Sitting of 23 January 1930

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  BOROUGH MARKET (SOUTHWARK) BILL,
  "to incorporate the trustees of the Borough Market (Southwark); to confer further powers upon the trustees as incorporated; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
  BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL,
  "to extend the boundaries of the Borough of Bournemouth; to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough to provide a separate police force; to run trolley vehicles and omnibuses within and beyond the borough and to abandon and discontinue the tramways of the Corporation; to make further provision with regard to the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
  BOURNEMOUTH-SWANAGE MOTOR ROAD AND FEERY COMPANY (BRIDGE) BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to authorise the Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Company to construct a bridge in substitution for their existing chain ferry and to raise further money; to change the name of the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  BRIGHTON AND HOVE GAS BILL,
  "to confer further powers upon the Brighton and Hove General Gas Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
  BRISTOL CATTLE MARKET BILL,
  "to authorise the sale to the Postmaster-General of part of the site of the Bristol Cattle Market; to provide for the vesting in the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the city of Bristol of the remainder of the said site and the Wool Hall in the said city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
  BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to authorise the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the city of Bristol to execute street works and to acquire lands for those and other purposes; to extend the boundaries of the city; to alter the limits of the port and harbour of Bristol; to make further provision for the improvement, health, and good government of the city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  BURNLEY CORPORATION BILL,
  "to confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Burnley in regard to the running of omnibuses; to repeal and amend provisions of their local Acts; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL,
  "to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Cardiff to construct waterworks and execute street improvements, and to acquire lands for those and other purposes; to confer upon them further powers with reference to their water, tramway, and omnibus undertakings; to make further provision for the improvement, health, and good government of the city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

  CHESTER WATER BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to authorise the Chester Waterworks Company to construct new works and to

  297
  raise additional capital; to extend the limits of supply of the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.

  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Coventry to acquire lands and construct street works and a bye-pass road; to empower the Corporation to construct an improvement of the River Sherborne and an extension of their Windmill Road Cemetery; to make special provision with regard to the cost of constructing the bye-pass road; to confer further powers upon the Corporation with regard to the health and good government of the city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  CROYDON CORPORATION BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Croydon to execute street works and waterworks and to purchase a well from the Metropolitan Water Board; to confer further powers upon the Corporation in' regard to their water undertaking and the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  DARTFORD AND PURFLEET (THAMES) TUNNEL BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to authorise the construction of a tunnel under the River Thames between Dartford, in the County of Kent, and Purfleet, in the County of Essex, and approaches to such tunnel; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  DERBY CORPORATION BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Derby to construct river improvements and street works; to provide and work trolley vehicles; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  EAST SURREY WATER BILL,
  "to provide for the transfer to the East Surrey Water Company of the undertakings of the Limpsfield and Oxted Water Company and the Chelsham and Woldingham Waterworks Company, Limited; to extend the area of supply of the East Surrey Water Company, and authorise them to raise additional capital; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "for conferring further powers upon the Great Western Railway Company in respect of their own undertaking and upon that Company and the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company in respect of an undertaking in which they are jointly interested; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  KINGSBRIDGE AND SALCOMBE WATER BOARD BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to constitute and incorporate a joint board consisting of representatives of the urban district councils of Kings-bridge and Salcombe with power to construct works for intercepting and distributing the waters of the Bala Brook; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.

  KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL,
  "to authorise the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city and county

  299
  of Kingston-upon-Hull to construct street improvements and waterworks, and to provide and work trolley vehicles; to confer further powers in regard to their omnibus undertaking; and to make further provision for the health, local government, and improvement of the city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

  LEEDS CORPORATION BILL,
  "to increase the number of the wards of the city of Leeds; to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of that city to construct street improvements and tramways; and to make further provision in regard to the several undertakings of the said Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens, and for the health, local government, and improvement of the city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to authorise the Corporation of Liverpool to construct street works, a new tramway, a storage reservoir, and other works; to confer further powers upon them with respect to their waterworks, tramways and electricity undertakings; to make better provision for the health and local government of the city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to empower the London and North Eastern Railway Company to construct new railways, widenings and other works, and to acquire lands; to extend the time for the completion of certain railways; to revive the powers and extend the time for the compulsory purchase of certain lands; to abandon certain works; to make provision with reference to the rates and charges which may be levied at certain harbours, docks and piers of the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (HULL LEVEL CROSSINGS) BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to empower the London and North Eastern Railway Company to construct new railways, widenings, and other works, in and adjoining the city and county of Kingston-upon-Hull and to abandon certain railways; to confirm an agreement between that Company and the Corporation of the said city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (CHARING CROSS BRIDGE) BILL,
  "to empower the London County Council to erect a new bridge over the River Thames at Charing Cross and to execute street improvements and construct and work new tramways in connection therewith; to provide for the removal to the Lambeth side of the River Thames of the terminal station of the Southern Railway Company at Charing Cross and to confer powers upon that Company and upon the London County Council in connection with such removal; to confer powers upon the London Electric Railway Company and the Metropolitan District Railway Company in connection with the said purposes; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

  LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, CENTRAL LONDON, AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to empower the London Electric Railway Company to construct new railways, subways, and works, and to raise additional moneys; to empower the Metropolitan District Railway Company to construct widenings of portions of its railway and to raise additional moneys; to empower the Central London Railway Company to construct subways and works and to raise additional moneys; to empower the City and South London Railway Company and the Metropolitan District Railway Company to construct a subway; and to confer further powers on the said and other Companies; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant

  301
  to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.

  LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to empower the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company to construct railways and works and to acquire lands; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to make further provision with respect to the terms for the supply of water in bulk by the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of the city of Manchester, to empower them to acquire by agreement the water undertaking of the Salford Corporation, to confer further powers upon them for the construction of street improvements, and to make further provision in reference to their water, electricity, and tramway undertakings, the granting of superannuation allowances, and the health, local government, and improvement of the city; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  MANCHESTER EXTENSION BILL,
  "to extend the boundaries of the city of Manchester; and for purposes incidental thereto," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
  METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to authorise the Metropolitan Railway Company to construct new railways and to acquire lands; to authorise the Company to raise further moneys; to confer further powers on the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time, and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.

  MILFORD HAVEN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER) BILL (CERTIFIED BILL).
  "to empower the urban district council of Milford Haven to construct additional
  302
  waterworks; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.

  NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to authorise the construction of street works, the deviation of a railway, and the closing of part of a canal in the county borough of Newport; to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough to provide and work trolley vehicles and to enlarge their powers with respect to their water, electricity, tramway, and omnibus undertakings; to make further provision for the health, local government, improvement, and finance of the borough; and for other purposes," presented and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  NORTH CHESHIRE SEWERAGE BOARD BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to constitute and incorporate a joint board consisting of representatives of the county council of the county palatine of Chester, the urban district council of Altrincham, Ashton-upon-Mersey, Cheadle and Gatley, and Sale, and the rural district council of Bueklow, all in the said county, and to authorise the board to construct main trunk sewers and other works and to acquire lands for the disposal of sewage; and for other purposes," presented and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.

  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to authorise the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Nottingham and county of the same city to run trolley vehicles on existing and authorised tramway routes and on further routes within and without the city and to abandon and discontinue tramways; to extend the Corporation's limits for the supply of water; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the

  303
  Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.

  READING CORPORATION BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Reading to acquire the undertaking of the Tilehurst, Pangbourne, and District Water Company, Limited; to authorise the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses to execute waterworks and street works; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to empower the Corporation of Rochdale to construct additional waterworks; to authorise the abandonment of certain tramways in and near Rochdale and the substitution of omnibus services therefor; to make further provision with respect to the tramway, water, and electricity undertakings of the Corporation; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  ROTHERHAM CORPORATION BILL,
  "to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Rotherham to construct street improvements; to confer further powers upon them with regard to their tramway, trolley vehicle, omnibus, electricity, and water undertakings; to make further provision with regard to the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

  SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to empower the Corporation of the City of Sheffield to construct additional waterworks and to confer further powers upon them in connection with their waterworks undertaking; to authorise them to provide central stations in the city for motor omnibuses; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First
  304
  time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.

  SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL,
  "to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Southend-on-Sea to execute street works; to confer further powers upon them with regard to the provision and working of trolley vehicles and omnibuses and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
  SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL,
  "to empower the Southern Railway Company to construct works and acquire lands; to extend the time for the completion of certain works and the compulsory purchase of certain lards; to make provision with reference to the rates and charges which may be levied at certain harbours of the Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE MOND GAS BILL,
  "to amend certain provisions relating to the sale of gas by the South Staffordshire Mond Gas Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
  SOUTH YORKSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE GAS BILL,
  "to provide for amalgamation of the undertakings of the Dinnington and District Gas Company, Limited, the Staveley Gas Light and Coke Company, Limited, the Whitwell and District Gas Company, the Bawtry and District Gas Company, the Beighton and District Gas Company, Limited, and the Maltby and Bramley Gas Company, Limited; to incorporate and confer powers on the South Yorkshire and Derbyshire Gas Company and vest in that Company the amalgamated undertakings; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time: and ordered to be read a Second time.

  STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL,
  "to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Stockport to construct new reservoirs and

  305
  other works in connection with their water undertaking; to construct a new road in the said borough; to acquire lands; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

  STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Stockton-on-Tees to construct street works and railways; to discontinue tramways and to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Thornaby-on-Tees and the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Middlesbrough also to discontinue tramways and to enable the three corporations to run omnibuses between Norton, in the borough of Stockton-on-Tees, and North Ormesby Road, in the borough of Middlesbrough; to confer further powers on the Stockton-on-Tees Corporation with regard to streets and buildings and the health and good government of their borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.
  STOKE-ON-TRENT EXTENSION BILL,
  "to extend the boundaries of the city of Stoke-on-Trent; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.
  TEES (NEWPORT) BRIDGE BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the county borough of Middlesbrough and County Council of the administrative county of Durham to construct a new bridge over the River Tees, and to execute other works in connection therewith; to provide for the vesting of the said bridge and approaches; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.

  TEES VALLEY WATER BILL (CERTIFIED BILL),
  "to authorise the Tees Valley Water Board to construct additional water-
  306
  works; to confer further powers upon the Board; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December, to be read a Second time upon Monday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    STATISTICS.
    Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYERasked the Minister of Labour how many more persons are unemployed than when the Government took office in June last?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): The number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain on 13th January, 1930, was 363,469 more than on 10th June, 1929.
    Sir G. BOWYER: Is that number more or less than it was a year ago?
    Miss BONDFIELD: It is more. A year ago it was 285,054.
    Mr. RAYNESasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed men, women and juveniles at the various Exchanges in the Parliamentary Divisions of Derby, Belper, Ilkeston and South Derbyshire, together with the figures for the corresponding period of 1929?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as the information desired can be tabulated.

    SHIPWEIGHTS AND BOILERMAKERS.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour if any statistics are available to show the average length of the spells of employment obtained by shipwrights and boilermakers over any recent convenient period?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that the information for which the hon. Member asks is not available.
    Mr. WHITE: Will the right hon. Lady consider the advisability of having a simple test made having regard to the fact that these workers are classed as being in casual employment?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As a matter of fact, as the result of the hon. Member's question, I have decided to make some such test.

    GRIMSBY.
    Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the Minister of Labour if she will give the total number of unemployed men, women, and juveniles registered at the Grimsby Employment Exchange on the latest available date and for the corresponding date a year ago?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At 13th January. 1930, there were on the registers of the Grimsby Employment Exchange 2,846 men, 326 women, and 322 juveniles, as compared with 3,020 men, 261 women, and 344 juveniles at 14th January, 1929.

    INSURANCE ACTS (CONSOLIDATION).
    Mr. SINKINSONasked the Minister of Labour if she will consider the framing of an Unemployment Insurance Act consolidating all the Acts now existing, with a view to a simple reading of the Act?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, Sir. I propose to take this in hand as soon as the Bill now before Parliament becomes law. I ought to point out that a Bill to consolidate the Unemployment Insurance Acts must be confined to what consolidation implies. It can only contain provisions that reproduce the law as it exists and cannot add to or detract from that law.
    Mr. SINKINSON: Do I understand that 26 Acts have been passed since the inception of that Measure, and would not the consolidation of those Acts be an advantage?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That is, of course, the point.
    Captain GUNSTON: Does the Minister of Labour think that the consolidation of these Acts will be so simple as is suggested in the question?

    BETHNAL GREEN.
    Major NATHANasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in Bethnal Green at any convenient date in January, 1928, 1929 and 1930, respectively?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The number of persons resident in the Metropolitan Borough of Bethnal Green who were on
    308
    the registers of Employment Exchanges at 13th January, 1930, was 3,390. It is estimated that the corresponding figures for 14th January, 1929, and 16th January, 1928, were about 3,300 and 2,800 respectively.

    DEPTFORD EXCHANGE.
    Mr. PALMERasked the Minister of Labour if her attention has been directed to the lack of accommodation at the Deptford Bridge Employment Exchange and particularly to the absence of shelter for applicants lined up outside; and what steps, if any, will be taken to improve the accommodation?
    Miss BONDFIELD: My attention has been called to the inadequate accommodation at the Deptford Employment Exchange, and arrangements are in hand to extend the building and to make other alterations with a view to facilitating the work generally.

    RATIONALISATION.
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the general effects upon unemployment of the rationalisation of industry?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The factors affecting the volume of employment, of which rationalisation is only one, are under constant examination by the Departments concerned and in other ways. I do not think that a Select Committee would be an appropriate body to consider this question.
    Mr. McSHANE: Might not this matter be dealt with by the new Economic Council that is to be appointed, and cannot we have this year some report on what obviously is a most important matter in relation to unemployment?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I have no doubt at all that this is one of the matters that the Economic Council will deal with.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think industry is quite capable of rationalising itself?

    BRECONSHIRE (AFFORESTATION).
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade as representing the Forestry Commissioners

    309
    whether, in view of the unemployment in the Brynmawr district, he can include in his planting programme for afforestation an area of at least 1,000 acres in south-east Breconshire?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRAGE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The Forestry Commissioners regret that they are unable to include in their planting programme for this season an area in south-east Breconshire, where they have no land. Every effort to secure suitable land in the district has up to the present proved fruitless, mainly on account of the existence of common rights and unsuitable soil and exposure. Over 1,000 acres have however been planted by the Commission in other parts of the county.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE: Is the hon. Member aware that, when I asked a similar question before Christmas as to whether the Forestry Commissioners had taken powers in this respect, he informed me that they already had the powers. If they have, why do not they exercise them?

  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
  Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Labour whether the Government have taken any further steps towards ratifying the Washington Hours Convention?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir G. Bowyer) on 21st January, of which I am sending him a copy.

  INDUSTRIAL WORKERS (ANNUAL HOLIDAY).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour whether Reports have been made to her Department as to industries and trades which have recently decided to give their employés an anual holiday with pay?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The only general and district Collective Agreements providing for holidays with pay which have come to the notice of the Department since August, 1929, when a list of such Agreements was published in the Min-
  310
  istry of Labour Gazette, have been those applicable to the industrial staffs of Government Departments, boot and shoe repairers employed by Co-operative-Societies in Lancashire and certain areas in Scotland, and mill sawyers at Liverpool. Eight Agreements affecting the employés of individual firms have also been reported.
  Mr. KELLY: Has any report been made by the tin-box trade?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I have not seen it up to the present.

  ARTIFICIAL SILK INDUSTRY (WAGES).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Labour whether any general increase in the rates of pay of men and women in the artificial silk industry has taken place during the last three years?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that the information at my disposal is insufficient to enable me to state whether any general increase in the rates of wages of artificial silk workers has taken place during the last three years.
  Mr. KELLY: Has the right hon. Lady any information regarding the rates of pay for the silk industry?
  Miss BONDFIELD: We have secondary information, but the point is that there are no accurate statistics before 1929. After this year, we shall be able to make a comparison.
  Mr. HANNON: Is this not one of those industries which has become stable and secure after having obtained the benefits of safeguarding?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR.
    Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the Minister of Labour whether the discharge of ex-service temporary clerks from her Department is contemplated; whether she is aware that boys and girls are at present being recruited to the Civil Service; and whether she will give an assurance that no such entrants will be admitted to her Department until the ex-service men now employed are assured of security in their employment?
    Mr. CHATERasked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that some 100 men, temporary clerks, are being dismissed from the Claims and Record Office; what is the reason for such dismissals; and, in view of the difficulty for these men of obtaining other employment, what steps will be taken to find them alternative employment?
    Miss BONDFIELD: In order to avoid the risk of having to make a larger number of discharges later on, it is necessary to reduce the staff at the Claims and Record Office, Kew, by about 100 in the immediate future. A month's notice of discharge will be given to all the temporary clerks concerned. In accordance with the usual procedure every effort will be made to provide other employment for these men elsewhere in the Ministry or in other Government Departments, and it is not anticipated that any large number will actually be out of employment owing to the termination of their engagement at Kew. As regards recruitment of new entrants, I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing on 31st October, 1929.
    Mr. BROWN: Is the Minister of Labour aware that at the same time that notices are being given to a large number' of men considerable recruitment is taking place in the Employment Exchanges of the Ministry of Labour throughout the country, and cannot those two things be brought together?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The whole question of discharges and recruitment is receiving careful scrutiny.
    Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is any preference being shown to ex-service men?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I think there is another question on the Order Paper on that subject.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Can the right hon. Lady state definitely that none of these ex-service temporary clerks will be thrown out of work as a result of a preference being given to conscientious objectors?
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour whether she proposes to give a prefer-
    312
    ence to ex-service men when recruiting the additional staff of the Employment Exchanges rendered necessary if the Unemployment Insurance Bill becomes law?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The rules common to the service will be observed in connection with the recruitment of any additional male staff required.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Perhaps the right hon. Lady can answer the question which I put just now as to the retention of ex-service men in preference to others in case of dismissals?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The regulations common to all Government Departments will be observed.
    Mr. W. J. BROWN: How does it come about that we are positively recruiting for one section of the Ministry of Labour while we are sacking people from another section?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The hon. Member is perfectly well aware that, in spite of the fact that there are certain categories of labour that may for the time being finish in regard to the work in which they are engaged, it does not at all follow that the same labour can be immediately put into occupations of a different grade or class.
    Mr. BROWN: Will the Minister of Labour indicate the difference in the type of labour, the rates of pay, and the hours?

    Ex-SERVICE MEN.
    Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will cause instructions to be issued that no further dismissals of efficient ex-service men are to take place from the Civil Service pending the receipt of a recommendation from the Royal Commission on the Civil Service on the subject of the future of ex-service men in the Civil Service; and whether, as a means of preventing such dismissals, he will arrange for the suspension of further open recruitment to the Civil Service pending the receipt of the Royal Commission's recommendation?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): In reply to the first part of the question, the retention in the Government service of

    313
    the men concerned must necessarily depend on the existence of work on which they can be employed. In reply to the second part I would refer to the pledge contained in the answer I gave on the 31st October last to the right hon. and learned Member for the Ealing Division (Sir H. Nield) and to the answer to a similar question from the hon. and gallant Member for the Dulwich Division (Sir F. Hall) on tine 4th November last.
    Mr. BROWN: Is not the hon. Member aware that there is tremendous insecurity among the temporary staffs now employed in the Civil Service, at a time when we are extensively recruiting boys and girls from schools through open competitive examinations? Inasmuch as the Minister is able to determine upon open competitive recruitment, can he give an assurance that the men now in possession will not be disturbed?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is not possible to go further than the pledge already given. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that it is a question of different grades and occupations in the Civil Service.
    Mr. BROWN: May I give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory reply which I have received from the Minister, I will raise this matter on the Adjournment tonight?
    Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: May I ask the Financial Secretary to say that if anybody is to be sacked from the Civil Service it will be "conchies" first, and ex-Service men last?

  CO-OPERATIVE INSURANCE SOCIETY (DISPUTE).
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour whether her attention has been called to the dispute between the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers and the Co-operative Insurance Society; and whether, in view of the decision of the union to call a strike for 6th February, she proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I am aware of the dispute to which the hon. Member refers. A meeting between the parties is taking
  314
  place to-day, and, in these circumstances, I do not think I ought to make any further statement.

