. No one knows what these proposals consist of, and the only safeguard is to see that whoever is appointed to audit these accounts shall be on the same sort of footing as the public auditors who audit the accounts of local authorities throughout the country.
    Mr. SNELL: I suppose it is no use appealing to those who are promoting the Bill to accept the Amendment, but I want to resent the suggestion that we are casting a reflection upon expert Members of a very honourable profession. No one suggests for a moment that the auditors appointed would not give their most conscientious services to the audits that they undertook, but we are not en-
    1802
    titled to legislate by faith. Over and over again we on this side of the House have been accused of believing that the world is made up of angels and that they can live without sin and all the rest, and we are constantly told that we have to take the world as it is. In that spirit we say this is a common business precaution which everyone takes in relation to his own business. It is casting no reflection at all upon anyone with whom I have dealings if I ask him or he asked me to sign an undertaking. Therefore we resent the suggestion that we are casting a reflection upon the probity of these gentlemen. I am sure they themselves will not feel it to be such for a moment. In ordinary affairs we do this and I want to know why we should make this exemption in this manner. After all, the public have a very considerable interest in it, and the public ought to be assured that the auditing is done without bias and with as much skill as it can be. That is an essential principle of our public life which I thought was accepted in every part of the business world, that we seek, as far as we can, that those who have to give a judgment upon public affairs do so with what we may call free minds upon the question. I appeal to the hon. Baronet to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. W. BENNETT: I should also like to support the Amendment. It seems to me it is simply a question of business. Business is business and it is a business proposition. I also do not see why any question of sentiment should be allowed to creep into it. In fact I think the House is in a peculiar position. We ought to take every possible care, in passing a Bill like this dealing with what is now pubic property, that no insinuation can be made against us. One of His Majesty's Ministers—I do not know why—has accepted the most tremendous responsibility under the Bill. In the past the responsibilities in regard, for instance, to rates of interest and sinking funds and so forth were looked after by the. Treasury. Now the Minister of Transport has taken this most tremendous responsibility upon himself to a very great extent of looking after the interests of the public. I should have thought he would welcome this proposal if it was only to stave off the severe criticisms which will undoubtedly be made. I am aware that it is only by the good will of

    1803
    hon. Members opposite and of the Government that we can hope to get any Amendments through, but I think our appeal is justified, and I shall support the Amendment that the auditor shall be of the same class whose business it is
    to look after the public accounts of local authorities.
    Question put, "That these words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 134.

    Division No. 293.]

    AYES.

    [7.57 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Han. W. (Fife, West)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Russell, Richard (Eddisbury)

    A damson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

    Hardle, George D.

    Saltor, Dr. Alfred

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Bellamy, A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Lansbury, George

    Stephen, Campbell

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawson, John James

    Strauss, E. A.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lowth, T.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Cluse, W. S.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Taylor R. A.

    Connolly, M.

    March, S.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Dalton, Hugh

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

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dunnico, H.

    Owen, Major G.

    Welsh, I. C.

    Gillett, George M.

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Paling, W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

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

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Potts, John S.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

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

    Mr. Scurr and Mr. Snell.

    Groves, T

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

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Albery, Irving James

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Perkins. Colonel E. K.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

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

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Pilcher, G.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Hanbury, C.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Bainlel, Lord

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Remer, J. R.

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hills, Major John Waller

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

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Roberts. Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Ross, R. D.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Rye, F. G.

    Burman, J. B.

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Savery, S. S.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

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

    Clayton, G. C.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Colman, N. C. D.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    McLean, Major A.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Wells, S. R.

    Fielden, E. B.

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

    Withers, John James

    Ford, Sir P. J.

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

    Womersley, W. J.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Morden, Col. W. Grant

    Worthington-Evans, at. Hon. Sir L.

    Forrest, W.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Gates, Percy

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Sir Henry Jackson and Sir Cyrli Cobb.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    CLAUSE 10.—(Appointment of members of Council and local authorities on certain bodies.)
    Mr. W. BENNETT: I beg to move, in page 12, line 21, at the end, to insert the words
    "(3) Any member of the Council or of any local authority holding any appointment as member of any board of directors pursuant to this Section shall, in the event of his membership of the Council or of a local authority, as the case may be, being terminated, be disqualified for continuing to hold such appointment."
    This Amendment arises out of the Clause in regard to members of a council or local authority who are appointed by such authority as directors of one of the constituent bodies of the Combine. There is not the slghtest doubt that this Amendment can be voted down in exactly the same proportions as was the last Amendment. Therefore, it is no use depending upon the numbers we have in this House to get it through. I appeal to those who are responsible for this Bill to allow us just this one ewe lamb of an Amendment. I hope they will grant by their goodwill that which we have not the strength to wrest from them. This question of the elected members of a local authority who find themselves upon the board of directors of one of the constituent companies is the one link left in this Bill giving some public control over the public trams placed under this Combine. The one solitary link, the one pretence of any kind of public control is the presence of these very few elected representatives on the board of directors. We are appealing that when their connection with the local authority is broken and they cease to be members of it their membership of the board of directors shall also cease in order to preserve this link of some representation of the general public. This is not an unreasonable thing to ask for, especially in view of the criticism which took place recently. It would be quite easy to have a member of a public authority in some way or other co-opted as a member of these bodies and possibly forgotten in the course of time. When the elected members of the county council appeared on the board of directors of this private company, the rest of the directors might be so struck with their tremendous qualifications and intellectual
    1806
    abilities in connection with public ownership chat they might, in the interests of the Combine, wish to retain them on the Board for life. In spite of that we press for this one Amendment, that the directorship of a publicly-elected representative shall cease when he ceases to be a member of the public body.
    Mr. MARCH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I hope that the promoters of the Bill will be willing to accept it because there are already instances where such an arrangement is observed. I know of cases where representatives have been appointed to various boards, and when these representatives have failed to secure their return as members of the local council they have had to sever their connection with the boards on which they were co-opted. I am not quite certain but I think that arrangements are already contained in the London County Council's regulations to meet the situation. The promoters ought to be quite willing and ready to accept such an Amendment as this, especially after the fight which was put up in the County Council with a view to getting at least two members of local authorities represented on this particular Board. Originally, provision was made for one public representative to sit on the Board, but eventually Lord Ashfield agreed to the appointment of two representatives. If one of these representatives fails to obtain his return to the council at some fixture date, it will bring the representation down to one. Under these circumstances, the least that the promoters can do is to accept this Amendment and make the provision secure that there shall always be two public representatives on the Board.
    Sir CYRIL COBB: I am much touched by the appeal of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. I should like very much to meet him in connection with it, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment in the form in which it is couched. I think I need only assure him that as far as the Council is concerned they are quite capable of taking care of their own representatives. There are many bodies outside the County Council upon which we appoint representatives, and we have never had any difficulties of this kind. It is quite possible for us to make rules and regulations with

    1807
    regard to the representatives we place on the Board of Directors as we do regarding our representatives on such concerns as the Lea Conservancy Board, or the Crystal Palace, or any of the other many concerns in which the Council is interested. I can assure both hon. Members opposite that I will specially bring this matter before the General Purposes Committee of the Council when we deal with the appointment of the representatives to the Board of Directors in order to see that there shall never be a gap in the representation of the Council as far as this can be prevented, and that as long as a member of the Council is representing the Council on the Board of Directors he shall be the approved representative of the Council. I think that I can give that guarantee, because I am quite certain that the Council in its own interest will take the greatest possible care that there shall be no gap or hiatus in the representation of the Council on the Board of Directors.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I have no doubt that the London County Council will want to carry out the intention of our Amendment, but surely the hon. Gentleman must know that the London County Council—I think I am speaking with knowledge on the subject, though I am open to correction—at present do not elect directors upon any company. The election of members to the Water Board, which is a public utility concern, is quite a different matter from that with which we are dealing, and I am speaking in the presence of men acquainted with company law. I believe that, although Parliament will stipulate that two directors shall be elected by the County Council, the companies themselves will have to elect them, and, unless there is some special provisions that these directors under certain circumstances shall vacate their seats, I do not believe that it is within the competence of the County Council to make regulations which will bring that about. I should like to ask the Minister to give us his opinion on this subject, or some legal gentleman on the other side to be good enough to do so. I am only a layman. My information is that the County Council will have no power to do what is suggested, and that the only authority empowered to do it is this House, when we are passing legislation
    1808
    laying it down that the persons elected shall, in the first instance, be members of the County Council. Unless there is provision for terminating their appointment when they cease to be members of the County Council, I understand that they will remain. It is a pity that a Law Officer of the Crown is not here to advise us on this important matter. It is vital that a big county council, which has tremendous interests at stake, shall not be left without direct representation on the board. If hon. Members opposite agree with us to the extent that we all desire to achieve the same end, why should not this Amendment be accepted. The Bill is going to another place. Why should not we insert the words of the Amendment, or other words that will carry out what is desired? It is absurd for hon. Members opposite to say that they are in favour of doing a certain thing, and then to say, "Let us leave it alone, and trust to the County Council."
    It may be that I am ill-informed, but I repeat that I do not think the county council, merely by regulations, can take a man off the board of directors. It is a different matter when you elect people to serve on the Water Board or the Lea Conservancy. This will be a money-making concern, with two competing interests, the intersests of the ratepayers of London and the interests of the shareholders of a private monopoly. It is better to carry the Amendment now than to trust to the chance of somebody else doing it. I cannot understand the sort of blank wall that is put up against a proposal to safeguard the interests of the ratepayers. In this combine, this hybrid body that is to be set up, our interests are the interests of the public and of the county council. If hon. Members opposite reject our Amendment they are rejecting something which the ordinary man in the street will say is a reasonable proposition, namely, that when a man ceases to be a member of the county council be shall not be allowed to retain his directorship in the name of the county council.
    Mr. TASKER: I think I can remove the apprehension of the hon. Member by re-minding him that under the standing orders of the county council they can make such rules or regulations as are desirable to deal with their representatives on various authorities. The

    1809
    closest analogy is the appointment of certain members of the county council to be Crystal Palace trustees. To all intents and purposes, they are directors. Members of the county council are appointed to the Lee Conservancy, and they receive small fees, but the county council, by virtue of their powers, make it a condition that the fees are to be paid to the coffers of the council. I would suggest that there is great advantage sometimes in continuity of office. A man may be serving on a committee or some other body and it may be of great advantage that a man who is accustomed to the work should continue, and not be supplanted by someone who knows nothing about it. I think the county council are quite capable of looking after their own interests and the interests of the ratepayers at large.
    Mr. SCURR: The hon. Member has given the analogy of the Crystal Palace trustees. That is not an analogy. The Crystal Palace trustees are appointed under a special scheme. They are in the same category as the members appointed to the Lea Conservancy and the Metropolitan Water Board. It is true that the county council can make regulations and rules saying that a person chosen as its representative to sit upon this board of directors shall resign from the board if he ceases to be a member of the county council; but there is no legal obligation upon that person to accept that decision. If he refuses to resign, what control has the county council over him? He is not elected by the county council. His name is suggested by the county council and he is elected to the board by the directors of the London combine, and so long as the Board choose to elect him he can remain a member of the Board. I did hope that the hon. Member for Fulham, West (Sir C. Cobb) was going to say that when the Bill goes to another place the promoters will insert an Amendment, if not in these words, in such words as will carry out what is desired. As a member of the county council, I know the traditions of honour which have governed that body, but county councils change and a time may come when there will be a very different calibre of people on the council. We want an absolute legal safeguard, and we ought to have an undertaking from the promoters that when the Bill goes to the other place they will suggest an
    1810
    appropriate form of words to carry out the intentions upon which we are all agreed. If we can have that assurance we will not press the Amendment, but unless such an assurance can be given we must go to a Division.
    Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention to this matter. As a point of company law it cannot be said that this question is disposed of by mere regulations of the county council. Unless we have it clearly specified in the official document upon which the transaction is based, the condition under which the directorship shall cease when the person concerned ceases to be a member of the county council, it cannot be got over by mere regulations by some outside body. It will be most unsatisfactory if we are left in the position that this House is asked to rely upon the pious and good intentions of a body which cannot carry out its intentions. After the speech of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Tasker) I am not so sure about the good intentions, because he spoke about the necessity of preserving continuity. That was a most disquieting pronouncement. What could he mean if he did not mean that he contemplates, perhaps reasonably from his point of view, circumstances in which he thinks it would be desirable for someone who had ceased to be a member of the county council to continue on the board of directors? He must contemplate that, otherwise how is continuity in any way threatened? The only sense in which this Amendment threatens continuity is a breaking of continuity at the point when membership of the county council ceases, and the only meaning that can attach to the words of the hon. Member is that he wants it to go on. In these circumstances, unless some definite assurance is given by the Minister, or some hon. Member opposite, I hope the Amendment will be pressed. The present state of things is most unsatisfactory. It has been said that the Amendment cannot be accepted in its present form Hon. Members who use that formula should indicate the form in which they will accept it. Then there is something to discuss, and we can see whether the difficulty of drafting may be overcome.
    Sir GEORGE HUME: Hon. Members who are so very anxious on this point

    1811
    have really not appreciated the meaning of Section 10 of the Bill:
    "(1) The Council and any local authority being a party to any agreement entered into under this Act may pursuant to any provisions to that effect contained in the agreement and subject to such terms and conditions as they may think fit appoint any of their members as members of any board of directors or of any joint committee advisory body or other body (whether constituted for the purposes of the agreement or already existing) to which under the terms of the agreement there are entrusted the exercise of any of the powers and duties of the parties to the agreement or any of them or any advisory duties in connection with the carrying out of the agreement."
    If the Clause goes through as it now stands, it is in the hands of the London County Council to make such conditions as to the appointment of their representatives on the board of directors. I think is completely covers the point that has been raised.
    Mr. SNELL: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) did not give a definite undertaking that the London County Council will make such arrangements as will give the council power to withdraw authority from its representative should he cease to be a member of that body. The need for such precautions as we suggest is made apparent by the frankness of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Tasker), who spoke about the advantages of continuity in office. He gave the whole case away. A man might be a valuable member of the board of directors, but he might cease to be a member of the London County Council, but because he is an able and respected person he might be kept on in his position on the board through a mere love of continuity. The very essence of county council representation is that the man himself should be a member of the council, and we ought to make this perfectly clear. The hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb), in resisting the Amendment, said that is was quite possible for the county council to do this. We know that it is possible, and as a rule the business precaution of the London County Council are quite adequate, but a thing which is possible without an undertaking to do it is not satisfactory. I appeal to the hon. Member representing the London County Council in this matter to give us a defi-
    1812
    nite undertaking that it shall be considered and that the county council shall have complete control over its representatives.
    Sir C. COBB: I can give the House this undertaking, that within three months anyone ceasing to be a member of the London County Council would also cease to be a director under these arrangements. A little time however must be left, otherwise it is quite clear what might happen. It may be that in the long vacation, between the end of July and October, there would be a gap. A member of the Council might send in his resignation on the 31st July to the clerk to the council, and it might not be possible for the County Council to appoint a successor. They would then be unrepresented at all, or represented by this particular man. We must make arrangements for such a probability—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): The hon. Member by the wish of the House is answering a question that has been put to him, but I must call his attention to the fact that he has already spoken once. I believe, through inadvertence, not having been in the Chair before, that I also allowed another hon. Member to speak a second time.
    Mr. SCURR: May I—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) is the hon. Member to whom I referred.
    Mr. SCURR: Will you allow me to ask a question?
    Mr. LANSBURY: I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) has spoken before on this Amendment.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member had spoken before. If I have made a mistake, I apologise. I saw his name down as having seconded the Amendment.
    Mr. SNELL: In view of what has been said I should like to ask whether the hon. Member for West Fulham is in a position to pledge future county councils. He may give an undertaking on behalf of the present London County Council, but does that enable him to assure the House that such arrangements will have continuity, if I might use the words of the hon. Member for East Islington.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Can we have an assurance that in another place words will be put in the Bill which will ensure what hon. Members opposite want done, and which we are all agreed should be done. Why not put in the words in another place.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 128.

    Division No. 294.]

    AYES.

    [8.35 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Russell, Richard (Eddisbury)

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

    Hardle, George D.

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Barr, J.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Bellamy, A.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Shield, G. W.

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Broad, F. A.

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

    Stephen, Campbell

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Lansbury, George

    Strauss, E. A.

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawson, John James

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Lowth, T.

    Taylor R. A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    March, S.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Connolly, M.

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

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Owen, Major G.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Dunnico, H.

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Paling, W.

    Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

    Gillett, George M.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Potts, John S.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Soring)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

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

    Mr. Snell and Mr. Scurr.

    Groves, T.

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

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Albery, Irving James

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Hanbury, C.

    Plicher, G.

    Balfour, George (Hampsteao)

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Ralne, Sir Walter

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)

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

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Betterton, Henry B.

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

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Hills, Major John Walter

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

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Rye, F. G.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Clayton, G. C.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Templeton, W. P.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Macintyre, I.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    McLean, Major A.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Macquisten, F. A.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Cope, Major Sir William

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

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

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

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

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Wells, S. R.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Withers, John James

    Fleiden, E. B.

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

    Womersley, W. J.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

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

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Forrest, W.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

    Sir Henry Jackson and Sir Cyril Cobb.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Sir H. JACKSON: In support of the Third Reading of the Bill I would like to review what has happened since the Second Reading. I think I am justified in saying that the opposition to the Bill has practically disappeared. In the London traffic area, over which this Bill will operate, there are 132 local authorities. That total includes the county councils of London, Middlesex, Surrey, Essex, Kent and Hertford. It includes the Cities of London and Westminster and 28 Metropolitan boroughs, several urban district councils and several rural district councils. This great army of local authorities, extending in dignity from the great county councils through all the various stages of local government, is ever vigilant for the concern of the ratepayers and inhabitants. Of the 132 local authorities there are now only 11 left in opposition to the Bill. The 11 include eight Metropolitan boroughs and the two county boroughs of East Ham and West Ham, and the Middlesex County Council is still not quite satisfied, though I am confident that its opposition will soon fizzle. I pay a tribute very sincerely to the eight Metropolitan boroughs which opposed the Bill in the Committee stage. They presented their case with great clearness and skill, but I hope that by this time they have been convinced, by the evidence and the close scrutiny of the Committee presided over by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), that they can now rely upon this—that the adequate safeguards for the public, for which they pleaded, are now inserted in the Bill. Those safeguards resulted not from any pressure which they brought to bear, but were given freely by the promoters. The Bill has now been brought much nearer to the ideal of public control which was outlined in the Blue Report. The promoters have throughout been anxious to embody, as far as was possible in legislation, the ideals of the Blue Report. These new features were given gladly and willingly by the promoters.
    May I give two examples. A very definite undertaking has been incorporated in the Bill that, after a reasonable return
    1816
    has been paid on the ranking capital, the disposal of the surplus shall only be made by the consent of the Minister of Transport. In other words, the disposal of the surplus shall come under review by this House, which will have a final voice in the disposal of that surplus. A second important concession to public control is this. In the Bill as it left us on Second Reading it was stated that all public authorities in the area should have the right of appeal to the Minister in regard to what was termed "a general change in the level of fares." The concession has now been willingly offered, without any pressure, that the word "general" should be replaced by the word "material." Accordingly, it is now understood that each local authority will be able to appeal to the Minister in regard to a change of fares in its own area. So we have been approaching, not only to the ideals which the Traffic Advisory Committee have always held, but we are also approaching to the resolution of the London County Council. There is nothing in these Bills which, in any way, hampers the bringing into operation, at the earliest possible moment, of the full scheme of the Blue Report.
    My main object to-night is to outline the far-reaching benefits which will accrue to the travelling public of Greater London and my statements are based upon undertakings given by the promoters during the Committee stage. Our opponents have stated in this House and on countless platforms in London, that fares are to be increased and that the trams are to be scrapped. I hope to be able to show that not only are these evil prophecies untrue, but that, on the contrary, as a result of these Bills, the greatest possible advantages will come to the travelling public—advantages which would not have come to them had these Bills not been placed on the Statute Book. I may remind the House that had it been possible for the Opposition of the Labour party and the Liberal party to have prevailed, these Bills would have been defeated. That fact will not be forgotten in the next few weeks. The first of the benefits to which I have alluded is in reference to the question of tube development. Immediately on the passage of these Bills it is intended to promote, in the next Session of Parliament a Bill to

    1817
    construct an extension of the Piccadilly section of the London Electric Railway northwards from Finsbury Park. The Traffic Advisory Committee have, over and over again, urged that measure as not only the chief but probably the only solution of the transport problem in North-East London. I propose to quote the words used by Lord Ashfield when giving evidence to the Committee. He had previously said in answer to a question that this extension would probably cost from £4,500,000 to £5,000,000, and he went on:
    "I think I have rather pledged the group"—
    speaking of his own electric railway group—
    "to proceed with that extension if these facilities are granted…. I have dealt with North-East London as being the most urgent. There seems to be from all points an insistent demand that extension should be made. I have no doubt that others think they have claims which they think equally important and we are not unmindful of that."
    It is his final sentence which I commend sincerely to the House:
    "But I should be willing if Parliament gave us powers to proceed with extensions, with that as a minimum."
    Mr. DALTON: Do I understand that there is no undertaking whatever, even if these Bills go through, that anything is going to be done in East London or South-East London? Are they to be left to their fate?
    Sir H. JACKSON: If the hon. Member will wait for a moment I may make some statement on that point. The words which I have just quoted show that the work referred to is an instalment of tube extension. Obviously, it is the intention to proceed with this, as soon as there is the establishment of a common fund and common management. This great tube extension is a real practical solution of the problem and, at a time when the two Oppositions are promising great schemes of London traffic development and pointing to the unemployment which such schemes would relieve, it is at least important to notice that we are now given an undertaking that there shall be a commencement with this great tube development, instead of having to wait until that doubtful date of the Greek Kalends when one or other of the Opposition parties come into office.
    1818
    I now come to the question of fares. No subject is of deeper interest to the travelling public. It enters into the very lives and into the weekly budgets of all the homes in this great crowded London of ours. I am going to give this definite assurance—that all existing fares and arrangements on the tramways are to be continued under the common management. That is, the workmen's fares on the tramways, the 2d. mid-day fares on the tramways, the 1s. all-day fares on the tramways and the children's reduced fares on the tramways. Again, I quote the authority on which I make that statement. Lord Ashfield when in the witness chair was asked his opinion about these special fares on the tramways and I quote his reply:
    "I can quite appreciate that those who are using them"—
    that is the special fares—
    "are enjoying a real privilege and I am not suggesting for a single moment that they should be withdrawn. The point that I do suggest is that in my view I am certainly not proposing to make any change…I am bound to accept the situation. There is the situation and there are the fares; they are not going to be altered."
    Therefore, it is the definite opinion of the promoters that as the co-ordination Bills now stand, not only will the great boon of the special fares on the trams be continued but that any proposal to make any material alteration in the fares, rates and charges now in existence, would necessarily require to be justified to the Minister of Transport and could only be carried out with his approval, on the advice of the London Traffic Advisory Committee. That is a safeguard in the public interest, of the most important character. The ultimate aim, and the perfectly justifiable aim is that there should be throughout London a perfectly uniform system of fares—uniform in character and in advantage to the travelling public. There is every indication that the public will be afforded a share in the benefits which will result undoubtedly from the common fund and the common management and the promoters do not contemplate any general increase in the existing fares but rather con-cessions. Again, I think Lord Ashfield had this very much in his mind when in reply to the representatives of East Ham, he said:

    1819
    "It is quite clear that if by good fortune the parties to this agreement had a surplus income, in other words, were making an unreasonable profit, I do not think anybody need worry about the fares being reduced. Public opinion will very quickly force that."
    Now I come to something that I hope will not excite the hilarity of my hon. Friends opposite, but even if it does it will earn the gratitude of that great army that they represent in this House. I refer to the question of workmen's fares. I think it will be agreed that no greater boon exists to the London travelling public than the existence of workmen's fares. They are required, as we all know, by Statute upon all tramways and all railway undertakings. These statutory bodies are compelled to convey workmen at workmen's fares during certain specified hours, but up to now no such facilities have been granted by the omnibuses. It is Lord Ashfield's intention to introduce workmen's fares on the omnibuses in those districts where the omnibuses are the sole means of transport, and where, therefore, cheap facilities for workmen may be needed. Again I will give chapter and verse for this very important announcement. Lord Ashfield makes this statement:
    "It is suggested that the first step in the direction of lower fares should be the introduction of a scheme of workmen's fares upon the omnibuses in those areas not served by trams, and also in those areas where the tram services are inadequate…. It is our purpose to experiment with workmen's fares on the omnibuses in certain areas if the powers under this Bill are conferred upon us and a wider Common Fund is established."
    That is the third boon which I say the travelling public of London is to receive. Now I come to the fourth, perhaps not a boon, but at any rate a very great concession, and when my hon. Friends opposite often try to tell this House that they represent organised labour, I want to emphasise very strongly that one of the chief concerns of the promoters of this Bill has been to safeguard the needs, the lives, the wages, the security, and the future of all employés who are in the service of these great transport undertakings. In the London County Council Bill there is a Clause which gives adequate compensation to any employé displaced as a consequence of these Bills, and when we come to the Combine—and I want to stress this point—the whole of
    1820
    the trade unions concerned—that is, the National Union of Railwaymen, the Transport and General Workers' Union, and the Railway Clerks' Association—asked for, and have obtained, guarantees that have completely satisfied them. This is evidence of that good faith and confidence which, I venture to say, have always existed between organised labour on the one hand and Lord Ashfield's group upon the other.
    This assurance, given to the trade unions mainly concerned with their employés, is, that they do not contemplate, as a result of the establishment of a common fund and common management, discharging any of their employés. The intention is to continue all in service, and they have given an undertaking to ensure this, and, as far as I know, this undertaking has been accepted by them and by their distinguished leaders, the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), Mr. Ernest Bevin and Mr. Walkden, because both sides, Lord Ashfield and his group and the men's leaders, employers and employés, are anxious that their members should continue in employment rather than receive compensation for loss of employment. I have in my hand the letter which Lord Ashfield wrote, and as that letter is public property and is on the minutes of evidence, I think I may be allowed to read it. This letter has been sent to the three organisations concerned and states:
    "This letter is to give you an assurance that none of the present employés of the Underground Railways will have their positions prejudiced as the result of action taken under the provisions of the London Electric Railway Companies (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill. Yours faithfully, (Signed) Ashfield."
    9.0 p.m.
    Let me summarise these great benefits to the travelling public of London which will follow directly as a consequence of these Bills passing into law. First, workmen's fares on the omni-buses, which is a definite reduction in fares; secondly, no interference with the existing special fares on the tramways, namely, workmen's, 2d. mid-day, 1s. all day, and children's fares; thirdly, the immediate extension of the Piccadilly Tube northward, and the commencement of a policy of tube expansion to other districts of London and Greater London; and, fourthly, complete safeguards to the men

    1821
    employed in these great transport undertakings. Although this repetition is not pleasant to hon. Members opposite, I feel that it is my duty to tell them that at every stage of these Bills we have received from the two Oppositions, the Liberal and Labour parties, the most bitter opposition to these proposals. I have no hesitation in saying that these great benefits, which are not platitudes and wild political theories, but will make all the difference in the weekly budgets of these humble homes, would not have been received if our hon. Friends opposite could have prevented it.
    At any rate, the opponents and the promoters agree on one thing, and that is that these two Bills constitute very important legislation. Whether for good or for ill, they are the most important legislation that has been contemplated yet for the transport of Greater London, with its population of 8,000,000, growing and growing, a population twice that of Scotland, a population greater than that of Australia. Transport and travelling facilities enter into the daily lives of these millions and are a vital necessity, and it is in these daily lives, for good or for ill, that these Bills will operate. So, those of us who for the past five years have been studying this problem of London traffic, whether by public inquiries, by committees, or by interviews, are convinced of this, that this is the only solution of the problem. I agree that it is a deeply interesting experiment, and its success or failure will depend largely upon the good will of all in the next few years. If successful, it may well be the pattern for the solution of traffic problems in the other great and crowded areas of Great Britain; and so, with a full knowledge of this responsibility and this opportunity, I ask the House to give the Bill the Third Reading.
    Mr. SCURR: I desire to move that the Bill be read the Third time upon this day three months. We are now nearing the end of what I might perhaps describe as a farcical tragedy which has been performed for some years. Anyone listening for the first time to the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) would think that this was some proposal which had recently come before the public and had been forced upon us—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would like to call the attention of the hon. Member to the course which he is taking and to the Question which is immediately before the House, which is:
    "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."
    I am not sure it would not be more convenient, and perhaps meet the hon. Member's wishes, if he merely spoke and voted against the Question in those words; otherwise I am afraid I might have to divide the Question.
    Mr. LANSBURY: We do not mind if the Question is divided. If you put the first Question now, we will vote on that, and then we can take the Motion for the Third Beading, and vote on the Question "That the Bill be read the Third time upon this day three months." We do not know what is moved. I thought that the hon. Baronet had moved the Third Reading.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to the Question when it was put from the Chair. The Question was read from the Chair,
    "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."
    That is the Question before the House.
    Mr. LANSBURY: If you are going to put these two Questions at one and the same time, we are surely entitled to move the Amendment, "That the Bill be read a Third time upon this day three months." If you rule that we are not allowed to do that, I suggest that, according to the Rules, you must divide the two Questions, and put them to the House separately, so that we can move the Amendment.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The reason I raised the question was that I thought possibly it might be sufficient for the hon. Gentleman's friends merely to vote against the Question as it was put from the Chair, but, if that course does not commend itself to them, then, if he and the House generally wish it, I will put first the Question, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended in respect of the Bill."
    Mr. LANSBURY: We are willing to agree to that course.
    Question put, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended in respect of the Bill."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 56.