  MUNICIPAL AND PRIVATE UNDER- TAKINGS (WAGES).
  Sir JOHN POWERasked the Minister of Labour if she can state whether the average earnings of persons employed by municipal gas, electricity, tramway and water undertakings are higher or lower than the average' earnings of persons employed by similar company-owned undertakings; and if she can furnish the statistics for the latest date for which they are available?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The rates of wages in the industries to which the hon. Member refers are fixed by joint industrial councils, upon which both municipal and private undertakings are represented. The rates vary according to the zone in which a municipal or private undertaking is placed by the council. A statement of the average earnings in these industries was published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for December, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

  TRADE BOARDS ACT.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour whether any further applications have been made for inquiries into the establishment of trade boards in the distributive or other trades?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. MANDER: Does the Minister of Labour intend to sit waiting for action to be taken by others? Can she not take some independent action?
  Miss BONDFIELD: At the present moment, yes.

  INDUSTRIES (CONCILIATION BODIES).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour whether it is the policy of the Government to encourage the formation in suitable cases of joint industrial councils, Whitley Councils, and similar bodies; and, if so, what action is being taken by the Government in the matter at the present time with this object in view?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The Government's policy is to encourage the formation of such bodies as those to which the hon. Member refers and takes action by giving assistance to this end when so desired.
  Mr. MANDER: Are the Government not prepared to take the initiative as has been done by previous Governments in this matter and try to bring the parties together?
  Miss BONDFIELD: No. In connection with this matter, it is presupposed that organised groups will take the initiative rather than that the Government should interfere. The other group of cases in which the Government might take the initiative is in connection with trade boards.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Why has the Minister of Labour gone back to a reactionary policy instead of following the forward policy of the last Government?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I do not regard this as a reactionary policy.

  BENEFIT CLUBS.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of complaints made since 1st January, 1929, to the Metropolitan Police about defalcations and fraud in connection with slate, loan and Christmas benefit clubs?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): The number was 44 during the year 1929.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, would the Government be prepared to give immediate facilities for passing the Bill covering this subject which I presented to the House a few days ago?
  Mr. CLYNES: I am afraid I cannot promise facilities for further legislation.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS ORDER).
  Mr. HOFFMANasked the Home Secretary if he has decided to extend the Silicosis Order under the Workmen's Compensation Acts; and, if so, when will it come into operation?
  Mr. CLYNES: If, as I assume, my hon. Friend refers to the proposed inclusion of employment on the machines known as Slack's machines under the Metal Grinding (Silicosis) Scheme, I have not yet come to any final decision. As my hon. Friend knows, a deputation on this question has been received from the representatives of the workers, and certain representations on the subject have been received from the Sheffield Employers' Association, who asked for an interview. This has recently taken place, and I have just received a report of the discussion. I will give the matter my immediate consideration, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as a decision is reached.
  Mr. HOFFMAN: If I put down a question in a fortnight's time, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer?
  Mr. CLYNES: I hope so.
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not the fact that there is very little difference of opinion between the employés' and the employers' organisation with regard to these representations?
  Mr. CLYNES: Yes, I am glad to say that there is very little: difference of opinion.

  VIVISECTION.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Home Secretary what has been the number of operative experiments on living animals, witnessed by the inspectors under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, during the years 1924–28, inclusive?
  Mr. CLYNES: The number of operative experiments witnessed by the inspectors during the years mentioned was 769.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Home Secretary upon what date the establishment of the Metropolitan Police Force was increased and by what number; and whether any further increase in the establishment is now proposed?
  Mr. CLYNES: I approved an augmentation by 250 men on 15th November last. The question of a further augmentation is under consideration.

  EDUCATION.

    REORGANISATION SCHEMES.
    Mr. BEAUMONTasked the President of the Board of Education from how many local education authorities he has received completed schemes dealing with accommodation for reorganisation and the raising of the school age; from how many he has received preliminary schemes; from how many he has received no schemes at all; and how many have informed him that, in their view, it is impossible to get the work done in the time at their disposal?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I have received complete programmes from 95 local education authorities, and preliminary programmes from 31. Programmes have not yet been received from 191 authorities, but I expect to receive most of these shortly. Only six authorities have expressed doubts as to their ability to carry out a complete scheme of reorganisation within the time at their disposal.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of those replies have been received from county authorities?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I cannot offhand, but I will give the hon. Member the information.
    Mr. HARRIS: Are the six authorities referred to within the area of the London County Council?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I must have notice of that question.

    MEDICAL SERVICES.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Education if he has made any estimate of the increased personnel and extra cost for the school medical services necessitated by the compulsory raising of the school age?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: Although some extension of the existing arrangements will be necessary, I am advised that the raising of the school age will not in itself involve any material increase in the personnel and cost of the school medical service.
    Dr. DAVIES: Does that mean that the Board of Education intends to work the present medical staff more fully than they are being worked at present?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: No. I said that there was no reason to suppose that it would involve any material increase in the personnel; that is to say, there will not be an additional school inspection, and therefore no increase of work will be required.

    MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.
    Dr. DAVIESasked the President of the Board of Education (1) if he proposes to make regulations that the inquiries into the means of parents whose children are affected by the compulsory raising of the school age for the purpose of assessing the amount of maintenance grant shall be made in each case by means of a committee of the local education authority or that they shall be made through their paid officials;
    (2) if maintenance grants for children at school to be granted where the school age is compulsorily raised to 15 years will vary according as the father is at work or simply dependent on unemployment benefit?
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to give further details as to the means test which is proposed by the Government in relation to the payment of maintenance allowances in respect of the children affected by the raising of the school age?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have invited a Committee of representatives of Local Authorities to make recommendations as to scales of need and the procedure for determining eligibility for maintenance allowances. The Committee held their first meeting last week, and until I have received their recommendations it would be premature for me to deal with the particular points which are raised in the hon. Members' questions.
    Sir K. WOOD: I take it that there is no question of the Government withdrawing from their proposals, and that the means test is necessary under this particular proposal?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, Sir.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that this Committee is considering a means test, as opposed to a flat rate?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: As I explained to the House before we broke up last time, I have asked the local authorities to make recommendations to me on the basis of what I explained.
    Dr. DAVIES: Are we to understand that the President of the Board of Education wishes to throw the onus of the unpopularity of this Measure on the local authorities?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Gould.

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Mr. GOULDasked the President of the Board of Education what will be the effect of his proposal to raise the school-leaving age to 15 years in the Administrative County of Somerset in regard to increased numbers of school children to be provided for, the increases in teaching staff, and the new building programme necessitated?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have not yet received the programme of the Somersetshire Local Education Authority. I expect, however, to receive it shortly, and I will then be glad to give my hon. Friend the information for which he asks.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the President of the Board of Education how many more children are estimated to be at school in April, 1931, as a consequence of the raising of the school-leaving age then to 15 in England and Wales; and whether any estimate has been made of the number who will be at school under these proposals in 1936, in view of the drop in the birth rate in the last few years?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: As a consequence of raising the school-leaving age to 15, it is estimated that the number of children in attendance at public elementary schools will increase by degrees between the 1st April, 1931, and the 1st April, 1932, from 5,342,000 to 5,771,000. The number on the 1st April, 1936, is estimated at 5,487,000.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not possible, in view of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has now given,
    320
    that, if the proposal had been postponed for a year or two, there would have been ample accommodation for the children at the increased age even without expenditure at the present time?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, Sir; I do not think that the eventual increase of cost will be material.

    COSTS.
    Mr. RAYNESasked the President of the Board of Education the cost per school-place, including building and furnishing, of elementary schools and secondary schools in the county boroughs of Birmingham, Coventry, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield, and Wolverhampton; and the average cost for England and Wales?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have not yet been able to provide myself with all the figures necessary for a reply to my hon. Friend's question, and I will, therefore, ask him to allow me to send them to him as soon as they are available.

    SCHOOL COMMENCING AGE.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the President of the Board of Education if he will make inquiries as to what other countries in the world commence compulsory education at the ago of five; and whether he can give the comparative ages at which compulsory education starts in the principal countries of Europe, in the United States of America, and Canada?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: So far as I am aware, this is the only country in which compulsory education begins at the age of five. I understand that the age is fixed at seven in Denmark, Norway, Holland and Poland, and at six in France, Germany, Italy and most other European countries. It is fixed at six in some Canadian towns and at seven in the rest of the Dominion, while it varies between six and eight in the different American States.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it correct that, as has, I believe, been publicly stated, if the age here were raised to six there would have been ample accommodation under the new proposals for all children, without any further expense of any kind?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, Sir.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is it the fact that in Germany, where the compulsory age is only six, there is a general provision of nursery schools all over the country for children between three and five?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: There are a great many more than there are here yet.
    Sir G. DALRYMPLE-WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the starting age in Russia?
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: In order to make the matter clear, may I ask whether it is not the case that attendance at nursery schools in Germany is compulsory?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, I do not think so; I imagine not. I do not think that that was the hon. Member's question.

    NURSERY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Education how many new nursery schools have been approved in the period July to December, 1929, inclusive; what number are now under construction; and the average initial cost of building a new school?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: Proposals for nine new Nursery Schools were approved in the period 1st July to 31st December, 1929. So far as my information goes, there are nine schools at present under construction. The average cost of providing a new Nursery School, on the basis of a number of recent examples, is about £34 per place.

    SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, SELSDON, SURREY.
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education when he will be in a position to announce his decision with regard to the plans for a new school at Selsdon, in the urban district of Coulsdon and Purley, from the Surrey County Council?
    Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am in communication with the Local Education Authority in regard to this proposal, and I hope to be able to announce my decision shortly.

  JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT (CINEMA ENTERTAINMENTS).
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that an increasing number of children under the age of 16 are taking part in entertainments in cheap suburban cinemas under conditions that are detrimental to their health and education, he will consider the desirability of making regulations that will prevent the continuance of this employment of children under detrimental conditions?
  Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am having inquiries made into this matter, and when I have further information I will consider whether there is any action which I can usefully take in regard to it.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    NURSES REGISTRATION ACT.
    Dr. MORRIS-JONESasked the Minister of Health whether he intends to bring forward legislation to amend the Nurses Registration Act, 1919?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): No, Sir.
    Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very considerable dissatisfaction has been expressed by representative organisations with recent decisions of the General Nursing Council under this Act?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I daresay there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction, but there are so many more pressing subjects for legislation.
    Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to call the attention of the General Nursing Council to their duties and to this Act?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I must assume that the General Nursing Council is familiar with the Act.

    DUTCH SKIMMED-MILK CHEESE.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Minister of Health what steps his Department is taking to prohibit the sale of skimmed-milk Dutch cheese without the buyer being made aware at the time of purchase that it is not whole-milk cheese?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The sale of skimmed-milk cheese under any description indicating that it is whole-milk cheese would be an offence under the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act. I have no power to impose any further requirements as to the sale of this commodity.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Will not the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to protect the purchaser of these cheeses, who are for the most part among the poorest of the population? They are being cheated.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: That may be true, but it is not part of my duty. I am only concerned with adulteration.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Is it not part of the right hon. Gentleman's duty to protect the poor from being cheated?

    PSITTACOSIS.
    Captain EDENasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the recent outbreaks of psittacosis in Warwickshire; whether any inquiry into the causes of the disease is being instituted; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. All recent alleged cases of this disease in this country that have come to the notice of my Department have been studied, and in some instances medical officers of the Ministry have taken part in the investigations. The question of further administrative action will be considered as soon as the inquiries now in progress are completed.
    Captain EDEN: Is it a fact that there is at present no obligation to report these cases once they have been diagnosed by the medical officer of health, and does the right hon. Gentleman not think, in view of the seriousness of the disease, that notification ought to be made compulsory?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: That may be so, but I imagine in all these cases of relatively rare diseases that, as soon as they occur, they do, in fact, report them to the medical officers of health.
    Dr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of inviting all port medical officers of health to pay particular attention to all parrots being brought into this country?

    LONDON REFUSE DISPOSAL.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health when the Departmental Committee will issue its Report on the disposal of London refuse?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that I am unable at present to add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member for the South-Eastern Division of Essex (Mr. Oldfield) on the 12th ultimo.

  INSURANCE BENEFIT AND POOR LAW RELIEF.
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Health how the average Poor Law out-door relief grant to husband and wife compares with the payment made to both under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1929, assuming that the man is unemployed and qualified to receive benefit and his wife is not, and also assuming that both are unemployed and qualified to receive benefit?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: If the Unemployment Insurance Bill becomes law, the position as regards unemployment benefit will be as follows. In the first case postulated by the hon. Member the man will receive 17s. a week or, if he is entitled to additional dependant's benefit in respect of his wife, 26s. In the second case, the man will receive 17s. a week and his wife 15s., totalling; 32s. As regards outdoor relief, it is a principle of Poor Law administration that the relief granted to any applicant should be assessed on the applicants needs. The use of scales is optional and they do not require my approval. Scales, if adopted, can only be properly used as a general guide and their application would depend upon the practice of individual boards of guardians. I regret, therefore, that no comparable figures are available.

  RATING (SPORTING RIGHTS).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Minister of Health what is the total assessable value lost to the rates on sporting rights which are privately held and the sum made up to the local authorities by the Ministry thereon?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Where sporting rights are separately assessed, the valuation is not affected by de-rating,

  325
  and no value is in consequence lost to the rates. As I informed my hon. Friend in reply to a question on the 21st instant, the question as to the liability of sporting rights in certain other circumstances is the subject of a case which will probably come before the Courts shortly. Figures of the value of such rights are not available.

  POOR LAW.

    HARTON HOSPITAL (PATIENT'S DEATH).
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been directed to the circumstances surrounding the recent death of a patient in the Harton Hospital of the South Shields Board of Guardians, into which a committee of inquiry appointed by the board has investigated; if he has caused further investigation to be made; if the officer investigating it on his behalf has had at his disposal a full transcript of the shorthand note made at the guardians' inquiry; and what action he proposes to take thereon?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My attention has been drawn to this case. I am awaiting the result of the guardians' investigation which, I understand, is still proceeding.

    TEST WORK.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether stone-breaking and stone-shifting work is still being performed by men on relief?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The inquiries which I have undertaken with a view to the improvement of conditions in relation to test work are not yet complete, but I may say that in a few cases work of the kind described is performed.
    Sir K. WOOD: Are not the Government going to take some action in this matter? Is not this a Government of action with regard to stone-breaking and stone-shifting, and does not the right hon. Gentleman remember all he said by way of abuse of his predecessors in office?
    Captain GUNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations on this matter from the First Commissioner of Works?
    Mr. HAYCOCK: Has my right hon. Friend had any trouble from anybody but Tory boards of guardians?

  HOUSING.

    SLUM CLEARANCE.
    Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Prime Minister what facilities he proposes now to afford for slum-clearance legislation affecting Scotland?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The present intention is that the proposed slum-clearance legislation affecting England and Scotland should, if possible, be dealt with in the same Bill.
    Sir K. WOOD: When will the text of the Bill be available, inasmuch as the Chancellor of the Duchy stated that the draft was ready?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not know that anything can be added to the statement made a few days ago.
    Sir K. WOOD: Surely this is a very important matter. The House wants to see the Government's proposals. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea when we can see them?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The Government, unlike the previous Government, realises that this is a very important matter, and I can assure the House that no unnecessary delay will be incurred.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Why were we told at election time that all these plans were matured?
    Major NATHANasked the Minister of Health when he anticipates that the Government's projected Bill as to slums will be passed into law; and whether meanwhile he is refusing to consider and approve housing schemes submitted by local authorities?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the statement made on Tuesday by the Prime Minister on the subject of the first part of this question. As regards the second part, no schemes for providing new houses are being delayed in my Department by the expectation of the new Bill; but in the case of slum-clearance schemes I have in some instances suggested that

    327
    in view of certain difficulties which have arisen it would he better to await the proposals which I hope shortly to submit to this House.
    Major NATHAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the delay which will be involved in view of the hardship that will be incurred by the working population?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: It is very difficult to calculate that, but in so far as there is any delay in slum-clearance schemes, it has arisen out of the decision of the Court, which must be put right by this House.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is not the present position this, that slum-clearance schemes have been stopped and housing progress decreased during the last few months?
    Major NATHAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the introduction of declaratory legislation to overcome, in a short space of time, the difficulties to which he has referred?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I think that it is much more preferable to deal with it in a general Bill.

    POLICY.
    Major BRAITHWAITEasked the Minister of Health when the House may expect a declaration of policy on housing?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the statement made on Tuesday by the Prime Minister on this subject.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any policy at all on housing?

    RURAL AREAS.
    Mr. BUTLERasked the Minister of Health whether he can now declare his policy for an improvement of rural housing conditions?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I would suggest that the hon. Member should await the proposals for legislation which I hope shortly to be able to submit to the House.
    Captain EDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to expedite legislation now in force?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Most certainly. I have done everything I can to expedite the matter.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Do we understand that there is going to be a separate Rural Housing Bill, or is the right hon. Gentleman going to deal with little bits of rural housing in his slum clearance scheme?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am interested in this interest which has been shown. I must ask hon. Members to wait and see.

    SCOTLAND (SUBSIDY).
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the annual contribution made during the year 1928–29 in respect of housing schemes in Scotland under the Housing Acts of 1919, 1923, 1924 and 1926; and the number of houses in each case in respect of which subsidy was paid, including houses reconditioned under the last Act?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): A statement containing the information desired is being prepared and I shall send a copy to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

  LONDON NAVAL CONFERENCE.
  Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Prime Minister if it is proposed to discuss the question of the Singapore base at the Naval Conference?
  Commander SOUTHBYasked the Prime Minister if the existing British naval bases are to be a subject for discussion at the Naval Conference?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The Prime Minister is not aware that any delegation intends to raise these questions at the Conference.
  Major ROSS: In view of the Prime Minister's declaration that the object of the Naval Conference is to decide naval strength and not naval policy, is not the question of retaining a fleet base in the Pacific rather a question of policy than of strength?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a much wider question than what is raised by the one on the Paper.
  Colonel GRETTONasked the Prime Minister if the questions of the size and replacement of battleships entered into the discussions which he had on naval questions during his visit to the United States?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I understand that the subject was before those who took part in the discussions.
  Colonel GRETTON: May I ask for further information as to what that answer means?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: It obviously means that those who took part in the conversations discussed the question.
  Colonel GRETTON: Am I to understand that battleships were the subject of conversations in the United States when the Prime Minister was there?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Really I think my answer covers all that. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman asked whether the subject of battleships entered into the discussions. My reply was that I understood the subject was before those who took part in the discussions.
  Colonel GRETTON: Why were we not told this at an earlier stage, and were the Admiralty previously consulted?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The Admiralty, of course, have had cognisance of all that has been going on in regard to all these discussions, and their views, of course, received the consideration which opinions coming from such a body are entitled to receive. These conversations in America were personal between the Prime Minister and the President, and I have no official knowledge of what took place. They were simply preparatory to the discussions of the Naval Conference.

  FISHING GROUNDS (INQUIRY).
  Mr. ARNOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he will refer the question of exploration for new fishing grounds to the Sub-Committee of Civil Research which is inquiring into the fishing industry?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The Sub-Committee in question have considered the problem of exploration for new fishing grounds, and, in view of the evidence put before
  330
  them as to the need for systematic and well planned investigations, have presented an Interim Report to the Committee of Civil Research. After considering this Report, His Majesty's Government authorised the construction of a survey vessel at an estimated capital cost, including scientific equipment, of £80,000. The vessel is to be constructed and equipped by the Admiralty in a naval dockyard, and is to operate under the control and direction of the Hydrographer of the Navy. His Majesty's Government propose to ask Parliament to provide annually a sum of £34,000 to cover running expenses in each of the five years next succeeding the completion of this vessel.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will this inquiry include a search for new fishing grounds for shell fishing or only for deep-sea fishing?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot tell that.
  Sir FREDERICK THOMSON: Are arrangements being made for this Committee to visit fishing ports and to take evidence from people who have knowledge and experience of it?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: That does not arise out of this question.
  Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this pronouncement will give great satisfaction to the fishing industry, seeing that it is a continuation of the policy of the last Government?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I am sure it will give very great satisfaction. It will also prove that this Government, unlike the previous Government, is a Government of action.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the Committee include within the ambit of its inquiry the damage done to fishing boats?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is far beyond the question on the Paper.

  RESERVOIRS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Major GORONWY OWENasked the Prime Minister if he will state when it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Reservoirs (Safety Provision") Bill?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The hon. and gallant Member will have seen that this Bill is on the Order Paper for this evening, and I am not without hope that it may be reached.

  SUPERANNUATION (NATIONAL SCHEME).
  Mr. GEORGE OLIVERasked the Prime Minister whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the desirability of adopting a national scheme of superannuation of a voluntary character to be available for all persons irrespective of their occupations?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: If my hon. Friend has in mind a scheme of general voluntary insurance for old age pensions, I would inform him that the subject is being considered by the Cabinet Committee which is engaged in the general survey of schemes of national insurance and pensions.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Viscount ELMLEYasked the Minister of Health whether, in the cases of men who have been insured under the National Health Insurance Act for three years or more, he will consider abolishing the existing period of three days before any benefit can be drawn?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Payment of sickness benefit from the first day of incapacity, instead of the fourth, may be made under the present law where an approved society is able to make the necessary financial provision out of a disposable surplus and the members decide to do so. Any general abolition of the normal waiting period of three days would, however, necessitate an increase in the contributions, and would entail difficulties in administration, and I am not aware that there has been any demand for such a change on the part of societies.
  Sir G. DALRYMPLE-WHITEasked the Minister of Health what arrangements, if any, the Government propose to make to enable a person insured under the Health Insurance Acts who wishes to settle in our Dominions to obtain a transfer of the values standing to his credit with his approved society?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: There is already statutory provision under which the payment of transfer values may be made in respect of insured persons who emigrate to the Dominions and become insured in a society in the Dominions, subject to corresponding rights being given in respect of insured persons who come from the Dominions to this country. Any claim for the payment of a transfer value under these conditions should be made by the society through whom the emigrant is insured in the Dominions.
  Sir G. DALRYMPLE-WHITE: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a case where the applicant says that he was unable to obtain that transfer of values, will he consider it?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Oh, yes.

  INSURANCE AND PENSIONS ACTS.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether the Cabinet Committee engaged on a general survey of existing insurance and pensions legislation has yet reached any conclusions?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would be anomalous for me to make any statement as to the progress of a Cabinet Committee.
  Sir K. WOOD: Is not the right hon. Gentleman going to announce any of the conclusions which are arrived at by this Committee? Is this a Government of action, or is it a farce?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Announcements will be made in due course.
  Sir K. WOOD: Have any conclusions yet been arrived at?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: When conclusions have been arrived at, they will, quite willingly, be announced.
  Sir K. WOOD: I understand, then, that the answer is, that there have been no conclusions reached?

  SILK DUTIES.
  Mr. WELLSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount received, for the year ending 31st December 1929, on account of the silk and artificial silk duties?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: £6,323,000.

  IMPORT DUTIES.
  Mr. WELLSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount received on account of the McKenna and Safeguarding Duties for the year ending 31st December, 1929?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: £6,205,783.
  Mr. HANNON: In view of his answer to these two questions, does the right hon. Gentleman still persist in his intention to have these duties repealed?

  MALE SERVANT LICENCE DUTY.
  Major CARVERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the interests of employment, he will consider the abolition of the tax of 15s. on male domestic servants; and what is the present reason for the retention of this tax?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: As I have explained on several previous occasions, the Male Servant Licence Duty is not an Imperial but a Local Taxation Duty, and I am afraid that I could not undertake to introduce legislation which would deprive local authorities of part of their revenue unless I were sure of their unanimous consent, and that a demand would not be made upon the Exchequer to replace the revenue surrendered.
  Major CARVER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some years ago a similar tax was imposed on female domestic servants, and, in view of the present political equality of the sexes, will he remit this tax?

  INTERNATIONAL BANK.
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposals regarding the suggested international bank, so far as British participation in it is concerned, will be submitted to this House before Great Britain is in any way committed to the scheme?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The draft Statutes of the Bank for International Settlements provide that British participation in the shares of the Bank shall be guaranteed by the Bank of England. Accordingly, no action on the part of His Majesty's Government is involved.
  334
  On the other hand, the functions of the Bank in relation to German reparation form an integral part of the agreements for putting into force the Experts' Plan which have been concluded at The Hague and in regard to these generally the normal constitutional practice will be followed.
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: It was difficult to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Am I to understand that, except in respect of the Bank of England, this country cannot be committed to any policy affecting our currency and credit, without the matter being brought before the House of Commons?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes. I am not quite sure whether I heard accurately the concluding words of the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: May we have the right hon. Gentleman's original answer read again?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Certainly. It was as follows:
  "The draft Statutes of the Bank for International Settlements provide that British participation in the shares of the bank shall be guaranteed by the Bank of England. Accordingly, no action on the part of His Majesty's Government is involved. On the other hand, the functions of the bank in relation to German reparation form an integral part of the agreements for putting into force the Experts' Plan which have been concluded at the Hague, and in regard to these generally, the normal constitutional practice will be followed."
  Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I will try to put my supplementary question again. Is it clear from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that there is no plan in connection with the proposed International Bank which can affect our currency and credit problems here, which will not be brought to the House of Commons before this country is committed?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: As I said in the answer, the Government are in no way involved except in so far as it is a party to the work of the Bank of International Settlements, in receiving and distributing German annuities. The other part of the Bank, what one might call the commercial part of the bank, is in the hands of the Bank of England, and the Government are not involved in that.

  REPARATIONS.
  Mr HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to make a statement on the agreement arrived at during the recent Hague Conference on the settlement of non-German reparations, i.e., as affecting Austria, Hungary, and Bulgaria?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The agreements are being printed and will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible. I am considering whether it would be useful to issue in addition an explanatory memorandum.
  Mr. HANNON: Is this agreement now final?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes.

  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
  Sir BASIL PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint a commission of independent persons to take evidence, not only from insurance companies but from working-class insurers, as to the whole question of industrial endowment and life policies for the working class?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Owing to urgent preoccupations I have not yet been able to find time to look into this matter, which will require careful consideration.
  Sir B. PETO: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he remembers that in 1928 he wrote an article for "John Bull," in which he strongly advocated the course indicated in the question, and urged all members of the working-class to heckle their Members of Parliament, so as to bring pressure to bear upon the Government?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, I have a very vivid recollection of that article. My recollection also extends to the fact that I think it was a very good article. There is nothing in the reply that I have given to the hon. Member that is inconsistent with anything I said in the article. I have said that I have not had time to consider this report. It is a very important matter and will require very careful consideration, and that consideration will be given to it.
  Sir B. PETO: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he will give sympathetic consideration to the question, and that the Government, with an open mind, will consider the question of appointing such committee as I have asked for?
  Mr. SNOWDEN.
  Sir K. WOOD: Docs not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be much better for him to try to forget the article in question?

  AGRICULTURE.

    HOPS (DUTY).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to extend the special arrangements contemplated for the McKenna and other protective duties in the event of their repeal to the duty on hops?
    Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Assuming that by "special arrangements" the hon. Member means that in the event of the repeal of the duty in the next Budget, the payment of drawback on duty-paid exports would be continued, the answer is in the affirmative.

    LAND DRAINAGE.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Agriculture, if he can now state when his new Land Drainage Bill will be introduced?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government still intends to introduce the Land Drainage Bill for England and Wales this Session?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The Bill is in draft. A great deal of work has yet to be done in connection with the draft before it will be ready for introduction, but my right hon. Friend hopes that the Bill will be introduced before Easter.
    Major CARVERasked the Minister of Agriculture (1) if his attention has been drawn to the floods in the valley of the Derwent, in East Yorkshire; and whether any schemes are being promoted to deal with this matter;
    (2) if he is aware of the damage done to farms in the parish of Riccall, in the

    337
    East Riding of Yorkshire, owing to the bursting of the bank of the River Ouse there; and whether he is prepared to initiate any scheme to assist in rebuilding the banks and preventing a similar occurrence?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend is aware of the circumstances of these cases. The Ministry itself has no power to initiate or carry out land drainage schemes, but substantial grants are available either from the Ministry or from the Unemployment Grants Committee towards schemes promoted by county councils or statutory Drainage Authorities the terms of which have been communicated to all the bodies concerned. No scheme has been submitted for either of the two districts mentioned but it is understood that a scheme embracing a portion of the River Derwent is under the consideration of the Drainage Authority.
    Major CARVER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that water is pouring into my constituency and that many of us are getting into very deep water indeed, financially and otherwise. Will he not consult his right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in order to enable these poor tenant farmers to get some redress?
    Dr. ADDISON: Water is pouring into many other areas beside that of the hon. and gallant Member, and we are endeavouring to make up the arrears of the past by preparing a comprehensive national drainage scheme.

    CONDITIONS.
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give any figures demonstrating any improvement in agricultural conditions in this country during the last six months?
    Dr. ADDISON: I regret that it is not practicable in the form of an answer to a Parliamentary question to make a statement of the statistical details which the hon. Member appears to desire, but if he has any particular subject in mind I shall be glad to supply such information as is available.
    Viscount WOLMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say yet whether farming pays?
    Dr. ADDISON: If the Noble Lord will look at the Order Paper, he will see a Supplementary Estimate which is coming up to-day.

  OFFICIAL REPORT (PRICE).
  Major MCKENZIE WOODasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the increased interest now being taken in the proceedings in Parliament, he will consider the advisability of reducing the price of the daily OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Experience has shown that a reduction in price would increase the loss already incurred in connection with the publication of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret, therefore, I cannot see my way to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  Major WOOD: Will the hon. Member consider the advisability of a specially reduced price for debates which are obviously of more than usual interest, like the coal debate?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid that would be impracticable.
  Mr. FOOT: Will the hon. Member give consideration to the recommendation of a Commission of this House, made nearly 100 years ago, that where documents contain matters of public interest the price should be looked upon as being entirely a secondary matter, and that the cost to the public should be looked upon as being a secondary matter?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That has been considered. This matter has been gone into on several occasion, and I am afraid that I cannot vary the decision which has been taken.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is this another example of Liberal economy?

  PRISON OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  Mr. JAMES GARDNERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. A. W. Collins, formerly a clerk at Wormwood Scrubs Prison, has lost eight years' service in the calculation of his civil pension in respect of four years served in the Great War; that, in similar circumstances, Mr. P. G. Wootton, late of Durham Prison, has also lost six years; and if,

  339
  in view of the fact that the military pensions of these ex-officers were originally granted as disability pensions in respect of Army service, he will reconsider their cases and re-assess the pensions apart from the operation of the Superannuation Act, 1887, Section 5?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The disability pensions granted to these two officers are not affected by Section 5 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, and no account has been taken of them in the awards of civil pension. In addition, both officers were awarded military service pensions, based on length of service, although the length of service would not have been sufficient for the award if there had not also been a disability pension. The period of service reckoned for the military service pension cannot under the Statute also reckon for civil pension. In Mr. Collins's case it was more favourable to the pensioner to reckon the period of his military service for military than for civil pension, and it was so reckoned accordingly. In Mr. Wootton's case the pensioner has been offered the option of reckoning the period of military service either for military or civil pension as he prefers.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT.
  Sir B. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the changed condition of the film industry owing to the introduction of talking films, he will appoint a committee to inquire into the working of the Films Act of 1927 and to make recommendations to the Government as to the amendments required to render it effective?
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: There already exists a statutory Committee which keeps the working of the Act constantly under review, and I see no occasion to appoint another committee as suggested.
  Sir B. PETO: May I ask whether the hon. Member will call the attention of the Committee to the great change that has taken place in the film industry since the introduction of the Bill and ask their advice as to whether the Films Act is really operating in the way that it was intended to operate when it was passed?
  Mr. SMITH: I am under the impression that these facts are already well known
  340
  to the Committee, because many of them are practical men associated with the industry.
  Sir B. PETO: I am asking whether he will ask the Committee expressly to report to the Government what alteration should be made in the Act in view of the changes in the film industry.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (INTERNATIONAL SAFETY CONVENTION).
  Sir B. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade when the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea will be brought before the House for approval; and whether the House will have an opportunity of expressing its opinion before the Government ratify this convention?
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: As the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. W Russell) was informed on the 10th December, the Convention will not be ratified or come into force until it has been approved by Parliament, and a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to the Convention will be introduced in due course.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Member for the Gorton Division, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether all the cigars sold in the House of Commons are of British Empire origin and manufacture?
  Mr. COMPTON: In reply to the hon. Member, 28 per cent. of the cigars on sale in the House of Commons are of British or Empire origin; the remainder are Havana cigars.
  Mr. ROSBOTHAMasked the hon. Member for Gorton, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if the potatoes used in the House of Commons are home-grown?
  Mr. COMPTON: I can assure the hon. Member that only home-grown potatoes are used in the Refreshment Department of this House.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Would that apply to new potatoes in the spring as well?
  Mr. COMPTON: It applies to all kinds of potatoes at all periods of the year.
  Major ROSS: May I ask what proportion comes from Northern Ireland, where the best potatoes are grown?
  Mr. COMPTON: There is a wide difference of opinion. Every hon. Member believes that the best potatoes are grown in his own constituency.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: Can the hon. Member guarantee that only Midlothian Earlies are provided?

  SCOTLAND (RATING RELIEF).
  Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the estimated annual amount for the whole of Scotland by which occupiers of industrial lands and heritages will benefit through the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929?
  Mr. W. ADAMSON: On the basis of the rates payable in respect of the year 1928–29 it is estimated that the total annual relief from rates that will accrue in respect of industrial lands and heritages in Scotland under the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, will be approximately £1,600,000.
  Major COLVILLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman not consider that these occupiers have borne too heavy a burden in this respect in the past?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the business is for next week?
Mr. SNOWDEN: Monday, Debate on the Foreign Secretary's Motion for the ratification of the signature of the Optional Clause. Supply: Report of Supplementaries for Ministry of Labour and Beet Sugar Subsidy; Ways and Means, Report; Land Drainage (Scotland) Money Resolution, Report.
Tuesday, Coal Mines, Money Resolution, Committee; Children (Employment Abroad) Bill, Second Reading; and, if time permits, other Orders on the Paper. The Money Resolution on the Coal Mines Bill will be put down to-day and the White Paper will be circulated tomorrow.
342
I have not announced the business for Thursday, because it will depend on whether the Unemployment Insurance Bill comes here from another place.
Mr. BALDWIN: I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question with regard to the first business for Monday; that is the Debate on the Optional Clause. I should like to know whether he and his colleagues have considered the extraordinary delicacy of some of the questions which must be discussed having regard to the fact that an International Conference is sitting at this moment in London?
Mr. SNOWDEN: It has, of course, been known for many months that such a conference as is now sitting in London would be taking place about this time, and during these months I have heard many requests from hon. Members opposite for a Debate upon the Optional Clause. I believe the Foreign Secretary was asked only a few days ago whether he could find time for such a Debate. What the right hon. Gentleman describes as a delicate situation has existed for some time, but that is no reason why a discussion of this question should be further postponed.
Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman knows that, before the House adjourned at Christmas, I pressed that this discussion should be taken before the International Conference met. Does he bear in mind the fact that the White Paper which the Government have issued has been the subject of comment, not to say of criticism, by important authorities in the United States, including the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate, the Secretary of State, and the President of the United States himself; and that it is impossible to discuss the ratification of the Optional Clause without allusion to and comment upon these statements and upon matters which may or may not be topics of conversation between the delegates now assembled in London? It is not from any desire not to discuss the question, but from a sense of the injury which may be done to great public interests by taking this discussion at this time that I venture to press the matter further on the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. SNOWDEN: I certainly note this new desire on the part of the party opposite not to raise debates upon any question that might have unfortunate repercussions, but the right hon. Gentleman, I think, was mistaken in his references to opinions which were expressed in the United States with regard to the White Paper. They were expressed on an inaccurate telegraphic summary of that White Paper, but I have a very vivid recollection that the following day, after a full copy had been received, Mr. Stimson withdrew the comment be had made and expressed approval of the contents of the White Paper. It is somewhat difficult, I admit, but unless this Clause is ratified now, if it has to wait until this Conference has finished its labours, it may be three months before it is ratified. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave an assurance, I believe, to the Council of the League, that we would proceed with ratification as soon as possible. Of course, there are two or three days between now and Monday, and, although I cannot hold out any hope that the attitude of the Government with regard to taking this Debate will be changed, we are quite open to consider the matter through the usual channels between now and Monday.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I refrain from any comment on the offensive observation of the right hon. Gentleman. There was plenty of time to take this Debate before the Conference met, but it was the Government's decision—
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): We offered a day.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: We asked for a day for it, and you refused it. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, as he has promised, to consider seriously the effect that a discussion on this question may have on the International Conference.
Mr. MANDER: There is a Motion on this subject in the name of a large number of Members on the Liberal benches. Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to hold the debate at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. COCKS: Will not the ratification of the Optional Clause assist the success of the Disarmament Conference?

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  Major COLVILLE: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the policy of the Government with regard to conscientious objectors, and move a Resolution.
  DISARMAMENT.
  Mr. COVE: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the question of disarmament, and move a Resolution.
  EMPIRE TRADE ROUTES.
  Mr. WEST RUSSELL: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the necessity for the adequate policing of the Empire trade routes, and move a Resolution.
  CIVIL AVIATION.
  Mr. GEORGE OLIVER: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the question of civil aviation, and move a Resolution.
  MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.
  Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to maternity and child welfare, and move a Resolution.
  DISARMAMENT.
  Mr. AYLES: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the question of disarmament, and move a Resolution.
  ARMY CHURCH PARADES.
  Mr. MARCH: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to compulsory church parades, and move a Resolution.
  AIRSHIPS.
  Mr. WELLS: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the question of airships, and move a Resolution.
  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL FEES.
  Mr. SEXTON: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply of the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the question of the imprisonment of parents for non-payment of arrears of industrial school fees, and move a Resolution.
  PUBLIC HEALTH.
  Mr. D. R. GRENFELL: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply of the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the question of public health in general, and move a Resolution.
  NAVAL BASES.
  Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the necessity for the maintenance of sufficient naval bases throughout the world, and move a Resolution.
HAIRDRESSERS' AND BARBERS' SHOPS (SUNDAY CLOSING BILL),
"to provide for the compulsory closing of hairdressers' and barbers' shops on Sundays," presented by Mr. James Stewart; supported by Major Elliot, Mr. Barr, Mr. Sutton, Mr. Boothby, Mr. R. Morrison, Mr. John Jones, Sir Samuel Chapman, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Kinley, Mr. Womersley, and Mr. Broad; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 5th February, and to be printed.—[Bill 110.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. W. M. Adamson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Dukes.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (added in respect of the Education (Scotland) Bill): Mr. Lindley; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. MacLaren.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1929.
      CLASS VI.