    Division No. 295.]

    AYES.

    [9.9 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Albery, Irving James

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Applin, Colonel H. V. K.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

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

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Hanbury, C.

    Phillpson, Mabel

    Balfour, Georg (Hampstead)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Pilcher, G.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Raine, Sir Walter

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

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

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

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Rye, F. G.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Clayton, G. C.

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Little. Dr. E. Graham

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    McLean, Major A.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

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

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

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

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Wells, S. R.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Withers, John James

    Fielden, E. B.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Forrest, W.

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

    Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Sir Henry Jackson and Sir Cyril Cobb.

    Gower, Sir Robert

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

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hardle, George D.

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

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

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

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

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Russell, Richard (Eddisbury)

    Barr, J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Bellamy, A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

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

    Shield, G. W.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Broad, F. A.

    Lawson, John James

    Strauss, E. A.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Lowth, T.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Buchanan, G.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Taylor, R. A.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    March, S.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cluse, W. S.

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

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Connolly, M.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Day, Harry

    Palin, John Henry

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Gillett, George M.

    Paling, W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Potts, John S.

    Mr. Snell and Mr. Scurr.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Mr. SCURR: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

    1825
    Anyone listening to the speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) would think that these were quite innocent Bills, promoted toy persons animated with the greatest possible public spirit, deeply concerned with the problems of London traffic because they have seen them becoming more complex during the last few years, and anxious only to provide the greatest possible travelling facilities in the way of workmen's fares and cheap fares for the people of London. But we are nearing the end of what, in one sense, might be described as a farce, and in another sense as a tragedy. The story to which we are writing "finis" to-night—because the majority on the other side will carry the Third Beading—did not begin with the famous Blue Report of the London Traffic Advisory Committee. It started a good many years ago. If we wish to find the origin of these Bills, we must go beyond the estimable gentlemen who sit on the London Traffic Advisory Committee. We must go to the famous city of Chicago, in which once upon a time there was a gentleman by the name of Yerkes. I think that is the right way of pronouncing his name. Mr. Yerkes thought Chicago was rather a good city to loot from the point of view of traffic. His heart yearned for the public interest. He wanted to convey the Chicago people about their city, and he made every effort to secure a corner in their traffic facilities. Fortunately, the public spirit of Chicago rose against him, and if that gentleman's name is now mentioned in Chicago every decent citizen expectorates—I believe there are plenty of facilities for it in that city.
    Having failed to gain his advantage in Chicago, Mr. Yerkes came over to London, and found here a greater city to loot. He began to lay the foundations for securing complete control of London's traffic. I do not know what happened to him. He was connected with a considerable amount of international finance, German and American. Really, there is a tremendous amount of international finance at the back of this traffic combine of London at the present time, and it is not the purely British concern which it appears to be. I suppose he was not successful enough, and so there came on the
    1826
    scene another gentleman, who, strangely enough, seems also to have had experience in both traffic and politics in the United States of America. That gentleman, who, no doubt, has distinguished ability in certain directions, came to us under the name of Albert Stanley. He entered this House, became a Minister of the Crown, and learned something of our political system. Having found out its advantages and disadvantages, he proceeded to carry on the work which had been started to obtain a monopoly of the traffic facilities of London. To-day he comes forward as the dictator, the Mussolini. I do not think there has ever been in the history of this Parliament such a spectacle as we have had to-night of an hon. Member of this House getting up and giving us assurance after assurance of what is going to happen—not in the name of any public authority, not in the name of this House, but in the name of one man, in the name of Lord Ashfield.
    Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: His word is good enough.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Who is he? We have not made him dictator.
    Mr. SCURR: When we are dealing with public interests, it is not the word, good or bad, of individuals which should come into the matter; it is the word of the public bodies which have to decide these questions, not the fiat of an individual. This gentleman who is so anxious to-day to co-ordinate London's traffic, who is burning with desire to extend the Tube from Finsbury Park, was not formerly so eager to bring about the abolition of competition. When it was only a question of fighting the London County Council trams the traffic monopoly did not worry about competition. It pursued the ordinary methods of commercial enterprise by trying to freeze out the rival enterprise. Competition was good; it was satisfactory for London traffic then.
    Unfortunately for the plans of Lord Ashfield, two or three ex-service men who had put their gratuities together came into the Strand one-day with a chocolate omnibus. That omnibus filled Lord Ashfield with great perturbation. He honoured it. He escorted it wherever it went with several of his omnibuses. He had two or three in front of it, two or three behind it, and one at the side. When that omnibus stopped, all his omni-

    1827
    buses stopped. There was difficulty in getting on. There was trouble with the gears; the petrol gave out. At last a Department of the Government had to interfere, and the police authorities compelled fair play for the chocolate omnibus. Since that time there has been an extension of the independent omnibus undertakings of London, and that has upset Lord Ashfield, and he wants to abolish competition.
    That is one side of the story I am relating, but there is another side. The party opposite, standing for Parliament under various names as Unionists, Conservatives and Tories, in London's affairs call themselves by two names. Some 22 years ago they came before London as Moderates and Municipal Reformers. They secured a majority on the London County Council, and from that time the one idea they have had has been to sell or otherwise get rid of the trams. There are many handbills of that election, and everyone knows that the deliberate object of the London Municipal Society was to get rid of this really highly successful trading enterprise. They were, however, restrained by public opinion, but they have never forgotten the pledges they gave to their paymasters, and they have determined to get rid of the trams of London some time or other. Instead of selling the trams and so obtaining for the ratepayers some return of the capital which has been invested, they are going to give them away to the control of Lord Ashfield. He has realised his ambition, and he is to be the dictator of London traffic. These Bills do not do what they profess to do. They do not co-ordinate London passenger traffic nor are there any arrangements or agreements in them with the suburban traffic of the mainline railways. I may be told that an understanding has been come to between the mainline railways and the Combine and possibly the London County Council. I do not know. After all, the County Council is only a public body. It does not come in matters of this kind. It is the great private enterprise body which is to be taken into consideration, and certainly we know that the mainline railway companies are powerful enough and are represented well enough in this House to take care that they will not suffer in any bargain which is to be made.
    1828
    That is one of the complaints against the Bill. Whatever arrangements or undertakings may have been entered into with regard to the mainline railways and suburban traffic, we are absolutely ignorant of them and in the dark. The Bill leaves the agreements absolutely in the air. It gives a right to the two parties to the agreement simply to make whatever agreement they like. It is to be submitted, we are told, to the Minister of Transport, but he has no power of alteration. He may make suggestions and possibly refuse to agree as to what is ranking capital or what should be a reasonable return. We are told that there is the safeguard of Parliament, because the Order is to lie on the Table of the House. We know what is the procedure of this House. Only recently when the Local Government Bill was before this House, there was very serious discussion, in which many Members of the legal profession took part, regarding the growth of the power of the Minister to legislate by himself. In another place, there was a Clause inserted in the Bill which was and is a real safeguard, inasmuch as under the Local Government Act any Order made by the Minister will have no effect unless Parliament has absolutely approved of it. Under the procedure in regard to this Bill, unless there is a Motion made against it and that Motion is carried, the agreement goes through, and all that Parliament can do is to amend the agreement and either approve it or alter it. Everyone knows that under the procedure of this House, whatever Government is in power, with the state of public business no Government looks with a favourable eye on any proposals to discuss an Order of this kind concerning some private matter affecting a town or district. It comes up after Eleven o'clock, and there is a desultory conversation or discussion and then the whole matter ends. I consider that the procedure which has been taken in order to bring these Bills before the House is one of the most disgraceful things in the history of this country.
    The hon. Member for Central Wands-worth talks about far-reaching benefits. What is the basis of these Bills? It is to abolish competition. If the basis is to abolish competition, the only reason why it is desired to abolish it is that the Combine considers that under the present

    1829
    system it is unable to get what it conceives to be an adequate return on the capital invested. I wants a higher return on that capital than it is now getting. How is it to get it? There are only one or two ways. It can get it by increasing the revenue; and in order to increase the revenue it must increase fares. The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth read out a certain letter of Lord Ashfield in regard to workmen's fares. I followed that letter very carefully, and the only pledge we had from Lord Ashfield was that they would experiment with certain workmen's fares, That was the word used, and, if Lord Ashfield finds his experiment with workmen's fares is going to reduce the return on his capital when he really wants a higher return than he is at present getting, obviously the workmen's fares will go, as far as omnibuses are concerned. They must either increase the fares or, if they do not increase the fares, they must reduce the facilities for travelling and either take the trams or omnibuses off the road. It may be that in one or two places that may be necessary, but when anyone sees the people of London being conveyed about, especially in the peak hours of traffic, one does not think there are, in any sense of the word, too many facilities for getting the people to and from their homes.
    We have heard the same old, old story about tube development. If the Minister of Transport and the Government of the day, knowing that problem which has been urged upon them in report after report of the Traffic Advisory Committee, had only been concerned with the matter, we should not now have had these Bills before us, and we should have had the tubes in hand long ago. Lord Ashfield is unable to go to the City of London and get the money which he wants because they will require too great a rate of interest on account of the management of the concern at present. The return which is being made at present is not sufficient to attract investors to a speculative investment of this kind. Lord Ashfield wants to have at the back of him the credit of the ratepayers of London, and he is getting that credit under these Bills. I consider that they are in every sense of the word a robbery of the rights of the people of London. They have not been brought forward in the public interest. Transport is a
    1830
    great public interest, and particularly the passenger transport of London. It is possible that in the interest of business and other interests in London, you have got to convey the people at cheap rates, it may even pay industry to cheapen the cost of transport, making a charge on the rates covering the whole of London. It may be a better thing and in the interest of business and enterprise if the people can be taken to and fro with cheaper facilities, but that can only be done by a public body which must be concerned all the way through with the public interest. Lord Ashfield, no matter how much public spirit he may have, is compelled by reason of the very fact that he is a Director and Chairman of numerous enterprises of this kind, to consider above everything the interests of his shareholders. He cannot think of anything else, but I do not throw any blame upon him. We consider that the interests of the public are superior to the interests of the Combine shareholders, and for that reason we are opposing this Bill. Although these Measures may pass from our control to-night I warn hon. Members opposite that they have not heard the last of them. Our opposition is not yet finished, and it is quite possible that they will not be able to operate these Measures.
    Mr. GILLETT: I beg to second the Amendment.
    We are very much indebted to the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) for the amusing address which he has delivered. I think it was rather regrettable to hear a Member of this House announcing concessions made by the head of a Combine. The amusing thing about the speech of the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth was that the more you examine it the less one sees in it. I was very much struck by the hon. Member opposite standing up and announcing all those privileges which the tramway service was going to confer upon London. I well remember years ago on the London County Council members of the party opposite doing all they could to prevent the Council taking over the tramways.
    We have been told of a so-called concession which is going to be continued. As a matter of fact I understand that

    1831
    the tramways, after the payment of interest on capital, will show a small surplus. Many of the things which the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth has announced as concessions are things which are in existence to-day. The hon. Member tells us that the 2d. fares are to be continued. When I was a member of the London County Council I remember that an attempt was made by the members of the party opposite to abolish 2d. fares altogether, and had it not been for the action of members of the Opposition party the hon. Member would never have been in a position to announce that something which is new in existence is going to continue. We are told that all these things are going to be continued under the beneficent rule of Lord Ash-field. We thank the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth for nothing, because all these things are now in existence. We all understood from the letter which was read that motor omnibuses were going to have workmen's fares, but now we understand that what the letter actually stated was that experiments were going to be made in workmen's fares on the omnibuses, and that may mean something or it may mean nothing.
    We were also told that Lord Ashfield was graciously going to make preparations for more tube railways near Fins-bury Park, but why were we not told this before. What has happened to make it possible for such an announcement to be made to-day? I do not gather that Lord Ashfield intends to be charitable in this matter, and no doubt those proposals have got a financial backing that is going to float schemes upon the London money market. That is not Lord Ashfield, because the people of London will find the money. From some of the speeches which have been made it would seem that many of these things could not be carried out without these Bills. I know that we have to have an amalgamation of the traffic of London. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is the whole case!"] We may be in agreement on that point, but we differ as to who is going to control the amalgamation. We might have brought about amalgamation and retained control, and then we should have done the same as Lord Ashfield is going to do. Those tubes could have been put down after we had got the amalgamation.
    1832
    With regard to the question of control, everything seems to be based upon Lord Ashfield, but he is not going to live for ever and we are not legislating for Lord Ashfield. You cannot lay down a system of government that is going to be based on the personality of one man, and in every case where a person has tried to be a dictator it has proved to be very dangerous. However satisfactory things might turn out under Lord Ashfield we have to consider what might happen in years to come. Have we any guarantee that the shares in this company will be held by English people? Is there anything to prevent those shares being bought up by American money which is constantly pouring in to buy up such investments? Even if the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth can assure us on that point I do not consider that the board of directors, which may be suitable to run interests in the City of London, is the most suitable body for controlling and directing the traffic of a great city. After all, a board of directors if they have the money can always command the services of the ablest men to carry on any business concern, and any great municipality could command the same services by paying for them.
    What are the questions which have to be settled on the Highways Committee of the London County Council? They are similar questions to those which come up in the Dominions where you find the railway service is controlled by the State. They put the railway service into parts of the country that are not going to pay for a considerable time. That is done in the interests of the community, and exactly the same thing happens in regard to traffic problems in this country. The all-night trams are a very good illustration. We were told that the all-night trams were not a financial success, but they were run simply because the problem was looked at from the point of view of the government of a great city, and not from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence. That is the fundamental difference between the control of the traffic of London by, on the one hand, either a great municipality or combination of municipalities, or, on the other hand, by a private combine.
    On these grounds I am absolutely and entirely opposed to the proposal that has been made by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth. I can congratulate

    1833
    him on one thing, and that is the great skill with which, in speaking in favour of the Third Reading, he avoided telling us anything about the Bill itself, but distracted our attention by these wonderful promises of what Lord Ashfield was going to do for London, most of which, as I have pointed out, are quite worthless. The hon. Member has given the impression to the House that something wonderful is going to be done, but, on the simple question that we want answered, namely, what is really happening to the London County Council trams, he practically said not a word. The House will have noticed that he never told us anything about what is going to happen to the ordinary fares. He told us about the workmen's fares, and about the other concession, but he said not a word about the ordinary fares. He has not told us what, when this body is brought into being, is going to rank as ordinary capital; he has not told us what, in the case of the London County Council, will be counted as ranking capital; he has not told us how the London County Council are going to get the money for the annual capital repayments for which they are liable from year to year. These are the things about which we should have liked to hear, rather than the wonderful promises that the hon. Member mentioned to us. But, of course, he was anxious to distract our attention from these things, and so he said nothing about them. These are some of the questions that I should have liked to have asked him, but now there will not be an opportunity of hearing him again.
    Turning to the Bill itself, we have over and over again been told that the Minister is a kind of guardian angel in reserve, but the point, even then, is what he will be able to do with regard, say, to the question of fares. The Minister has to make allowance for the fact that a reasonable return on the capital has to be earned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) has pointed out, the object of the Combine is to secure that there will be a return on the capital, and the Minister, practically speaking, is absolutely helpless to protect in any way the people of London. That return on capital must be obtained first of all, and, of course, there is little doubt that it can be obtained where
    1834
    there is a monopoly. It may be obtained by economies, or by putting up the fares, or by reducing competition. I presume that some economies are going to be made in the traffic system of London, perhaps by running fewer omnibuses, or by reducing the number of trams, but if, even then, the standard rate of interest is not obtained, then, sooner or later, it will be necessary to put up the fares; and then, if any municipality goes to the Minister and says that the fares are too high, the Minister, unless he can prove that the figures presented to him by the Combine are wrong, has no more power to put the fares back again than anyone else.
    Then we are told that the House of Commons has a chance, but over and over again in this Parliament we have seen what happens at 11 o'clock at night when a Prayer is introduced. Hon. Members know quite well how exceedingly ineffective that is, when everyone is wanting to go home, when the Press is hardly represented at all, and there is practically no chance of effective opposition. The hon. Member smiles, and I can quite appreciate that he enjoys the joke, because he knows perfectly well that he has been "putting it over" us, and that, in his pleasant way, he has really been fooling us. I can only say that some of us know perfectly well that it is really not quite so funny as that. This Bill, to my mind, is one of the worst Bills that we have seen in this Parliament, where we have seen a fair number of unsatisfactory Bills. We are asked to part with this great municipal service, and we are told practically nothing by the representatives of the London County Council as to what is going to happen. We know nothing about the capital, we know little about the rate of interest, we know little about the control. We are simply told that, if only we will hand over everything to Lord Ashfield, all will be for the best; but how long it is going to last we do not know, or who will reign in the place of Lord Ashfield in the days to come. Such a system does not commend itself to me, and, much as it may satisfy the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth to tell the people of London about this concession that he has made, I certainly should not have the slightest fear in going to my constituents and telling them that this so-called favour which is to be

    1835
    conferred by the hon. Member upon London is one of the greatest frauds that we have seen in this Parliament.
    Sir C. COBB: One would have thought, from the speeches of the two hon. Members who have moved the rejection of this Bill, that some terrible and nefarious contract had been entered into with Lord Ashfield. They seem to have the most exaggerated idea of what has happened. After all, there is no agreement yet, and the ground is perfectly clear for an agreement to be arrived at as soon as this Bill goes through. This Bill, as I have always understood it, is an enabling Bill, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), as well as hon. Members opposite, that the London County Council is quite capable of taking care of itself, and is not going to enter into any agreement with Lord Ashfield or anyone else unless it safeguards both the interests of the council itself and the interests of the travelling public. It is on these very few points that most of the speeches on behalf of the Council were made on the Second Reading. So far as regards the safeguarding of the interests of the Council and the public, anyone who studies the proceedings in the Committee upstairs, or reads the speeches made on the Second Beading, will see that the London County Council is fully seized of what it ought to do to preserve and safeguard those rights and privileges of the public, and to ensure, so far as it can be ensured, that there will be an extension of traffic facilities for London.
    As soon as ever this Bill is through—and I have no doubt that it will go through—we shall be in a position to make an agreement. The County Council will then see that no agreement is made unless it is perfectly certain that the financial interests of the tramway undertakings in London are stabilised by their fusion with the other traffic undertakings in London, and will also take care that there will be no kind of doubt that, so far as our representatives on the combine are concerned, we shall have, perhaps not altogether a decisive, but a very strong voice in protecting the interests of the travelling public. In the third place, we shall take care that, so far as these agreements are concerned, there will be assured for the travelling
    1836
    public those improved traffic facilities which can only be obtained by combining the municipal and private undertakings. That being the case, I hope I have been able to bring the Debate back to the main point we are considering, whether we shall give leave to the County Council and to the Combine to enter into this agreement, safeguarding in those three particular ways the interests of the tramway concern and of the travelling public.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. STRAUSS: The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill gave a very interesting account of the negotiations and machinations which have been going on for years in order to get control of the London passenger traffic. I cannot refrain from reminding him and the party with which he is associated that we should not be in this predicament to-day if the London Traffic Act, 1924, had not received the support of the Socialist and Conservative parties. I was glad to hear from the hon. Member for Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) of the safeguards the travelling public will obtain at the hands of the County Council, but I fail to see how the travelling public will be protected, in view of the fact that the County Council will only have two representatives out of a board of some 18 members. I cannot help expressing my regret at the way in which those who represent the County Council have dealt with this very important matter. I realise that those who control the Combine are astute business men. Their interest is to earn dividends. In my opinion the interests of the Combine are diametrically opposed to those of the County Council, especially in regard to the tram service. The object of the County Council is not to try to make a big profit out of the passenger traffic but to give a service at the lowest possible rate. As far as I can see, there has not been any loss in the past and, if there had been a loss, the services the trams have rendered to the travelling public are beyond doubt. I do not know how the travelling public would get on without the trams. The one fear that is exercising the minds of the poorer people who use the trams is that there is no guarantee that fares will not be increased. We have heard of the safeguards—the appeal to the Minister, who will be able to veto any exploitation.