        BEET SUGAR SUBSIDY, GREAT BRITAIN.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,250,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Subsidy on Sugar and Molasses manufactured from Beet grown in Great Britain."
        4.0 p.m.
        The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): This Supplementary Estimate represents a part of agricultural policy which is of very great importance, and, if it were in order, we might dwell upon many aspects of the sugar subsidy policy which are of very great interest, for the area under sugar beet cultivation has now reached a point which makes it a matter of national importance. Indeed, it recalls the time when the country was deeply concerned with the initiation of sugar-beet growing in France, and the Debate in which Mr. Pitt took part more than 100 years ago, and, on a notable occasion, declaimed: "Mr. Speaker, who now dares to laugh at sugar?" Our own sugar policy has now reached somewhat comparable importance, but I should be called to order if I dwelt further upon the general aspects of that policy. I must confine myself to the causes which give rise to this Supplementary Estimate. A Supplementary Estimate in connection with the sugar subsidy is no novelty. The right hon. Gentleman who preceded me at the Ministry, whom I am glad to welcome back from his travels, on no less than three occasions had to ask for a Supplementary Estimate—in 1926, in 1927 and again in 1928. The reason on this occasion is as before—the difficulty, indeed the impossibility, of forecasting in January what will be the yield of the crop which will require the Estimate for the coming year. The crop itself is not
        370
        sown, perhaps, even till May, and half a dozen factors make it extremely uncertain as to what will be the result.
        I should be, perhaps, in order in dwelling for a moment on the nature of the factors which affect the final figure. You pay a subsidy on the amount of actual sugar which results from the beet grown, and you therefore depend, in the first place, on the acreage, and, in the second place, on the yield. Both of those factors are highly problematical. Take first the acreage. It is now mainly the subject of contract between the growers and the factories, but not entirely. Sometimes new contracts are entered into as late even as April. The increase in the acreage is very noticeable. In 1924, when the subsidy began, the acreage in this country was 22,000. Last year—the year with which we are now dealing—it was 230,000. In the coming year it will be, at all events, 315,000 or more. That represents a very welcome burden on the Exchequer. The majority of these contracts are for three years, and that gives an element of certainty, but in the course of the three years in which the subsidy runs at certain levels, new contracts are formed. There may be, therefore, this year contracts for two years, or, later on, for one year. After three years, again, the subsidy falls to the level of the final year. Additional contracts, as the year proceeds, are made by farmers, and they are affected by the results of the last year's growing and also by the success or failure of other crops. For instance, the potato crop in the Fens may lead a man to wish to make a different contract, and the contracted acreage may, of course, fall through the failure of the crop to germinate in the spring, or it may fail too late to permit of resowing. Therefore, you cannot foretell what is going to be the contracted area.
        When we come to the yield, the uncertainty must be even greater. The amount of beet is concerned and also the yield in sugar content, and both of these are affected by the weather. In 1927, the yield was 6.45 tons per acre, and, to show the great variation which occurs, in 1926 it was no less than 8.63 tons. When you come to the content, you get a similar variation. In 1927, the yield was 16.1 per cent. and in 1928 it was 17.3. Consequently, the general result in yield varies to this extent, that in 1927 it was a

        371
        matter of 1,828 lbs. of sugar per acre compared with 2,654 in 1926. The causes of variation are, on the whole, those which affect all crops—drought and wet, lack of sunshine and sometimes frost, even in a more marked degree, because the present season was affected very materially by the prolonged frost nearly a year ago which produced an extremely favourable seed-bed and led to a good crop. Thus, on the whole, the variation of crops has amounted to as much as 826 lbs. of white sugar to the acre, and that, at the present subsidy of 13s. per cwt., on an acreage of 200,000, which has in fact been greatly exceeded, means a difference of £1,000,000 in the subsidy due from the State to the factories.
        The 1929 Estimate was based on information received from the factory companies last January. The contracts then were for 205,000 acres, but the acreage proved to be 230,000. The highest content had been up to then 17.3 per cent., and the yield had been eight tons on a rough average. Therefore, the Estimate was put down at a probable figure of £3,000,000. The sequel shows an unusual degree of variation. The factories in the course of the early spring embarked on a very active campaign, and their propaganda succeeded in bringing in more growers. The weather, not only in regard to the early frost, but in regard to the abnormal degree of sunshine in the summer, proved to be specially favourable, and, although the drought retarded the crop, the sugar content outbalanced that factor, and in October a very interesting thing occurred. When the beet might be expected to stop growing, there was a prolonged period of wet and warm weather, which again started an active growth, and that growth actually continued right on to January, until near the end of the manufacturing season.
        Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: It increased the sugar?
        Mr. BUXTON: It increased the bulk. In December the factories were invited to give as final an estimate as they could, and their estimates amounted to £950,000, which again proved wrong. The yield per acre of white sugar reached the record figure of 2,810 lbs. The yield in tons has been 8.65, which, although still below the Continental
        372
        average of probably about 10 tons, at which, I hope, we may some day arrive, is still a high yield, while the content has been 17.7 per cent. The December Estimate, therefore, was considerably under the mark, but it had to be printed before Christmas, because it was intended to take the Estimate on the first day of this Session, that is to say, on a day very much earlier than has been possible in former years, and before Christmas it was not possible to arrive at anything more accurate than we did. I think I have given sufficient explanation of the reason for the increase and for the change which took place at a late date.
        Perhaps, Mr. Young, you would allow me to express the satisfaction which I feel as the Minister who took the first step towards bringing this Act into existence. I feel that we are entitled to congratulate ourselves on the increased efficiency which has come about in the course of these years in the production of sugar beet. I myself always felt that by far the most important justification for this expensive experiment, and the chief value that would lie in it, was in its educative value towards better crops, and the effect has been very marked in the efforts of the various parties concerned, the Ministry, the county agricultural machinery, the county organisers in particular, while the factory companies themselves have been very busy, and the farmers, both organised and individuals, have thrown themselves into the business. Undoubtedly, the standard of farming generally over a very large area has been affected. The counties have been in touch with the companies to a marked degree. They have a corps of trained organisers who have worked with the county organisers. They visit every farm which grows for the factory; they are able to give advice, and the whole system amounts to a kind of extension course for the growers. They advise also on the preparation of the soil and as to the organisation of labour.
        There has been a great advance in the use of implements specially designed for this crop and that I think is a matter of very great importance. I find that the Cambridge University Report on the sugar-beet industry, from the agricultural point of view, records the very wide adoption of better implements. Those who have attended agricultural

        373
        shows will remember the extraordinarily interesting implements designed for sugar-beet cultivation alone which have been shown. It is recorded that up to two years ago, on an average, 1s. 6d. per acre had been expended on better implements and if that is extended over the whole acreage it represents a figure of something like £15,000. That has not only meant better cultivation but has added to the turnover of the implement manufacturers and has meant the employment of more labour. A great advance has been made in encouraging farmers to use deeper ploughing. They recognise the value of the crop in this respect and they have largely used lime dressing—which they had rather neglected previously—and the effect on succeeding crops is now more widely recognised. A very small grower in Norfolk was telling me of the extraordinary effect which this crop had on his wheat crop, not in the next year after the beet had been grown, but three years after the beet in the course of a four year rotation. He was perfectly amazed at the direct money value which he got even at the present price of wheat as a result of growing about four acres of beet.
        I think we may record that a new outlook has been introduced by the subsidy policy, which possibly might not have come about in any other way—not even by the active educational work of the various bodies concerned in this matter. A lot of good too, arises from the fact that the farmers are being brought into touch with business organisations of a different kind from those to which they have been accustomed. They are coming to use more machinery and to recognise the value in general of combining together for a purpose akin to marketing. What he learns in connection with beet growing the farmer naturally tends to apply to other branches of his work. He is also beginning to use more freely the dry pulp which the factories at first were obliged to sell abroad and he is developing its use as fodder. It would not be in order on this occasion if I were to go into the direct benefit to the farmers in the price of the crop which they have been enabled to grow over a large part of the country, because that is not one of the causes of the unexpected increase in this Estimate but obviously over an area of perhaps 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 acres
        374
        the subsidy policy has saved the situation for arable farming in the last few years. The increase is such that the acreage affected in what may be called the sugar counties is probably a quarter of the area of those counties.
        It is a debatable point as to how much acreage is affected by the growing of sugar-beet on any particular farm. I remember asking Lord Ailwyn who knew a great deal on this subject, both as a Minister and a Norfolk farmer, what he thought was the average acreage affected. He thought that a four course man roughly grew half his root crops and therefore it might be said that eight times as much land as the actual beet growing land, was affected by the fact that there was any beet being grown at all. At all events the area affected and the number of men affected are very considerable and very satisfactory. The educational value of the method is one of the reasons why we have to come for this increased Estimate and it naturally follows that employment has been affected as regards the men on the land, the men in the factories and the other industries concerned. I hope I have now given a sufficient explanation of the Estimate.
        Mr. GUINNESS: Before coming to the details of the Estimate I should like to say a word about the brief reference made by the right hon. Gentleman to the general question of a sugar beet subsidy. I know it is out of order to pursue the subject in any detail but this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman has claimed a certain special merit because he was the Minister of Agriculture when this subsidy system was—I think his word were—put into force.
        Mr. BUXTON: Initiated.
        Mr. GUINNESS: I have heard the right hon. Gentleman make very much the same claim on former occasions. Sometimes it has been at a convivial gathering where I have already had my say, and where, in any case, it would not have been tactful to raise these political controversies. But there is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman by repeated pats on his own back is gradually striving to build up a legend that the sugar beet subsidy has been created by his party. I know that the right hon. Gentleman values this system as well as I do, but I must remind him of

        375
        the facts. I will come to his party's record in a, moment. But what about this claim that he is really responsible for the subsidy? Surely we had a subsidy long before the right hon. Gentleman was last in his present office. A subsidy was granted in an indirect form in 1922, of 25s. 8d. on a cwt. of sugar and the change was made necessary because the Government of the right hon. Gentleman swept away that benefit by their alteration in the level of the Sugar Duty.
        It was only after the most strenuous efforts by hon. Members on this side of the House like the hon. Member for Eye (Sir G. Courthope), the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) and the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson), and after many months of anxiety that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was converted to the necessity of continuing this benefit in some form. When the Bill was introduced by us in the following year the right hon. Gentleman himself said that it was not a question of giving a sugar beet subsidy so much as of bringing to an end the enormous subsidy which had already been in existence and which he condemned. I do not want to enter into invidious questions as to who is responsible but as the right hon. Gentleman, time after time, puts forward the claim that the country owes this system to his party I am bound to point out that what his party did was to smash the old system of a heavier subsidy and that as the result of a long process of propaganda and conversion, conducted from the Conservative side, they eventually agreed to a smaller measure of benefit which was embodied in the following year in the Act passed by the Conservative Government.
        Mr. BUXTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from that subject may I say that if he thinks that I have any desire to claim any excessive or exclusive merit he is exaggerating the case. I certainly have no desire to claim more than my share of credit. What I desired to point out was that the system to which I was referring was entirely new and was, I think, introduced originally by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1924. The previous system it is true gave an advantage, but it had not succeeded in producing factories or in pro
        376
        ducing growers on any considerable scale. The right hon. Gentleman will not deny that the system, in its present form, was initiated by the Labour Government and we did not differ at all from the Conservative Government which followed us, as to the merits of the system as best designed to meet the case
        Mr. GUINNESS: I shall come to that point in a moment, but I am quite in order at this moment in reminding the Committee of the record of the party-opposite. Before I leave the general question let me say that I do not for a moment suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not a very enthusiastic supporter of sugar beet. I only wish to pin him down to the facts, and the facts are that the sugar beet subsidy was only given originally as the result of efforts made by hon. Members on this side. It is quite true that we had not 19 factories in 1924. Naturally an industry of this kind cannot burst out into full vigour at once. It is necessary to go through a period of experiment, and during the three years before the abolition of the higher level of subsidy three factories had come into existence, proving the possibility of the industry being run on a satisfactory basis within this country.
        Let me come to what is more strictly in order. It is very refreshing to have a Supplementary Estimate on this subject introduced by a right hon. Gentleman representing the Socialist party. As he reminds us we have had a good many Debates on Supplementary and Excess Votes in the last few years and the right hon. Gentleman was very fair in the way in which he put the case or the excuse for rather loose estimating in this matter. As he said, it is quite impossible to estimate 12 months ahead in regard to sugar beet. You do not know the area; you do not know the yield; you do not know the sugar content, and to give an example of how the demands upon the subsidy fund must vary, I mention my own experience. In the sugar beet season last but one, I grew 30 acres of sugar beet in Sussex. I did the same in the season just ended. This year I have a cheque from the factories for more than twice the amount of the year before, simply because the season was much more favourable. Although our methods of cultivation were the same we got more than double the crop and almost the same

        377
        sugar content. Of course, it is impossible, even in December, to know what the demand upon the fund is likely to be. Perhaps the most enlightening example of the difficulty of forecasting was in 1927, when I asked for a Supplementary Vote of £900,000, based on the then prospect, in December, of the output of sugar. In fact, we did not use one penny of that amount. I am rather glad that the right hon. Gentleman has had to amend his Estimate on this occasion, because otherwise we might have heard something from him as to our looseness in forecasting.
        Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is in a difficulty, which is peculiar to a Socialist Minister of Agriculture, in moving such a Vote, because there is no doubt that the opposition of his party has steadily grown, since he was last in office, to this policy of a subsidy on beet sugar. When we passed the original Act, in 1925, there were 37 Socialists who voted against it on Third Reading, including two Cabinet Ministers. We had a Supplementary Estimate at the end of 1927, in the Division on which 101 of the Opposition opposed it, including two very prominent Members of the previous Labour Government, the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) and the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson). If the Socialists were so convinced of the benefits of a subsidy, if they agreed to it in the Socialist Cabinet, is it not a little surprising that these pillars of the Socialist party not only should have voted against the original Bill, but year by year should have voted against these Supplementary Estimates?
        In the following year we had another Vote, and on that occasion, curiously enough, there was again a minority of 101, in which were 82 Socialists, and the two right hon. Gentlemen whom I have mentioned were then reinforced by the Leader of the party, the present Prime Minister, in the Division Lobby. Of course, this puts the Minister of Agriculture in a very difficult position, and I do most fully sympathise with him. He must find it very difficult to reconcile many of his opinions on agriculture with what members of his party say and have said. On the occasions of these Divisions on Supplementary Estimates, the difficulty was solved by the right hon. Gentleman's
        378
        absence, and he did not appear in the Division lists at all. But I am convinced that my hon. Friends on this side do not wish to jeopardise this very valuable industry by trying to score any party triumph in the matter, and if the right hon. Gentleman needs it, we will help to save him from his friends. This industry has been carried on on the faith of definite promises. It is unthinkable that those promises should be broken, and whatever may be the action of the numerous Members opposite who year by year have voted against these Supplementary Estimates, we, on our side, will do all that we can to help the industry and to see that the State carries out its obligations in this matter.
        Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I am not in any way going to oppose this Supplementary Estimate, but I should like to point out to the Committee that it must be a question of grave concern, because this is the last time when the question of beet sugar will be debated in this House before the final contracts are made between the growers and the factories for the last lap of the beet sugar subsidy. Might I remind the Committee that on a similar occasion in 1927 the present President of the Board of Trade clamoured for an inquiry into the beet sugar subsidy, and might I to-day, humbly, from this back bench, echo his clamour? The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture six months ago, in answer to a question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), promised that he was going to give us the result of an inquiry into which his office was going. I submit that it is of the greatest importance that the result of that inquiry should have been ready at the present time and in the hands of Members of the Committee.
        Although we have had from the Minister a most interesting disquisition and every good reason for this Supplementary Estimate, yet I feel that we are not sufficiently aware of the difficulties which arise in the working and incidence of this beet sugar subsidy, both on the agricultural side and on the manufacturing side. After all, the reason for the granting of this subsidy has been that it has been desired to promote a benefit for agriculture and a permanent growth in this country of a new industry, and

        379
        we are only justified in voting for this Supplementary Estimate if it goes some way towards satisfying these conditions. If we look into the agricultural statistics—those of 1928–29, because, although the Minister has given us later figures, the only figures that I have been able to reach have been those for the preceding year—we find that the average price paid for beet was 52s. per ton, and the average yield of washed beet per acre was 7.7 tons. The grower's return per acre, therefore, amounted to £20. In East Anglia, which is the part of the country in which I am more particularly interested, as is also the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, the cost to the grower per acre was £21 8s. 4d., and this is without allowing any interest on capital, or money for the farmer's own remuneration.
        What a contrast if we look to the factory reports. There we find that the average trading profit was 23 per cent. and that their net profit, that is to say, their profit which went to dividend and into reserve, amounted to 11½ per cent. Now, if we turn to the prices which the factories paid to the agriculturist—and this is most important, if we consider the survival of the industry, which is, after all, our aim and object when we are voting for this Estimate—we shall see that the Cantley factory paid the grower £21 6s. 8d. per acre, that is to say, roughly the cost to the farmer in growing the sugar beet, but this factory paid a dividend of 20 per cent., which amounted to £4 14s. an acre. As regards the Ipswich factory, that paid a dividend of 12½ per cent., or £4 6s. per acre profit, but only £19 13s. 6d. was paid to the farmer.
        I do not want to burden the Committee with many figures, but I must allude to that factory which, for political and selfish reasons, interests me most. I allude to the factory at Ely, which, I am glad to say, was in some measure more generous to the grower. It paid him £22 15s. an acre, which gave him a profit of 27s.—
        The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite follow the hon. Member's argument, because I do not think the Department can in any way interfere with the profits of these various factories. What he says might be a good reason, if the question of
        380
        policy was coming up, to urge against the policy, but at the moment the subsidy is settled, and we are only arguing as to the necessity for granting an increased amount of subsidy.
        Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I submit that I am mainly raising points which were raised on a similar issue by the present President of the Board of Trade and by the present Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on a previous similar occasion, and I am only trying to prove that it is worth while our voting this Supplementary Estimate mainly if it is conducive to establishing in this country an industry which will survive and which will help the agricultural and the industrial well-being of this country. I cannot prove my point unless I show that the profits are distributed in such a manner that the agriculturist is not getting the encouragement that he should. As you are well aware, Mr. Chairman, the Ministry is given the widest powers under the Act, and it is those powers that I am asking the Government to exert.
        I am urging the Government to fulfil one of its promises. I am asking the Minister to fulfil one of the many promises which he has made to the poor deluded agriculturist. He has promised him that he would hold an inquiry into the beet sugar industry, and that he would know what the profits of the factory were, and how much he himself was likely to gain from growing this new crop in the ensuing years. That is really the crux of the matter. Unless we know that this industry is going to live, that it is going to be of benefit to this country and to the agriculturist, I appeal to the Minister that it is only if it is of that value that it is worth our while to vote this subsidy. I am not in any way against the subsidy—I should dislike and hate the Committee to believe that I was—but I want the subsidy to be properly administered, and I am only prepared to vote in favour of this extension of the subsidy, because that is what we are asked to do, if I can be assured that the Committee, the public at large, and more particularly the grower will be given the information that they require.
        The subsidy has only a few more years to run. In 1934 it will die, and I do not believe that whoever happens to be

        381
        Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time will shed any crocodile tears over its demise. The next four years will decide whether this Measure will be buried in oblivion, unwept, unhonoured and unsung, or whether it will be given the decent obsequies which are deserved by every good public servant. I will not hazard a guess as to its revival, but I want once more to press the Government to give us as soon as possible the result of this inquiry. At the last election, I was again and again asked in my constituency, where sugar beet plays a very important part, what my opinion was on the subsidy, and on every occasion I said that what was required was a diligent inquiry into the incidence of the Act, and into the profits and how they are distributed. My presence here to-day shows that the policy which I advocated met with some measure of success, and in that constituency, where the sugar beet industry plays a preponderant part, it was almost universally accepted.
        The future of the beet sugar industry, on which the Minister dwelt at some length, is entirely dependent on the policy which the Government adopt, and on the policy which is adopted by the factories.
        The CHAIRMAN: The question of the policy of the Government does not come into consideration at the moment. The subsidy has been decided and this Supplementary Estimate is for an increased amount in the subsidy owing to increased production.
        Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I was only trying to say a few words on what had been said by the Minister. Both the Minister and the late Minister of Agriculture covered themselves with laurels because there was a subsidy—
        The CHAIRMAN: It is true that the Minister claimed that he was responsible for its initiation, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) claimed his share of the credit, but I do not think that we need discuss that.
        Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us the result of a full inquiry in order that we shall know what we are voting on, and in order that the grower of beet shall know what he can expect in future. It
        382
        is only with our eyes fixed on the survival of the industry for the benefit of the country and of the agricultural industry that we shall be justified in voting for this Estimate to-day.
        Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: While in sympathy with the holding of an inquiry concerning profits, I am glad to have the opportunity of saying some words to support this Supplementary Estimate. The story of the growth of the sugar-beet industry makes a most romantic chapter in the industrial history of this country. The subsidy has enabled a new industry to be established, and I support it on account of the benefit that it has brought both to the farmer and to the agricultural labourer in those counties where the beet-sugar factories exist. I went over a beet-sugar factory a short while ago. I have been over many factories, and it seemed to me that the beet-sugar factory was a revelation of economy and efficiency. The Minister of Agriculture has given figures concerning the growth of sugar beet in Great Britain. Whereas in 1924 there were only 22,000 acres under beet, there are now 230,000. If I give one county, it will bring home the benefit of the factories to those counties in which they have been established. In Shropshire in 1924 there were only 99 acres under beet; to-day there are no less than 10,890 acres under cultivation.
        The subsidy has been of benefit not only because of the cultivation of the land which has resulted, but because of the added workers in industry and in agriculture through the beet-sugar industry. In all the factories, 8,500 men are employed; and in the one factory in Shropshire there are 380 men. The number of extra men employed during the campaign throughout the country in agricultural districts is 22,000; in Shropshire the number is 750. That does not, however, tell the whole story of the added labour which has been employed in the counties where the beet-sugar factories are established, because there are a large number of farmers who were in a depressed condition, and would have had to dismiss labourers if the factories had not been established. Therefore, we have to remember that the number of extra men who have been kept on the land through the establishment of these