    1837
    The Combine run omnibuses at unremunerative rates. It is quite a business proposition to do so, in order to develop various districts, and, if they desire, they can run omnibuses on many of these routes, with the result that the profits of the pool will naturally de-crease. It is legitimate business. They hope to reap the benefit in years to come. What will the result of such a policy be? The figures that will be submitted to the Minister and his advisers will show that the fares are too low and must be raised. They cannot make a fair return on their capital. The gentlemen who will represent the Combine are men who have forgotten more about London Traffic than his advisers ever learnt. It will be a one-sided sort of negotiation and, on the figures they produce, the Minister would be compelled to sanction an increase of fares. Therefore the safeguards are quite illusory. I regret more than I can express that those gentlemen, who I am sure have the interests of this great Metropolis at heart, have taken this step. If I am correctly informed, these Bills are to be held over for the new Parliament. I cannot understand, therefore, why there is this hurry to introduce these very controversial Measures in the last days of a dying Parliament. It is an outrageous course to pursue to force the Bill through. I wish to place on record our protest at the way the representatives of the county council handle such an important matter as the passenger traffic of London, and I feel sure that, as soon as the electors have an opportunity of expressing their opinions, they will censure them.
    Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: It appears to me that both the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment have not read the Bill. As I understand them, they are merely enabling Bills. They are to make it possible for the traffic of London to come into one central pool under one central management. There is nothing compulsory about it. The Mover of the Amendment said the effect of the Bill will be that the County Council will not be selling their trams but giving them away. I never heard a wilder statement, There is not a word of truth in it. The whole point is that the trams will be handed over to the pool, with a common management. If there is no
    1838
    money in the pool to pay for the capital invested in the trams, the omnibuses and railways will not get anything either. After all, the management of the Underground railways and omnibuses are not such a body of fools that they run their business at a loss, and they have no intention of going into a scheme which will result in a loss to the County Council. Nor is there anything compulsory on the County Council. It permits them to enter into an agreement with this pool. I am extremely anxious to see the common management of London traffic become law as soon as possible. It seems to me that it is the only chance in the interests of the teeming thousands of workers who have been, largely owing to the action of the London County Council, compelled to live outside London, in distant parts, without any adequate means of getting to their work and getting back again at night.
    The travel conditions prevailing beyond the actual East End, and into Ilford, both night and morning, are positively disgusting. You get packed into a tiny little carriage 15 people sitting on one another's knees, and generally having to travel in a disgusting condition. When old men and young girls are tired after a hard day's work in London, it is hard that they should have to travel home at night under conditions of that sort, Here, I believe, I shall be in agreement for once in my life with the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) who wants a tube out East. I want a tube out East, and I am convinced—I only wish he was—that by these Bills we are taking a serious step forward towards getting a tube there. I believe that by common management, by rationalisation—it is not a word which I like; it is too much like the word "nationalisation" which my hon. Friends opposite like to use—of the traffic problem of London, funds can be found to extend the Underground Railway. It appears to me that the only way to travel now is either in the air or underground. It is quite impossible to travel on the roads. To-day I travelled, in company with a right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, to Ilford by motor, and it took over an hour to get there. The roads were congested with trams, some of them belonging to the London County Council, some to the West Ham Corporation, and some to the Ilford Borough. There were trams,

    1839
    omnibuses, lorries, everything. You could not move. The place was simply a seething mass of traffic. I believe that with the proper co-ordination made possible by these Bills we shall be able not only to raise money to build tubes, but to im-prove and control the traffic in a more reasonable way. I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in these Bills to allay the fears of the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Strauss) that fares are going to be raised. The safeguards here are quite enough, and if he will take the trouble to read Clause 11 again, I think that he will agree with me on that point. This is a matter of vital importance to the teeming millions in London who have to travel out to sleep. The London County Council are going to extend their huge housing estate in the East. They are going to build another 10,000 houses. How on earth the people are going to get to work and back again without some scheme of this sort, I cannot imagine. I hope that the hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Southwark, who is representing the Liberal party, will withdraw their stupid opposition to these proposals, and allow the Bill to go through.
    Mr. NAYLOR: May I first congratulate the Minister of Transport for his presence during the Debate this evening? We are glad to have him with us, and I hope he is going to give some further information as to why he has been so friendly towards this Bill. I want to refer to the remarks which were made by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton). He is very optimistic if he thinks that his constituents, who now have to travel under such unfavourable conditions morning and night, are in some miraculous manner about to have all these difficulties removed in consequence of the passing of these Bills. He tells us, as we have been told before in this House, that by passing these Bills Lord Ashfield and his company intend to build tubes where they are most needed in London, probably in the direction of the Division represented by the hon. Member for Ilford, and also in the North of London, on the other side of Finsbury Park. The hon. Member for Ilford did not give any explanation as to how this remarkable change was going to be brought about. We on this side of the House are quite willing to learn, as
    1840
    we have already asked for explanations as to the manner in which the capital for the tubes is to be raised as a consequence of the passing of these Bills, and can get no reply. The hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson), when the Bill was before the House on Second Reading, also suggested that if the House would only pass these Bills, these tubes would at once be created by the newly-formed Combine.
    Some two years ago Lord Ashfield was approached by certain municipalities in South London with the object of getting these tubes built in order to avoid the present scandal attaching to passenger traffic in London. Lord Ashfield said that he was quite prepared to build these tubes—he would build them in north, east, south and west—on one condition, and that one condition was, if he could get the capital necessary for the project. He could not get the capital, because he could not assure those who had capital to invest that the tubes that would be built would be sufficiently remunerative to allow that capital to make what would be regarded as a reasonable return. Now we are told by the hon. Member for Ilford, and by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth, that all we have to do is to pass these two Bills and immediately what was impossible before, because there could be no fair market return upon the capital invested in these new tubes, is suddenly changed, and we may suppose that a great profit is about to be made. There is one explanation only how a profit can be made after the passing of these Bills, and which could not be made unless the Bills are passed. That is, that fares would be sufficiently high, not merely on the new tubes but in all the regions of transport controlled by the new Combine, and to such an extent as to make the unprofitable lines pay by the assistance of those which are already profitable. The hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) made a speech to-night, which was remarkable for its brevity. Some men can say a great deal in a few words.
    Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Some talk a long time, but say nothing.
    Mr. NAYLOR: We have had long speeches in this House during which not much has been said, but when I look at

    1841
    the clock I find I am able to say that I am under no accusation at present of having made a long speech.
    Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: You have not said anything yet.
    Mr. NAYLOR: I have said more than the hon. Gentleman who has interjected. It is quite easy to interrupt a speaker and try to divert him from the subject with which he is dealing, but it is quits another matter to get up and argue the point you want to argue in the face of opposition. I would suggest to the, hon. Member that the cheap interruption he has made is unworthy of him and of those whom he represents in this House. We are dealing with a serious subject. I am treating the subject seriously myself. I do not want to detain the House too long in putting my points before hon. Members on this the last occasion upon which we shall have an opportunity. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) was once chairman of a committee of the County Council, and a deputation waited upon him and his committee. I refer to this incident in connection with the argument that the facilities given to the working men of London to travel cheaply by day and night has been prompted on the part of the County Council by consideration for the convenience of the travelling public. The hon. Member will remember that that deputation, some five or six years ago, asked for special tramway facilities in the night, for cheaper fares and facilities of transfer from one route to another. The hon. Member was extremely sympathetic towards the object of the deputation, with the result that the facilities were granted. Why? Because we were dealing with a municipality and with men who were representing the interests of the travelling public, and not with a private enterprise which was concerned not so much with the interests of the travelling public as with the question of whether or not certain services would yield a profit.
    No amount of argument will convince me that it is possible to persuade such a monopoly as we are about to create, to do things solely in the interests of the travelling public. If certain things can be done later, why should they not be done now, when there is no combination with the County Council? Take the
    1842
    question of our tubes in the early morning and in the evening, at the peak hours. Is the convenience of the travelling public served by the arrangement made for the peak hours of traffic, morning and night? Not the slightest consideration is shown to the travelling public. Even when they do lengthen the trains and increase the service there is still such overcrowding as makes it impossible for large numbers of people to travel with any sense of comfort, or even with a sense of security.
    The county council have taken this course without having any mandate from the people of London. When they went to the electors they said not a word about the secret conferences that were taking place between the leaders of the Municipal Reform Party and the leaders of the Combine. They stated their policy to the electors, but said not a word about the great betrayal of the people of London that was about to take place. Hon. Members stand in this House to-night representing the county council and suggets that they are taking this step in the interests of the people of London. Those who have taken this course will live to regret the day. They will live to acknowledge their mistake, which is another matter altogether. Those hon. Members opposite who have taken the mistaken view that this combination will be to the advantage of London will have a great disillusionment in the very near future, and when the people of London find that they have been betrayed, that the facilities promised are not there, that the inconveniences still remain, they will ask how it is that men who profess to represent the interests of the community should treat them in this way. I hope that any other hon. Members who speak in this Debate will give the explanation lacking in the speeches of other hon. Members who have supported the Bills, and will tell us how these things are going to happen simply because we allow this combination to take place.
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I feel that those who represent London constituencies should say a word or two on the subject of these Bills. For years past London Members of Parliament, and particularly those representing constituencies to the North of London, have been agitating for better traffic

    1843
    facilities in their districts, and on every occasion any question connected with the London County Council tramways or the underground railways came up for consideration Members of all parties in the House inquired when new tubes to these districts could, or would, be made. Here is an opportunity to facilitate the construction of these tubes and we have the amazing spectacle of the whole Socialist party and the Liberal party doing all they can to prevent the passage of these Bills; the Socialist party merely because the tramways are not to be municipalised. They do not care whether the people of London get these facilities or not provided that the wonderful word "socialism" comes in. Why the Liberal party are opposing these Bills I cannot for the life of me understand, considering that the question of the construction of tubes is in the marvellous Yellow Book which has been produced by its leader. Their attitude is that unless these tubes are constructed under the Liberal scheme they shall not be constructed at all. We shall tell the people of our constituencies the attitude taken up by the Opposition.
    I want these new tubes constructed as soon as possible. I am in the fortunate position of representing a constituency, South Hackney, which has been given a definite undertaking that a tube will be constructed, and I am ready to accept Lord Ashfield's word that he will construct a tube in that district. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Naylor) and the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) asked why, if the tubes have not been built before they are to be built now. They surely cannot have read the Report of the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee in which they say:
    "We feel convinced that no substantial improvement in the travelling facilities of Greater London can be effected until some such scheme as is outlined in this Report can he made effective."
    By these Bills we are trying to make the scheme effective. They must surely know that if you have traffic running as a coordinated whole in conjunction with, instead of in competition with, each other you are bound to make savings. If instead of the trams and tubes and omnibuses all running in competition with each other in the same direction you coordinate them all, you are bound to make savings, and anyone who knows anything
    1844
    about business at all will understand that by this means the common pool will be built up and construction started. We on this side of the House, who represent constituencies where the traffic problem is acute, believe one thing. We want to get something done at once, and, therefore, we think that these Bills should be passed and become law as soon as possible so that the construction of these improved travelling facilities which our constituents desire may be started at once.
    Mr. MARCH: I do not want to give a silent vote, especially after the elaborate statement made to us by the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson). He has given us a promise that workmen's fares are to be instituted on the omnibuses. But the omnibuses cannot give those facilities in fares now, in places where there is no competition with trams. We have had some experience in this matter. As soon as the omnibuses get to the place where mid-day fares are in operation the conductors turn their boards, and then immediately they get clear of that place they turn the boards again. If that is the way they are to give workmen's fares when there is no competition with trams, I have my doubts as to the promise made to-night being carried out. They do not say anything as to the time when the workmen's fares are to begin in the morning. The London County Council has recently chopped off half an hour from the time that used to be allowed for workmen's fares in the morning. Now many of the people, mostly young men and women going to the City, have to get to their offices half or three-quarters of an hour before they are wanted, if they wish to have the benefit of workmen's fares, and that means waiting about the streets. Of course it is very nice in wet weather or frost and snow! It is all very well for the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth to laugh. The whole thing is very amusing to those who do not have to put up with this experience, but it is not very amusing to the victims, the young people just starting for work.
    Then with regard to the facilities provided by the omnibus companies. The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) said that the county council are to build another 10,000 houses. The county council built a large number at Dagenham,

    1845
    and Becontree, but did not provide any facilities for people to get to and from their homes. They left that for the Combine. Instead of coming here for powers to run trams, after having widened the roads, they left the whole business to the Combine and to the railway company. Any hon. Member ought to travel on the London Midland and Scottish Railway from 6 o'clock to 8 o'clock in the evening and see how pleasant it is to travel down to Dagenham Dock and Rainham. It is the same thing in the morning. Now the omnibus company runs omnibuses to Rainham. The omnibuses have upset the bridge over a river on the route, and the Romford Rural Council or the Essex County Council are to widen that bridge. The omnibuses used to go round to the clock tower, to which they have their fares allocated. That took five minutes longer each way, to and fro. Now they are stopping in the new arterial road, and if people want an omnibus they have to walk from the clock tower to get the omnibus.
    That is how the Combine studies the interests of the travelling public when competition is not great and the train services is not good. It is doing just what it likes with the people, and I am not in love with the way it carries on its business. It is, therefore, only right that we should try to get all possible safeguards for the convenience of passengers. I am sure that, as soon as these Bills are passed and Lord Ashfield gets control, some trams will be taken off the road. That is one of the things uppermost in his mind. As the number of trams is reduced, so the convenience of travellers is reduced. We were to have had tubes to the East End years ago. Instead, trains from Fenchurch Street to Blackwall were taken off. When we asked why, we were told, "We had to stop them during the War and we do not see how we can now put them on again. They will not pay." Is it to be wondered at that the people of East London are concerned as to what is going to happen if these services are handed over to the Combine without proper restrictions? Even though we are told that this is only an enabling Bill, I hope the County Council will remember that they have not provided all the facilities which they might have provided for the travel-
    1846
    ling public, and I hope they will not allow Lord Ashfield to take the whole of the traffic away from them.
    Mr. RHYS: The speakers on the Opposition side are constantly deploring the terrible condition of affairs existing in East and North-East London in connection with transport, but apparently they are quite prepared to allow matters to remain as they are, and not allow any steps taken for the alleviation of those conditions. Oddly enough, when the Inquiry took place into this question the Report was signed by the Labour representatives as well as the other representatives. All were agreed that some sort of co-ordination was necessary, but, apparently, the quarrel is as to who is to manage the Combine when co-ordination has been reached. We cannot expect the Socialist party to approve of the principle of private enterprise, but it is difficult to understand the attitude of the Liberal party. The hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Strauss) said he was sorry that the county council had advocated the measure which they did advocate, but he did not say what he would have put in its place. I am sure that in what I am about to say I shall carry with me the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. March), whom I have the honour of representing in this House.
    Mr. MARCH: I am one of the hon. Member's constituents who will vote against him.
    Mr. RHYS: I can claim to be closely in touch with my constituents, particularly in the district which is to be most benefited by the tube which will, I hope, materialise as a result of this Measure I find that most of them are not concerned as to how the tube comes as long as it comes at all. They do not wish to travel any longer than is possible under the conditions which have been so graphically described. I may interpose this remark—that, as far as the London, Midland and Scottish Railway is concerned, we shall in the course of this year have that line doubled and electrified as far as Dagenham. I welcome this Measure as the only prospect of obtaining relief from the appalling travelling conditions existing on the East side of London.
    Mr. W. BENNETT: As the representative of one of the eight municipal

    1847
    boroughs which have opposed this Bill consistently throughout, I rise to oppose it again at this stage. In our opinion these Bills ought never to have been brought before the House. They definitely place private interests before the public good. I have been challenged by the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) and others on the question of fares. We are quite unrepentant and we are going to raise that question on every platform in both the municipal and Parliamentary elections. The promises made by the hon. Member for Wandsworth on behalf his Imperial master, are simply not worth the breath with which they have been uttered in this House. Every single thing which we have asked to be included in the agreement or in these Bills has been refused, and hon. Gentlemen opposite have wasted a magnificent opportunity. With a majority on the London County Council and in this House, it would have been easy for them to obtain for London a real and definite control over its whole traffic problem. That opportunity has been wasted. It has been used definitely to put this Combine into power. We never supposed for a moment that when this Bill was passed they would immediately raise the fares. It may be that experiments will be made in order to say to the people of London, "The private Combine has reduced your fares for a few months," but they are the first who will come forward and say to us, "What is in the bond? What is the letter of the bond? We are bound by our Act to provide a sufficient supply of money to pay the interest on the whole of the shares of all the component companies."
    There is only one thing that this job reminds me of, and that is the old story I used to read in my youth of Sinbad the sailor. Sinbad, like the people of London, had a traffic problem. I believe he had to cross a stream at one time, and he was asked to give assistance to an old man of the sea, who came along and wanted a trip with him. He gave him a lift across the river, and the consequence was that the old man of the sea—I do not know whether or not he came from America—was for ever implanted on the neck of Sinbad, with both his legs round his neck. We have
    1848
    tried one Amendment after another to get free of the grip of this great Combine on the citizens of London, but we have been denied by this House. I believe that Sinbad finally got rid of his old man of the sea when he had taken a drop too much of some special brew of "Sinbad's own," and he placed his head on one large stone and cracked it with another stone. I fancy that will be the vote of the citizens of London on the London County Council and on this House as a result of this business.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I should like to have heard from the Minister of Transport what the Government have to say on this subject, as they have been discreetly silent all the way through. I also wanted to ask whether it was not a fact that these Bills are going through with the London County Council not free to make new arrangements. The county council has already negotiated with the Combine and with other interests, and, therefore, it is monstrous for the hon. Member for Fulham, West (Sir C. Cobb) to tell us what the county council can or cannot do, when he knows as well as I do that all that has been settled, because neither the Combine nor the council would go to the expense of asking for an enabling Bill unless they had first settled what that Bill would enable them to do.
    The next point is that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rhys) knows very well that three years ago we were promised by the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway—and this is why we take no stock of the promises as to the tubes we are going to get—through one of their representatives here, that their connection from Broad Street right away down to Southend should be electrified very soon. They said there was no need to build a new tube or a railway, as the railway was there, and it only wanted to be electrified. The hon. Member's constituents know that—
    Mr. RHYS: The hon. Member is quite right in what he says that two years ago the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway promised a comprehensive scheme for improving the line. Their Bill goes through to-night or to-morrow, and then those improvements can be carried out.
    Mr. LANSBURY: It has taken them nearly three years to do it, and we were

    1849
    going to get it done immediately. By the time that job is finished, we shall have waited about five years. [Interruption.] I am making my statement, and some of us will be in the next Parliament and will be able to tell one another who was the right prophet. I got up mainly to say this. We are continually told by hon. Gentlemen that now that there is a chance of getting something done, we are objecting to it. The reason that we are objecting is because the Combine is to be given the control of a municipally-owned undertaking, and is to have the credit of a municipality behind its finance or nothing at all, and we object to that. I can understand why the right hon. Gentleman has not spoken to-night. He is a great advocate of anti-Socialism and of private enterprise. This Bill is private enterprise plus the elimination of competition, which the right hon. Gentleman has always told us is the salt of life. In this Bill you are going to
    eliminate private enterprise from the point of view of competitive industry, and give; a great combination a monopoly. We say that if there is to be a big monopoly, the only people who ought to have it are the people themselves, and there ought never to be a privately-owned monopoly in any country. That is why we object to this. When hon. Members say what their constituents are thinking, I beg to tell them that when 30th May comes, they will have a rude awakening. That is why we have no fear whatever about what the people of London will think when they come to realise that you are giving away their property to an American concern, to be controlled in the interests of a concern dominated not by British money, but by American money.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 54.

    Division No. 296.]

    AYES.

    [10.43 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Albery, Irving James

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

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

    Galbraith, J. F. W.

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Ganzonl, Sir John

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

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

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Bevan, S. J.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Penny, Frederick George

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hamilton, Sir George

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome).

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hanbury, C.

    Phillpson, Mabel

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

    Harland, A.

    Pilcher, G.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Pownall, Sir Assheton

    Campbell, E. T.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Cassels, J. D.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col Sir Vivian

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Remer, J. R.

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

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

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hills, Major John Waller

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

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Ross, R. D.

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

    Rye, F. G.

    Colman, N. C. D.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney).

    Cope, Major Sir William

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

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Sandon, Lord

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Smithers, Waldron

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraserr

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Templeton, W. P.

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

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handtw'th)

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

    Edmondson. Major A. J.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    McLean, Major A.

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

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

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Margesson, Captain D.

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

    Fielden, E. B.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Womersley, W. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Sir Henry Jackson and Sir Cyril Cobb.

    Wells, S. R.

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Withers, John James

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Dunnico, H.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

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

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Potts, John S.

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

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Amman, Charles George

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hardie, George D.

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

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Barr, J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Batey, Joseph

    Kelly, W. T.

    Shield, G. W.

    Bellamy, A.

    Lansbury, George

    Smith, Rennie (Pentstone)

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Snell, Harry

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Lawson, John James

    Strauss, E. A.

    Broad, F. A.

    March, S.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

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

    Taylor, R. A.

    Buchanan, G.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Connolly, M.

    Paling, W.

    Day, Harry

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Duncan, C.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Mr. Scurr and Mr. Gillett.

    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES (CO-ORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL. [By Order.]
  As amended, considered.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read
  the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 56.

  Division No. 297.]

  AYES.

  [10.53 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

  MacIntyre, Ian

  Albery, Irving James

  Fielden, E. B.

  McLean, Major A.

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

  Ford, Sir P. J.

  MacRobert, Alexander M.

  Atholl, Duchess of

  Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

  Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

  Makins, Brigadier-General E.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Galbraith, J. F. W.

  Margesson, Captain D.

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

  Ganzoni, Sir John

  Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

  Betterton, Henry B.

  Glyn, Major R. G. C.

  Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

  Bevan, S. J.

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

  Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

  Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

  Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

  Briscoe, Richard George

  Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

  Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

  Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

  Moreing, Captain A. H.

  Broun-Lindsay, Major H

  Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

  Neville, Sir Reginald J.

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

  Hamilton, Sir George

  Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

  Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

  Hammersley, S. S.

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

  Campbell, E. T.

  Hanbury, C.

  Oman, Sir Charles William C.

  Cassels, J. D.

  Harland, A.

  Pennefather, Sir John

  Cautley, Sir Henry S.

  Harrison, G. J. C.

  Penny, Frederick George

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

  Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

  Perkins, Colonel E. K.

  Clayton, G. C.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

  Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

  Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

  Phllipson, Mabel

  Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

  Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

  Pilcher, G.

  Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

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

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Colman, N. C. D.

  Hills, Major John Waller

  Price, Major C. W. M.

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

  Raine, Sir Walter

  Cope, Major Sir William

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

  Reid, D. D. (County Down)

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

  Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

  Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

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

  Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

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

  Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

  Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Ross, R. D.

  Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

  Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

  Rye, F. G.

  Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

  Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

  Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

  Davits, Ma). Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

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

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Davies, Dr. Vernon

  Kindersley, Major G. M.

  Sandeman, N. Stewart

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

  King, Commodore Henry Douglas

  Sanders, Sir Robert A.

  Dixey, A. C.

  Lamb, J. O.

  Sandon, Lord

  Edmondson, Major A. J.

  Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

  Smithers, Waldron

  Elliot, Major Walter E.

  Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

  Southby, Commander A. R. J.

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

  Steel, Major Samuel Strang

  Fairfax, Captain J. G.

  McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

  Tasker, R. Inigo.

  Wallace, Captain D. E.

  Womersley, W. J.

  Templeton, W. P.

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

  Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

  Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

  Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

  Thomson, Sir Frederick

  Warrender, Sir Victor

  Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

  Watts, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Wells, S. R.

  Sir Henry Jackson and Sir Cyril Cobb.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

  Withers, John James

  NOES.

  Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

  Dunnico, H

  Ponsonby, Arthur

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

  Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Potts, John S.

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

  Griffith, F. Kingsley

  Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

  Ammon, Charles George

  Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Hardle, George D.

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

  Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

  Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Barr, J.

  Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

  Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

  Batey, Joseph

  Kelly, W. T.

  Shield, G. W.

  Bellamy, A.

  Lansbury, George

  Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

  Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

  Lawrence, Susan

  Snell, Harry

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

  Lawson, John James

  Strauss, E. A.

  Broad, F. A.

  March, S.

  Sullivan, J.

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Montague, Frederick

  Taylor, R. A.

  Buchanan, G.

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

  Cluse, W. S.

  Owen, Major G.

  Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

  Connolly, M.

  Palin, John Henry

  Crawfurd, H. E.

  Paling, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Day, Harry

  Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

  Mr. Scurr and Mr. Gillett.

  Duncan, C.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE (Re-Committed) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

  DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE (Re-Committed) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Constitution of Doncaster Drainage District and Doncaster District Drainage Board.)
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, after the word "Goole," to insert the words:
    "but not including the Murrain Lane drain outfall sluice."
    The property of the Aire and Calder Navigation will be excluded from the authority on the new Board, but the Murram Lane drain has an outfall sluice running through their property, which should be under the control of the Board, and I move this Amendment to provide for that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out paragraph (6).
    The short point with regard to this Amendment is this: The Doncaster area is a very low-lying area, which is in danger of submergence owing to mining subsidence, and so urgent is the question of drainage in this area that the Royal
    1854
    Commission which dealt with the larger problem recommended that a special Commission be set up to deal exclusively with this area. In the midst of a fairly considerable area, all of which sooner or later will be undermined, one comparatively small portion is left out of the suggested area which is to be under the control of the Central Board. We think that there ought to be no exception at all, or that, should there be an exception, the exceptions ought to be considerably extended beyond the references made in paragraph (b). The Hatfield Moors Drainage Award in 1925 placed certain responsibilities upon the allottees for the repair and maintenance of various drains, and we think that those liabilities ought to remain. Obviously, if one small portion of a considerable area is eliminated from a large scheme like this, the chances are that, when mining subsidence takes place ultimately, the areas surrounding the excepted area may be called upon to carry the overflow water from that area, which, possibly, would endanger the social amenities and the health of the people in the adjacent areas. Moreover, we think that some part of the liability which ought to rest upon the shoulders of allottees, under the Award to which I have referred, would be escaped by them. I think the best and shortest argument that one could submit in favour of the deletion of this paragraph would be to refer to the Report of the Royal Commission, which went thoroughly into this

    1855
    question, and one of the members of which, by the way, was the engineer of the boring company, who pressed very hard to secure the exclusion of this particular area. The fact that this gentleman, Mr. Tomlinson, who was a member of the Commission, and who spoke for the boring company, was unable to persuade the Commission to support the exclusion of this area, is no justification for rejecting this Amendment. The Commission say:
    "We recognise that, other things being equal, there is nothing to be gained by expending money in draining land which, when drained, will be of no agricultural or other value. At the same time we do not feel that we have sufficient detailed knowledge of the area to enable us to say what particular parts in it are not worth draining, and could, without prejudice to health or other interests, be left undrained after subsidence. We therefore hesitate to make any specific recommendation in regard to Hatfield Moors"—
    that is the point to which I am referring—
    "but we are confident that the Drainage Court and the local drainage authorities will deal with questions such as those raised in regard to Hatfield Moors in a commonsense manner, and that if they are satisfied that no advantage will be gained by drainage works in a particular area and that no harm will result from it being left undrained after subsidence, will not insist on remedial works in respect of that area."
    That report was signed by the engineer of the boring company, which has always sought to have this area excluded from any large drainage scheme. We agree with the Commission when they say that if no beneficial results can accrue from draining land adjacent which is not likely to be useful for agricultural, or indeed for other purposes, the Central Board would act in a commonsense way and not impose unnecessary duties on the Drainage Commissioners. For that reason and the reasons of health and the general amenities in the adjacent areas, we think this paragraph ought to be eliminated.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The question of health really does not arise. The proposal is to leave out merely those areas that are used for the purpose of the extraction of peat. They will get no benefit from drainage. I cannot accept the Amendment because I am sure the proper course is to adopt the provisions of the West Riding of Yorkshire Act, which this Bill largely replaces.
    Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question of health is one of the main questions that has-been taken into consideration? Is he aware that in the Commission's report that question dominates almost every other? In most of these areas huge populations are growing and big housing schemes are being carried out. On this moor which it is proposed to exclude, a colliery company has sunk a bore hole. If a colliery is established, there will be a housing scheme, and these people will be in the same position as all the other housing schemes and collieries in the neighbourhood. Why they have seen fit to exclude Hatfield Moor passes my comprehension, except that it is a fact that one of the persons responsible for the boring of this bore hole, and I believe an official of the colliery company that intends sinking a pit there, was the Member for the Division. We who know the district and have studied the maps do not see why an area surrounded by other land which is to be drained in similar circumstances should be left over. The only excuse is that this is a peat area from which peat will be extracted on the surface, and even so, after the peat has been extracted, if the land is any use for anything, and apparently it is, in the opinion of some of them, the area shall come into drainage if they think fit. If they do not, it will be left as a swamp. It is bound to be a swamp. As seam after seam of coal is taken out and there is subsidence, it will get below sea level. Is not that likely to be a menace to health and a danger to the surrounding districts? That is one of the main reasons why the Commission have gone into the business, and why they are suggesting the exclusion of this moor under these circumstances passes any comprehension. It is very foolish indeed. The right hon. Gentleman would have been wise to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Really, the hon. Gentleman's arguments are not convincing. There may be a great deal of housing. If housing takes place in any part of this moor it would cease to be used for the extraction of peat, and therefore would be liable to be brought in. If it is fit for any other purpose, including housing, it comes in, and while it is not used for any other purpose than

    1857
    the extraction of peat there is really no cause to bring it in.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman are equally unconvincing. The Amendment made in Committee, which included paragraphs (c) and (d), disposed of the argument he submits. We know that the British Company are operating on a portion of this land. We do not object to that portion being excluded while work is taking place for the purpose named. When sooner or later, as my hon. Friend suggests, a pit is sunk and coal begins to be drawn it is going to be a menace. The greater question is, that not only the immediate area but the adjacent areas will have to bear a burden which ought to be borne by the whole of the area. The engineer of the boring company, which for ten, twenty or fifty years may demand so much for every ton of coal produced, has sought to exclude this area because they did not want to take their share of the draining of that particular area. The right hon. Gentleman ought to see the wisdom, since he wants to see the Doncaster area properly drained, of making that exception and allowing the area to be drained as it ought to be drained in years to come.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. PALING: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, to leave out the words "as amended by any subsequent enactments."
    The purpose of this Amendment is really to protest against the method adopted in this Bill. In order to understand what is going to be done and why it is going to be done, one has to make references to I do not know how many different Acts. I think it is almost impossible for the ordinary person to understand how this is going to be done, and when. We have gone into the business thoroughly, and it has taken hours of research to get to know how it is going to be done, because we have had to look up so many Acts. We protest against this. We think that this Clause could have been made much simpler. We object to legislation by reference.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member suspects a nefarious purpose which does
    1858
    not exist. It is common form in all these Acts to make a saving for subsequent enactments, and it is for the general convenience. There is a volume of general drainage law which is applied in these Bills. That law must be kept up-to-date, and we hope shortly to make some fundamental changes which will be for the benefit of drainage areas as a whole. These changes and any modifications which are found to fit into the general interests ought to be applied to all drainage authorities. It is usual to provide that the law should be kept up-to-date by the application of any general legislation which might afterwards be passed.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman tells us the same old story in regard to legislation by reference. He intends to appoint 26 ordinary men or women to constitute the Central Board. Surely it is the duty of the Minister to legislate in such a clear way that an ordinary man or woman charged with the duty of becoming a drainage commissioner should be able to understand the legislation referring to this particular undertaking. We are referred to the Drainage Act, 1861, as amended by any subsequent enactments, which means that a member of the Central Drainage Board must refer to the Act of 1861, to the Act of 1918, to the West Riding Act of 1923, the Drainage Act, 1926, and also the Act of 1929. This is legislation by reference, gone mad. If the members of the Central Board are to be as useful as we all desire they should be, the right hon. Gentleman ought, in clear language, to draw from previous legislation an understanding of what is meant, and enable the Committee to do their duty without having to turn to so many Acts of Parliament.
    Mr. PALING: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman intends, shortly, to embody the whole of these Acts in one?
    Mr. GUINNESS: We do not think that the existing drainage laws are up-to-date, and we intend drastically to modify them.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Transfer to Central Board of functions of county councils with respect to land drainage.)
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that any expense which the Central Board may incur, by reason of the exercise by the Board of any powers conferred by such sub-section 1 (1) (a) of the Land Drainage Act, 1926, with respect to any drainage work under the control and jurisdiction of any district drainage board, may at the option of the Central Board be recovered direct from the district board as a civil debt."
    I move this Amendment because of the experience we have had of drainage legislation in the past, where the power of the drainage committee has proved to be futile when they were called upon to undertake work for a defaulting district board. The words of the previous Act are, approximately, as follows:
    "where, in the opinion of the Board "—
    as will be the case under this Act—
    "any agricultural land is injured or likely to be injured by flood or inadequate drainage which might be remedied wholly or partially by the exercise of drainage powers which are conferred by any general or local Act, or an Order having the powers of an Act of Parliament, or by an award made under any Act which are not being exercised, or in the opinion of the Board are being insufficiently exercised, the Board may exercise any such powers,"—
    If the reference remained there, the Clause would be very good, and the power would be practicable and useful—
    "and also any powers conferred by any such Act or Order, or award or commission for defraying the expenses incurred or for any purposes incidental to the exercise of such powers "
    In actual practice, it has been proved that the power to recover money expended on an undertaking from a defaulting authority is absolutely useless. Take the Don Drainage Act. In this area the rates are highly differentiated. In some cases it is one or two coppers per acre, in others one or two shillings. The number of assessments may be hundreds, or they may be thousands. The Central Drainage Board, under the terms of this Bill, will have neither a register nor powers to obtain a register, and the Board, in order to collect £50 which it
    1860
    may have spent for the purpose of preventing the flooding of a farmer's land, would have to spend more than the £50 in order to send out demand notes for the collection of the money. County boroughs and the West Riding County Council have found the Act of 1923 a dead letter. So far as the repayment of money expended from defaulting authorities is concerned it is useless. The right hon. Gentleman might reasonably give them power to recover these debts, as is suggested in the Amendment as a civil debt. That would simplify matters. It would encourage the Board to see that the work was carried out, because they would know that repayment would be comparatively easy. It would not embarrass the District Board. They make up their annual budgets upon this in advance, issue their demand notes to the ratepayers in the ordinary way, and if the Central Board drained any land or incurred any expenditure they would intimate to the Drainage Committee to include the sum in the next year's budget. It would not embarrass the District Board at all, and they would be sure of the money being paid. There is one corporation in this area where there are two separate rates, one which is called the old rate and the other the moor drain rate. Obviously, it will be impossible for the Central Board to ascertain the chargeability of each small area, and I suggest that it would be a real improvement of the Bill if the Amendment is accepted.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The case which the hon. Member has in mind is apparently where an internal authority has failed to carry out its function. In such a case obviously the best way is for the central authority to recover the money direct. If the district authority has failed it will mean that it had not the money to carry out the work, and that there is no way of recovering it. You cannot distrain. It is much better to let the central authority do the work when, by the failure of the local district board, the work has broken down and has had to be transferred to stronger hands.
    Mr. PALING: Surely if the Central Board does the work it has to claim upon same one?
    Mr. GUINNESS: They get the money from the ratepayers.
    Mr. PALING: That is not our point. If the central authority can get it from the ratepayers, we hold that it is easier for the lower authority to get it from the ratepayer, because they have the books, they know who the ratepayers are, and they have levied rates for years. There is the Don Drainage Board in my district. It has thousands of ratepayers on its books, and payments ranging from two-pence to pounds a year. It knows the proportion that each ratepayer has to pay. Suppose that this new Central Board with new powers decides that the Don Drainage Board has not carried out certain work. It is not because it cannot collect the rates but for other reasons. The central authority then does the work, and, instead of collecting from the lower authority, it has to go to each individual ratepayer. It does not know what proportion each ratepayer has to pay. It has no power, I understand, to make the lower authority say what the proportion is, or to inspect the rate books and assessments or any thing of the kind. It means that they have to go round to thousands upon thousands of people and get to know their apportionment, and then collect the money. It will cause chaos. As a member of the West Biding branch Board, I know that it is held up time after time because of the lack of this power to get the money direct.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Under Clause 1 (1a) of the Bill it may arise that an authority is moribund and the Central Board has taken over their powers. If an authority has not been able to carry out its work it may not be able to collect this money. One has found a good many cases of these inefficient authorities. In those cases, obviously the way is for the Central Authority to act, and collect directly and not through the inefficient agency of the authority which has failed.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that wherever a district board has defaulted the Central Board must undertake the duty of draining the area because the district board have not the money with which to do that work? That is a weak argument. Under the terms of the Bill all the district boards in the Doncaster area are to continue. If the Central Board is to bear the burden of any defaulting district board which claims that it is unable,
    1862
    owing to financial stringency, to do the work, will any district board do any work at all when the Bill becomes an Act? If the right hon. Gentleman's argument means anything, it means that the district boards will remain in existence but will never do any work. The Central Board will have to do the work, but will never have the power to demand payment for it from the district board.
    Mr. GUINNESS: They can demand payment from the ratepayers. They have full power. I see no reason to assume that these district boards will shirk their duty and abrogate their functions in favour of the Central Board.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman treads on a very delicate matter there. He suggests that the Central Board will be enabled to carry out the work and expend the money—
    Mr. GUINNESS: The hour is growing late, and there is nothing much in this point—
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Oh yes, there is.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am anxious to meet hon. Members, if they feel that some local difficulty will arise, but I do not think it will make any difference. I think probably that in these cases the Central Board will find it better to rate "on their own", but in order to shorten these proceedings I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

    Clauses 3 (General powers of Central Board), 4 (Supervision by Central Board of district boards), and 5 (Commutation of liabilities to maintain certain channels and banks) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 6.—(Provision for transfer to Central Board of powers and duties of navigation authorities.)
    The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)—in page 6,

    1863
    line 8, at the end to insert the words "or under agreement by the authority for the Board "—would not read with the text of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Power to vary awards.)
    Mr. PALING: I beg to move, in page 6, line 27, after the word "Act," to insert the words "other than an award made under any Inclosure Act."
    We think that one of the first powers exercised by the Central Board should be to make the smaller drainage authorities do the work for which they were created. Under Inclosure Acts lands were given to various people and very definite duties were set out in the Acts to be performed in return. Hon. Members should understand that in the Doncaster area, within a radius of 25 miles, there are scores of these small local authorities. A Question was asked a week or two ago, as to how many of these awards had been carried out in Doncaster and district. The right hon. Gentleman did not quite know, but he knew there were 14 or 15 of these people who had these lands given to them with definite duties and who had not carried out those duties at all. The whole thing is very complicated, but there is no reason why, when this Central Board comes into operation, it should not use those powers on the local authorities who have defaulted and make them do the work they ought to have done years ago. The purpose of this Amendment is that, before there is any altering or revoking, these little authorities should be pulled up and told what their duties are. There are old awards of the 17th and 18th centuries laying down in specific terms what they have to do, but they have evaded their duty for generations, until the land has become in some cases little better than mere swamps. It it is found out after a period of years that because such a large number of small boards are acting it is necessary to get them out of the way and bring them under the Central Board, that central body will be in a better position to do it then than they are to do it immediately.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I can reassure the hon. Member that there is no question of letting anybody off their legal liability,
    1864
    but it is impracticable in fact to compel the observance of some of these inclosure awards. If anybody is going to get off liability, there is a provision in the Bill that commutation has to be assessed and paid, and for the efficient working of the Central Board they must get the power to do the work themselves and to charge the commuted liability of those who were responsible for the work under the Inclosure Acts.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the last few words of Sub-section (1) of Clause 7, where it says:—
    "The Central Board may, subject to the provisions of this section, by Order revoke, vary or amend that provision"
    in any award under any public or local Act? That means that of the 25 awards in the proposed area, where 14 of the awards are not being observed, the Central Board will have power to vary or revoke an award completely. Taking this as one's guide, here is an award in my own division, under an Inclosure Act of 1765, the award being made in 1766, where certain families were granted an area of land and, having received the land, certain obligations were imposed upon them to keep the drains, ditches, hedges, and so on in a decent state of repair, in perpetuity. No words could be clearer. The mere fact that 14 of the awards are not being observed and have not been observed in the past is no reason at all for the right hon. Gentleman to say that they ought to be ignored in the future. The right hon. Gentleman referred us to the commutation Clause. That, I suggest, is by the way. One of the persons referred to in this particular award is known to have sold large amounts of land in this area, and the duties and obligations should have fallen upon that individual at least to do his share to keep the drains, ditches, hedges, and so forth, in decent repair. Having had the benefit of the land for 160 or 170 years, having sold the minerals from underneath it, is it now suggested that we ought to relieve the heirs of the original trustees of their obligations? We do not want to hold up the Bill, and, if the right hon. Gentleman agrees to that point, we merely say this: Exclude awards under the Inclosure Acts until the Central Board has had time to examine the area under their control. After having secured the

    1865
    necessary experience, having possessed themselves of all the local knowledge of the persons on whom they can force these responsibilities and obligations, then the Government might very well, by a short amending Act in a year or two, include awards under the Inclosure Acts. Until we have ascertained how many of these people, who have benefited for 160 or 170 years, who have become fabulously rich—some of them in this particular area—as the result of the sale of royalties, be made to pay and meet their definite obligations according to the terms

    Clause 7 (Power to vary awards) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 8.—(Scheme with respect to separate drainage boards and drainage districts in Doncaster district).
    of the award, we ought to exclude awards under the Inclosure Acts. We should have no objection at a later date to the exclusion of the words which we suggest should now be included, so that drainage could go on, and we could do the best we could in the circumstances that obtained then.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 29; Noes, 95.

    Division No. 298.]

    AYES.

    [11.44 p.m.

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

    Duncan, C

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Gillett, George M.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Snell, Harry

    Barr, J.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Strauss, E. A.

    Batey, Joseph

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Bellamy, A.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Lawrence, Susan

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Laweon, John James

    Buchanan, G.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Cluse, W. S.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Wilfrid Paling.

    Day, Harry

    Potts, John S.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Penny, Frederick George

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Pitcher, G.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hanbury, C.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Harland, A.

    Ross, R. D.

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Rye, F. G.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Smithers, Waldron

    Colfox, Major Wm. Philip

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

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Steel, Major Samuel Strang

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Lamb, J. O.

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

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Warner, Brigadler-General W. W.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Dixey, A. C.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Wells, S. R.

    Dunnico, H.

    McLean, Major A.

    Withers, John James

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

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

    Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

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

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Major

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

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

    the Marquess of Titchfield.

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

    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 7, line 22, to leave out the word "shall," and to insert instead thereof the word "may."
    The reason for this Amendment is that we desire to give permission to the Central Board to have the choice as to whether these district hoards should be

    1867
    set up or not. In the Report of the Commission on Drainage it was stated that all district boards and drainage commissions ought to be abolished. We entirely agree and, should it be necessary for any work to be undertaken outside the existing boards, then we think that the Central Board ought to be left with the power to undertake the work themselves.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The West Riding County Council have been setting up these district boards in almost the whole area and we are satisfied that for the efficiency of administration the boards should be set up. We need a co-ordinating authority. I am satisfied that in certain cases it is in consonance with the best interests of land drainage that the area should be under the responsibility of some internal board.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that experience in the West Riding has proved time after time that there ought to be powers in order to do away with some of these boards and to have a centralized authority with as few boards as possible? This appears to be going in the opposite direction. We are simply asking that the Central Board, if it thinks fit, may set up these Boards, but that it shall not be compelled. There is a large area where no Boards exist. It may be that the Central Board, on exploring the whole situation, would desire to set up district boards to do the work, but, equally, it may be that they would rather make one big board and keep the work under their own control. We are simply asking that they shall have the alternative power to keep it under their own control, rather than be compelled to set up small district boards.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Experience in regard to these big boards, which have important responsibilities, is that there is great confusion and disadvantage in giving them, in certain areas, responsibility for what is really district work. I am very sorry but I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Question, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. PALING: With regard to the next Amendment, which also stands in the
    1868
    name of my hon. friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), in page 8, line 27, at the end, to add the words:
    "and in that behalf the Board shall have power to appoint voluntary area committees composed of persons residing in or adjacent to the vicinity of the areas with respect to which they may be appointed to assist the Central Board in the adminstration of such local areas: Provided that at least one member of the Central Board shall be attached to each of such voluntary committees without regard to his place of residence.
    The tenure of office of any such committee or any of its members shall be at the Board's pleasure "—
    we were rather hoping that the last Amendment would have been accepted, and in that case the provisions here set out would have followed. In the circumstances, we do not propose to move this Amendment.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Obligation of mineowners to execute works necessitated by subsidence).
    Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 9, line 6, to leave out the words "and orders."
    This is merely a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 9, line 40, to leave out the word "working," and to insert instead thereof the words "past, present."
    This would make Sub-section (4) of Clause 9 read as follows:
    "Every mineowner to whom this section applies shall, on being so required by the Central Board, give to the Board all such information as the Board may reasonably require with respect to the past, present or projected working of any such minerals as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section and shall produce for the inspection of the Board all plans relating to the working of any such minerals."
    So far as drainage is concerned, it will be necessary for the Central Board to know where past workings have taken place, so that they may not be misled, either in minor or in major drainage schemes, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will do well to enable them to secure this necessary guidance.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I would remind the hon. Member that this Bill is designed not

    1869
    to be retrospective, and there is, therefore, no case for asking mining companies to supply information as to what has happened in the past. To insist upon such a proposal would involve very onerous and unnecessary obligations upon them. Of course, any relevant information as to future workings and as to the existing state of the mines will be not only desirable but necessary.
    Mr. PALING: The right hon. Gentleman must know, as the Secretary for Mines knows, that of late years there has been an increasing demand that not only present plans but all other plans shall be placed at the disposal of the Mines Department, for their assistance in administering the law, particularly with regard to drainage. This Amendment is not proposed from any ill motive, but simply because we think that what applies to mine drainage as regards the collection of old plans will apply to these districts also, and we think it will help the Central Board. I would remind the
    right hon. Gentleman that some amount of drainage work has already had to be done in this neighbourhood because of subsidence, and it may be that in the plans for the new drainage works some of these old drainage works will have to be abrogated; so that, if new works are to take place, it will be necessary to have a knowledge of the old workings. The object of this Amendment is simply to strengthen the hands of the Central Board, so that they may have the fullest information at their disposal, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not see fit to accept it.
    Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Is it not a fact that this Clause deals with surface drainage and not mine drainage?
    Mr. PALING: It deals with drainage due to subsidence during the working of a mine.
    Question put, "That the word 'working' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 23.

    Division No. 299.]

    AYES.

    [12.1 a.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Ford, Sir P. J.

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

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Pilcher, G.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Remer, J. R.

    Bawyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

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

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hanbury, C.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Harland, A.

    Ross, R. D.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Rye, F. G.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

    Hills, Major John Walter

    Smithers, Waldron

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Cope, Major Sir William

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

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Courtaulc, Major J. S.

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

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Thomson, Sir Frederick

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Lamb, J. O.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

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

    Dixey, A. C.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Dunnico, H.

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Macintyre, Ian

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)

    McLean, Major A.

    Wells, S. R.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Withers, John James

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

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

    Womersley, W. J.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Fanshawe, Captain G. D.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Sir George Hennessy and Mr. Penny.

    NOES.

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

    Duncan, C.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Ammon, Charles George

    Gillett, George M.

    Strauss, E. A.

    Barr, J.

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)

    Taylor, R. A.

    Batey, Joseph

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Bellamy, A.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Noath)

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Lawson, John James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Buchanan, G.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Wilfrid Paling.

    Day, Harry

    Potts, John S.

    Amendment made:
    In page 9, line 43, after the word "plans," insert the words "sections and levels."—[Mr. T. Williams.]
    Mr. PALING: I beg to move, in page 10, line 44, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Provided that no such agreement shall be made without the mineowner having first submitted the scheme relating to such works, together with a draft of the proposed agreement, to the Central Board and obtained the Board's consent thereto in writing, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld."
    We think this is a good Amendment. It is on the lines of the last one. We suggest that it is not asking too much that a scheme shall be submitted to the Central Board for agreement.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The Amendment is not necessary, because the whole of the works are to be carried out on the instructions of the Central Board. Subsection (2) says:
    "The Central Board may at any time by notice require any such mineowners to prepare and submit to the Board"—
    Already the object of the Clause is to give the Board power to initiate these works and the power of the Board is in no way affected by the various alternatives suggested in the Clause.
    Mr. PALING: In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 11, to leave out from the first word "mine," in line 2, to the words "all," in line 3.
    The Bill provides here that the cost of relief measures shall be divided between mineowner and royalty owner. As the Clause stands, where a mine has been abandoned, the Central Board would have to do the work. It would not be a liability on the royalty owner. We do not think that that is fair. We think that it would be unreasonable to expect the Central Board to recover the cost of works in respect of abandoned mines from the farmers on the surface, and that the cost of the works should come from the royalty owners in these rare cases, seeing that they would have made a profit
    1872
    in the past from the working of the mines.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

    Clause 10 (Establishment of funds by mineowners for maintenance of works) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 11.—(Provisions with respect to the enforcement of mineowners' obligations and settlement of disputes.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 13, line 4, after the word "plans" to insert the words "sections, levels"—[Mr. T. Williams.]
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Clause 12 (Contribution by royalty owners towards costs incurred under this Part of this Act by mineowners) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 13.—(Control of pumping under joint mines drainage schemes.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. GUINNESS: This Clause provides that the Board would control the joint pumping operations which might be set up under the power of the Ministry of Mines. Since the Bill was before the Select Committee negotiations have taken place, and the two county councils concerned have agreed that the Clause may be deleted. It has been pointed out that these joint operations will not mean the pumping of any more water collectively than would have been put into the drain if the mines had pumped separately.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    Clause 14 (Delegation of functions by Central Board to district Boards) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 15.—(Rating of mines, railways and canals.)
    Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move, in page 16, line 34, after the word

    1873
    "Board", to insert the words, "or by any drainage board constituted under this Act".
    I gave an undertaking when the Bill was in Committee to insert these words to make the Clause uniformly applicable to rates levied by the Central Board or by district boards created by the Central Board.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill ", put, and agreed to.

    Clause 16 (Provisions with respect to administrative expenses of Central Board) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 17.—(Recovery of drainage rates by Central Board.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. PALING: I have an Amendment on the Order Paper, to leave out this Clause. Our object in putting down the Amendment was to protest against further legislation by reference. This Clause refers back to the Sewers Act, 1849. In connection with this Bill one has to refer back to Acts of every description. I understand that there is a later Act of 1926 which gives power to recover money in a simpler manner than under the old Sewers Act of 1849. We object to these old-fashioned methods being included in Bills of this kind.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", put, and agreed to.

    Clause 18 (Acquisition of land) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 19.—(Power of Central Board to enter and survey lands and inspect documents.)
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg leave to move, in page 19, line 19, after the word "within," to insert the words "or adjacent to."
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment. Its object is to strengthen the hands of the Central Board in entering upon lands for the purpose of ascertaining the requirements
    1874
    for drainage purposes. We think that it would be too much of a contraction of their powers to keep them entirely within the bounds of the proposed area, and we suggest that if they were permitted to enter upon adjacent land it would be useful and economical in many cases. We do not think that such a power would endanger adjacent land.
    Mr. GUINNESS: As this is a hybrid Bill, I doubt whether such a provision would be in accordance with the Standing Orders governing Private Bills, because the authorities adjacent to the Board's area would not have had an opportunity to appear and appeal against the proposed powers. In any case, it would be a very objectionable precedent to allow local authorities to have powers outside the areas for which they were responsible. I do not think that the necessity for the proposed powers can arise. Therefore I am obliged to resist the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Clauses 20 (Saving for powers of district drainage boards); 21 (Provisions in cases where Central Board exceeds or fails to exercise powers); 22 (Cost of Act): 23 (Power of Central Board to make bylaws); 24 (Representations by county councils);25 (Powers of Central Board as to Bills in Parliament and Provisional Orders); 26 (Application of Arbitration Act, 1889); and 27 (Modification of certain provisions of the Land Drainage Act, 1861) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 28.—(Power to exclude certain areas from Doncaster district.)
    Mr. PALING: I beg to move, in page 23, line 17, after the word "Minister," to insert the words:
    "who before confirming shall take into consideration questions of health and general amenities of the area fairly attributive as resultant or prospectively resultant of good drainage of surrounding or adjacent lower lands consequent on the carrying out or prospective carrying out of any of the provisions of this Act."
    This Clause gives power to exclude certain areas from the Doncaster district. I think it is a rather dangerous power.