        383
        factories is far greater than the number actually registered. The number of extra men employed in the factories, again, does not tell the whole story, because it was a condition of the subsidy that 75 per cent. of the machinery of the factories should be manufactured in Great Britain. That means, therefore, a large number of unseen men extra employed manufacturing the machinery. I am not going to enter into the controversy as to whether the beet-sugar factories were due to the agency of Members on this side or on the other side of the House; whoever was responsible, they have brought a great benefit in added labour to the country.
        Farmers to whom I have spoken are enthusiastic about the sugar-beet industry. Moreover, it has made them look with favour on the idea of stabilisation of prices. The noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) asked a few minutes ago whether farming pays. When that question is asked, I always think that you might as well ask, "Does racing pay? Does gambling pay?" because the farmer, so far as wheat is concerned, never knows what he is going to get; when he sows his crop, it is just a gamble because of fluctuating prices.
        Viscount WOLMER: Why did the hon. Lady promise at the last Election that farming must be made to pay?
        Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: If the Labour Government is in for a long period, farming will be made to pay.
        Viscount WOLMER: Will racing pay too?
        Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: This subsidy has made the farmer look with a far kinder eye on the idea of stabilisation than ever before. As a result of the beet sugar factories, we have an eight weeks' supply of sugar in this country. There are 19 factories in Great Britain, and if it were possible without a subsidy to increase them, the time might come when we would be self-sufficient in sugar supplies. I am glad to say these few words in support of the subsidy, because of the excellent effect it has had in Shropshire, and because I am sure that it has brought a lasting benefit to agriculture in this country.
        Mr. CHRISTIE: I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on the finish of the most successful campaign which we have had in this country. I am not concerned as to who should be crowned with laurels; the satisfactory thing is that we have people in every party saying what an excellent thing the subsidy has been. That is a very fine augury for the right hon. Gentleman's Commission which is now inquiring into agriculture. If he can only get an agreed policy for this unfortunate industry, it will be much more likely to have a chance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) talked about the apparently large sums which he received for his sugar beet this year and also on the fact that the size of the Supplementary Estimate might suggest that the farmer is getting a tremendous lot out of the subsidy. Hon. Members ought to remember that the cultivation of sugar beet is a very expensive business. They should remember also that the use of pulp is growing very rapidly, and that the grower of sugar beet at the present day is relying a great deal more on sugar beet pulp, and growing much less in the way of ordinary root crops. The farmers in Norfolk are relying more and more on sugar beet, and giving up other root crops almost entirely. When Members consider the terms for growing sugar beet, they must take into consideration that the farmer has to buy back the pulp with which to feed his cattle during the winter.
        5.0 p.m.
        The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds told us the results that he had obtained, and I will give my results on a practically similar acreage. I was looking through them the other day, and I found that after I had paid all the costs, and paid for the pulp, which it was necessary for me to buy to make up for the fact that I had displaced my ordinary root crops, I had literally nothing coming in, except that I had got my pulp for nothing, and the valuable sugar beet tops also. I am not grumbling at all; I think it is a very good bargain. I have enough excellent food for my cattle and a valuable by-product in the tops. If Members realised that more, this large Supplementary Estimate would go more easily through Committee. I suppose it would not be possible for the Minister to give us any reassurance as to the future. I find that everybody is very worried as

        385
        to what will happen next year, and I honestly believe that if he could see his way to tell the farmers that he is going to stand by them after the end of this year it would be most welcome news. Perhaps I had better not say more on that point, as I see the Chairman is rising; and I will finish by saying that I do congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and that I hope that the last year of the subsidy at this rate will be even more successful than the present one.
        Mr. MACQUISTEN: I do not propose to make any comments on the claim of the former Minister of Agriculture or the present Minister of Agriculture with regard to the paternity of this very beneficial scheme. If we are to accept the statements of both of them, it is obvious that it has had a polyandrous paternity, and that both are entitled to credit for it. But as one who knows this particular industry very intimately, I do wish to say that I am very grateful to the party opposite and to the present Minister of Agriculture for the enlightened way in which they have treated this question. When one thinks of their general obscurantism in most economic subjects, this is a very welcome ray of light, and I can only hope that they may be the first to jump the claim of the new economic policies which are penetrating to the minds of the electors and which, when they are given effect to, are going to do so much to resuscitate the industries of our land and to solve that present insoluble problem which is dragging the Lord Privy Seal into the abyss. I think the hon. Lady the Member for the Wrekin Division (Miss Picton-Turbervill) very effectually answered the somewhat plaintive speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild). He told us how he got into Parliament by doing his best to disturb what, to use the language of the late Mr. Montague, I may call the apathetic contentment of the fanner, by suggesting to the latter that he was not getting his "hare of the subsidy. But when the hon. Member for the Wrekin Division tells us that she finds the farmers wildly enthusiastic for the sugar-beet subsidy, and when we hear that the acreage is growing, we can realise that, after all, there cannot be very much wrong with the adjustment. Of course, if a candidate for Parliament
        386
        tells the electorate that he thinks he can get them more than they are getting now, be will not only get votes but he will also arouse a certain amount of discontent in them, and I am rather sorry that he should have come here to-day to disturb the harmony with his effort to redeem his election promises.
        It is all very well to talk about the farmers getting so much per cent. and the factories getting so much per cent. There is a certain type of economic mind which thinks that the only industries entitled to any credit are those which are run un-profitably, and that those which show good dividends and active and careful management should be subjected to penalising taxation—with a view to encouraging them to further developments! There is an essential difference between the beet-sugar factory and the farmer. The farmer has his land and he gets his price for his sugar-beet, and if he is not satisfied that sugar-beet is the best crop to grow he can grow turnips or potatoes or any other crop he chooses. He does not risk the capital and the skill which have been required to put up the factory. If the farmer ceased to grow sugar-beet, the factory would become so much scrap iron and useless buildings, and the company would risk a total loss.
        The erection of a factory entails an enormous expenditure. A factory costs well over £'250,000 and may run up to nearly £400,000—an immense sum; and the only way in which factory owners could be persuaded to undertake this risk was to provide that in the period of the subsidy a substantial portion of their capital should be restored to them, so that at the end of the subsidy period they would be in a position to carry on without the burden of these overhead capital charges. That was the basis on which the scheme was framed, wisely, by the Labour Government in 1924—the final scheme that was adjusted. The factories have done their part well, as the increase in the acreage shows. It has been a very successful scheme and it has helped agriculture. The true credit for the scheme does not belong to the distinguished Gentlemen upon either of the Front Benches. The credit must go to an equally great man of a former generation, the Emperor Napoleon, who first started growing sugar beet when France was shut off from getting cane sugar.
        The CHAIRMAN: I sincerely hope that we shall not go into that side of the question in dealing with this Supplementary Estimate. Whether Napoleon or anybody else started the system is not a question which arises here.
        Mr. MACQUISTEN: They followed the very good example of a very great man. I will leave it at that. Sugar beet has been grown in France since then mainly for the purpose of developing other sides of agriculture, a point on which the Minister himself touched. Nothing improves the soil more than sugar beet. The roots go deep down into the soil, probably extending 6 or 7 feet, they split up the ground and aerate it and they remain there rotting and increasing the fertility of the soil to an extraordinary extent. That is part of the value which the farmer gets from the crop. In France, the sugar of the sugar beet crop is to some extent a by-product; the crop is grown largely for the purpose of stimulating and recreating the soil. After the revolution the soil of France had been ruined and it was the sugar beet crop that restored its fertility, and I believe that in this country it will do as much as any land drainage scheme to restore the fertility of the land.
        I wish the scheme could be extended further. I cannot suggest anything in the nature of legislation, because that would be wrong and out of order, but I would like to say this with regard to Scotland. We were the first to grow sugar beet; in Kintyre and Argyll we grew sugar beet with up to 20 per cent. of suprose content, the highest in the country, the reason being that we have more sunshine in Argyll than there is in other parts of the country. We have longer hours of daylight; we are nearer the North Pole; and it is the ultra-violet rays that make the sugar beet grow. But it was found that the cost of the steamer transport from the port of Campbell-town to Greenock was 10s. per ton in the steamer. That came off the price which the farmer got; and after that the sugar beet had to be hauled a considerable distance to the factory. The cost became prohibitive and the farmers were so discouraged that they did not find the crop was economical. Then they grew in its place those very excellent potatoes of which we heard at Question Time and which I hope will find their way into
        388
        the House of Commons. I suggest that the sugar beet subsidy might be used in various other ways. I was one of those who tried to get the late Government to extend it to power alcohol distilleries.
        The CHAIRMAN: We are discussing here the Vote of a certain amount of money for a particular purpose, and we cannot discuss whether it should be applicable to other things or not.
        Mr. MACQUISTEN: With all respect, I am giving the Committee a certain amount of history with regard to the sugar beet industry.
        The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that we need all this history on a Supplementary Estimate.
        Mr. MACQUISTEN: I see no sign of impatience on the part of any Member of the Committee. What I was going to say was that if the Government could extend the subsidy to other adaptations it might be possible to have smaller areas. At the present moment a sugar beet factory has to be within reach of 28,000 acres. It takes 4,000 acres at least to supply a sugar beet factory with an adequate supply of beet. [An HON. MEMBER: "More than that."] The result is that we can only put down a sugar beet factory in a very large agricultural area; the more remote parts of the country cannot possibly have factories. But there are other agricultural industries to which the subsidy might be applied, and then there could be smaller areas, and that would be an enormous help. It would mean a stabilising of the farmers' hopes and expectations. That is the value of the sugar beet subsidy. The farmer has got his contract, he has got his price, and knows he can grow his crop with a feeling of certainty. I can recollect the history of another industry.
        The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Estimate. It may be quite easy for him to suggest ever so many more industries to which this might be applicable, but that does not come within the terms of the Estimate.
        Mr. MACQUISTEN: With all respect, I have yet to learn that it is out of order in this assembly to use an illustration.
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is using so many illustrations that it might almost be called repetition.
        Mr. MACQUISTEN: I think it would be more in order to wait until you have heard the illustration.
        HON. MEMBERS: Chair.!
        The CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing a new Estimate. We are discussing a certain sum of money which is an addition to the original Estimate. That money is to be voted for a specific purpose, and that is the question which is before us.
        Mr. MACQUISTEN: With all respect, I was just following the Minister in what he said as to the effect of the sugar beet subsidy, and I was saying that this subsidy was probably capable of extension. I always understood that one could give an illustration from an analogous industry, and I proposed to give such an illustration, but I bow to your Ruling.
        The CHAIRMAN: The extension to which the hon. Member is referring would require more money and may require legislation.
        Mr. MACQUISTEN: I think it might require more money, but it certainly would not require more legislation, as it could be done as an administrative action; but, if that is your Ruling, I submit to it with all deference, I think there has been no more beneficial Measure for agriculture than this one, and I should be very glad to see an extension of it. If it is administered in the way in which it has been administered in the past and carried on with the skill and diligence with which it has been pursued so far, I feel sure that it is going to do more and more to recreate agriculture. As the Minister pointed out, our farmers have been taught a great lesson. It is a difficult and delicate crop to grow. It has awakened the agricultural industry in many parts of the country; it has brought farmers into contact with business minds; and the result is that we have got an intellectual crop and a business crop in agriculture such as no other agricultural Measure of the past generation has done anything to bring about. I congratulate the Minister on this Estimate and I cordially support it.
        Sir GODFREY COLLINS: As the Committee are aware, this Supplementary Estimate provides sums of money for the 19 factories which have been erected in
        390
        Great Britain since the passage of the original Act. I understand that some of these factories, which have already been subsidised out of public funds, have in addition been able to get some £2,000,000 advanced to them under the Trade Facilities Act at a very low rate of interest; I believe that they are now buying foreign sugar to be refined in this country, and in this way they are directly competing with the home sugar refining industry. If my information is correct on this question, I think a new situation has arisen. This state of things did not exist when the original Estimate was introduced, and the situation which has now arisen is that these heavily subsidised factories, which have been financed in the past by public money at a low rate of interest, are now directly competing with private individuals who have built up their private concerns at their own expense.
        In view of these facts, I do not think any hon. Member can justify the proposal which we are now discussing. The late Government said that the original Act caused great injury to the sugar refining industry, and I hope before the Debate closes that we shall have some assurance that the Government do not contemplate public money being given to subsidise factories in a way that is likely to injure the sugar refining industry in Great Britain. The Minister of Agriculture has taken credit this afternoon for proposing this additional subsidy, and he asked: "Who dares to laugh at sugar now?" There is one section which has not benefited in connection with sugar for many years and that is the British public who have suffered to the extent of some £20,000,000 or £15,000,000 as the result of these Supplementary Estimates. All this money has been taken from the pockets of the British taxpayers, and it has been handed over to the favoured few. In addition to this, the State has lost some £4,000,000 through the nonpayment of excise duty on the sugar grown in this country. For these and other reasons I think, when we come to analyse the figures as we are entitled to do, on this final Vote for sugar we have a right to ask if there has been any gain to the nation as a whole as the result of these proposals.
        We all agree that if £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 of public money is spent for

        391
        any purpose it must benefit those who receive the money, but it is open to question whether by that expenditure there has been any economic gain to the nation. I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that, instead of taking credit to himself for this Act and for presenting this Supplementary Estimate to the House of Commons, he should answer the simple question: "Has not the result of this policy been to grow vast quantities of sugar at the expense of other crops, and if that be so, do I think it is, then the net gain to the nation is the difference between the economic value of the sugar grown and the value of the other crops. I think hon. Members opposite will agree with me when I say that, although the policy which has been adopted has been extravagant and has been fortunate for a few people, it has hurt the whole sugar refining industry, and it has been a disastrous experiment to the State as a whole.
        Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: I am very pleased to notice in this Debate that hon. Members below the Gangway are gradually emerging into the open in regard to the beet sugar subsidy. Fortunately or unfortunately, at the last election I had to face a leaflet which invited everybody to support the abolition of this dole, and that leaflet made a very considerable attack upon the view which has been held so far in the constituency which I represent. Speaking as a grower, and living in the midst of the factories operating in East Anglia, I make bold to say, this new industry has been a veritable Godsend to agriculture, amid much depression. As a new Member, I feel somewhat at a loss to keep within the terms of your rightful ruling, Mr. Young, because looking at the industry as a whole, and having regard to the low grain prices and the difficulties connected with marketing, your ruling does not encourage me to deal with the beet sugar industry from the wider point of view which I had intended. There are two points which I should like to emphasize in regard to the purposes to which this subsidy will be put. We have heard a very considerable reiteration of the big profits which the factories have secured. It is not my intention to criticise the action and the business acumen which have enabled the factories to make such a good
        392
        bargain with the Farmers' Union, but after looking at the extent of the subsidies, which have been granted for the purpose of developing agriculture, I am bound to say that the factories have drawn three-fourths of the subsidies and the other sections of the industry have not had a fair share of: the subsidies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite may cheer that statement, but I think it is desirable that some method should be adopted by which we can persuade the factories under Government influence to adopt at least a 50–50 basis with the whole industry when they are dealing with these subsidies.
        I am strengthened in this point when I emphasize the contrast between the condition of the workers in the factories and the workers on the land. I congratulate those men who have been able to secure between £3 and £6 a week in the factories, and I have no hesitation in saying that they have earned every penny they have got by hard and strenuous labour, but, owing to the economic conditions under which most of the profit goes to the factory, we are not in a position to give to the junior partner in agriculture what he ought to receive in regard to the development of the industry which, I understood was the purpose for which the subsidy was intended. On this point I associate myself with the view expressed by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) to the effect that a little inquiry would do no harm, and it might bring some moral suasion to bear on the proprietors of the factories to be more easy in making their bargains, having regard to the fortunate position in which they are now placed.
        May I remind hon. Members that this beet sugar industry provides only a seasonal occupation, and the 19 factories throw out of employment at this season of the year several thousand men, and there is no unemployment pay for them. More unfortunate still, in the localities where these factories are placed unemployment is already rife and work is difficult to secure. I submit that this House cannot always forget this further corollary to the development of the sugar beet industry. I very much appreciate the new spirit which has been displayed in this House in regard to the mutual desire to build up this industry on sound

        393
        economic lines, although I deprecate the action of certain hon. Members who are trying to create the idea that hon. Members sitting on the Government benches are antagonistic to the development and the improvement of agriculture. Some of us are very much wrapped up in the agricultural industry, and our lives from the cradle to the present moment have been concentrated on an honest desire to make that great industry what it ought to be, namely, one of the greatest industries of this country. In the carrying out of this task, whether we are dealing with the development of the sugar beet industry or trying to stabilise prices, at least we should be given credit for having good intentions, and we shall be showing that we are friends of the agricultural industry if we do our best to make this proposal a nucleus for a new start to achieve better things on wider lines.
        Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I think the Minister of Agriculture is very lucky to have received so much approbation in regard to the success of his proposals. It has been pointed out that the success of the sugar beet industry is largely due to the subsidies, one of which we are now discussing. I know that a good many doubts have been expressed as to the wisdom of subsidising these beet sugar factories. May I point out in regard to this subsidy that there are other processes developing like the system which is being developed by the Oxford Research School on the farm at Eynsham. The Minister of Agriculture has taken credit for being the parent of part of this policy because he appointed a Committee to look into this question. That has developed. The late Minister of Agriculture gave a grant for a research fund at Oxford, and that has developed into this process, which I believe will do more to save the taxpayer from further big subsidies, and to put the sugar beet industry on a self-supporting basis, than any other process at present known. I do not want to go into details, but this is a matter of substance. The investigation has been going on for three years, and, at the present price of 46s. per ton to the grower, the net cost per ton worked out, during the three years 1998–31, with the subsidy at £8 8s. 10d. as it is now, at £14 5s. 1d. In 1931–34, when the subsidy will be reduced, there will still be a profit. When
        394
        the subsidy has been reduced to £1 6s. 1d., the cost per ton will work out at £21 7s. 10d., and, in view of the fact that the average price of sugar over the last five years has been £27, the process at all events will be able to pay its way, whatever other sugar beet factories may do. These costs are calculated on the basis of the present price to the farmer, namely, 46s. per ton. Of course, new experiments always require a lot of money and time, but this factory at Eynsham is now working—
        Mr. HURD: Are those figures obtained on a commercial scale, or on an experimental scale?
        Brigadier-General BROWN: On a commercial scale. The reason why they are able to work more cheaply than the other factories is because they work all the year round. The factory itself works for 10 months of the year instead of for only three months, and, therefore, it can deal with 100,000 tons of beet, working every month in the year, with a much smaller plant than is required to deal with 100,000 tons when working for only three months.
        There are also great economies in transport and freightage. Reference has been made to the great cost of sending the beets to the factory, but in the case of the Oxford process they have two drying stations, which cost very much less than the other 19 factories. These drying stations are within carting distance of the factory, and can take roots from a radius of 18 miles. It has been calculated that about 25 square miles are required to produce 100,000 tons of beet, and under this system the whole of that beet is carted, and does not have to be carried by rail at all. It is dried and kept until it is wanted, and then it is sent to the factory itself. The great economies effected by this process are well worth the study of the Minister. It is no longer in the experimental stage, as some of us saw it two years ago. This year they have sold 1,000 tons of their cossettes, such as we saw at one of these drying stations, to the Colwick factory, where the sugar has been extracted. Whether the claims made for this process are right or not, it seem" to me that the matter ought to be looked into, with a view to enabling the subsidy to be reduced in the future, and more equal payments made to the farmers. One great advantage is that about two-thirds of the labour employed