    1875
    There will be small districts in this new area which stand on rather higher land and there may be many applications on behalf of the owners of this higher land to be excluded from the operations of the Drainage Board. The Minister may, if he thinks fit, exclude them and we rather fancy that he will be inundated with applications from people who want to evade their responsibilites. We want to be sure that before any area is excluded that all the circumstances shall be taken into consideration. It does not necessarily mean that because a man is the owner of high land that he has no responsibilities. The water has to drain in to some one else's land lower down and it may be that this water will have to be pumped; including that water which has drained from this higher land. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. GUINNESS: It will clearly be the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to take into consideration all the general amenities of the district and the other matters mentioned by the hon. Member but to put this particular instruction in the Bill will really curtail rather than strengthen the responsibilities thrown on the Minister. In all these cases it is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to take into account all the material considerations and I think it will be a great mistake to narrow the responsibilities and suggest that his work is finished when he had considered what is admittedly an important but limited consideration in regard to these applications.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Clauses 29 (Application of Act to Crown) and 30 (Protection for Navigation Authorities) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 31.—(Provisions for protection of certain railway, canal and other companies.)
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 27, line 9, after the word "not," to insert the words "except for the purposes of survey and inspection."
    I hope the Minister of Agriculture will accept this Amendment. The railway and canal companies are very well
    1876
    catered for. They have many safeguards already in one or two of the Clauses. It seems to me that the Central Board should be privileged to enter upon certain lines and works, either of railways or companies, so long as they only do so in the course of their duty. The railway and canal companies are well safeguarded in previous Clauses, and the Minister might accept this Amendment.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The insertion of a provision that notice must be given to railway and canal companies is a common form. This particular Sub-section is taken from the West Riding of Yorkshire Drainage Act. The railway companies are under certain liabilities in case of accident, and if people go wandering about railway lines without giving notice, for the purposes of survey and inspection, it would not remove liability from a railway company in case of accident. It is so universal a provision in these Bills that I do not think it would be right to accept this exception.
    Amendment negatived.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Clauses 32 (Provisions for protection of Aire and Colder Navigation), 33 (Provision for protection of Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Company), 34 (Interpretation), and 35 (Short Title and commencement) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Part I: Constitution of the Central Board. Part II: Tenure of office of members of the Central Board and Proceedings of the Board.)
    Mr. PALING: I beg to move, in page 31, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
    "Two persons to be appointed by the Yorkshire Mineworkers' Association or its successors."
    It will be seen that there are no representatives of any of the working class on this Board. The county council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, the district boards, the county council of Nottinghamshire and the borough of Doncaster are all represented. There are six persons to be appointed by the Minister, three coalowners, three mineral owners and one person from the Aire and Calder

    1877
    Navigation, but not one from the tens of thousands of people in these areas whose welfare is to be affected if there is lack of drainage. We think these people should have representation. The argument which may be advanced is that the mine workers make no direct contribution to the scheme. If that is advanced, I would say that of the contribution made by the mineowners to the scheme—and we do not object to it—every penny will go into the costs of production, and every penny that increases the cost of production lowers the amount which goes into the pool for wages.
    That pool for wages is divided out, for instance in Yorkshire, in the proportion of 85 per cent. wages and 15 per cent. profit. To every penny which goes out of that pool the workers will contribute 85 per cent. We think the workers thus make a contribution to the upkeep of the drainage scheme. There is also the moral argument that, where tens of thousands of workmen are working in a district where there is in operation a Drainage Board, individuals there should represent their point of view. Two out of 28 people on the Drainage Board might represent their point of view and see that the drainage works are made efficient.
    Mr. GUINNESS: The constitution of the Board has been very carefully considered. It has been felt necessary to keep it as small as possible, and the matter of balancing the different interests has not been altogether easy. The case of the miners has been raised by the hon. Member from two points of view. The first is that many of them live on the surface affected by the possibility of subsidence, and they are entitled to be heard on the Board. That case of the miner is identical with all other surface workers, and they are represented through the local authorities. There are 12 representatives of the county councils. One county borough council has five on the District Board, all of whom are connected with the people who dwell on the surface. The other claim of the hon. Member is based on the fact that under the local agreement there is a certain allocation to the miners after expenses have been met. In that matter, the interests of the miners are identical with the owners in the interest of keeping down expendi-
    1878
    ture.There are many other forms of expenditure which come out of the mining receipts before the apportionment takes place—royalties, rents, salaries, pit props. All these are paid for without the miners being consulted. I would remind the hon. Member that there was a member representing the miners on the Commission, and this point was apparently not raised. The membership was worked out by the Commission, and in this respect we are following their recommendation. In view of the very careful balance which has been observed in drawing up the representation, and, in view of the certainty that yielding to this demand would provoke others, I feel obliged to refuse.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I regret to hear that the Minister has refused the most legitimate claim that we have put forward. The point that he submits that the interests of the miner and mineowner are identical in the direction of keeping costs as low as possible may be perfectly correct, but, so far as the mine worker and his family are concerned they live in the area. Very rarely do you find the mineowner living in the area referred to, but there are tens of thousands of miners and their families who will reside in this area; and not only that, but they will be the persons who will provide the whole of the money—100 per cent. of the sums paid by the royalty owners, and 85 per cent. of the pool of the miners' and mineowners' joint fund. That is an added reason why they should have direct representation, not merely for the purpose of limiting the expenditure, but also for the purpose of ensuring that the health and well-being of their families will have some consideration.
    May I also submit that, while the Minister makes reference to the elected representatives of the various county councils and the 26 members who it is suggested are to form the Central Board, at least 25 of these representatives may conceivably live outside the area of the proposed Central Board, leaving the one single representative representing the County Borough of Doncaster within the area concerned. I fully appreciate the fact that there has been difficulty in allocating the number of seats, but the fact that you have given to the South Yorkshire Coal Trade Association three

    1879
    members and the Mineral Owners' Association of Great Britain three members entitles the miners to a voice in the Central Board when their health and well-being are concerned. I think we might well appeal to Members on the opposite side for an element of fair play and justice in this case, for all that we ask is that, of 28 members constituting the Board, two shall represent the miners and their families. In seeking for this representation of two members, we are only asking for one-third of the number already given to the royalty owners and the coal owners. Surely that is not an unfair request to make, and, in spite of all the representations that have been made, I think the Minister could have conceded this point instead of thinking that two more would overload the ship. If I had had another Amendment on the Paper, at would have been to add two more, for I would also have given the farmers two representatives. I hope that even now the Minister will concede the point which, after all, is a very legitimate and human one.
    Mr. POTTS: If the Minister will carry in his mind the point that so far as the owners are concerned, whatever the cost may be, it is debited to the cost of production, I hope he will reconsider the point. Representation has been given to the owners and royalty owners who do not live there at all. I have been down all these collieries. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there might be reconsideration on this point. The Yorkshire Mine-workers' Association represents all these people. The Doncaster Area comprises nearly 20,000 miners. I have an estimate in which the owners computed that in 25 years there should be 40,000 employés in the locality. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider the matter and allow the Yorkshire Mine-workers' Association to represent us on that board. Whoever sits on that board and represents the Yorkshire Mine-workers' Association will be as anxious for the well-being of the locality and the people as any of those who sit on the board. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman again to reconsider the position.
    Mr. PALING: If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this Amendment now, he might reconsider the matter
    1880
    between now and the later stages of the Bill and give us some representation in this respect. Regarding those persons to be appointed by the Minister
    "of whom five shall be appointed after consultation with, and to represent the district boards in the Doncaster district"
    does that mean that the five shall actually be members of the district board and controlling authority, or may they be any other people so long as the district board agree to it?
    Mr. GUINNESS: They need not necessarily be members of the district board.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the arguments which have been adduced are contradictory. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) suggested that the representatives asked for would be resident in the locality. The hon, Member for Barnsley (Mr. Potts) said the Yorkshire Mineworkers' Association represented the whole county. If two were put on, there is nothing to show that they would have anything to do with the locality in question. What the right hon. Gentleman has said shows that he will safeguard the residents in the area.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: There is a great deal of regret on this side of the Commons that the Government have not seen their way to accept this Amendment. There has been a great deal of talk about peace in industry and peace in the coal industry itself. This matter that we have been discussing is just the kind of thing which gets the back up of the workers. Here is a big scheme which is going to have a great deal of effect upon the lives of the workers in the industry, a scheme very largely bound up with the method of awarding wages. If the Government are sincere in what they are saying about peace in industry and letting the workers know as much as they can of the inside of accounts, why, when the mineowners are themselves admitted, should the representatives of the workers in the industry be shut out? I do want to press very strongly upon the Minister that, even if he thinks it necessary to have some further conversations after to-night, he will, if possible, secure further consideration of what we desire between now and the final stages of the Bill.
    Mr. POTTS: What I said was intended to strengthen what was said by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I said that there were more than 10,000 resident in that area—that there were 20,000 resident in that area at the present time, and that the Yorkshire Mine-workers' Association represented not only these people but all the county as well, making the reason all the more strong
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move that, in page 32, line 38, to leave out the words "may, if he thinks fit," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall".
    I would like to say to the right hon. Gentleman that perhaps these words will not quite give us what we desire. That can be easily remedied. I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee, but I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not willing to concede this point.
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid I cannot go further than the Schedule as it stands. There is power here to allow the local authority to pay these expenses if it thinks fit. The Amendment would compel the Minister to allow them if the local authority applied. These words represent the words of the provisions of the Local Government Acts of this Session, and I do not think I can go further.
    why there should be some representatives of the miners. The hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) has misunderstood the whole situation.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 13; Noes, 69.

    Division No. 300.]

    AYES.

    [12.48 a.m.

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

    Kelly, W. T.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Barr, J.

    Lawson, John James

    Bellamy, A.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Pitts, John S.

    Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Wilfrid Paling.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley

    Taylor, R. A.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis, E.

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

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Pilcher, G.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)

    Remer, J. R.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Harland, A.

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

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Ross, R. D.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Campbell, E. T.

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hills, Major John Waller

    Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Rentrew, W.)

    Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cope, Major Sir William

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

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crews)

    Lamb, J. O.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, GaInsbro)

    Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Davies, Ma). Geo, F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Watts, Sir Thomas

    Dixey, A. C.

    McLean, Major A.

    Wells, S. R.

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Withers, John James

    Elliott, Major Walter E.

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

    Womersley, W. J.

    Fansnawe, Captain G. D.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Neville, Sir Reginald J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.

    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible, in the Bill as it now stands, to have their expenses paid, assuming the Minister refused to accept the word "shall" instead of the word "may". I do not think we ought to create an anomaly of this description. We ought to make it possible that members of the Central Board should not lose more money than is possible.
    Mr. GUINNESS: Under the Local Government Act the Authority only pays for its own work. It could not pay the expenses incurred by their representatives on another body.
    Mr. PALING: But if the county council is jointly responsible for sending members of this description, surely they might have the power to pay these delegates' travelling expenses.
    Amendment negatived.
    Schedule agreed to.

    Second Schedule (Channels and banks liabilities in respect of which are to be commuted) agreed to.
    Third Schedule (Provisions as to the compulsory acquisition of land by the Central Board) agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

  POLICE MAGISTRATES SUPERANNUATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  INFANT LIFE PRESERVATION BILL [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at three minutes after One o'clock.

BRITISH ARMY.
  SOLDIER'S DISCHARGE.
  SOLDIER'S DISCHARGE.
  SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSION.
  SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSION.
  WELFARE, RANK AND FILE.
  WELFARE, RANK AND FILE.
SCOTLAND.
  STEAMSHIP "TUSCANIA" (CREW, EMPLOYMENT).
  STEAMSHIP "TUSCANIA" (CREW, EMPLOYMENT).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.
  ELECTRIC METER HIRE, BONNYRIGG.
  ELECTRIC METER HIRE, BONNYRIGG.
  Mr. J. W. GORDON (PETITION AND MEMORIAL).
  Mr. J. W. GORDON (PETITION AND MEMORIAL).
ROYAL NAVY.
  CIVIL ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF'S DEPARTMENT, DEVONPORT (REPRESENTATIONS).
  CIVIL ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF'S DEPARTMENT, DEVONPORT (REPRESENTATIONS).
  ESTABLISHED DOCKYARDMEN (RETIREMENT).
  ESTABLISHED DOCKYARDMEN (RETIREMENT).
  PETTY OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  PETTY OFFICERS (PROMOTION).
  PRIVATE CONTRACTS.
  PRIVATE CONTRACTS.
  MATE SCHEME.
  MATE SCHEME.
  SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT (WITHDRAWALS).
  SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT (WITHDRAWALS).
INDIA.
  DISTURBANCES, BOMBAY (COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION).
  DISTURBANCES, BOMBAY (COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION).
  LABOUR CONCILIATION MACHINERY (LEGISLATION).
  LABOUR CONCILIATION MACHINERY (LEGISLATION).
  DEATH SENTENCE.
  DEATH SENTENCE.
  NAVAL DISARMAMENT.
  NAVAL DISARMAMENT.
  CANADIAN HARVEST (BRITISH WORKERS, LOAN REPAYMENT).
  CANADIAN HARVEST (BRITISH WORKERS, LOAN REPAYMENT).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (WELFARE).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (WELFARE).
  AIR SERVICES.
  AIR SERVICES.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  FOOD PRICES.
  FOOD PRICES.
  SAFEGUARDING DUTIES.
  SAFEGUARDING DUTIES.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ROAD EXPENDITURE.
  ROAD EXPENDITURE.
  SUICIDE (GAS POISONING).
  SUICIDE (GAS POISONING).
  SMALL-POX.
  SMALL-POX.
  BELMONT COLONY, SURREY.
  BELMONT COLONY, SURREY.
  SMALL-HOLDINGS.
  SMALL-HOLDINGS.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  P-CLASS CLERKS.
  P-CLASS CLERKS.
  PENSION PAYMENTS, CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
  PENSION PAYMENTS, CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
  WAR PAYMENTS (FRANCE AND GREAT BRITAIN).
  WAR PAYMENTS (FRANCE AND GREAT BRITAIN).
  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS (FRANCE).
  INTER-ALLIED DEBTS (FRANCE).
  EXCISE LICENCES.
  EXCISE LICENCES.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  UNCLAIMED BANK BALANCES.
  UNCLAIMED BANK BALANCES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BASTARDY (WITNESS PROCESS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
FIRE BRIGADE PENSIONS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN, DISTRICT, AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
METHODIST CHURCH UNION BILL.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of these two Bills.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN, DISTRICT, AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
METHODIST CHURCH UNION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOUTHPORT, BIRKDALE AND WEST LANCASHIRE WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LEWES CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOKE AND CITY OF PETER BOROUGH BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (AIR TRANSPORT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (AIR TRANSPORT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (AIR TRANSPORT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY (AIR TRANSPORT) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BARNARD CASTLE GAS ORDER, 1929.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee
338
on the 12th of March last, the Barnard Castle Gas Order, 1929, be approved with a modification.
Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 12th of March last be approved with a modification.—[The Earl of Lucan.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOUTHPORT GAS ORDER, 1929.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 23rd of April last, the Southport Gas Order, 1929, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 23rd of April last be approved.—[The Earl of Lucan.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FALKIRK BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NITH NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MIDDLESBROUGH EXTENSION) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order. Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI. be considered in order to its being

339
suspended for this day's sitting and that the Motion of the Earl of Birkenhead have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

WAR DEBTS: THE BALFOUR MEMORANDUM.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD rose to call attention to the subject of War indemnities and to move that this House approves of the principle of the Balfour Memorandum. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am extremely anxious that there should be no misunderstanding as to the spirit in which I approach this topic. I have no desire to establish any partisan advantage over the noble Lords who sit opposite. I have for some time been engaged in other affairs, but I have nevertheless reached a very clear conclusion that the matters which are related to the Motion which stands in my name required very earnest consideration from Parliament and from the Parliamentary Assemblies of other countries. To me it seems of primary importance that the matters raised in this Motion should be entirely divorced from the Election.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: These, surely, are not matters which ought to be made the subject of partisan attack in the constituencies. We ought to stand as a country solid upon these questions. So it appeared to me, not in any attempt to involve noble Lords opposite in a partisan difficulty, that I might, perhaps, do some service if I could secure some measure of agreement to principles which, in this matter, seem to me to be elementary. The very terms of the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, reassure me at least upon a very considerable point. How far that Amendment is acceptable will, of course, as is proper, be ultimately determined by my noble friend who leads the House; but I shall have some observations on principle which, however briefly, I hope to address upon that topic.
When the War ended those of us who were in office were confronted, as your Lordships will remember, with many
340
problems. Not the least of them was the problem of the moneys which we owed and the moneys which were owed to us. Many different views were entertained, and were reasonably entertained, on the attitude which ought to be adopted by this country. It is still commonly said: "You were owed two thousands millions of pounds by your debtors in the course of hostilities." I have even heard it said that we were rash in the lavishness with which we poured out credits and money to those who supported us in those terrible days. Those who make these criticisms little understand how small a part money played in those dangerous days. Money simply did not count at all if you could get a new Ally in, if you could finance that Ally, and if by so doing for four or six months you might save one war situation. You were in a situation in which money ceased to have any contact with the position in which we found ourselves. So, with unstinted public spirit, this country poured from the garnered wealth of centuries its moneys in loans to our Allies. It is no exaggerated statement that by those subventions, and by those alone, we kept in the field those Allies whose sustained military contribution was necessary to the triumphant issue of the War. We never thought then in terms of money and the War was won.
Then there came the post-War atmosphere. I was a member of the Cabinet charged with as much responsibility as most of my colleagues with the problems of those days. How were we to face them? Upon what basis were we to consider the question of post-War liability? Were we to say to the nations whose efforts had been comparable with our own, whose sacrifices of manhood in some cases were greater than our own—were we to say to them: "Your debt to us is a thousand million pounds, or whatever the figure may be, and we propose in strict terms to require its repayment or to declare you bankrupt?" Or were we—and this was the alternative view—after our immense material contributions to this War, to say that after all something moral and spiritual may remain as the expression of the mood which enabled us and our Allies to win this War? We may have been entirely wrong to take that view, but we took it.

341
In the Balfour Memorandum, which—I believe I am betraying no Cabinet secret when I make this plain—was acclaimed as a masterly State document by every Liberal and every Conservative member of the Coalition Cabinet, a gesture was made which in my judgment upon its moral side was not inferior to the material contribution which this country had made in the conduct of the War. What was the spirit and the content of that proposal? It was this. We had lost, be it remembered, nearly one million men in all the theatres of War. We had flung into that War the garnered resources of a hundred years of peaceful and successful commerce. We had never counted the cost either in terms of men or in terms of money, and the question still remained with what attitude did we propose to face the post-War world and those who owed us money. We could have done it, as I have said, simply and solely by saying: "Whoever owes us money shall pay us the money that they owe us." We took, as I think, a nobler view. We took a view which, in my judgment, throughout the pages of history will be recounted as memorable, as ennobling the history of England.
That was the material contribution which we made to this War. And the terms of that decision were these. We took the view that those who fought side by side, travelled along the milestones which mark this bloody road, shall not make money, or lend money, or charge interest to one another, and no greater gesture was ever made by a country which suffered from the wounds which almost destroyed us in the War than that we should have said to the whole world, to those who inarched with us in the War: "We desire to make no money. You in another Continent, who fought by our side at the end of the War, you forego your claims if you are willing, and we will forego the claims which we have against all those who are indebted to us." It was our hope at the time the Balfour Memorandum received the unanimous consent of the Cabinet that these proposals might have been acceptable in the quarter whose decision was decisive. It was not found to be so acceptable. I attempt neither criticism nor complaint. The American nation, whose international charities, privately exercised, have been upon a scale which
342
the world has previously never known, and whose humanity and sentiment no one has ever been foolish enough to impeach, did not in this matter take the view which inspired the Balfour Memorandum.
It is very important, in speaking upon matters so delicate, that I should make it plain that no English public man of any consequence with whom I have been acquainted has ever thought that there was the least justification for complaining that the American nation did not take this view. Had they taken it, it would, in my judgment, have most suitably concluded a great and a perilous comradeship in arms. We could not tell at the moment when we were responsible for the Balfour Memorandum what their view would be, and, in the result, they have decided. Let me make it again meticulously plain that there is not and there has not been any complaint in this country of the decision that they took; they were the masters of their own financial policy precisely as we are the masters of ours. But nevertheless it should go out to the world, and let it go out to the world with any power of impulsion we possess in this House, that we in Great Britain, at the end of the War, were prepared to forgive every Debt that was owing to us on the basis of a complete cancellation of Debts. And we have never had the credit in the world that we are entitled to in the world for that result. Such was the proposal of the Balfour Memorandum.
I must, if you will allow me, take you a little more deeply into the confidence of those of us who were responsible at that time for the government of public affairs. I think I can do so without any violation of public secrets. We did not know at that time—nobody could know—what amount of money could reasonably be calculated as being in fact obtainable from our late Allies. We were determined not to adopt the attitude of bailiff in pursuit of a debt. That seemed to us entirely unsuitable to the circumstances in which we had waged that War. If I may give your Lordships an illustration, suppose at the critical moment, when the adhesion of Italy to the cause of the Allies was weighing in the balance, anybody had come to us and put that in terms of money, whether it were in millions or hundreds of millions of money,

343
do you suppose that it would have deterred us from the attempt to induce a change in the position which might easily determine the result of that War? We were not so foolish. We never thought in the squalid terms of money, and if we had, we would have lost the War.
Now we come to the later stages. We had in the end to decide upon what basis we should deal with the admitted Debts of our late Allies. Let us clearly understand the general situation, because upon details I do not dwell. It is said that as a result of the War, £2,000,000,000 were owing to us from our late Allies, while our debt to the United States was roughly some £900,000,000. Those figures require a very considerable revision. When you talk of £2,000,000,000, you must remember that a third of that sum was owing to us from Russia—a third of £2,000,000,000. Well that nation, under the guidance of an immoral gang of adventurers and revolutionaries—world revolutionaries—has repudiated completely that Debt. A country with vast resources, which, sanely and soberly reconstituted after the War, could have repaid that Debt while still retaining its international reputation, has chosen, under this mad guidance, to repudiate it, and in my judgment it is slowly sagging into ruin. But we had to face the fact that a third of those £2,000,000,000 as an asset never existed at all since the War.
We had then to consider what were the realisable assets among our solvent creditors. It was said by Mr. Snowden (I think in terms not very wise upon the lips of a man of great public credit who in the vicissitudes of our politics might conceivably, not in the remote future, fill a high position) of our late Allies, without whose assistance we could not have won the War, that they were—I think his expression was, and it is one which I gravely regret and hesitate to repeat—"bilking" their international obligations. I cannot but believe that Mr. Snowden, for whom indeed I have a high respect, must have greatly regretted in his position, with his reputation, with his future prospects, that he should have used this expression of an Ally to whom we owe so much, while I make it equally plain that that Ally owes a great deal to us.
It may perhaps be contended that we could have obtained more favourable terms from France, from Italy, and from
344
the other Allied countries. It may be so, but after all who can say? It is very easy for a critic after an arrangement has been made to turn round and say: "I could have made much more favourable terms." Mr. Winston Churchill conducted most of those negotiations. Some of your Lordships may admire Mr. Churchill more than others, but most of you, I think, will do justice to the fact that he is not only extremely able, extremely understanding, but that he is extremely persuasive. Here you have a Chancellor of the Exchequer, possessing qualities which are nowhere denied, and who had every interest in the world to make the best terms that conceivably were obtainable, conducting such negotiations. Do you really think Mr. Churchill, pressed on one side by an economy campaign, facing the charge of being a spendthrift upon another side, did not make the best terms? We know he did. I know, and all his colleagues know, that he did. We know the laborious result of his negotiations, how day by day, million by million, the matter was conducted upon a basis which was almost meticulous in its attention to the details of finance.
It may be that Mr. Snowden, had he been conducting this financial arrangement, would have been more successful, but what reason can be put forward for supposing that he would? All I know is that in 1923 the Labour Party, in its public Manifesto to the nation, placed on record among the very first of its claims for popular support that they proposed a generous Debt settlement.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I thank the noble Lord. I am most glad. I should have expected from him assent to that. We all felt:—such was the spirit at least in this country, whatever other countries may have felt—that the true view was a generous Debt settlement. May I tell the noble Lord quite plainly that it was our object to make a generous Debt settlement? I am speaking of a period when I had still responsibility with my late colleagues. It was the object of all of us to make a generous Debt settlement, and at the same time we felt that the measure of the concessions we should make was limited by the reasonable economy and financial resources of the nations with whom we were dealing. France has happily emerged

345
from many of the difficulties which pressed upon her at the time when our negotiations with her reached a decisive stage. It may be that had such a negotiation been resumed to-day, were it capable of resumption, some slightly better terms might have been obtained. Take the case of Italy. Italy is a country which, though politically of the greatest possible consequence in Europe, is one which economically is not rich. There were limits well understood by all competent authorities on international finance to the contributions which Italy could make. I do not, I am sure, exaggerate when I say that no one who dispassionately considered the situation of Italy and who considered it in the spirit of the Labour Resolution of 1923, would have thought it proper to ask more of Italy than we have asked.
The minor agreements need not detain us. They are all consequential and they were put upon the same basis. But this at least is worth noticing, that although we have paid and are paying and shall continue to pay to the United States of America upon a scale which Mr. Bonar Law hardly exaggerated when he said it would affect the scale of living in this country for a generation—although we are doing that, we have certain compensations. There was hardly anyone who believed in the year 1918, with the immense accession of American wealth which followed upon the War, that the sophisticated genius of British finance could retain for London the control of the finance of the world. Never could that result have been attained unless the golden and indispensable asset of British credit had been preserved. It was attained. I will not argue whether too dearly or not. The American settlement could have been attained in no other way and if that settlement had not taken place the financial supremacy of the world would have passed alsewhere. To our eternal pride this country, ravaged by a war in which we contributed more in terms of men than any other country but France, ten times more in terms of Navy than any other country, and more in terms of finance than any other country, is still to-day the financial centre of the world in the City of London. Let us take great and high hope from this circumstance.
346
Then let us, a little relevantly to my Motion, consider how far this Balfour Memorandum, for which I ask your Lordships' support, has contributed. What did it do? It made a twofold contribution. One was material, one—perhaps the more important element—was moral. We said to the whole world: "Now, first as a business proposition, if our creditors will forgive us our Debt, though those who owe us money are far more numerous than those to whom we owe money, we will wipe out the whole account." I do not believe a more generous offer has ever been made by any country in the history of the world. That no such offer has ever been made by any victorious country at the moment of its victory is indisputable. In those circumstances it has been thought proper by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a phrase which I think he himself must since have greatly regretted, to describe this as an "infamous Note." This, I confess, has amazed me. The Balfour Memorandum, assented to, as I have explained, by every Conservative member and every Liberal member of that Cabinet, may or may not have been the last word that we could have secured in a Shylock process of bargaining. It may or may not have been defensible; but how it can be described as infamous I cannot conceive. You might as well describe the Sermon on the Mount as infamous. Call it mistaken if you think so, but how it can be called infamous I simply cannot understand.
I would extend a most express invitation to the noble and learned Lord opposite. I know his antecedents in this matter. I know very well the great part that he has played in re-establishing the good feeling of Europe and the stability and prestige of the League of Nations, and I know very well how his mind must work on these problems, because, although I have occasionally criticised him with friendly freedom, at the same time I have observed that a certain consistency has marked his footsteps and that, on the question of the League of Nations and the peace of Europe, he has never varied. And I am sure of this, that he would never make himself a party to any proposal that would dissipate the Balfour Memorandum; nor could he do so, because he is as well aware as I am that upon the Balfour Memorandum has

347
really depended every international financial arrangement that has been made in Europe since it was promulgated and agreed to. It has been upon the basis of the Balfour Memorandum that every one of the later financial accommodations has been arranged and, if you were to give it out to the world that Great Britain was renouncing the Balfour Memorandum, you would inflict a more grievous and irreparable wound upon the reputation and credit of this country than has been inflicted in the whole period in which I have been able to attend to public affairs.
I would therefore invite the noble and learned Lord most plainly to state that it is not the purpose of the Party with which he is associated to attempt to impair the authority of this Memorandum and of all that has been founded upon it. Indeed, the very terms of the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has put upon the Paper show me that my purpose has already been achieved, because the noble and learned Lord's Amendment is in these terms:—
"to leave out all the words after 'House' for the purpose of inserting 'while approving the principle of the Balfour Note which is in favour of the general cancellation of Allied Debts and of Reparations, regrets that the settlements made by Conservative Governments on behalf of this country have imposed unfair burdens upon British taxpayers.'"
I have two observations to make upon this Amendment. While I shall follow the advice of my noble friend who leads the House as to the course that I shall adopt, there are two observations that I must make. I take first the second part of the Amendment. The noble and learned Lord regrets—
" that the settlements made by Conservative Governments on behalf of this country have imposed unfair burdens upon British taxpayers."
It is rather a serious thing that the noble and learned Lord, leading the Labour Party in this House, should make that express charge, because it imposes upon him, if one analyses the thing a little more closely, the burden of showing in what particular case we ought to have charged more, where we ought to have stiffened up the bill, where we ought to have said to France: "We want £10,000,000 more," or to have demanded £10,000,000 more from Italy.
348
I would invite the noble and learned Lord, before he commits himself too deeply to that proposition, to remember that the United States of America have adopted precisely the same principle of the ability to pay on the part of all our debtors in Europe as we ourselves have accepted. There may be a slight variation in the dates of payment but, as to the ability to pay, they have accepted exactly that which we have accepted. Is the noble and learned Lord, with his great obligations to Europe, with the reputation that he has in the League of Nations, with his obligation to carry out the tradition which the Labour Party has always upheld of standing well with those with whom our international life must be spent—is the noble and learned Lord really going to get up to-day and criticise us because we were unduly lenient with any debtor Power, and is he going to identify the debtor Power to whom we were unduly lenient? I cannot believe that the noble and learned Lord would do so and, if in this particular matter he were the controller of his own destiny, I know perfectly well that the noble and learned Lord would have been as lenient as we have been in the difficulties in which we have been placed. It may be that he would have been more lenient in some respects, and perhaps he would have been right to have been more lenient. These matters are very difficult, and the man who dogmatises upon them is a man who has very little title to be listened to by the public.
The first part of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment requires very careful consideration. He proposes to move—
" That this House, while approving the principle of the Balfour Note which is in favour of the general cancellation of Allied Debts and of Reparations…"
These words fill me with surprise, because the purpose of my Motion is to move—
" That this House approves of the principle of the Balfour Memorandum."
The only reason why I put this Motion upon the Paper was that I thought it was so injurious to the financial prestige of this country that in France, all over the Continent and in the United States of America, it should be widely circulated that a very distinguished man, a very able man, a very moderate man, a man who had held office as Chancellor

349
of the Exchequer and who might reasonably expect to hold that office in the future in certain political developments, should describe this Memorandum as "infamous." If I had been told that this was just an error of expression, a momentary mood, that it did not represent the true opinion of the Labour Party, that the true opinion of the Labour Party was that it approves the principle of the Balfour Note, it would have been another matter. But the noble and learned Lord must allow me to give free expression to the mental predicament in which I find myself.
LORD PARMOOR: What is approved is in the subsequent words.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Surely not. The noble and learned Lord says that what is approved is in the subsequent words. Believe me, if the noble and learned Lord will read his own Amendment, which I am sure he would enjoy, he will see that he is quite wrong. I will read the Amendment again. The noble and learned Lord proposes to move—
" to leave out all the words after 'House' for the purpose of inserting 'while approving the principle of the Balfour Note which is in favour of the general cancellation of Allied Debts and of Reparations '…"
Let us pause at that point. The noble and learned Lord does not suggest that anything which follows cancels the approval which is indicated in the sentence that I have read. I agree that there is a qualification, but it is a qualification which does not affect the main and governing principle. The qualification is:—
"regrets that the settlements made by Conservative Governments on behalf of this country have imposed unfair burdens upon British taxpayers."
With that I have dealt, and the reason why I dealt with it first was that I wished to clear away the only point of controversy between the noble and learned Lord and myself, and I wished to concentrate in harmony upon the point on which I am in agreement with the noble and learned Lord. We find that that point is that the Labour Party in this House, and I suppose elsewhere, approves "the principle of the Balfour Note, which is in favour of the general cancellation of Allied Debts and of Reparations."
350
That was the whole principle of the Balfour Note. We may have been right, or we may have been wrong; we may have been too generous—I am not at all sure that it is not very arguable that we were too generous—but that is the very principle of the Balfour Note. And we are faced with this amazing circumstance, that in the House of Commons the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the late Labour Government says it is an "infamous" agreement, and the noble and learned Lord in this House comes here and says that he approves the principle of this "infamous" declaration. Gould the Labour Party go into battle under a nobler standard "We stand united under the banner that we support this 'infamous' declaration"?
I only thought it proper to intervene in this debate because I feel a deep responsibility in the matter of the Balfour Note. I was a member of the Cabinet which unanimously adopted it, and I shall look back, so long as I take an interest in public affairs, to that supreme moment in which a financial decision so momentous was imposed upon us. We took it at a moment when almost a million men had perished under arms, and we took it at a moment when, as I have said, the accumulated savings of a hundred years had gone, squandered unstintingly upon the effort we had made, and I am sure of this, that when in the passionless pages of history this War is fully described, the moral and spiritual generosity of the offer which we then made to all our late Allies will not be counted much lower than the material contribution which we made to the struggle of the War.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves of the principle of the Balfour Memorandum.—(The Earl of Birkenhead.)
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR had given Notice to move as an Amendment to leave out all the words after "House" for the purpose of inserting "while approving the principle of the Balfour Note which is in favour of the general cancellation of Allied Debts and of Reparations, regrets that the settlements made by Conservative Governments on behalf of this country have imposed unfair burdens upon British taxpayers." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment which stands in

351
my name, but before coming to the terms of that Amendment there are matters of general importance which have been touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, to which I should like to call special attention. In the first place, may I say how entirely we agree with him in his desire not to make Party advantage out of a discussion of this kind, and still less to bring it within the stormy controversial atmosphere of Election politics? Perhaps I may just say, in addition, in passing, that I recognise the generous terms in which he referred to myself in one part of his speech, and I have always regarded what happened in old days, as he put it, as rather in the nature of friendly discussion between ourselves, which was carried no doubt to an extreme length.
The first point which one has to bear in mind is this, that the Labour Party has consistently adopted and followed what I regard, in the terms of my Amendment, as the leading principle of the Balfour Note. It is not the whole principle and it was on the difference between that and some other parts of the Balfour Note that Mr. Snowden properly, as I think, drew a distinction. There is no doubt whatever upon this point, which I am glad the noble Earl has recognised as part of the history of the times, and it was stated in very succinct terms by the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, when a discussion on this subject was raised in the House of Commons. On that occasion a suggestion was made that the Labour Party, either directly or indirectly, were desirous that there might be repudiation of international Debts and obligations already incurred. I think the answer of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald on that point was entirely conclusive—conclusive not only as regards the Labour Party, but also in his statement that no such policy could for one moment be encouraged or suggested so long as he was in the position of control and leadership. I am thankful, if I may say so—because I dislike matters of controversy perhaps more even than the noble Earl does—that on this occasion no such suggestion has been raised, or any hint given, that any attack would be made upon the Labour Party or Mr. Ramsay MacDonald under that heading. I may say this, too (and I hope I am as generous as the noble Earl to those
352
from whom I differ an politics), that after Mr. MacDonald's explanation in another place, neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Foreign Secretary made any further suggestion of that kind at all—one of them recognising what had been done in finance and other matters by the Labour Leader, and the other bearing testimony to the peace policy and peace inspiration which has made the Leader of the Labour Party to be regarded as a great apostle of peace throughout the whole world.
I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, has said, that no one can possibly suppose for a moment—he may be mistaken or he may not, that is another matter—that any attitude taken by Mr. MacDonald is an attitude which he would regard or consider as directly or indirectly of such a character as to be contrary to the great cause he has at heart; that is, the peace spirit and peace stability of the world. Just to put that matter beyond doubt, I should like to quote one passage from the statement of Mr. MacDonald in another place. I want to say one thing as regards the question which Lord Birkenhead most rightly put to me in reference to our attitude towards the Balfour Note, and this is what Mr. Ramsay MacDonald has said:—
"The Labour party's position has been laid down perfectly fairly on this subject again and again."
Then he quoted from the Labour Party Conference as long ago as 1923. These are the words, and they are very important:—
"The Conference renews its repeated declaration that this country should adopt a generous attitude in the matter of Inter-Allied Debts as part of a general settlement of the Reparations problem."
The attitude we always have adopted is the attitude to which I have already referred, that on the wider grounds (in which I agree with the noble and learned Earl) and not merely as a matter of financial bargaining, it was essential for the good of the world, and particularly of the industrial condition of Europe, that there should if possible be a general cancellation so far as we are concerned, both of Reparations and Allied Debts, in order that we might begin again, and regain as soon as possible through our credit in these matters—and I am glad to hear what the noble and learned Earl said upon that point—the financial headship

353
of the world, which he tells us, and I do not doubt the fact, we still retain in the City of London.
Mr. Grenfell, Member for the City of London, referred to this matter in another place. I knew his father very well; he was a director of the Bank of England; personally, I do not know him. But what did he say on this subject the other night? I think it entirely corroborates the attitude which the noble Earl has taken to-day. I regret I cannot find the actual terms of his speech, but in substance he said, when certain statements and personal suggestions were being made in the House, that he hoped that such a matter would not be pursued to the detriment of this country, but that as patriots we should seek, in the direction which the noble Earl has pointed out to-day, to pull together for our common interest and the future of our race. That enables me to pass from what I may call the personal attitude of this matter, except for just one word that I have to say in reference to Mr. Snowden.
There were two occasions on which Mr. Snowden made certain statements in another place. In the first instance it was suggested that he had used words which at any rate might be construed as an intention on the part of the Labour Party if they came into power to repudiate existing international Debts and obligations. No one, I think, who knew Mr. Snowden could have put such an interpretation upon the language he used; but he explained quite specifically on a subsequent occasion that the repudiation that he had referred to was no repudiation—nor had he ever used the words—of Debts or obligations, but that what the words meant, when one really read them in the context, was nothing more than that it would be open at some future time to revise international agreements, provided that that revision could be undertaken by mutual consent, because, as he stated, changed conditions might make a revision of that kind absolutely necessary.
On that point, in justice to Mr. Snowden, I should like to quote a passage which lately came from a great international jurist who was well known in this country, where for some years he was Ambassador at the Court of St. James. It appears in the April number
354
of the American review Foreign Affairs. Mr. John W. Davis, the American Ambassador in London from 1918 to 1922, and Democratic candidate for the Presidency in 1924, one of the great international jurists in the United States, whom the noble and learned Earl must often have met while he was here in legal circles, states the principle for the justice of which we, the Labour Party, contended, and for which Mr. Snowden contended, in these words—he is referring to the Debt between us and America:—
"The Debt incurred during the War has been adjusted upon terms mutually agreed upon after fair and full conference."
Then he goes on to say:—
"And while no responsible statesman should foreclose the possibility of a reconsideration, that matter has not come to the front at the present time."
That is exactly, as I understand it, what was said by Mr. Snowden. Not only is it what was said by Mr. Snowden, but it is absolutely true as regards the principle. Of course, repudiation is wrong.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD PARMOOR: I am glad to hear the "Hear, hears," for I am sure no one who ever heard me speak could possibly expect to hear any other note on the subject of repudiation. The whole historical position of this country has depended upon its definite character of performing all international conditions to which it has become on political grounds liable. I hope that there will never be a departure from that attitude. There certainly will not be by the present Labour Party, and certainly not so long as it is under the leadership of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. But, on the other hand, changing factors may produce new considerations, which, in the interests of both parties, may make it advisable that the terms of some particular agreement should be reconsidered, and perhaps reconstituted. That again, I apprehend, is a thing that no one differs from. I have here many quotations, but I do not want to go into them, particularly after the wide and generous terms in which the noble and learned Earl has spoken, because I am sure that if he has read these matters carefully he will agree with what I am saying, as he has agreed with what I have just said, that we do not want to open these recriminations if it can be avoided, but that we want to go

355
on as common patriots and, especially, to maintain throughout the world both our honour and our generosity.
The next matter he referred to was the question which is raised really in the terms of my Amendment—
"regrets that settlements made by Conservative Governments on behalf of this country have imposed unfair burdens upon British taxpayers."
Perhaps the word "unfair" goes too far.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD PARMOOR: I say that because on this occasion, as I have sometimes tried to do before without effect, I desire to avoid all causes of controversy and difficulty. I feel that the generous atmosphere which we encouraged after the War was right. I feel that after a time of great common sacrifice it was the highest that our nation could do, to approach the question of Allied Debts on the most generous ground. Not to repeat myself, that ground so forcibly put by Lord Balfour was then and has been ever since the policy of the Labour Party. At the same time, we have to consider whether even in the most generous light, the policy we actually entered upon is in the interests of the nation, of the Empire, and of the world at large. The policy to which the noble Earl referred and to which I have been referring was not accepted. A general cancellation by which we could start afresh, having forgiven these large sums to our debtors and having forgiven all Reparations as against Germany, was found not to be practicable under the conditions then existing. It was not our fault. We made the offer, but it was not generally accepted.
The matters to which I think reference is made—as I say I regret the word "unfair" and I do not like the word—were these. According to a letter which appeared the other day in The Times, and I only quote it for that reason, Mr. Harvey, then Ambassador of the United States in this country, regarded the settlement (I will not call it the compromise) of the payment in respect of the American Debt as equivalent to a sum of £200,000,000 that we need not have spent upon it. Then again, if you look at the settlement with Italy and with France, I am the last person to attempt, nor is it the policy of the Labour Party
356
to attempt to approach this question in what I might call a cheese-paring attitude. I think that would be wrong. But what has been the result? There is no more prosperous country at the present time than France. I am very glad of it. But the burden of our Debt, which is so heavy, and the difficulties of our unemployment do not exist in France to the extent to which they exist here. What we mean by this and what Mr. Snowden meant is that he thought the terms had been unduly generous—let me use that expression instead of "unfair." He thought that when the time came, as it was sure to come in the course of the historical future, both parties might be asked to agree to a revision, and in that revision, although he fully concurred in the principle laid down in the first part of Lord Balfour's Note, he was unable to concur in the latter part. Surely, that is nothing more than true statesmanship.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Let me say that quite a very simple point divides us. I have listened with a large measure of agreement to the speech of the noble and learned Lord. Surely he would greatly relieve the difficult situation internationally if he would tell us whether or not he associates himself with the epithet "infamous" as applied to the Balfour Memorandum?
LORD PARMOOR: I think I ought to answer that question quite frankly. I do not like the epithet. But I do not put the weight on what I may call terminological—I think that was the expression used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at one time—exaggerations which find their way into discussions of this kind. I want to be perfectly frank. I am not in the least criticising Mr. Snowden. He is stating his own view. He was quite right to state it, and not only quite right to state it, but quite right to state it in the language which he thought was appropriate to the evils with which he was dealing. But I say quite frankly to the noble Earl—I do not think there is any concession about it, we are dealing here with a matter of great international interest and we want to deal with it in the widest grounds—I was not thinking of controverting the criticism which he attached to that parcular word. But I may put this to your Lordships and to the noble Earl. Many

357
of us, perhaps he and I if I may put us together in that respect, in our arguments have used epithets which afterwards we would rather not have used; not that we did not believe that they were right but because they were capable of a double contraction. What we owe to Mr. Snowden as, I believe, the most economical and financially-minded Chancellor of the Exchequer we have had in recent years, is so great and so much in the interest of what the noble Earl called British credit and British capital that I think it would be absurd in such a matter as this to overlook the real and sound principles which underlie the whole speech of Mr. Snowden in order to direct attention to a particular epithet which, perhaps, we should not have used ourselves.
There is only one other matter to which I think I need refer. To my mind it would be an infinite misfortune if in the controversy which has arisen, a controversy rather of words than of substance, any word or action could or should be so construed as to put back that great and vital question of world peace and world security. I do not believe that is the case, and I thank God for it. You will not persuade foreign politicians that Mr. MacDonald is not earnest in his peace policy. You will not persuade them that Mr. Snowden is not equally earnest, the one having been Prime Minister and the other Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government. I think we must rejoice with great satisfaction that, so far as I have been able to read or to understand, no real question has been raised in foreign countries that what was said either by one or the other could even in a remote degree interfere with the progress of the peace spirit in Europe and in the world. Europe and the world owe a deep debt of gratitude for the action of Mr. MacDonald at the London Conference in 1924. Everyone knows that that was not a final settlement and could not be a final settlement. Mr. MacDonald and others have constantly stated that when the time comes, and when the final settlement is ready for arrangement and agreement, the people of this country will find that no Party is more deeply patriotic than the Labour Party, and that no statesman is more beloved for his peace policy throughout Europe than Mr. MacDonald. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after "House" and insert "while approving the principle of the Balfour Note which is in favour of the general cancellation of Allied Debts and of Reparations, regrets that the settlements made by Conservative Governments on behalf of this country have imposed unfair burdens upon British taxpayers."—(Lord Parmoor.)
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, we have no wish to enter into discussion relating to international agreements made by His Majesty's Government, nor on this occasion do we desire to examine with meticulous care the language used by Mr. Snowden in another place. The only observation that I would make, after listening to my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor, is that it is a pity, if he is correct in suggesting that Mr. Snowden spoke as public speakers sometimes do rather in haste and not intending the full meaning of his language, that Mr. Snowden has not taken the opportunity, more particularly when dealing with international affairs, to rise in his place and express his regret. I cannot but think that that would be conduct more worthy of a manly and honourable gentleman.
LORD PARMOOR: I wish to contradict that. I think Mr. Snowden was perfectly satisfied he was using the right terms—epithet I mean. The noble Earl asked me whether I should use it. I said I did not think I could.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: All I can say is this. If, with all the experience of advocacy of my noble and learned friend through a long term of yeans, and with all his loyalty to his Party, he can find nothing better to say than what he addressed to your Lordships in answer to the question from my noble friend Lord Birkenhead and in speaking to the Amendment, I cannot but think his answer was the best that could really be made, and did in truth represent the actual facts of the case. But I pass from that. There is one important question raised in this debate, and I rather gather there is nothing in controversy except the mere language of the Amendment. I say that after listening to my noble and learned friend. Whatever our views might be regarding the international agreements entered into, whether we approve or disapprove them, we desire

359
to state emphatically that we should hold firm to the principle of continuity of contractual international obligations entered into on behalf of the nation by His Majesty's Government. The reputation of this country for carrying out its obligations in good faith must beyond all question be maintained. There should be no room for doubt among other nations regarding the course that would be pursued by a Government formed by another political Party. That Government would still be His Majesty's Government, and would still be bound to honour the pledged word of the nation given on its behalf.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, my excuse for intervening in this debate is that, like the noble Earl who moved this Resolution, I was one of the members of the Administration at the time, and I very well remember the discussion that took place when Lord Balfour first introduced his Note to the Cabinet. I do not want to traverse too much of the ground which has been gone over before, but I think it right that we should recall for a moment the circumstances under which this Note came to be written. It will be remembered that after the War and after the Peace Treaty, for a period there was what you might call a moratorium on the subject of Reparations and Allied Debts. The world was too scarred and bruised in the War for Allies or combatants to make much progress. From 1918 to 1922 these great financial matters really lay in abeyance. Conversations were taking place from time to time between Governments and Conferences were being held, but neither was any principle being laid down nor was anybody really paying anything.
But in 1922 this position really received a check by the intimation to the British Government from the American Government that they required us to begin payment of the 5 per cent. interest on the loan which was contracted for by us and also they were anxious that we should enter into immediate negotiations to fund that loan. It was really this request, very courteously made and very firmly insisted on, which led to the necessity of the Balfour Note, which was addressed to the Allied Governments with the intimation that the American Government was asking us to pay them something and that we must really begin to ask our
360
Allies to pay us something too. That was the commencement of the Note, the text of which I hold in my hand. The principles which the Balfour Note tried to establish are two. I think part of the confusion which has arisen in the discussion to-day is due to the fact that there are two principles, and not one, involved in the Balfour Note. The first principle which the Balfour Note endeavoured to lay down was this: that the British Government was prepared to surrender its share in Reparations, then estimated at £1,450,000,000—an estimate which is much larger than the amount calculated to-day—if a general cancellation was made, including all Allied Debts and including our Debt to America. On the figures then existing it would look as if we were making a very large sacrifice.
I have seen Lord Balfour's Note to which this extraordinary epithet has been applied. I was reading it again this morning. It is one of the finest State documents ever produced and is worthy of the one who produced it and worthy of the nation in whose name he sent it. He used there the language which he uses himself to perfection, and which I think is worthy of repeating at this juncture. That was really the spirit that animated the Government and, I am sure, the people of this country and the Empire, in the proposals that were then made. He said:—
"But can the present world situation be looked at only from this narrow financial standpoint? It is true that many of the Allied and Associated Powers are, as between each other, creditors or debtors, or both. But they were, and are, much more. They were partners in the greatest international effort ever made in the cause of freedom; and they are still partners in dealing with some, at least, of its results. Their Debts were incurred, their loans were made, not for the separate advantage of particular States, but for a great purpose common to them all, and that purpose has been, in the main, accomplished."
That was the spirit and the attitude then, and it is that spirit which has been characterised by the extraordinary adjective of "infamous" by a statesman in a moment which we can only think was one of temporary mental aberration.
That was the spirit in which the Note was sent. But there were two aspects of that Note, as I want to point out. One was general cancellation. That was the ideal, but as practical people we realised

361
it might not be possible. The second point we laid down was that in no circumstances would we make a profit out of our Allies as the result of the War, and that whatever happened we would be satisfied if we could obtain either through Reparations or in interest from our Allies a sufficient sum to balance our interest on the American Debt. That has been the keynote of the whole of the negotiations which have taken place and which are now being criticised. It is that keynote of the Balfour Note that has not been accepted by Mr. Snowden. What we would like to know is whether it is accepted or not by the Labour Party. I have here the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House of Commons and you will see from that how the matter developed. Mr. Snowden began by attacking the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the Debt settlement. No doubt, as an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, he thought he could have done better. Well, I have been engaged in many negotiations of many kinds in a long business career. I have been at negotiations when I have been convinced that nobody could have got a better bargain, but I have not been surprised when those who were not there thought they could have made a better bargain. That is an illusion which remains, and Mr. Snowden suffers from it.
I would merely like to point out what really is the gravamen and the serious part of Mr. Snowden's attack. He said:—
"Perhaps the worst feature of all in the agreements which the right hon. gentleman has made is this: that if ever we get more from those annuities and German Reparations than our payments to the United States we have to reduce the amount of the annuities to be received from our Continental debtors. We have never subscribed, let it be remembered, to the principle of the Balfour Note. I think that was an infamous Note.
MR. CHURCHILL: The Labour Party?
MR. SNOWDEN: The Labour Party. Certainly we did not. And we should hold ourselves open, if the circumstances arose, to repudiate the conditions of that Note. Certainly we should."
Let me point out that it is not the question of cancellation which he is dealing with but it is the second point, and the really important question is whether that principle is accepted or is not accepted.
362
That point has not been dealt with at all. The noble Lord is in a very difficult position. He obviously did not like either Mr. Snowden's language or his policy, and with great loyalty he dwelt on the virtues of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, which is the obviously easy way out. We do not want to interfere with the internal difficulties of the Labour Party—far be it from me to add to them, I know they are large enough already—but we are entitled, I think, to ask whether that principle is accepted, not in the interests of any Party, or of this country even, but of Europe—because Mr. Snowden's speech produced an almost stupefying effect in Europe. You had only to open a French newspaper the next day to see the absolutely stupefying effect of his speech. I know the noble Lord has taken great interest in League of Nations affairs at Geneva. He knows that the cooperation of the French Government at Geneva is absolutely essential for world peace. Does he really think that a speech in which it is stated by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government that France has repudiated her Debts much as Russia has done, and that a Debt settlement made by her would certainly be re-opened by him because it had not been formally ratified, is a method of obtaining French support in great international problems on which we are engaged? Obviously not, and nobody knows that better than the noble Lord. If he were sent to Geneva to represent a Labour Government he would be equally as busy explaining there the real meaning of what was actually said as he has been in the House of Lords this afternoon.
But even more important is the fact that to-day we have five ratified treaties. There are five treaties ratified and the only one not formally ratified is the French Treaty. It is absurd to come here and tell us that all he wished to say was that if both parties to an agreement wish to alter it by mutual consent they are open to do so. Surely an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer does not get up in the House of Commons to deliver a long speech to tell us that. It would be an insult to his intelligence to maintain that that was all that Mr. Snowden wanted to propound to the nation and to the world at large. Are we to understand that these five treaties