        395
        is permanent skilled labour employed for the whole year. It is true that for three months of the year, when all the beets are coming in, extra labour has to be hired, to the extent of perhaps 100 men at each factory, for three months, as casual labour, but the work is far more permanent than under the present system. I hope that this process will be looked into, because I think that if the claims are made good, it will do more to help the future of the sugar beet industry than any other process can.
        Mr. ROSBOTHAM: This Debate is far more opportune than some which have taken place during the present week, especially as the object is to do something in the better interests of the cultivation of the soil and of the agricultural industry. I support the Estimate because sugar beet affords an additional rotation, and that, at the present time, is very important in connection with agriculture. Sugar beet growing not only helps to clean the land, but also helps to fertilise it. Sugar beet has the property of absorbing nitrogen from the atmosphere and storing it in the soil. It therefore helps to increase the fertility of the soil, and it also makes a fine seed bed in preparation for a good crop of wheat. It also affords another source of food supply, and helps to make us more independent of foreign supplies. I do not agree that all the money is taken from the National Exchequer. I maintain that the Sugar Beet Subsidy helps to provide sugar at a lower price for the working classes of this country. It finds employment, too, at a time when labour is taken away from the land, when the weather is not fit for outdoor work, such as ploughing and so forth, and that, also, is a national benefit.
        Then there is the advantage that it-relieves the area which has been under potatoes. At the present time we are in a difficulty with our potatoes. We cannot sell them, and, if we grew more sugar beet, and so relieved the acreage for potatoes, it would help that industry as well, while we should have plenty of potatoes left for our own food supplies. For these reasons I vote for this Supplementary Estimate with much pleasure, and I trust that the Minister of Agriculture will be able to advise the Government to continue the subsidy in future
        396
        years. I think it will be a calamity for the cultivation of the soil and for the agricultural industry if this subsidy is not continued. A further advantage of this crop is that it affords increased supplies of food for cattle, in the form of the dried pulp, and that also is worthy of consideration. As a cultivator of the soil and one who is deeply interested in farming, I support the Supplementary Estimate and hope it will pass.
        Mr. LOUIS SMITH: I am pleased to have an opportunity of saying how delighted I am to hear the expressions of satisfaction from the other side of the Committee at the success of the sugar beet industry. It is not often that some of us who are of an economical turn of mind are able so gladly and willingly to support one of these Votes, but in this case, bearing in mind the distressed condition of agriculture at the moment, it is good to know that an increase is necessary. The only word of criticism that we have heard has come from the benches below the Gangway, and I am really surprised to hear some of that criticism. I feel that, so far as this industry is concerned, we are greatly indebted to the vigorous organisation which has been brought into being by the beet sugar factories in this country from the very start, and I am not at all sure that, had it not been for the keen business ability behind those factories, any money would have been made out of the industry up to the present. It is all very well to talk about a certain beet sugar factory making a big dividend, but there are other factories that have not done so well, and when one realises how much energy and really good business ability is behind these factories, it is not a matter for surprise that they have on the whole done reasonably well.
        It must be remembered that these factories are doing a great deal for the farmer. They supply him with seed, they find his labour for him, and pay for it long before they get their money. They also furnish him with manures on long credit terms, they send him the labour for getting in his crop, and they not only find the money for the labour but take a great deal of trouble in providing it in outlying parts where the farmer himself has difficulty in obtaining it. Then they organise the transport of the beet from the farm to the factory, and in

        397
        many ways they have reduced the cost of handling the crop, and so have made it possible for the farmer to get his return, which is always certain. In my opinion, even if the return to the factories is, perhaps, more than the average bank interest return, they have certainly earned it. I do not know whether it is quite realised how much the factories are responsible for the big increase in the acreage. The farmer is naturally a conservative person and does not readily change his crops. When we see that at least 300,000 acres will be grown this year, we can realise that a tremendous advance has taken place. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not only give us the sympathy which he has so well expressed to-night, but that he will go further, and see whether it is not possible to continue the subsidy after 1934.
        The sugar beet industry has also brought advantages to other industries. Large sums are spent for bags and for manures, as well as for all the other supplies required by the factories and farmers, so that it has a far-reaching effect, not only on agriculture generally, but on the industrial populations of our towns. I understand that the factories to-day are employing over 8,000 men, and (hat, since the subsidy has been in existence, £2,250,000 has been paid in wages. I cannot think of any reason why this subsidy should not be supported by the whole country. It is indeed pleasing to know that from the other side of the House the subsidy is having increasing support. It is not as if the price of sugar had advanced. With sugar cheaper in this country than in any other part of the world there is no reason at all to criticise the industry on that account. I am very pleased to have an opportunity of saying a word in defence of the factory organisation, though I hold no brief for them, because I feel that they have helped the farmer to develop the sugar beet business and, as this has been such a Godsend to agriculture this year, I hope we shall see very many years of further prosperity for the industry.
        Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I will not trouble the Committee with any observations upon the general principles of the Supplementary Estimate as it has been ably analysed and supported by my hon. Friends on these benches. But I wish to
        398
        draw attention to a Paper the right hon. Gentleman has issued, No. 43, published on 24th December, 1929, dealing with a statement in the form of balance sheets transmitted to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I feel some hesitation in drawing attention to a matter of accounts, because the right hon. Gentleman is really not personally responsible for the form of accounts, but officially, pf course, he is responsible for them. I hope he will not take offence and call me insolent, because I say that he is not responsible for the accounts, as his colleague did the other day when I said very courteously that I did not hold him responsible. I think he is not likely to fall foul of me. There was a large amount of discussion in the Standing Committee on the Companies Bill on auditors' certificates before the new Companies Act came into law. Two of the greatest supporters of the view that there should be more responsibility on auditors in auditors' certificates were the present First Lord of the Admiralty and the hon. Lady the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who both made some very strong and, I think, on the whole, justifiable observations about auditors' certificates. Now, notwithstanding the views there expressed, though they did not become law, we have these two recent balance sheets sent to us in a form with which I must say I am not in full accord. Although I criticise the form I am quite satisfied that they are completely honest and honourable balance sheets. This Paper deals with the public money and the refineries, otherwise I do not know why it is laid as a Parliamentary Paper under the Subsidy Act of 1925.
        The CHAIRMAN: Has this anything to do with the Estimate that is before us?
        Mr. SAMUEL: I will read the title:
        "British Sugar Subsidy Act, 1925, Ministry of Agriculture. Statement in the form of Balance Sheet submitted to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, Section 2, Refineries Ordered to be printed 24th December, 1929, No. 43."
        The CHAIRMAN: I am anxious to know whether it has anything to do with the Estimate that is before us now.
        Mr. SAMUEL: Yes. It is presumably on those figures that the subsidy is paid. I am drawing attention to the form in

        399
        which the figures are shown, because public money is involved in this Supplementary Estimate and we have to deal with the White Paper on these lines. I know very well that no chartered accountant, in giving an auditor's certificate of this kind, can make chattel valuations or put a value on so many tons of sugar or syrup, or on materials as described in the balance sheets in my hands, but there appears here an item of £2,619,000 as the valuation of stocks of sugar. Does the right hon. Gentleman in accepting this balance sheet accept responsibility for the statement in the auditor's certificate that "we have accepted the valuation of the stock on hand certified by the directors"? Because upon that valuation in some degree depends the validity of the profit and loss balance. I have no doubt the figures are perfectly correct, and the mere fact that I believe them to be correct gives me further licence in criticising this first balance sheet. But the form in which it is presented after what was said upstairs in the discussion of the Companies Bill does not satisfy us. It may satisfy people outside. Private shareholders may accept the old forms of auditors' certificates, but this form in a balance sheet is not in future going to satisfy the House of Commons, and when the time comes I shall, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, put in a protest against the form these two certificates take. It says on page 3, on the left-hand side, "Profit and Loss Account as above, £627,717." There is no other reference to that amount anywhere in this balance sheet. Where is it? There is no profit and loss account before us; it is omitted but referred to. That shows the sloppy way in which these accounts are produced. Again, I find this:
        "We have obtained all the information and explanation we have required which have been promptly and satisfactorily given."
        That is mere wind and useless verbiage. Does it mean that information has sometimes not been promptly and satisfactorily given? If not, why is it now stated that the information has been given promptly? The next thing we shall have in these accounts is a statement that the office boy's tie is of the right colour to
        400
        satisfy the auditors. It has nothing to do with the accounts.
        It is felt that in honest concerns auditors' certificates add nothing to the value of a director's signature. That is the case here. This is not a case of the safety of shareholders' property. It is public-money at stake and the accounts are submitted to the House of Commons. In the case of a badly managed concern an auditor's certificate might possibly be not only useless as a protection, but might give a false sense of security. On the next occasion, unless the Minister can arrange for a much more searching type of certificate, with the responsibility of the auditors for what they are saying, and with the omission of things that mean nothing, we shall move a reduction of the Vote.
        The balance sheet on the other side of the White Paper is laughable. It says, without any approval or disapproval:
        "No provision has been made for depreciation of refinery, plant and machinery. Subject to this, we are of opinion that such balance sheet is properly drawn up."
        In other words, subject to that item, which is the pivot of the whole value of the certificate as showing whether a loss or profit has been made the balance sheet has been properly drawn up. In other words, in pompous verbiage, the auditors state that their work is nothing but a vehicle for obtaining information from the directors for which they do not vouch, for dealing with stocks and stores for the valuation of which they are not responsible, and for obtaining book-keepers' figures of which they are only adders-up. This auditor's certificate is not worth the paper it is written on as a protection. The auditors do not even say whether the fact that provision has net been made for depreciation of refinery, plant and machinery is in their opinion a legitimate and prudent omission or whether the omission vitiates or affects adversely the value of the figures given in the profit and loss account. I ask the Minister whether be will take steps to make a protest to auditors who draw up our sugar balance sheets, and notify them that in future we will not accept certificates in which the auditors shirk all responsibility for the material they use and quote. Auditors should not give us certificates based on figures of which they

        401
        have only second-hand cognizance. We do not ask auditors to value so many hundredweights of molasses or sugar or so many dozen boxes. But if they cannot value them they should state definitely that they have merely taken figures given them by the bookkeepers and managers, and add that they have no means of knowing whether they are correct or not, and that the Government themselves must satisfy themselves that the value of the stocks is as shown in the balance-sheet. I have made my protest. I shall not oppose the Vote, but in the interest of candid accounting I think the House should put its foot down and insist upon auditors taking proper responsibility for what is certified by them. Second-hand knowledge unvouched for by auditors is no protection and is not acceptable as evidence in balance-sheets laid before the House of Commons, and should not be used as material for an auditor's certificate.
        6.0 p.m.
        The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I think we can congratulate ourselves upon particular unanimity in this Debate, for, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), there appears to have been no hostile criticism. Apparently the scheme, so we are told, dates from the advent of Napoleon. I was not in this House at the time the present scheme was started—I was compulsorily away—so that I was an interested listener of the animadversions of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and my right hon. Friend here as to who was precisely the parent of this scheme. At all events, there is a singular consensus of opinion that the results of its operations are very beneficial. Therefore, there is nothing, as far as I am concerned, in the Vote to defend, but there are a few points, more or less of inquiry, to which I shall reply. A request was made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) with respect to the reports as to the factory profits and the general conditions of the beet-sugar industry, to show, as far as we can, how much the farmer receives and how much of the benefit goes down to the worker, and so on. The inquiry which was promised by my right hon. Friend was instituted some time ago. It
        402
        is now being carried on, and we hope to be able to publish a good and complete result of that inquiry in the form of one of our orange books in the economic series of publications of the Ministry. I am sure it will be a very valuable Report, and I hope, although I cannot name a date, that it will be ready for publication by about June. The inquiry, I am glad to say, is already well advanced.
        Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in June a conference will take place between the growers and the beet factors, and that it is most essential that this Report should be published before that date.
        Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member is no doubt fully aware that an inquiry of this kind, which was instituted only a short time ago, requires a lot of actuarial work and necessitates a great many journeys. Inquiries are not limited to this country. We have to get Continental experience as well. I can assure the hon. Member that we shall get on with it as quickly as possible but I should not like to say that it will be published before June. I can say that in the very short time we have had in which to deal with the matter we have got on as quickly as possible.
        Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Is it not possible to publish this Report before June, and will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that an official from his office is present at the negotiations between the growers and the factors in order to ensure that the growers have a fair deal?
        Dr. ADDISON: We are always in very close contact with the growers not only during the conduct of negotiations, but before that time. I can assure the hon. Member that his misgivings are not altogether well-founded. We find, almost without exception, that while the farmers are always glad to have a little more, on the whole, I think it is fair to say that they are not dissatisfied. There is a good deal to be paid for the farmers. They are not dissatisfied with the result of their bargain with the factories. I may say that the bargain this year is 46s. as the basic price, but I believe that, owing to the good weather and the good yield and

        403
        the sugar content, the average price is working out at about 52s.—very many shillings more than the basic price. The mere fact that the acreage has extended so unexpectedly in the country is the best and most practical proof that the farmers as a whole find this as remunerative a part of their work as any. I think it is fair to say that in some parts of the country it has been almost the salvation of agriculture this year, and that it has been the one crop, practically, in regard to which they could say that they had done good.
        With regard to the complaint made by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) concerning the balance sheet—and I confess I share his view in some respects—I will see that the criticisms which he has made are considered. We will certainly do our best to deal with any faults which may be found in the form of the accounts. Under the Subsidy Act we are entitled to receive accounts from the companies and factories every year, but in this particular case the company concerned renders an account which deals with vastly more than that which is concerned with beet sugar. This is a very large firm of refiners as the hon. Member is aware, and these details relate apparently to their business as a whole.
        Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: If the right hon. Gentleman will turn to the back of the White Paper No. 43 he will find a very much smaller account—that of the Sankey Sugar Company. The total is £734,000, as against £11,300,000 of the Tate and Lyle Company. I refer to the Sankey Sugar Company's balance sheet on the back of White Paper No. 43. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that when you look at the words "no provision," etc., and then apply them to this company's position the balance sheet becomes a farce. Seeing that this "no provision" may vitiate the whole result and may alter the stated net profit or loss he cannot expect the House of Commons to accept such a balance sheet as a serious document showing a true test of the company's affairs.
        Dr. ADDISON: I can promise the hon. Member that we will look into the matter in the light of his criticism, but I would point out that these companies do not
        404
        get any of the subsidy which is under discussion at the moment. However, I will do my best to give effect to the hon. Member's criticism. There are, as far as I can see, no other points on which I was asked to make any reply, and I think there is a unanimous disposition to grant us this Supplementary Estimate. I think we can say that the mere size of it shows that there is a growing appreciation in the industry of agriculture of all that is implied in this kind of thing. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Miss Picton-Turbervill) dealt with one of the most significant features of this matter. It is introducing into agriculture a new conception of method and a new and wider co-relation between the different parties who take part in the processes of the industry. It is bringing the factory and the producer nearer together; it is getting them familiar through working together. It is bringing improved methods to the notice of the producer and he is obtaining direct benefit, and in many ways, I think, it is assisting agriculture and in an indirect way will be of permanent value. I think that the lessons which we are gradually learning from the improved operations of this process will be applicable in various ways to the marketing of other agricultural commodities. Finally, in respect of the illustration mentioned by an hon. Member on the back benches, I can say that we are fully in touch with the improved methods in the factories to which he refers. We are fully alive to the significance of the improved methods which may be introduced, because the weak point in this factory system, and the one we should do all we can to try to remedy, is that it is so essentially a seasonal work. It means that for so many weeks there is unemployment. Any alteration in method which can secure to these factories a longer working period will be an advantage.
        Mr. HURD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a report of the present condition of the Eynsham experiment as to how far it has gone and as to how far it has proved a commercial scheme?
        Dr. ADDISON: As a matter of fact, I cannot. I have spent a great deal of time in investigating this particular case, and if I were quite certain in my own mind I should be clad to say so. I can

        405
        only say that the results commercially and otherwise of this particular experiment are now under careful examination and we shall be delighted if the experiment proves to be commercially sound. I would not like to say any more except that we wish it well; it is a very important experiment. I think I have dealt with all the various points, which were quite minor ones, and in view of the entirely friendly attitude shown in this Debate, I hope that we shall now be given this Supplementary Estimate.
        Sir G. COLLINS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman by administration do something to stop subsidised factories from buying foreign sugar, and melting is in these factories at the expense of the national industry of sugar refining?
        Dr. ADDISON: I find that we have no power to do that. The factories, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, do refine raw sugar which is imported and, therefore, provide work in the slack period. I am fully alive to the importance of the point which the hon. Member has brought to my attention. We have not, under the Act, any power to deal with the matter, but I will look into it, and perhaps later on he will communicate with the Department.
        Major GEORGE DAVIES: I make no apology for taking part in this Debate, owing to the fact that I have been connected with the sugar industry in various aspects for over 40 years. I was surprised that an hon. Friend of mine expressed surprise that Members of the party below the Gangway had objected to this subsidy in detail and in general. Surely that affords us no surprise. It must, indeed, be a day of lamentations of Members below the Gangway. We can see them seeking the nearest wailing wall, and laying their heads against it. This is a most extraordinary Debate to those of us who, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister reminded us, have sat in times past and heard my right hon. Friend sitting in front of me bring forward these Estimates on three occasions when the party opposite were on this side of the House. We know full well the attitude of hon. Members opposite on those occasions. How different is the Debate to-day when one hon. Member after another, admittedly new to the House, has taken part in this Debate and has spoken sympathetically, not only towards
        406
        this particular Supplementary Estimate, but towards the whole industry of agriculture. We remember very well the part that was played by one whose absence we regret at this moment. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. He never lost an opportunity of standing at that Box whenever the question came up and denouncing it with a Parliamentary vocabulary of polished phrases of which I envy him. We know that:
        "He polished his phrases so admirably
        That now he is ruler of the King's Navee."
        That may possibly point to a moral and adorn a tale for hon. Members opposite who have not been in the House long. If, for example, some of the younger occupants of the benches opposite, say the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley), had, in the past, when he was in Opposition, polished his phrases a little more carefully, in those oratorical treats to which he allowed us to listen, he might to-day, instead of tagging behind in the wake of the Lord Privy Seal, like the exhaust from a large Rolls-Royce, have been occupying one of the seats of the mighty. That, I suggest, is the possible result of phrase polishing.
        The First Lord of the Admiralty was not the only one who ventured to pour the vials of criticism on the Estimates that we brought forward with respect to sugar beet. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) seldom lost an opportunity of taking part in those Debates, and when he found that Homer was nodding—that is, I hope, a graceful and, I hope, a Parliamentary allusion to yourself, Mr. Speaker—he was bold enough to try to drag in reference to his favourite hobby, not unconnected with the taxation of land values. It is indeed a refreshing thing that there has been such a change and that so much sweet reasonableness has been shown by hon. Members opposite, from the Minister downwards. It shows not only that there is a great change of attitude on the part of hon. Members opposite, as well as a change of side in the House, but we are finding on the benches opposite a desire to understand the agricultural problem which is to-day occupying the minds of so many people, and a realisation on their part that it is a problem that needs solution.

        407
        The hon. Member for The Wrekin Division (Miss Picton-Turbervill) in her interesting speech, all too short, said that a veritable miracle had been wrought in the country by this piece of legislation with respect to the sugar beet industry. That is true. I have been closely connected with the sugar industry in the growing of the sugar cane, the manufacture of cane sugar, the manufacture of beet sugar, the designing and erection of sugar factories and refineries. Therefore, I know the difficulties of starting a new enterprise in a country which is already old in its experience of cane sugar manufacture. I have taken part in the sugar industry in Formosa, in the Philippines, in Cuba, in Porta Rica, in Mexico and in this country—all countries which have been manufacturing cane sugar for a longer or shorter period of time. When you start a new sugar undertaking in such countries, with all the various points of view that have to be taken into consideration—the water supply, the general lay-out, the fibre content, the sucrose content, the water content of the raw material, the opportunities for marketing, etc., even vast as your experience may have been, you find that when you have established your factory you have made miscalculations, and the first year or two is a time of difficulty and unfulfilled expectation.
        Nevertheless, we see before our eyes in this country, in a few years, a great industry such as the sugar beet industry set up; an industry which has feeding it an acreage of 300,000 this year, 33½ per cent. more than last year, and with prospects next year of an additional 33⅓ per cent. of acreage. Yet hon. Members on the Liberal Benches, because they find this policy has been a success, despite their prognostications to the contrary—according to their theories it never should have been a success—tell us that it is not a success because, they say, the factory is getting more than its fair share of the profit. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are not they"?] When we look at the increasing acreage, we can confidently leave that matter to those concerned. One hon. Member says, "Are not they?" I say that they are not, because the law of supply and demand takes place, and if the factory cannot get the crop coming to it, then that
        408
        factory is so much steel, iron and comcrete. Therefore the farmer can bargain for a fair price. The factories were compelled to offer sufficient inducements for the farmers to grow the crop. Is it not evidence that that inducement has been sufficient, when we note the increase of acreage? The criticism is that with the number of factories that are growing up in the country it will be a question of them being able to pick and choose. A bigger acreage is being offered to them than they can cope with, unless we can get an extensive development of the Oxford Eynsham system, which will enable the factory to run for a 10 months' period instead of a three months period.
        I regret that the figures are not greater. The figures would have been greater if we had had a sugar factory erected and in operation in the South of England. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should keep that matter in the forefront of his attention during the next few weeks, if he is going to be in office, and see if he cat not encourage development down there. The acreage is waiting, but for reasons which it is not proper or material to enter into now, the factory is not there. The transportation to Ipswich is becoming prohibitive, and this will be accentuated when the next crop is ready. This industry differs from most agricultural industries. It is not merely the growing of agriculture, but it represents also manufacturing processes. The sugar beet is useless unless it is made into the manufactured article. In regard to sugar beet the raw material deteriorates between the time of harvesting and manufacture, there is a loss of sucrose content and complaint on the part of the grower. That is why it is desirable that by some system of crop drying you can deal with your agricultural product and store it without depreciation. That is the real objective of the Oxford Eynsham process, and I wish it every success. I was not surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary said that he wished it well, but he was not able to commit himself with regard to it. It is a process which has been agitating the minds of those connected with the industry for 25 years, and they have not yet solved it. It is to be hoped that we are on the track of solving it, because its solution will mean a revolution in the

        409
        sugar industry of this country and the world in general.
        There are many subsidiary advantages from this industry. There is the advantage to the factory, to the grower, to the employé in the factory and in the field. These advantages do not always receive due consideration. There was a time in the conduct of the sugar industry when the most important person was the agriculturist who grew the crop. Then the engineer-minded man who looked after the machine became the most important person. Next, the business man who ran the concern was regarded as the most important person. But Java, one of the foremost sugar countries of the world, has led the world in saying that it is the chemist who is the really important person in the industry, from production in the field to the production of the finished article. One after another the other countries are finding out that, probably, the most important person in the industry is the chemical director. The sugar industry is a highly chemical industry, and there is a great opportunity for the products of our universities—the young men who want to go into scientific courses which they can turn to practical results, and not merely spend their lives peering through the microscope—to take their university degree in science and turn their acquired knowledge into commercial channels, as many of them must do. This new sugar industry offers them a great field. We have set up a new industry and there are 19 factories to-day which require on their staffs highly expert chemists. That is one of the important features in the development of this brand new British industry.
        What is going to happen a short time hence, I do not know. I do not know whether we shall have to face the absolute disappearance of the subsidy, for which the hon. Member for Burslem has been looking for years. Hope deferred maketh the heart sick, and one can almost note from here the sickness of the hon. Member's heart. No doubt he looks forward to the time when he will be able, with his facile pencil, to draw a caricature of the burial of the once flourishing sugar beet industry. We can only hope that his expectations will not be fulfilled. After the testimony that has been brought forward from two-thirds of the House in
        410
        favour of this industry, and the experience of those of us who know something at first hand about this matter, is the country to be faced with a continuance of the period when these Estimates will come forward annually with respect to this industry, or is the House to be faced with the complete elimination of the sugar beet industry, and all that its development stands for in our agricultural and industrial life? Whatever the wails from the walls below the Gangway may be, those of us who claim common sense in regard to this matter will see to it that we are not so short-sighted as to allow that industry to disappear and to leave only the scars of it on the countryside.
        Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: One or two points have been raised with regard to the cultivation contract in force which have not been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman who responded to the Debate, and I should like to say a few words on the subject. Suggestions have been made by hon. Members who could not have had any close personal acquaintance with the contracts or the way in which they were prepared. I am in the fortunate position of being on both sides of the negotiations, because I am a factory director and also a contract grower. It may interest the Committee and those who imagine that there is any possibility of one side or the other not getting a fair deal, to know that when the last national contract was prepared, the factory books were placed, without reserve, before the accountants of the National Farmers' Union, and every effort was made by both sides to arrive at a fair deal, on the fullest examination of the facts. I have not the slightest doubt that the same thing will happen again on the next occasion when the contracts are revised.
        I would remind the hon. Member who said that two-thirds of the subsidy went to the factories and one-third only to the farmers, that that statement is very far from being the case. To prove my statement I would mention what happened when the subsidy fell from 19s. 6d. to 13s. That fall of 6s. 6d. per cwt. is the precise equivalent of a drop of £1 per ton of cleaned beet of 15 per cent. sugar content delivered at the factory. The intention was that that drop of £1 per ton should be shared

        411
        equally by each side to the bargain, that the farmer should get 10s. per ton less for his beet and the factories should pay 10s. more than they did before. After an examination of the accounts the factories expressed their willingness to bear 12s. of the crop, and 12s. was and is being borne by the factories and 8s. by the farmers. Those are the bald facts.
        The strongest evidence that farmers generally are not dissatisfied with their treatment is shown by the very large increase in the area under cultivation. It rose to 230,000 acres in the year which is just over, and has jumped to well over 300,000 acres for the season which is in front of us. With regard to the amazingly inaccurate figures given by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) as to the cost of cultivation and the receipts, I can only give my own experience on this matter. If I had known the question was coming up I could have brought further figures. I have to send my beet to Ipswich, a long distance away and fairly costly, but in spite of that my receipts this season for sugar beet were more than double the cultivation costs, even when I have made full allowance for rent, which I do not have to pay because the land is my own. My early deliveries brought me in £45 an acre in cash under the national contract. The cost of cultivation was £19 per acre, and I added to that 25s. per acre for rent. As the weather deteriorated later and heavy rains came on I did not get the same receipts, but my total receipts for the season are more than double the total costs, and that has been the experience of many other growers during the past year. I admit that it has been an exceptionally favourable year.
        Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that second class land yields anything like the return that he has mentioned?
        Sir G. COURTHOPE: The land I am speaking of would be considered, not second class, but third class land by most beet growers. It is a heavy clay soil. I admit that in 1928 I made a loss, but in 1929 I made a satisfactory profit, and I do not think there is any reason for a farmer to quarrel with the results of his returns in sugar beet. In fact, many of us have found that it is the only satis
        412
        factory item in our farming profit and loss account. I only wish there were more factories so that we could grow more. From the farmers' point of view the special value of this crop is not alone that we get a profit upon it but that it is a first class cleaning crop, which improves the land, and it is the only first class cleaning crop which can be sold for cash immediately after harvest. All other crops, mangolds, swedes, mean that we have to wait for a hypothetical profit; until you have put them into animals and then wait for an uncertain market for beef and mutton. Sugar beet you sell for cash directly after harvest, and you clean your land in the process of cultivation. It is of the greatest value to agriculture. May I remind the Committee, in conclusion, of this remarkable fact, that the whole scheme of the subsidy was based on the asumption that the world price of granulated sugar would not fall below 45s. per cwt. It has fallen to about half that amount and after overcoming many difficulties by good management the industry has been established, I do not say on a satisfactory basis but at least on a substantial basis which I hope will be extended rather than diminished in the future.
        Mr. BUTLER: I desire to detain the Committee only for a few moments. Since I have been in the House I have been impressed by the very few opportunities we have for discussing any problems connected with agriculture, and I regard it as a matter of principle that when the subject of agriculture is discussed it should be gone into as closely and as effectively as possible. This is a subject on which I should like to dwell because more than one question has been raised of interest to my constituents, such as the merits of the subsidy and other analogous matters, but I realise that we are considering a Supplementary Estimate and my business is to stick solely to that point. I could go on for a long time pointing out various other matter connected with the growing of sugar beet. In the area I represent there is a factory, and it has been the absolute saving of the district. We have more unemployed than any other rural area, and but for the sugar beet industry we should have been absolutely in the depths of unemployment, because many more families would have been unemployed but for the

        413
        opportunity they have had of going into the sugar beet factory. Some hon. Members will perhaps remember the saying of Disraeli in one of his books:
        "Strange that a manufacture which charms infancy and soothes old age should so frequently occasion political disaster."
        He was referring to sugar. There has been a remarkable unanimity on both sides of the Committee this evening, and it seems that the "manufacture which charms infancy and soothes old age," has, in fact, charmed both sides of the Committee this afternoon. In considering this Supplementary Vote this evening we have to decide whether there is any reason for uncertainty in estimating. If we look at the historical growth of the industry, both in this country and in Europe, we shall find that there is a great risk for uncertainty in estimating the probable amount of money necessary. The Minister of Agriculture referred to a character in history—Mr. Pitt. Let me refer to another character who was a descendant of Pitt's great antagonist—Napoleon III. Any hon. Member who has read the rather voluminous documents which were written by that gentleman in his retirement in the fortress of Ham, will remember that he agrees that there is always bound to be uncertainty in this problem; and as it was in his day, so it is now. There is bound to be uncertainty in estimating, and I agree with the Minister that the uncertainty is not remarkable. Nor is it remarkable when you consider questions of soil and climate, and many other matters which have to be considered before you can bring the crop to fruition.
        I should like to mention the question of the problem of soils. There is a great difference between different types of soil. The hon. and gallant Member for the Rye Division (Sir G. Courthope) has told us that his area is clay soil. My area is also clay soil, and there are, of course, difficulties in the cultivation of this crop. Is it necessary there should be such great uncertainty, if in the future the question of soils could be taken into account in considering any question of subvention? I admit that subvention on a soil basis has been put forward by Mr. Venn, of the Agricultural Research Department at Cambridge, and I think it is worthy of consideration for the future. The hon. Member for The Wrekin Division (Miss Picton-Turbervill) has said that the
        414
        sugar beet subsidy is often taken as an example of what might happen in the future as regards a subvention to agriculture; and if that is the case surely it is worth while going scientifically into the question of estimating the amount of crop. If we go into the matter in a scientific way we shall be able to learn important facts which will assist us in our future policy in relation to price and in regard to framing our programme for the future. Uncertainty is natural in sugar beet. I should like, however, to have heard from the Minister more explanation on the question of different soils in different parts of the country, and if this could be gone into by experts it would have a bearing on the future agricultural policy of this country. I hope this point will receive consideration.
        Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: I should like to say a few words from the farmers' point of view. I have grown sugar beet myself, but on very poor soil; chalky soil. But the growing of this crop has paid me better than growing wheat on the same land. We have no sugar factory in my constituency. We have been trying to get one, and the farmers are agreed that if they could only get a factory erected in a convenient spot to which they could carry their roots easily, so that the cost of the carriage would not be too great, they are confident that they would be able to make a profit on the crop, whereas up to the present there has been nothing but a loss. I do not think the question of soil comes in so much. It is uncertain; but you can grow more wheat to the acre on a rich soil than on a stiff clay soil. I was getting 12 tons of sugar beet to the acre; but if we could average throughout the country between eight tons and 10 tons, then the crop would be a paying one. We have to look at it not only from the actual price we obtain for the roots but from the point of view that we are able to get food afterwards for our dairy cattle and that we are also cleaning the land in cultivating the crop. At the same time, we are getting a better price than we should get for any other root crop. If this industry comes to an end it will not only be a great blow to farmers who are growing roots and sugar beet, but to the country as a whole, because we have developed an industry in an article which we now recognise as

        415
        being a necessity—sugar. We are employing many thousands of people, and although it may be only seasonal employment it is filling a gap in the unemployment ranks which otherwise would be further extended if the industry is not kept alive.
        Therefore, considering the amount of good which has already been done by the subsidy I hope that all parties, putting aside their political prejudices in connection with Free Trade, Protection or bounties, will look at it only from the point of view of the practical good which is being done to two sections of the community and as a help towards the problem of unemployment. I hope the House will hesitate a long time before it abolished what it has given so freely during the past years. I am confident that the growing of sugar beet will increase largely as long as the bounty is continued, but if we cease giving the bounty naturally the growing of beet for making into sugar will cease absolutely. There is no reason why we should not treble or quadruple the acreage under cultivation. By cultivating sugar beet we not only increase the amount of labour employed on the land—even those not engaged in farming know that the cultivation of an acre of beetroot will employ 10 times, in fact 20 times the amount of labour that an acre of grass would employ—but the land requires a considerable amount of artificials, and that means employment in other trades. Let us assume that we could quadruple the acreage at present under cultivation. We should then quadruple the number of people employed, not only in the farming industry directly concerned, but also in the factories. One can therefore see that thousands more would be employed directly and indirectly. We should look at the question entirely from the business, practical, farming and national point of view, and if we do that we shall all agree on the wisdom of continuing the subsidy.
        Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I do not think anyone will accuse me of anything but the deepest interest in this subject, particularly as I have had some small interest in the growing of all kinds of things for many years. I am interested in the subject also from other points of view. There are a few questions which I
        416
        would like to have answered, some by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, some by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and others by the Minister of Agriculture. We have had a most interesting speech from one hon. Member on the subject of soils. There is a line of research upon which the Minister might give us a little more information. As the growing of sugar beet is dependant on several factors, such as sun and the percentage of various chemical foods in the soil, the Minister ought to be able to tell us what soils are most suitable for the crop. It is conceivable that after a number of years the subsidy may run out. On the other hand it may be considered necessary, in the interests of the State, to extend the subsidy. It is equally conceivable that there may be an actual waste of money in the growing of sugar beet on certain soils, while on other soils the crop might be highly profitable.
        Can the Minister give us some information as to the researches of his Department? Will he tell us frankly what are the most suitable soils? One hon. Member said that he has poor soil but gets very good results. Another hon. Gentleman has said that he has clay soil and that that is the worst of all. There is a very large amount of information which the House ought to be given. The Minister made a most interesting statement as to the effect of last summer and the exceptionally dry September in producing a high percentage of sugar in the crop. The autumn rains came on, and the crop continued to grow unnaturally. Will the Minister say whether that expansion, though of course it meant that the bulk was greater, was profitable? I can conceive that if the crop is left in the ground too long there may be a direct wastage of sugar. It may not be convenient for the Minister to give a full answer on this occasion, but can he give us any sort of idea on the matter?
        There can be no doubt that, in connection with a crop of this kind, any progress that can be made by scientific methods, by finding out the best varieties of seed and the length of time to leave the crop in the ground, ultimately must have a great effect on the value of the crop. There have been articles in the Press as to varieties of seed. Is the

        417
        Minister certain that we are growing the best variety of seed, and that we have free access to it? Are there any experiments in the growing of sugar beet seed in order to improve on the present-varieties? The right hon. Gentleman told us about the acreage under cultivation in 1924, last year and this year, and the prospective acreage next year. Has the Department formed any sort of estimate of the acreage for the next five years, or up to the time when the subsidy ends? When the subsidy dies, naturally or otherwise, what is the effect likely to be on the acreage? I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the increased acreage under cultivation so far reached. We had an amazingly interesting speech from the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Miss Picton-Turbervill) and there have been interesting speeches from other parts of the House, but I was hoping that we might have had other Members coming in and taking part in the Debate. I noted the absence of the venerable and right hon. Gentleman the Father of the House, the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He might have been here to-day telling us all about the future, and how he could reconcile this subsidy—
        Mr. MACPHERSON: He was here.
        7.0 p.m.
        Mr. WILLIAMS: He could have given us his experience as to the result of this subsidy. Let me ask a few questions from another angle. A great deal has been said about this money going into the pockets of the English farmer and manufacturer and worker, at all of which I thoroughly rejoice, but we have not been told anything about Scotland, what is the acreage of land under sugar-beet cultivation there. Are there any factories in Scotland? Can we be told the amount grown per acre, on the average, in Scotland compared with England? What is the percentage of sugar in the crop in Scotland compared with England, and in what counties are the crops grown? Then I should like to know what are the prospects of a factory being established in the West of England. As a matter of fact, the climatic conditions and the soil of the West are singularly suitable. Does the Minister see any prospect of an enlarged area of sugar-beet cultivation in the West? We have been given some general statistics relating to the whole
        418
        country. There are so many acres under cultivation, so many tons grown to the acre, and so much is paid in subsidy. Can the Minister say precisely what percentage of cost goes to the production of one pound or one ton of sugar in this country? We ought to have that information in a clear and definite way. One speaker earlier in the Debate told us that approximately 20 per cent. of the sugar consumed in this country is grown in this country. What percentage of the sugar consumed in this country is grown within the Empire? I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is dying to give me the information. It is a most important thing in these days to realise where our supplies come from. The hon. Member for Wrekin made a very able speech which for one moment almost made me suspect her of becoming a disciple of what is called Empire Free Trade. It was a very respectable and amiable thought, and one among many excellent things that she said—
        Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: On a point of Order. May I ask what Empire Free Trade has to do with the subject?
        The CHAIRMAN: Nothing at all.
        Mr. WILLIAMS: I realise that, and if my hon. Friend had listened with the attention that he should, he would have known what was the point that I was raising. We have been told that 20 per cent. comes from this country. I want to know the amount from the Empire and the amount from foreign countries as well. The hon. Lady told us in her speech that we were approaching the time when, thanks to the subsidy, we may become absolutely self-supporting. I would like to see that, although I do not believe in subsidies and do not think it is the best way to do it. I think we could have done what the subsidies do in a cheaper and better way, with money coming in instead of sending it out. However, I, should be out of order in discussing that. On the particular page we are discussing it says that the reduced estimate of the cost of the subsidy in 1929 is £4,500,000. The Excise duties and existing rates is estimated to yield in 1929 £1,580,000. I would like to know if this figure is the Excise duty for sugar grown in Great Britain, so that we can balance the position and know the amount paid for sugar

        419
        in this country. Otherwise, we shall not know whether we can freely vote for this particular subsidy.
        I have asked a few very simple questions of various Ministers. I say frankly that I do not like subsidies or think it is the best way, but probably this particular Vote is less wasteful than many that we vote in Supplementary Estimates. It is a definite help in many ways to farmers, to employers and to the manufacturing industry. Might not the Government, who have received a great deal of goodwill, have come to the House and, instead of leaving this duty on a temporary footing as we are asked to do to-day, have made the declaration: "As far as we are concerned, it may be that we shall have to reduce considerably the subsidy, but let us come to a broad national agreement." This industry is prosperous, it is growing and has proved good in every way. The subsidy as it stands, in lieu of something better, has almost universal support. I believe there are one or two odds and ends below the Gangway who do not support it, but there are always homes for lost causes. Would it not have been possible, however, to lay it down as a national principle and to appeal to the House, as a national council, to lay it down on a permanent footing, and tell the industry that it can look ahead for 15 or 20 years? If that had been done the Government would have done a far better work than giving us a few details and a few figures. Even now it is not too late for them to make a big, broad pronouncement of policy on this question that will help agriculture as a whole.
        Viscount WOLMER: I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary spoke so early in the day, because there are a number of questions which some of us on this side of the Committee were anxious to put. We get so few opportunities of questioning the Minister of Agriculture that we must avail ourselves fully of the opportunity to cross-examine the Government. The Minister of Agriculture, in laying his Estimate before the House, really told us very little. He gave us some very interesting statistics which we were all very glad to hear, showing what an enormous benefit this policy, which I am glad to say is now an agreed policy, has been to agriculture in certain
        420
        parts of the country. He did not tell us anything of the future, however, and I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, although it is perfectly true that we have got, I think, 19 factories working and this coming year we can look to 300,000 acres under this crop, giving employment to thousands of men and women, yet, if you look at the map, you will see that these factories and this industry are to a large extent localised in a particular part of this country. What is the result? That it is very difficult to spread the cultivation of the crop in other parts of England. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) spoke of the difficulties of growing sugar beet in Cornwall. That is also true of many other parts of the country, and yet we are faced with this fact that, according to the present plans, the subsidy is coming to an end in 1934, much to the approval of hon. Members opposite who have always opposed it when they have had a chance. Whether they are going to have the courage of their convictions and oppose it to-night we shall see. I want to ask the Government whether they expect, whether anybody expects, that we are likely to see any addition to the number of these very great and expensive factories in present circumstances.
        Of course, I admit that if the Eynsham process could be developed, or any other process by which you could have a number of very much cheaper factories dotted over the country, it would entirely revolutionise the situation, but I gather from the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon that; this is still problematical, and has no been proved on a commercial scale. We can look forward to the fact that then is practically no chance of an addition to the number of beet sugar factories of the type we know at present, because the subsidy is coming to an end so soon. Therefore, it seems to me that there is no chance of the sugar beet industry growing in those parts of England where it has not yet struck root and where at present there are no factories. What is the policy of the Minister for Agriculture in that respect? Because, although the results of this subsidy have been splendid as far as they have gone, I do not think that anybody who has agricultural interests at heart can be satisfied with the fact that there are whole counties not only in England