363
are settled and that it is only the one not formally ratified that is open to further discussion? That is another very difficult point. Let me say that this haggling about terms is an extremely shortsighted business policy. What really was the foundation from a business point of view underlying the Balfour Note and the settlement of the American Debt? It was that it was of the utmost importance to the people and to the industry of this country that the financial situation of Europe should be cleaned up as quickly as possible. Who suffered more from disturbed exchanges, from inflation and disturbed monetary conditions than British industry? Who had most to gain by quick decisive action in endeavouring to get these problems settled? We had. I assure the noble Lord that we have gained infinitely more by making this settlement than we should have done if we had haggled about another half per cent. or another million a year.
The Prime Minister, the other evening at the Bankers' dinner, gave the facts about the American settlement. What are the facts? America did make very considerable concessions which she need not have made. If she had insisted on her pound of flesh we should be paying £50,000,000 a year instead of £33,000,000. People have told me here and in America that a better bargain might have been made. I ask again, how do they know? What is more essential than to have made a better bargain is that we should never give the impression that we will re-open or wish to re-open the question. We have an advantage, which I can assure the noble Lord from my intimate knowledge of America, where I have many friends and business interests, is incalculable. The settlement put us right away on the map, not as being a country which had to be asked for payment, not as a country which had to be threatened, but as an equal country with the United States, saying: "We will settle our Debt. We will regain equality in the markets of the world of finance with you." That was worth more millions than to have gone on trying to tell the United States what they ought to do. We should have lost the amazing advantage of our gesture and of the good will we have won.
364
I am sure that in this great international situation, just as in a large business concern, the first thing you want to determine is whether it is a good thing to make a bargain. Having determined that great principle, it is better to make a bargain which some people do not regard as the best possible one than to make no bargain at all. I feel sure that the Balfour Note, issued as it was by a great man in great circumstances and on a great occasion, will stand throughout history as a great State document, and it will always be said that the carrying out of that policy in its entirety will have assisted the stability, the progress and prosperity of the world far more than would have been the case if it had not been adopted.
LORD JOICEY: My Lords, after the debate that we have heard I think your Lordships will agree that it was very wise of the noble Earl to bring forward this important question. I doubt whether anything in recent years has created a greater sensation among the commercial classes of this country than the statement that was made by Mr. Snowden, when he gave the impression that, if a Labour Government came into office, they would repudiate the conditions that had been arranged by a previous Government. I think it was very wise indeed of the noble Earl to bring this matter before your Lordships. There is no doubt whatever that the general feeling throughout this country is that which has been expressed by the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, when he said that we were not accustomed to break any contracts which we made and that where our honour was concerned we should carry out any conditions that had been arranged by our Government.
From the speech that has been delivered by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the Opposition I gather that the words which were used by Mr. Snowden did not really express the view that he had in his mind, though, when these words were taken up and turned in a different way by the Press and others, they had a very ready hearing from all commercial people in this country. I am very glad indeed that this matter has been cleared up. So far as I have been able to gather from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition there seems to be very litle difference with regard to

365
this matter, and I think that if my noble and learned friend would take away the last part of his Amendment, in which he finds fault with the conditions of our bargain, there would be nothing left but an acceptance on his part of the general view. I hope that my noble and learned friend will remove these words or withdraw his Amendment, because I really feel that there is very little difference of opinion on this question among all Parties in your Lordships' House.
LORD THOMSON: My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor, and in so doing I think it seems necessary to clear up some misconception as to what that Amendment exactly means. We say:—
" while approving the principle of the Balfour Note which is in favour of the general cancellation of Allied Debts …"
What we mean is really what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said—namely, that there are, in fact, two principles involved in that Note. I yield to no one in my admiration and respect for Lord Balfour, but I submit that there is a world of difference between the two principles expressed in that one Note. The first principle is a magnificent gesture, an invitation to general cancellation all round. That is a principle under which we, as a nation, would have made great sacrifices, but so would the whole world, so would America, so would our Allies.
The second principle, under which we demand only sufficient from our Allies to pay what we borrowed on their account from the United States of America, involves sacrifices by ourselves alone and by no one else in the world. I submit that this is a state of affairs which, more especially in the altered conditions, is not fair to the British taxpayer. We have unsolicited testimony to that fact from various sources. If your Lordships will permit me, I should like to read what an American authority says on such a subject, for example, as our Italian settlement. This is the view of the Institute of Economics in New York:—
" When the British-Italian War Debt account has been entirely liquidated, Italy will have, in effect, paid Great Britain no interest whatever and only 73 per cent. of the amount actually borrowed. In the case of the United States, Italy will have paid at the end of the sixty-two year period of payment all of the money
366
borrowed during the War and, in addition, 759,000,000 dollars in interest. So far the United States seems to have fared better than Great Britain in the Debt settlement; with Italy, since, if all the payments are really made, the American Treasury will have received twice as much as the British, although originally the United States loaned to Italy less than did Great Britain."
I submit that, though one likes to be generous—and, speaking for my Party, we were entirely in favour of a general settlement with sacrifices all round—in the case of a country like ours, with a large number of unemployed persons and industrial depression in many of our staple industries that we should be sacrificing more than a rich, prosperous and generous country like the United States does seem a little unfair to our taxpayers.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I hope that the noble Lord will not think me discourteous if I intervene to ask a specific question, because this is rather important. Will he tell me, on behalf of the Labour Party, which of our debtor nations we ought to have dealt with more severely?
LORD THOMSON: I do not wish to discriminate between nations at this moment. I think that we have been—let me say badly represented in this matter. I think that we ought to have been able to get from any of our debtor nations as good terms as the United States got.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: So we did.
LORD THOMSON: If the noble Earl will forgive me, I have just read a statement by the Institute of Economics—
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Quite wrong. If we make allowance for the difference in dates of payment, the terms upon which the Americans settled with the debtor nations of Europe are hardly distinguishable from our own. There may be a difference in the dates of payment, but there is no real distinction between us.
LORD THOMSON: I do not want to differ from the noble Lord on a point of detail, but this was the Institute of Economics in New York.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: They were probably quite wrong.
LORD THOMSON: I submit that that is not an argument.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: It is an assumption.
LORD THOMSON: It is an assumption on the part of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: If the noble Lord wishes me—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I will give him the facts. These figures cannot be reconciled with the reality by any economic body, whether in America or anywhere else. I have the whole facts in my mind. I only object to being told that an economic association has dealt with this.
LORD THOMSON: I notice that the noble Earl does not give me the facts, but if he has them he will no doubt give them to us in his reply. I would remind him that this statement that I have read out covers the whole period to which we have referred. The statement says that in the case of the United States, Italy will have paid at the end of the 62-year period of payments all of the money borrowed during the War, and, in addition, 759,000,000 dollars in interest. If he is going to submit facts and figures which controvert that statement of an important body of economists in the United States, I shall be very grateful and I will revise my opinion. I will also ask him if he will correct another statement with reference to the settlement with France. I am going to say that covering the whole period of the annuities the percentage of cancellation given to France by the United States is 60, whereas that given by us to France is 62; in other words, we are cancelling to a greater extent than do the Americans, and they are a far richer people, and I repeat they are a most generous people. If he can controvert these figures I shall be grateful, and I will revise my opinion about the unfairness of these settlements.
There is another aspect of this Balfour Note, the principle of which we are discussing at this moment. My right hon. friend Mr. Snowden was taken to task for saying what he did say, to this effect—that should circumstances arise we hold ourselves open to repudiate the conditions of the Balfour Note. There is not a word there about repudiating any international contractual agreement; the words are "repudiate the conditions"
368
of the Balfour Note. The conditions obviously refer to this measurement which we apply to the amount we shall receive and the amount we shall pay. I think it will be generally agreed that in measuring what we should get from Germany the measure has been Germany's capacity to pay. I submit that if, as Mr. Bonar Law said in 1922, the conditions of the Balfour Note as applied to the amount we were to receive and pay were generous, having regard to the conditions of prosperity in France and Italy they are at this present moment fantastic. France is a very much more prosperous country than we are to-day. France has no unemployment, and is paying off annually large sums of commercial debt, and I am told is even lending money to the United States.
VISCOUNT PEEL: So are we.
LORD THOMSON: I believe we are, but we have a great deal of unemployment which distinguishes us from France. I understand—if the noble Marquess will forgive me—that the loans are being repaid in dollars.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The revalorised franc also has to pay in dollars.
LORD THOMSON: Is this Balfour Note to be hung around our necks eternally? It is not a contractual international agreement. It is, with respect to its distinguished author, a sort of rule of thumb. It enables us to measure how much we are to get and how much we are to pay. Under the settlement reached in 1926 we are not getting all that we might get under the Balfour Note, but if this limiting condition, this self-denying ordinance, is to apply eternally, quite a serious situation may arise for this country. Revision is always coming along in regard to German Reparations. At this moment there are negotiations going on. Suppose, for example, that £100,000,000 per year were exacted from Germany. Of that France would get £52,500,000. We would get £22,500,000, of which £2,500,000 would go to the Dominions. We should then be entitled only to £17,000,000 or £18,000,000 from all our Continental debtors put together, and the more the Reparations demanded from Germany, the less our Continental debtors would have to pay to us, and the greater the temptation to them to make the demands on Germany as large as

369
possible. We should get more from Germany, they would get more from Germany, but they would have loss to pay to us. I am speaking in the presence of some very great captains of industry, and I speak with diffidence, but I submit that it is not a good thing for this country to turn Germany to an exaggerated extent into the drudge of Europe. If Germany is asked to pay these gigantic sums, I agree that they can only be paid in the end in the form of export surplus. Germany is one of our greatest rivals, and if she is going to have an export surplus to reduce or extinguish what our Continental debtors owe to us, I imagine that the effect upon British trade can hardly fail to be very grave.
In the latter part of this Amendment we say that the settlements have been unfair, and I wish to justify that expression "unfair." What I think may clinch the matter is a statement issued by the Federation of British Industries in February, 1925. There it is said:—
" In terms of international competition for trade, it means that (assuming we are entitled to five per cent. interest and sinking fund on these Debts) we are subsidising France to the extent of £31,000,000 per annum; Italy to the extent of £27,000,000 per annum; and the remaining debtor countries to the extent of £41,000,000 per annum; these sums representing not only an additional tax burden on British industry, but a corresponding lightening of the burden on the industries of the debtor countries, which are in many cases in keen competition with our own for the markets of the world."
That is an opinion which I should imagine would inspire respect in the mind of Lord Melchett, because it is a memorandum by the Federation of British Industries. He can hardly controvert that.
LORD MELCHETT: The noble Lord must not assume that.
LOED THOMSON: Am I to assume that he does not always agree with what the Federation of British Industries say? That is very interesting information. I submit that in all these circumstances the Amendment should commend itself to your Lordships. We are bearing unfair burdens, and we are bearing them partly on account of a principle in the Balfour Note which, in spite of our great admiration for the form and spirit which inspired that Note—the second principle—
370
has failed in its effect. And I should imagine that an Amendment like this, which commands a very large measure of agreement outside this House, must be approved by a large number of noble Lords opposite. If the right rev. Prelate opposite will forgive me, I should imagine that this Amendment would appeal to many of your Lordships as swear words are said to have appealed on one occasion to a Bishop, who said: "I am sorry I cannot use these words, but I am glad that they have been employed."
THE MARQUESS OK SALISBURY: My Lords, I am quite sure that the vast majority of your Lordships—I do not mean merely noble Lords who sit on this side of the House, but noble Lords who sit above the Gangway opposite—will be very glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Birkenhead has brought this very important subject before us this afternoon. No man is better entitled than my noble and learned friend to bring it forward. He was a member of the Government which was responsible for the issue of the Balfour Note, and he speaks, therefore, not only with his usual eloquence, but with a very special authority on the present occasion. And he has been very successful, may I say, not merely in his own speech but in the speeches which he has provoked in other quarters of your Lordships' House. I join with other noble Lords in expressing my profound sympathy with the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition. He has been placed in a very difficult position, but his honesty has prevailed, and he has dissociated himself both from the word "repudiation" which figured in Mr. Snowden's celebrated observation, and from the word "infamous." I congratulate the noble Lord, and I sympathise with him.
But really it is a little fatiguing, the amount which the Labour Party have to explain away. Because it is not merely that they have to explain away Mr. Snowden's dreadful speech, but they even have to explain away their own Amendment this evening. It appears that when they say that they approve of the principle of the Balfour declaration it does not mean quite that.
LORD THOMSON: Which?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But there are not two principles expressed here. To the plain man, to ordinary Conservatives and Liberals reading the Amendment of the noble Lord, it was assumed that what was approved of was the general principle of the Balfour Note.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: As we are included, I must say I cannot myself agree with that view. I never said that. I thought the Amendment was perfectly plain. I am sorry I differ from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. I understand the Amendment to mean that it approves the principle which affects the cancellation of the Debts and of Reparations, but it does not approve the principle which said, in effect, that we will only take from our debtors that which we have to pay to our creditors. I understand that it is that part which is challenged. I regret that this was not made clearer before. It does not alter my view as regards the Amendment. I shall vote with the Government, and shall vote against the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am lost in these subtleties.
LORD PARMOOR: The English is quite plain.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But then there is the word "unfair."
LORD PARMOOR: That is another matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is another matter, but it is in the noble Lord's Amendment, and he does not approve of it. That is the remarkable thing. So that the noble Lord not only does not approve of Mr. Snowden, which I fully understand—
LORD PARMOOR: I am sorry to interrupt. The noble Marquess is saying what is quite incorrect. I imagine that I made a very admirable—I will not say defence of Mr. Snowden, but a very admirable statement of my agreement with him.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I can assure the noble Lord that he did not make a very admirable defence of Mr. Snowden. Whatever may be said, the defence was a very weak one. He did his best, and we will leave it at that. I turn for a moment to the speech to
372
which we have just listened. The noble and gallant Lord declared that this country has obtained much worse terms than the American Government have. Well, I am advised that the Debts of the European Allies to America have been funded on terms which in actuarial value are not very different from those accepted by us, the chief difference being that the settlements with America provide for smaller payments in proportion during the earlier years, and heavier payments during the later years. That is the answer to the noble Lord. But I should like to add this, and it is of considerable importance: His Majesty's Government have always made it clear that the arrangements they had made were conditional on their debtors not paying more in proportion to the United States. So that is an express condition of the policy of His Majesty's Government. I hope that may somewhat reassure the noble and gallant Lord opposite.
My noble and learned friend who moved this Motion has not only obtained these luminous confessions from the Labour Party, but he has also received, what I did not doubt he would receive, an assurance from the noble and learned Marquess opposite of complete solidarity with the Government in dissociating himself absolutely from Mr. Snowden's attitude in the House of Commons. That is of great value—even more value than the confessions of the noble Lord opposite. The speech of the noble and learned Marquess shows, as was also shown in another place, that so far as the Liberal Party is concerned it will have nothing whatever to do with repudiating the obligations of this country. When we have cut ourselves loose from all the explanations and counter-explanations to which we have listened the broad fact remains that Mr. Snowden's statement—not withdrawn—shook, or would have shaken, the credit of this country throughout the world, had it not been that the other Parties in the State at once repudiated it. For that reason, if for no other, I earnestly hope that my noble and learned friend will receive in the Division Lobby the full support, not only of this Party, but of the Liberal Party too, and that in so doing we may vindicate the pledged word of the British Government, whatever Government may be in power.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I will not abuse the patience with which your Lordships have been good enough to receive the observations I have already made by a repetition of anything I have already said. Two or three points have emerged which I can deal with in three minutes, and, with permission, I will attempt so to deal with them. In the first place, in reply to my noble and learned friend Lord Reading, I would say that there is not, or ought not to be, any misunderstanding as to what the principle of the Balfour Memorandum was. There are principles and principles. Sometimes principles are complex and sometimes they are simple. This is a very simple principle openly proclaimed, on the first date on which the terms were made known, to Parliament, the country and the world. It was that there should be a cancellation of War Debts. There is no other principle. That is the principle.
LORD THOMSON: I beg the noble Earl's pardon—
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I wish to elucidate this. What is it that the noble Lord desires to say? I would desire very much to elucidate any point which any noble Lord desires to take, because I am very clear about this, that that was the underlying principle and there is no other. You are not invading that principle when you begin to say that you ought to have charged Italy more or you ought to have charged France more.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: The noble Earl will pardon me, but as I understand it, looking at the terms of the Motion, there is a principle underlying it which is the cancellation of Separations altogether. But there is another point which is what I may call an alternative point raised by Lord Balfour, and the noble Earl knows it well, the principle which is really the one under discussion; that is, as he says, that we shall not in any circumstances take more from those who owe us money than we have to pay those to whom we owe money. That, as I understand it, is the principle under discussion.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I do not dispute the noble Marquess's accurate statement on that. But let us ask whether that is disputed.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Then we understand that the Labour Party has authoritatively declared in this case, and it is very important that it should be made plain, that this country should receive more in War Reparations than we have to pay. Is that the attitude of the Labour Party?
LORD THOMSON: Yes.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: It is?
LORD THOMSON: No. It seems to me that the noble Earl, if he will forgive me, has misunderstood. We are dealing with the principle that has been stated by the noble Marquess, and I am in perfect agreement with what he said. But because we say that we hold ourselves open to repudiate the conditions of the Balfour Note should circumstances arise in the future, if a revision takes place, we do not by that mean that at this moment we want to get more than we pay. We simply say that the principle which we do not accept is that we should be utterly bound to restrict what we receive to what we have to pay.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble Lord would have been very wise to have undergone some legal training in his youth before he dealt with the problem in that spirit of levity and inconsiderate flippancy. It is a very plain question. We have to make contracts and binding contracts now. What is the use of the noble Lord saying that we do not want to be bound in perpetuity and in twenty years we might revise the conditions. You are not allowed the opportunity of revising things in twenty years. You must liquidate the business which has been disputed now. The whole point is, is it or is it not the policy of the Labour Party that it is their intention if they are returned to power to obtain more from our debtors than we pay to our creditors?
LORD PARMOOR: I have tried once or twice to make it clear to the noble Earl—
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I am very stupid, I know.
LORD PARMOOR: I will try once more. I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Marquess.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: Unfortunately, he does not agree with you.
LORD PARMOOR: All that Mr. Snowden said was that in the event of some future revision by mutual consent—
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: No.
LORD PARMOOR: That is what I think Mr. Snowden said—that we should consider the whole matter open, but that we were bound by the principle that we were not to get more than we received.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: That, again, leaves the explanation extremely and obviously incomplete. The noble and learned Lord has said that all that Mr. Snowden said was that if by future revision this position could be readjusted with a more fortunate result to ourselves, the Labour Party would welcome it. So would everybody else; but, unfortunately, Mr. Snowden did not say that. He said he repudiated the principle. The noble and learned Lord shakes his head. Does he deny it?
LORD THOMSON: "If the circumstances arose."
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: What circumstances?
LORD THOMSON: "The" circumstances: I am reading from Mr. Snowden's speech.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I had in mind the first speech made by Mr. Snowden; I do not know from what other speech the noble Lord is reading. What Mr. Snowden said in his first speech was that the Labour Party repudiated the principle of the Balfour Memorandum.
LORD ARNOLD: No.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: If the noble Lord will read the passage I will deal with it. I do not happen to have it before me, but I have it in mind.
LORD THOMSON: It is at column 121. Mr. Snowden said this:—
"We have never subscribed, let it be remembered, to the principle of the Balfour Note"—
this particular principle that the noble Marquess has explained. Then Mr. Snowden said, using the phrase which has been so much criticised—
"I think that was an infamous Note.
MR. CHURCHILL: The Labour Party?
MR. SNOWDEN: The Labour Party. Certainly we did not. And we should hold ourselves open, if the circumstances arose, to repudiate the conditions of the Note."
"If the circumstances arose."
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: What circumstances?
LORD THOMSON: It depends upon what the circumstances are. I submit that is flippant and that it is really a very bad debating point, and I do not think that any one will differ from me. Mr. Snowden says: "If the circumstances arose," and we cannot define what the circumstances will be.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: But you are quite unable to explain what circumstances.
LORD THOMSON: No one knows what the circumstances will be. The revision is coming along periodically and automatically every three or four years. We are going through a period of revision now, and we did not know three years ago what the circumstances would be to-day. "If the circumstances arose," said Mr. Snowden, "we should hold ourselves open," and the noble Earl tries to pervert that plain and simple sentence into a statement that if we took office tomorrow we should change the conditions of our settlement with France or someone else and demand more from our debtors than we are paying to our creditors. I do not think that is a fair debating point, if the noble Earl will allow me to say so. He accuses me of being flippant and I return the accusation.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I am not at all annoyed, if it is any reassurance to him, with the noble Lord; but I desire to call attention a little more closely to what actually happened, because it is incongruous with the position now assumed by the Labour Party in your Lordships' House. We find Mr. Snowden saying, you will remember: "Certainly we did not agree to the Balfour Note. I think it is an infamous Note and we should hold ourselves open, if the circumstances arose, to repudiate the conditions of that Note." Is it or is it not an infamous Note? The noble and learned Lord. Lord Parmoor, says it is not an infamous Note. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, says about it, whether he thinks it infamous or not. He is very ready

377
to give us his opinion on so many points that he might favour us by saying whether he thinks it is infamous or not, I do not imagine he would find it very easy to reply to that. Then we are told in the official Amendment of the Labour Party that—
" while approving the principle of the Balfour Note which is in favour of the general cancellation of Allied Debts and of Reparations "—
we now know that the Labour Party approves the principle—this deals with a slight controversy which arose between the noble Marquess and myself—while approving of the principle of the Balfour Note, which is in favour of the general cancellation of Allied Debts—they approve of that—they approve of this infamous document—
EARL RUSSELL: Hear, hear.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has much more sense than all those on that Bench. I have long since formed that conclusion. I think if he had been in charge of this debate to-night we should have reached complete unanimity long ago. Now at least we know that the Labour Party, as its opinion is expressed in this House, is partly of opinion that this is an infamous document, and partly and mainly that it is not, that the spokesman of the Labour Party in this House is of opinion
that his own Amendment in describing this adjustment as "unfair" is an unfortunate selection of words, and that his colleague, Lord Thomson, on the contrary, thinks it most aptly describes the situation. Well, let this Party go to the country with these divided arguments and these irreconcilable views, but at least we shall know that, in whatever department of State they propose, as Mr. Ramsay MacDonald has told us, to introduce dicipline and organisation, they have not been able to do it among their forces in this House and the other House.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am not going to answer any of the questions of the noble Earl. I only rise to make one observation before we proceed to the Division and that is that the speech he has been making for the last five or ten minutes hardly carries out the promise he made to your Lordships when he opened this debate, that it was not his intention to endeavour to make any political capital out of it.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: I have been much provoked since.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion,
Their lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 6.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Churchill, V.

Dynevor, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Elibank, V.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Wellington, D.

Hood, V.

Erskine, L.

Inchcape, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Peel, V.

Faringdon, L.

Reading, M.

Ullswater, V.

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

Gainford, L.

Ancaster, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Hampton, L.

Birkenhead, E.

Hanworth, L.

Buxton, E.

Askwith, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Biddulph, L.

Harris, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Leven and Melville, E.

Cawley, L.

Hemphill, L.

Lindsey, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Hindlip, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Howard of Glossop, L.

Lytton, E.

Clinton, L.

Jessel, L.

Midleton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Joicey, L.

Morton, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Onslow, E.

Cranworth, L.

Kylsant, L.

Plymouth, E.

Cromwell, L.

Lawrence, L.

Stanhope, E.

Danesfort, L.

Melchett, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Darling, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Strafford, E.

Davidson of Lambeth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Wharncliffe, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Monson, L.

Wicklow, E.

Desborough, L.

Newton, L.

Plumer, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Templemore, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

St. Levan, L.

Teynham, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Wharton, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Stanmore, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Remnant, L.

Strachie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Arnold, L.

Parmoor, L.

Russell, E.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Thomson, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments.
Moved, That the Commons Reason be now considered.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The reference is to Bill No. 53, as first printed for the House of Lords.]
Clause 35, page 43, line 13, leave out subsection (1), and insert:—
("(1) On a vacancy arising after the commencement of this Act in the office of medical officer of health or sanitary inspector of a small burgh, the medical officer of health or sanitary inspector, as the case may be, of the county within which the burgh is situated shall ipso facto become the medical officer of health or sanitary inspector for the burgh, and such proportion of the salaries and expenses of such officer as the county council and the town council may agree shall be paid by the town council to the county council, and, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Department of Health.")
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason:—
Because it is desirable that the sanitary inspector of a burgh should be resident in the burgh in order to deal with the matters which may require urgent attention, and that the burgh should not be required in every case to appoint for the purposes of the non-transferred sanitary services the sanitary inspector of the county.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that we do not insist upon the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

RECONSTITUTED CREAM BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, in asking you to give this Bill a Second Reading I think it would be well if I explained to your Lordships more fully than is set out in the Bill exactly what reconstituted cream is. Reconstituted cream is prepared by the emulsification of butter, milk powder, and water—that is to say, the constituents of true cream. It is absolutely impossible, so I am told, to tell by analysis reconstituted from pure cream. Accordingly it was necessary to introduce some such Bill as this in order to prevent the sale of reconstituted cream as pure cream. Reconstituted cream is made from butter very largely imported from abroad and, owing to the cheapness of the raw materials, can be placed on the market in competition with home-produced cream at a very much lower price. It is to do away with this unfair competition and in fairness to the public, who I think should be allowed to know what it is they are buying, that this Bill has been introduced.
The advent of reconstituted cream gave rise to a considerable amount of agitation from the National Farmers' Union and in reply to that agitation a Bill was introduced in another place last Session dealing with the control and production of reconstituted cream and synthetic cream. Synthetic cream, I may say, is cream made from vegetable fats and is readily distinguishable from pure cream by analysis. Accordingly it can be dealt with under the Food and Drugs Acts and therefore it is not mentioned in this Bill. That Bill was found to be unworkable, was opposed by the Government and was withdrawn. This Bill was brought forward in its place. I know it may be argued by some that a Bill such as this will give an advertisement to this reconstituted cream, and many people would like to ban the use of the word "cream"

381
altogether. I do not think that is possible. Reconstituted cream by analysis is cream. It is not analogous to margarine and butter at all. Margarine is made from entirely different substances from butter and can be found to be different by analysis, so that that argument, I am afraid, does not hold.
I hope that those who desire very much stronger legislation than this will not vote against this Bill in the hope of a more drastic measure, because all alternatives have been considered and this is as far as it is possible to go. At the present moment reconstituted cream is sold as cream, but if this Bill passes it will have to be labelled reconstituted cream, which is, at least, a step in the right direction. Clause 1 of this Bill provides, as I have just said, that reconstituted cream shall be labelled as such when sold for human consumption. Clause 2 provides for the registration of premises where it is made or sold, but registration is not required where it is manufactured to be consumed on the premises. Registration in such cases would, of course, entail inspection of people's private kitchens and I am sure your Lordships would not be in favour of that.
Clause 5 is the most important one in this Bill and deals with proceedings and penalties. Under this clause any cream found on licensed premises is to be presumed to be for human consumption and to be reconstituted cream unless it is proved to the contrary. In the absence of this provision the Bill would be completely unworkable because, as I have already explained, it is impossible to distinguish between these two products. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. It will be of great assistance to our dairy farmers and also it will prevent the public being imposed on by people who are selling as cream an Article which is not cream and not worth the price which the public are being made to pay. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE had given Notice to move as an Amendment, that the Bill be read 2a this day three months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would have been better if the noble Earl had explained rather more in detail how this Bill arose, because I think its history
382
is rather interesting. I will venture, very shortly, to describe how it came into existence. It came into existence because a very much more stringent Bill introduced in another place was objected to by the Government, who did not want it to pass. I will not go into the merits of the case, but the Bill was withdrawn. Then in this Session Mr. Everard introduced this Bill. It was backed by Conservative Members with one exception, that exception being a Labour Member. What happened after its introduction is lather interesting. The Second Beading went through sub silentio, which showed what little interest was taken in it. Then it was referred to a Standing Committee, and what happened in that Committee is also rather interesting. The Member who introduced the Bill never took any part, as far as I can ascertain, in the discussions, and all that happened was that Labour Members tried to wreck the Bill in Committee. Of course they were not successful. Then on Report it was taken charge of by the Government. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Health took charge of the Bill and the hon. Member who introduced it never spoke a word during the Report stage, showing that he was quite satisfied that the Government should have adopted the Bill and given it facilities. Then the Bill came up here as a Government Bill, and now your Lordships are aware that the Government have thrown it over and no longer sponsor it, so that it falls upon a private Peer to take charge of it.
I think that the best thing that I can do is to show first of all who are the people who are opposing this Bill. The noble Earl said that the Bill was going to be of great advantage to agriculturists and to the dairy interest. I must say that I am surprised that he should venture to make such a statement, which is absolutely opposed to the real state of things. No doubt he cannot have road the papers dealing with the subject. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to three resolutions passed by agricultural bodies. I say without fear of contradiction that those bodies represent the views of agriculturists, as the noble Earl has certainly failed to do. On March 21 the Milk and Dairy Produce Committee reported to the Council of the National Farmers' Union on the Reconstituted Cream Bill. The Secretary stated that Mr. J. Q. Lamb, M.P., had been informed

383
that the Union did not consider that this Bill would be of any practical use to producers in its present form, and would therefore prefer that it should be withdrawn. This action was approved by the Committee and the report was approved by the Council of the National Farmers' Union. Your Lordships see, therefore, that the greatest body representing farmers in this country asked that the Bill should be withdrawn and asked their representative in the House of Commons not to proceed any further with it. What could be stronger than that?
Then, on April 16, the Central Chamber of Agriculture moved a resolution to the effect that this Bill, to be of any practical value, required drastic amendment. Last but not least, as showing that all sections of agriculturists oppose this Bill, only a few days ago the Council of the Central Landowners' Association carried a resolution to the effect that it considered the Reconstituted Cream Bill would be of no practical use to producers in its present form, nor would it protect the consumer. All those great bodies representing agriculturists having declared against this Bill, it is not surprising that the Government refuse to have anything to do with it and are leaving it, as I understand, to noble Lords to vote as they like upon it.
I have tried to find some merit in this Bill, but I confess that I have been unable to do so. Unless it is drastically amended it will be of no practical use. I made an offer to the member of the Government who was at one time in charge of the Bill. I offered to withdraw my Motion for the rejection if the Government were ready to accept an Amendment. My proposed Amendment was, in subsection (1) of Clause 1, to leave out the words after "cream." Then the subsection would have read as follows:—
"Reconstituted cream shall not be sold or offered or exposed for sale for human consumption under any description or designation including the word 'cream'."
I thought that a very reasonable Amendment which would be carrying out the intention of the Bill—namely, that this article should not be sold as cream or called cream. What I am anxious to do in common with all agriculturists is to secure that no manufactured article shall be sold under the designation of cream.
What is this stuff? The noble Earl has described it very truly as being made
384
from butter coming from overseas with the addition of powdered milk and water. I am told that in some cases flour also is added in order to thicken it. How on earth can that be called cream? It is not cream at all. It is not of the quality demanded, and it is certainly a fraud on the consumer as well as on the producer that it should be designated cream. One of our objections to this Bill is that if it becomes law it will be impossible, under the Food and Drugs Act, to prosecute people, for subsection (1) of Section 2 of that Act says:
" No person shall sell to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food or any drug which is not of the nature, or not of the substance, or not of the quality, of the article demanded by the purchaser."
When persons demand cream it could be said that it is covered by the words "reconstituted cream." This stuff is certainly not of the quality expected when people ask for cream. It is merely butter, water and powdered milk. It is interesting to note that only to-day one of the great local authorities has had a report from one of its committees strongly objecting to this Bill on the ground that, if it becomes law, they will be unable to take proceedings against people who sell this reconstituted cream as cream. At present the local authority is advised to take proceedings and prosecute people for selling this reconstituted cream as cream, but if this Bill passes it will be impossible to do so.
The noble Earl said that it was impossible to analyse this article. He did not give us any reasons for this statement, but I am credibly informed that, although it is difficult to do so and an ordinary analyst might not be able to analyse it, it is not impossible to detect that it is not the article which it professes to be. To my mind we ought to treat this substance in exactly the way in which margarine was treated in the past. Margarine was sold as butter until legislation prevented it, and at one time it was sold us "butterine." We do not want to stop the sale of this reconstituted cream provided that it is sold under another name, any more than we want to stop the sale of margarine, but it is unfair both to producers and to consumers that it should be sold under a false description. It is just as false to call this stuff cream as to call margarine "butterine." I am asking that

385
the same principle should be applied to this faked cream, in the interests of producer and consumer alike. There is no doubt that a great many ignorant people in our great towns, who know nothing about this matter, will be told and will believe that reconstituted cream is an improved kind of cream—a sort of double cream. We know well that there is an article sold as double cream which is superior to the very light cream that is often sold as cream. Ignorant people may think that this reconstituted cream is double cream, and this would give an advertisement to it and assist its sale.
This Bill has no value in its present form. There is always danger in shop-window legislation. Members of the House of Commons have told me that they know that this Bill is only shop-window legislation, and we all know from the past that, when legislation of that kind is passed, it becomes more difficult in the future to get legislation of any real value. As I have said, I oppose this Bill only because, when it was a Government Bill, the Government refused to accept what I thought was a very reasonable Amendment, which would have improved the Bill. I make the offer now to the noble Earl that I will not oppose his Bill any further if he is ready to accept the Amendment that I have indicated. In effect it is simply that this reconstituted cream, which is not cream at all, shall not be called cream. If some other name is adopted I will not press my Motion. Why on earth should this reconstituted cream have the name of cream, any more than margarine should be allowed to be called butter when it is not butter at all although it is true that some margarine approaches very near being butter, because it is mixed with milk and doctored in various ways? For these reasons, and because a very fair Amendment has been rejected, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day three months").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Earl behind me has brought in this measure, because the position of the dairy farmer at this moment is becoming an exceedingly serious one. He is out against a very
386
serious competition from this combination of materials which is called cream, but which is not cream, and which has been largely taken up by the public, and is being used in every hotel and restaurant, and possibly club, in London, solely for the reason that it has better keeping qualities. The reason that it is made and used is largely due to the fact that, for the purposes of public health, last year or the year before, an Act was passed forbidding the use of preservatives. That has injured the raw cream trade very largely, and many dairy farmers, particularly in the West of England, are very much dependent upon that trade. I will admit, as the noble Lord opposite admits, that this measure is not a satisfactory measure. Lord Strachie has told your Lordships that at least three important agricultural bodies have opposed this measure; but they did not oppose the measure on principle, but for the reason that they did not think it went far enough to be of any value to the farmer.
I should imagine, although I was rather disconcerted by one remark of the noble Earl behind me, that it was capable of amendment. The noble Earl said that no Amendment could be accepted. If that is the case, then I should not be inclined to support the measure, because I think that to be of value it must go further. Why should this combination be called cream at all? I know there is a difference of opinion upon this point. It is called cream because once it was cream, but I do not think that that is a sufficient reason. It is butter which has been by some process liquified, and mixed with many other materials. It really is liquid butter rather than cream, and if it could be called by some name showing it was manufactured it might then be sufficiently covered to be of value. In Clause 6 there is a definition of "cream" which in my opinion is not the real definition. We have always understood cream to be from the cow, subject to no other process except separation. The definition in the Bill does not bear that out, and we should require to have that cleared up. The interests concerned with this Bill are not only the farmer, although he is certainly the most pressing, because his trade is of such importance to the country and is carried on with such a small margin of profit. The public also are very

387
closely interested, because our legislation ought to prevent them being misled by the name of an article which is not what it purports to be. I hope that the noble Lords who have brought in the Bill will be able to tell us that it is not impossible to get some Amendment, because I do think that the Bill might be made into a useful measure in Committee.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: My Lords, I desire very strongly to support my noble friend Lord Strachie for two reasons. The first is that this Bill, if passed, will be distinctly detrimental to agriculture, and more especially to the dairying industries, and the second reason is that this title of "reconstituted cream" is a distinct misnomer. Before the War I was in Germany, and I was surfeited with this substance. If this Bill passes the poorer classes in this country will be at a great disadvantage, for a large majority of people will buy it on account of its price. I can remember well when margarine was first brought into this country from Germany. It was called butterine, and it was also known as Cork butter, and I was given to understand that the individual who was responsible for its introduction in a year and a half made two millions of money, all of which came out of the pockets of the poorest people in this country. The same thing will to a certain extent arise in connection with this substance. Poor people in large towns, having sickly children and more often sickly infants, will be induced to buy this article, which will have no dietary merits for the purpose for which they buy it. I therefore support the Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, might I at first be allowed to correct an unintentionally false impression given by the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, about the attitude of the Labour Party with regard to this Bill? He said that they had attempted to destroy it in another place. They did nothing of the sort, although the representatives of the Labour Party did move certain Amendments in Standing Committee, which would not have emasculated the Bill from the point of view of the farmer, but would have afforded certain protection to trading interests. That is the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. The decrease in the consumption of raw cream and
388
the substitution of reconstituted cream arises, as Lord Clinton has told us, out of the preservative regulations of last year. This Bill is designed to correct that result, and is designed both to help the farmer and to protect the consumer.
If the situation has arisen out of the preservative regulations and the consequent decreased consumption of fresh cream, surely it is a little doubtful whether we are going to help the consumption of fresh cream by imposing restrictions upon the new article which is taking its place. However much you hamper the sale of reconstituted cream under existing conditions it is almost impossible, with the preservative regulations as they are, really to increase the consumption of cream. And, moreover, we have to guard against a certain danger, because, if that is so, the farmer might be endangered not only by losing the sale of his fresh cream, but by losing the sale of his surplus milk to milk factories which are, to a large extent, interested in the production of reconstituted cream.
We consider, therefore, that probably a far more hopeful way of dealing with this situation—and I put this rather as a personal expression of opinion than as representing the views of my Party—would be to reconsider the preservative regulations. We all know that they were adopted only after the most acute medical controversy, and that the matter has never really been satisfactorily cleared up. Not only should we reconsider the preservative regulations, but at the same time the Government should do everything in its power—and I think some of us would probably agree that it has not done very much—to increase the production of clean milk and to offer inducements to farmers to use the very best methods possible for the production of that milk. Because we all know that the milk and all its products have then very much better keeping qualities. I believe the keeping qualities of the butter from New Zealand were entirely revolutionised by improving methods of milk production. At the same time, while saying that, we believe that that policy of revising the preservative regulations and increasing the production of clean milk would probably be ultimately more profitable than the policy outlined in this Bill.

389
We do not intend to offer any opposition to its passage, because undoubtedly it does make an attempt, perhaps not a very good one, to help the farmer and to protect the consumer.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, personally I am very far from being impressed with this Bill. I do not know whether it is possible, seeing that the title is what it is, and purporting as it does to deal with reconstituted cream, whatever that may mean, by amendment to make this Bill of any real value for the producers of milk in this country, and more particularly to the consumers of milk, who are entitled when they ask for cream or milk to receive something, as Lord Strachie said, quoting the Food and Drugs Act, of the nature and property desired. The noble Earl opposite has criticised the action of the Ministry of Health in declining to allow milk and cream to be treated with certain preservatives, such as boric acid and formaldehyde in order to enable it to be kept in hot weather during the summer, and has indicated that possibly those regulations might be revised. I was going to suggest to him that there was a better way of dealing with that problem, which he himself in rather nebulous fashion indicated towards the end of his speech. That, of course, is to encourage, as indeed the Government have encouraged by every means in their power, the production of clean milk and milk that is relatively free from an excess of nocuous bacteria. It is common knowledge that this Government has taken enormous pains, both through the medium of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, to encourage among farmers the production of what is known as Grade A and Grade A tuberculin-tested and certified milk—all of them being milk which can be retained, either as milk or as cream for a much longer period, even under adverse climatic conditions.
But that surely is not quite the point which it is desired to raise in this discussion. This is a Bill which purports to deal with reconstituted cream. What I should like to ask quite frankly is whether the particular product which is intended to be dealt with under this Bill is either cream on the one hand, or reconstituted on the other, because I gravely suspect that it is neither. First of all, what is it? As a matter of fact,
390
it is something which the interpretation clause indicates is a substance skimmed or separated from so-called milk, but even the substance from which it is produced is not milk, and I should like to see in that Definition Clause some indication, not only of what cream is, but of what milk is. As a matter of fact, the particular fluid from which this so-called reconstituted cream is produced is a blend of Argentine butter and New Zealand milk powder through the medium of an emulsifier, and as a result of the application of considerable heat and water.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook said that reconstituted cream is by analysis cream. What I want to submit is that there are certain factors in both cream and milk of very great value in the eyes of the medical men of this country, which cannot be ascertained by analysis at all, and they are known as vitamins. Vitamins defy analysis, and those essential food factors, as they are called, are just what cannot be provided by so-called reconstituted cream. That being the case, I do honestly think that this Bill, unless it can be effectually amended in the direction which the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, demands, is not worthy of the further consideration of this House. I ask your Lordships whether, in your opinion, butter which results from milk drawn from an Argentine cow, blended with a powder which is produced from the milk of a New Zealand cow, can be regarded as reconstituted cream. There does not seem to be any reconstitution about it. You are even blending what some of us strongly object to blending nowadays, which is a foreign agricultural product with an overseas Dominion product. If we are going to have this sort of thing sold in our markets to the detriment of British farmers—and goodness knows that farmers want to-day all the help they can have—at least let it be by competition from a Dominion product, and not a sort of unholy blend between a Dominion product and one from a foreign country.
I hope that this Bill will not be proceeded with unless your Lordships are perfectly satisfied that it can be effectually amended by some, suitable Amendment to prevent the British consumer being deluded as to what he is buying—a non-vitaminous product—to the detriment

391
of his children as well as of himself; and unless the unfortunate British farmer can be safeguarded against most unfair competition.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps you will allow me to say what the attitude of the Government is towards this Bill. In the first place I may refer to the remarks of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment as to the history of the Bill. The Bill was undoubtedly originally introduced by a private Member of Parliament. Subsequently no doubt there was a certain amount of Government patronage of the Bill. It has now come to your Lordships' House, and it has been introduced to your Lordships' notice by a young private Peer, just as it was introduced into the House of Commons by a private Member of Parliament. That is where it stands. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook has undertaken it to-night. We are always delighted to hear my noble friend, who is becoming an extremely useful member of your Lordships' House.
So far as the Government are concerned, I propose to leave this Bill to the judgment of your Lordships. Undoubtedly, the subject is a very difficult one. We all sympathise profoundly with the farmers. My noble friend who has just sat down said most truly that the farmers deserve every sympathy that we can give them at the present time. And this difficulty which has arisen may in one particular hit them rather hard. Every member of your Lordships' House, I think, and I suspect every member of another place, is anxious to help the farmer in this particular if it is possible to do so. I am given to understand that every conceivable consideration was given this question as to whether it was possible to find a means of helping the farmers, and that finally no better means could be discovered than the Bill for which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has made himself responsible.
Speaking for myself, I fully admit the weakness of the Bill. I agree that it has very great blemishes. Whether your Lordships will think it right, faute de mieux, if I may use a French phrase, to pass the Bill is for your Lordships to decide. I was certainly struck by the speech delivered by my noble friend Lord Clinton, who said that the Bill was full
392
of blemishes, but that he was in favour of giving it a Second Reading, and indicated that the time to challenge its difficulties was not at this stage but on the Committee stage. I must say that I thought that very good sense, if he will allow me to say so. Listening to the debate, I do not find that other noble Lords have taken a very different view. It is true that the noble Lord opposite who moved the Amendment wishes at this moment to reject the Bill; but he indicated in his speech that there was an Amendment which even he would accept. Let us see his Amendment and consider it when we get to the Committee stage.
LORD STRACHIE: But you refused the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I know nothing about that, my Lords, except that I heard what my noble friend opposite had to say. I know nothing else on the subject. By all means let him produce his Amendment and let my noble friend Lord Clinton, who is very capable indeed in these subjects, indicate when we come to the Committee stage, what Amendments he thinks ought to be introduced. My noble friend Lord Bledisloe wants to amend the title of the Bill. The opportunity will be open to him. There is nothing in your Lordships' rules which prevents him altering the title of the Bill if he can persuade your Lordships to take his view. As to what will be left of the Bill after all these proceedings, I cannot tell your Lordships. I would suggest, if my noble friend opposite will forgive me, that the Bill might be read a second time, and that we then should be allowed to see the Amendments and to judge if anything could be done to make the Bill what we all want to see—a useful Bill to help the farmers in the difficult times through which they have to pass.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I propose to support the Amendment. I am rather astonished at the support given by my noble friend the Leader of the House to a Bill which he acknowledges to be full of blemishes, the title of which is very doubtful, and which endeavours to give an article a name to which it is not entitled. This is not cream, as we understand it, and as my noble friend Lord Bledisloe pointed out, it is not reconstituted.

393
It never was cream, so how can it be reconstituted? It may be constituted cream, but it is not reconstituted cream.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Alter the title.
LORD HARRIS: I know. But is the whole Bill and every clause in it to be altered? If so, it is not the sort of Bill that ought to be brought here. I am not surprised that the Government dropped it like a hot potato when they considered that they would be giving aid to a most pernicious thing. I suggest that to give to a substance a title to which it has no right is absolutely wrong and unjustifiable. It is not as if there was any real difficulty about it. Many substances sold to the public are described by combination words. My noble friend pointed out that margarine was a new word invented for the purpose. I do not know where it came from, but I suppose it was derived from something in the article itself. There are plenty of words which could be used. The letter "K" could be used instead of "C" in describing this substance. In my own county there is a very excellent and wholesome substance sold in connection with which the word "cream" is used, but it is spelled with a "K" instead of a "C." You have only to make that substitution and this would be a perfectly innocuous Bill which would pass quite easily. It is only that Amendment which is really necessary.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I understood the noble Marquess the Leader of the House to suggest that noble Lords should allow this Bill to be read a second time in order that it might go to Committee. It appears to me that this is a Bill to which that procedure should not apply, because if it receives a Second Reading your Lordships' House will be committed in some degree to reconstituted cream. I should like to ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House how far it is possible for a Committee of the Whole House so to alter the title of a Bill as entirely to alter its whole character. If the noble Marquess will look at the Bill he will see that every clause contains the words ' reconstituted cream." As I have said, if your Lordships' House agrees to the Second Reading, you will be committed at all events
394
to the words "reconstituted cream" or to one or the other of those words. Is it within the power of your Lordships to alter the Bill—
LORD CLINTON: It would always be in the power of the House to throw the Bill out on Third Reading if we cannot get our Amendments into it.
EARL BUXTON: Yes; but the point of the noble Marquess was that the Bill should go to Committee in order that it might be amended in some direction which would make it acceptable to noble Lords who are opposed to it at present. In my view, as the Bill is drawn it is impossible to do such a thing. In the first place, the title will have to be entirely altered. Noble Lords opposite object to it mainly because the title is absolutely deceptive from the point of view of the consumer and will give him an article which is not properly described, and about which he will be deceived if he buys it. It has already been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe that it is not cream in any sense of the word. There is not an atom of cream in it. If it is not cream, it cannot be reconstituted cream. Yet a person buying the article which has in the name given to it the word "cream" and the word "reconstituted "will think he is getting something which will give him the same nourishment as if he bought cream. I venture to suggest that it is not a question of allowing the Bill to go to the Committee stage, because we should then, I think, be committed to the general principle of this combination called reconstituted cream. It seems to me that we had better reject the Bill on Second Reading and prevent this deception of the consumer.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, among the few remarks I should like to make the first one is this. This substance is now being sold as cream and nothing anybody can do can stop it. I am informed that it is impossible to tell by analysis whether it is cream or not. If that be true it is impossible to proceed under the Food and Drugs Act against a man who sells this as cream. I feel very alarmed at being attacked or damned with very faint praise by agricultural experts on all sides, but there has been a certain amount of faint praise and I hope your Lordships will give this

395
Bill a Second Beading. I will not bind myself down to accept any stated Amendment at the moment, but I would certainly consider any Amendment put forward, even if it was an Amendment to amend the title, which is permissible, I believe, by the rules of your Lordships'
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHATHAM AND SHEERNESS STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee upon this Bill may I say that there is no opposition to it, as I told your Lordships when I moved the Second Beading, and no Amendment has been put down. Therefore I propose to ask your Lordships to permit the Bill to go through its remaining stages to-night.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.
House. Without binding myself in any way I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion,
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Arnold, L.

Stanhope, E.

Askwith, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stradbroke, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Clinton, L. [Teller.]

Cranbrook, E. [Teller.]

Wicklow, E.

Dynevor, L.

De La Warr, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Leven and Melville, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Lucan, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Morton, E.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

St. John of Bletso, L.

Onslow, E.

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Hemphill, L.

Buxton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Hindlip, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Lawrence, L.

Strafford, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Rathcreedan, L.

St. Levan, L.

Inchcape, V.

Erskine, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Faringdon, L.

Stanmore, L.

Cawley, L.

Gainford, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Harris, L. [Teller.]

Wharton, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AGRICULTURAL RATES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Complete exemption of agricultural hereditaments from rates in respect of current half-year]:
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF ONSLOW) moved to insert, after subsection (4):—
"(5) Upon application being made to an assessment committee for a certificate under this section, the committee shall certify whether the hereditament in respect of which the application is made was an agricultural hereditament during any part of the current half-year, and if so, during what part thereof."

397
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really a drafting Amendment. The present subsection is intended to give any person who is dissatisfied with the decision of the assessment committee on an application made to them in pursuance of the preceding subsection the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions. This new subsection makes it clear that the assessment committee must issue a certificate recording their decision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The. Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, at end insert ("draft special list or").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, after ("a") insert ("draft special list or").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to

SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships more than a moment or two on the Third Reading of this Bill. I wish to say a few words about the astonishing state of things with regard to the savings banks which was revealed by the Government in reply to my question two days ago. It is not too much to say that the state of affairs then disclosed has come as a shock to the country. The Labour Party has urged throughout the debates on this Bill that the deposit rate of interest of 2½ per cent. given by the Post Office Savings Bank and the trustee savings banks is too low; and two days ago we learnt that because of this low rate the Government is making a profit of £3,734,000 on the Post Office Savings Bank and £917,000 on the trustee savings banks; that is a total profit of £4,651,000; and of this sum the Government is appropriating nearly £3,500,000 a year for the Exchequer.
398
I have to say, on behalf of the Labour Party, that we regard this as a wrong and indefensible state of things. It means that the Government is making a very large profit at the expense of, broadly speaking, the poorest members of the community and mostly women and children. This is a mean thing to do. It is unjust and it is not a small injustice, but it is a big injustice, because there are about ten million accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank and about two and a-half million in the trustee savings banks, a total of about twelve and a half million accounts. That means that more than a quarter of the whole population of the country is receiving this unfair treatment. I am authorised to say, on behalf of the Labour Party, that if we are returned to power this is a matter which the Labour Government will immediately go into, with a view to remedying this injustice and giving better and fairer terms to these twelve and a-half million depositors.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not going to try to use your Lordships' House as a platform for electioneering propaganda. Therefore I do not propose to reply to the speech of the noble Lord, but will only say that I regret that he should try to degrade this House it; that way.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, with regard to that observation I would remind the noble and learned Lord of what happened only about half an hour ago when the noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, treated this House not merely as an election platform but as a most vulgar hustings.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PHARMACY BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order):
Bill reported without amendment. Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before the House adjourns I should like to tell your Lordships, as I ought to have done earlier, that I shall have to ask you to have a formal sitting tomorrow for the purpose of passing a
400
stage of one important Bill. That will not interfere with the ordinary business of the House. It can be done at the Judicial Sitting.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.

GORDON PEERAGE.
Report made from the Committee for Privileges, That the claimant Sir Bruce Gordon Seton, Baronet, C.B., has failed to prove that either Sir Alexander Seton, who died in 1440, or his son Alexander Seton, afterwards created Earl of Huntly, held any hereditary peerage of Gordon: Read and agreed to; and resolved and adjudged accordingly; and Resolution and Judgment to be laid before His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (YEOVIL EXTENSION AND WATER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
CROWBOROUGH DISTRICT WATER BILL.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
LEAMINGTON AND WARWICK TRACTION BILL.
LLANFRECHFA UPPER AND LLANTARNAM WATER BOARD BILL.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
ROYAL VICTORIA AND OTHER DOCKS APPROACHES (IMPROVEMENT) BILL.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL.
WESTMINSTER CITY (MILLBANK) IMPROVEMENT BILL.
WINCHESTER WATER AND GAS BILL.
WINDERMERE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
GOSPORT AND FAREHAM OMNIBUS SERVICES BILL. [H.L.]
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
HASLINGDEN CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
JARROW AND SOUTH SHIELDS TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
PRESTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
South East Lancashire Tramways and Omnibus Board.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SOUTH EAST LANCASHIRE TRAM WAYS AND OMNIBUS BOARD.
  PETITION FOR BILL.
  Examiners certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.

CHESTER CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
[From Minutes of Judicial Sitting May 3.]

DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (COORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL.
LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES (CO-ORDINATION OF PASSENGER TRAFFIC) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.