        421
        but in Scotland where the land and conditions are eminently suited to growing sugar beet which have no factory equipment to enable them to do so.
        The right hon. Gentleman did not say one word about his future policy. Even if Government supporters are so much against subsidies that they would be unable to indicate their willingness that the subsidy should be ultimately increased, surely it would be possible to say that, in the event of a factory being started in a new locality, a new subsidy of equal amount and duration with that given to the factories in the east of England would be extended to these new factories. Unless you do something of this kind you will not get factories extended appreciably in the west of England. I am well aware that we shall have the opposition of the watchdogs of the Labour party as well as the watchdogs of the Liberal party. It is quite sufficient for one to propose anything that is going to help agriculture to have the bulk of the Liberal party and of the Labour party against one. I understand the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) to say that that remark is very unfair. The hon. Member has spent the greater part of his Parliamentary career in fighting this sugar beet subsidy, and has, I think, spoken against it and voted against it on every possible occasion, but this afternoon he sits silent and muzzled because his Government are faced with the responsibility of carrying out this national policy. That is one great advantage of the Labour party being in power. They have to face up to their responsibilities on these occasions, and when next the Conservative party is returned to power—which is not very far off—I assure the hon. Member for Burslem that when he rises to oppose the sugar beet subsidy, as he certainly will, we shall remind him of his action this evening.
        I recognise that in this matter the Minister of Agriculture is far in advance of the bulk of his party, although he has no sort of claim to be considered the originator of the sugar beet policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who was?"] The originator was Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen. I think he was the first Minister of Agriculture to give encouragement and State financial assistance to the cultivation of this crop. The Labour party fought this policy tooth and nail in the past and
        422
        when they came into power in 1924 they mitigated it. The Conservative party carried it on in the mitigated form simply because we wanted continuity of policy. The Minister has said that in 1924 there were only 22,000 acres of land under this crop, whereas now there are going to be 300,000 acres, and he claimed that fact as an argument in favour of the particular form of assistance which the Labour party were willing to give. But it has nothing whatever to do with the particular form of assistance. What does affect the matter very much is that on a particular form of assistance we were able to get agreement between the two parties. We were able to tell the industry that there would be continuity of policy and that the Socialist party would not be obliged to reverse the policy. That is what has given the industry confidence, and has contributed towards enabling factories to be built and the acreage to increase. I commend the history of this industry to right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they are dealing with the McKenna Duties.
        The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): The Noble Lord is not allowed to discuss policy on a Supplementary Estimate. I have given him very wide latitude but I cannot allow him to go into all these matters.
        Viscount WOLMER: I recognise that, Sir, and I apologise. I am afraid that I have been misled by the interruption of the hon. Member for Burslem.
        Mr. MacLAREN: I have been most quiet.
        Viscount WOLMER: I ask the Minister of Agriculture when he next deals with this matter, if he cannot do so to-night, to indicate to the industry what plans the Government have for extending the growing of sugar beet in the West and North of England. How much money are they spending in the experiments on the Eynsham system, and other important methods of treating beet, and how much money is being spent on plant breeding stations? It is clear that if we could get a type of beet that would mature earlier or later than the main crop it would be possible to extend the period of employment in the beet factories and also extend the acreage. I hope that when we next come to consider this subject

        423
        the right hon. Gentleman will not merely present us with a string of statistics, interesting as they are, but will indicate to us more fully that the Government have some further policy which is going to lead to the spread of this great industry throughout all England.
        Mr. MacLAREN: I do not wish that any false impression should get abroad from the remarks made by the Noble Lord. It is true that on all occasions when this Vote has come up I have opposed it. I opposed it from its inception, and I do so to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will you divide against it?"] Very likely I shall be the only one to challenge a Division, and there is no good in wasting the time of the Committee by having a Division "all on my own." From the speeches on the other side, one would gather that this great industry is going to clean the soil and give a marvellous return, but at the same time we are told that if the subsidy is cut down this wonderful industry will be decimated, and will disappear. I hope it will, because any artificial industry which has to be kept up by pumping subsidies into it out of the taxpayer's pocket ought to disappear, and I would immediately destroy such an industry without any compunction whatever. We have heard a great deal about subsidising miners' wages, and subsidising the unemployed and so on, but here is a subsidy of £10,000,000 to £20,000,000 going into the beet sugar industry.
        I should be the last to object to public money being spent in this way if it fructified in the industry itself. But we know full well, on the confession of men who occupied responsible positions when the party opposite were in power, that every farthing we send into this industry—into the agricultural industry so-called—finally percolates into rent. The Noble Lord knows that. He was at cross purposes with me to-night but that not because I opened my mouth, because I did not interrupt him. He seemed to be very wroth with me, and I will tell him why. There is not a landlord in this assembly who does not feel, even though I do not open my mouth at all, that the principles for which I stand represents his destruction. The Noble Lord hated my looks, and that was what was wrong with him.
        Viscount WOLMER: I assure the hon. Member that we have all tie most benevolent feelings towards him.
        Mr. MacLAREN: I know, but behind all that there is hatred of what I stand for, and I merely intervene now to express these views despite what has been said from this side of the Committee this evening. I want to say this and I do not think I will be expelled with bell, book and candle for saying it—that I have a shrewd suspicion that the Minister of Agriculture even in this Government is a born Tory.
        Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if we are to be allowed to follow the hon. Member in discussing this question of born Tories?
        Mr. MacLAREN: That is merely a deviation in winding up the Debate. We are told that there has to be uniformity of practice—I think that is the legal phrase—and that we have to continue the subsidy because there has to be continuity of policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister is doing so, but I have always had my suspicions that, in his heart of hearts, he believes in this method of putting public money into an artificial industry which only stiffens the backs of monopolists.
        Viscount WOLMER: He claims to be the father of it.
        Mr. MacLAREN: He if a brave man. I do not like his child and I would hamstring it if I had the following here, and I would vote against this Estimate if a Division were challenged.
        Major BRAITHWAITE: I thoroughly disagree with the hon. Member who has just spoken. This subsidy has proved one of the most beneficent legislative measures which the agricultural industry has had during the past five or six years. In the course of this discussion I do not think that enough credit has been given to the railway companies, following on the de-rating Measure passed by the last Government. That Measure has had a very good effect in relation to the policy concerning beet growing. The fall in the subsidy was calculated to have a detrimental effect on the production of beet, but with the rating relief and the freight relief given by the railways a great deal has been done to set off the fall in the subsidy.
        Captain W. G. HALL: On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss de-rating in connection with this Estimate?
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am following the speech of the hon. and gallant Member in order to see what point he proposes to make.
        Major BRAITHWAITE: I do not wish to go outside the terms of your Ruling, Sir. I was merely pointing out that the last Government ought to have some credit for rendering very material assistance to this industry. There are some points which I should like to put to the Minister. I wish to know if the results from the sale of pulp have been satisfactory this year and if the farmers are getting good results from using it in the feeding of stock. I believe that has been an important factor in connection with the agricultural industry and has been of great service to farmers. I should also like to know if the Ministry are carrying on any research in relation to the problem of beet storage. That is one of the most important things in connection with the industry that could be carried on by the Ministry at the present time. It is desirable to know if at any of their stations they have any data and if they are in touch with the factories and giving assistance in that respect.
        This subsidy has been of immense value to farmers during the past season particularly in the North. We had a depressing time with regard to most cereals, but this crop has been in the main a great success. I hope that in continuance of this policy we shall see—possibly not this year, and possibly not by the present Minister of Agriculture but in a future year by a Conservative Minister of Agriculture—a policy which will give some definite line to the factories and will encourage the flow of capital into this industry. Everybody who has considered this policy has approved of it, except the hon. Member for Burslem, and I do not think he can have given it the amount of serious thought which it deserves. I believe that if he went more fully into the matter and considered the employment which is being given in this industry to many people who never had any work in agriculture before, he would agree that the money has been satisfactorily spent, and that this is a very good piece of legislation. I welcome
        426
        this subsidy heartily, and I only wish it were twice as large, because it is a means of subsidising employment, as opposed to the policy of creating unemployment which is being carried on by most of the Departments of the present Government.
        Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Certain important questions have been put from this side of the Committee. Are we not to have an answer on, at any rate, some of them? I have been sitting here for the greater part of the last two hours awaiting a reply.
        Mr. N. BUXTON: If I have the permission of the Committee to speak again, I shall be glad to deal with the questions which have been raised. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) put a number of points, many of which I am afraid are not quite relevant to the proposal before the Committee, but some of which are very interesting. He asked whether there could not be some discrimination in regard to soil, and whether something further could not be done in regard to the selection of seeds. These very important technical points are being considered, and will, if possible, be included in the studies leading up to the forthcoming publication which will be one of the economic series knows as the Orange Books. When he asks me to forecast the acreage five years hence, I am afraid my powers are not equal to that, and he is as well able as any of us to judge of the expansion that is likely to take place. Let us hope it will continue as elastic as it has been during the last year.
        The Noble Lord the Member for Alder-shot (Viscount Wolmer) was also very curious about the future, and anxious to know what will be done in 1934. It is welcome to me to find that he considers that we as a Labour Government shall be responsible in 1934. He wanted to know—and this is a very relevant point—whether more factories are probable under the present Act. I think the inducement is rapidly becoming inadequate in the eyes of most investors, but it is not impossible, as there are still inquiries being made in regard to possible factories at certain places. I wish they might eventuate in regard to the West country, where we should all be only too glad to see a factory established. The Noble Lord felt that those lands which have not been sufficiently appropriate for beet

        427
        growing to lead to the formation of factories should somehow be brought under the influence of a special subsidy. I am afraid that sugar beet is no panacea for all the troubles of agriculture, and there are large parts of England, which of all the countries in the world are specially adapted to growing magnificent grass, where I think the sugar beet subsidy will not take effect, and I do not know that we should wish it to. It has had its effect in those parts which are most appropriate arid which were in view by both Governments, if I may put it in that way, which were interested in the initiation of this policy. With the exception of certain areas in the West, I think the Act has had about the effect which was desired and contemplated.
        Mr. MACQUISTEN: Have the Department ever considered the possibility of extending the beet subsidy to something else, such as power alcohol, as has been done in France, Germany and America?
        Mr. BUXTON: That proposal, and also the proposal of the Noble Lord, that some special subsidy should be devised, would, of course, have to be the subject of new legislation, and I should not be in order in talking about that. Nineteen factories have resulted from the Act, and I think that that roughly represents the desirable result which was contemplated by the authors. After all, 19 factories do lead to a very great public expense, and they do, on the other hand, mean an extensive trial of beet growing and of the conversion of beets into sugar. The experiment would not have been adequate if the number had been much less, but I should say that those who are interested in the matter regard it as an adequate experiment, an adequate try-out of the possibility of making sugar growing a self-supporting industry on a permanent basis. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) asked a question in regard to pulp, and I am glad to tell him that things have vastly improved in regard to the demand for pulp by our own growers. It was one of the weak spots in the situation that farmers did not appreciate dried pulp, and it went abroad, but the improvement is very marked.
        Mr. C. WILLIAMS: What percentage went abroad?
        Mr. BUXTON: I do not recollect the exact percentage, but I could easily inform the hon. Member if he would like to know. In regard to research, the factories themselves pool their resources, and they are working with commendable energy at research.
        Major BRAITHWAITE: Is the Ministry doing anything at all in that way?
        Mr. BUXTON: Well, of course, many of the research institutions of the Ministry are indirectly benefiting.
        Sir W. WAYLAND: Are they going in for it at Rothamsted?
        Mr. BUXTON: I could not say yet whether the growing of sugar is specially being studied there, but the factories are so active themselves that I think they are adequately discharging what is possible in the sphere of research.
        Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There are one or two questions which are quite germane and in which I am interested, because I have been a party to sugar beet growing on my own estate in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture said that the establishment of the 19 factories up to date was a very desirable result, and in almost the same breath he stated that it was an adequate try-out of an experiment. What we would like to hear from him, as briefly as he wishes, is what he really thinks of the future with regard to this industry. In some parts of the country it has been very successful indeed. It is true that some parts, as we all know, are not suitable for it at all, and in many of the grass-growing districts no wise man would think of growing sugar beet, but other parts of the country are suitable, and there it has been a great success. In the districts with which I am personally acquainted, it is just a question of whether it is a success or a failure. It depends a great deal on some of the factors with which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has dealt, though they have been mentioned on this side—the development of the beet itself, and also the effect of alterations in railway rates.
        In the districts which I know best, the question of the railway rates may make all the difference, the factory being some distance away, as to whether or not it is economic to carry beets to a

        429
        factory. We have had a speech earlier in the Debate showing that you can carry beets a quite considerable distance to the factory at Ipswich, and yet at the same time the profit left would be more than enough to make it worth while to grow them. In these other districts it is just on the margin of whether or not it is possible. The railway rates make a great difference, as does also the return from the actual percentage of sugar in the beet, which was a point raised by an hon. Friend behind me. We know from experience both in France and in Germany how by being stimulated and by improving the beet the percentage there has continually grown.
        The factor of railway rates and some of these other factors are the questions which are likely to determine whether the industry will be a permanent industry in this country, or how far it is only an experiment which is being tried for a moment and will ultimately pass away. What would be of value, if the Minister would give it, taking into account these factors, which must be before him at the Ministry of Agricultures is what he thinks the future for this industry is, how far, from that point of view, it is right to continue and prolong the subsidy, or what he thinks will be the end, aed if it is merely an experiment that will be done with before many years have gone by. He has not really given us a review from that point of view, and if we could get his own experience or view of the subject, it would be of value to the Committee.
        Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the proposed factory at Taunton is progressing?
        Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I know the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer all my questions, but if he will give me a reasonable assurance that he will let me know the details that he is unable to answer to-night in the course of the next day or two, where possible, and if he will also tell me now what is the percentage of Empire-grown sugar, which is a vital question—
        The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That would be entirely out of order.
        Mr. WILLIAMS: I willingly accept your Ruling, but I was led away by
        430
        others mentioning the percentage of sugar grown in this country. I am not sure it was not the Minister himself; but I will now come back to order and apologise for having deviated. I asked some very important questions of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I realise that he may not be able to answer them to-night, and I will not press him on those matters if he will do what I think is always done by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in such circumstances, and say he has not got the information and will let me have the details later on. They were accepted as in order, and it is usual for a Minister to give them here and now, but I do not wish to delay the Estimate, and if the hon. Member will give me that assurance, that I may have these answers, it will save a lot of trouble in the future.
        There is a third point that I would like to emphasise, and that is that I do definitely ask the Ministry to give me the number of factories and the acreage under sugar in Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been present most of the afternoon, and if he would give me those two details, I should be glad. It is just as important to develop the agricultural industry in Scotland as it is in any other part of Great Britain, and I think I have a right to have an answer to these questions.
        Mr. BUXTON: I think I have answered the questions which are relevant to the proposal before the Committee, and the Chair will not allow me to deal with the general question. The right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) has raised matters which are interesting and important, but they are matters of opinion, as to what is my view of the probabilities of the future, and how far railway rates are a factor in leading to an extension of the area under beet. All we can say is that factories are getting very well supplied, and as for the details, the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt familiar with the works on the subject of Mr. Venn, of Cambridge, and Mr. Bridges, of Oxford, which deal very thoroughly with it.
        Dr. ADDISON: In answer to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), there is one factory in Scotland, and 612 acres under beet.
        Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Resolution to be reported upon Monday next: Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]
    Resolved,
    "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, the sum of £5,410,250 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I propose to explain to the House briefly—for the matter does not call for elaboration—what is the scope and purpose of this Measure. The Bill is within a relatively small compass. It applies to Scotland only, and it is intended and designed to modernise, and to bring into harmony with present requirements, the law of Scotland in relation to the drainage of agricultural land. The two main provisions of the Bill are contained in Clauses 1 and 2, and they define the purposes of the Measure. The House will find on examination of these Clauses that they deal with the same problem, which, briefly stated, is the problem arising from the flooding of agricultural land in Scotland.
  Clause 1 gives to the owner or occupier of agricultural land which is being injured, or is in danger of being injured, through the failure of the owner or occupier of any other land to maintain banks, or to cleanse water courses, a statutory right and power to enter upon that other land and to have things put right on the land of his neighbour. Clause 2 gives to a public authority, namely, the Department of Agriculture
  432
  for Scotland, power to propose and carry out, subject to certain safeguards, schemes for drainage works. The aim of both Clauses is the same, and that aim is to secure, so far as possible, the more effectual drainage of agricultural land in order that it may have an increased utility and productiveness.
  The need for this Bill arises from the inadequacy of the existing how of Scotland as regards agricultural drainage, and it will enable the House to judge more readily what the Bill is designed to effect if I state what the existing law of Scotland is in the matter of agricultural drainage. As the law stands--and this is a matter upon which I hope there will be no controversy—the lower ground must receive the outfall or natural drainage of the upper ground, or, to use terminology with which we are familiar in Scotland, the inferior ground must receive the outfall of the superior ground. Even where the quantity of outfall is increased through agricultural improvements, so that a larger quantity of water is sent down from the superior ground to the inferior ground, the same rule applies. That is true, not only of surface water and of water percolating in the ordinary-way through the ground, but of running water in definite channels, that is to say, streams that are perennial and have an established course. That is the existing common law of Scotland, subject perhaps to this qualification, that in exceptional cases the courts, on being applied to, may give an equitable remedy. The experience of the law courts in that matter, however, is that the equitable remedy can be invoked only in very exceptional circumstances, and, when it is invoked, it usually results in very costly litigation, so that the remedy in a sense destroys itself.
  Apart from the common law of Scotland in this matter, there are certain statutory provisions, into which I have no intention of going in detail, but I think it right to mention the Land Drainage Act of 1847. In that year, the Legislature made provision for the improvement of outfalls. Sanction was given to persons who were interested to enter on other land—a principle which is being reaffirmed in this Bill in another form—and to create the necessary works to prevent excessive outfall coining from the high ground to

  433
  the lower ground. Under the Act of 1847, the procedure is cumbrous, expensive, calculated to entail costly litigation, and, what is perhaps a more valid reason than any for discarding it, the statute has proved almost entirely ineffective in practice. The position at the present time, therefore, is that by both the common law and the statute law of Scotland the lower proprietor has really no remedy against an excessive outfall of water coming on to his land from the land of an upper proprietor. The converse situation holds true, that where there is failure on the part of the lower proprietor to keep the waterways of his ground clear, and allows them to become silted up so that the water re-stagnates on the ground of the upper proprietor, the upper proprietor, as the law of Scotland stands, has no remedy either in common law or under statute law, except in circumstances which are very exceptional, and with which the House need not concern itself.
  8.0 p.m.
  With that very general introductory statement of the position, I would like to examine for a moment Clauses 1 and 2 in a little more detail. The House will observe that the purpose of Clause 1 is to enable the owner or occupier of agricultural land to require and secure the maintenance of banks and the cleansing of channels of watercourses on neighbouring lands. When I use the term "neighbouring," I do not mean neighbouring in the narrow sense. It is not confined to the case where the harm is being done on the land immediately adjacent. The watercourses of the land immediately adjacent may be quite sufficient, and yet the watercourses on land a little further away may be quite insufficient, and under Clause 1 it will be possible to deal with and find a remedy for a situation of that kind. Before the statutory power contained in Clause 1 can be invoked there is a condition precedent which must be satisfied, and that is that the land is being injured, or is in danger of being injured, from flooding through the failure of the neighbouring proprietor. I do not propose to detain the House by referring to the procedure which the Bill prescribes. It is all set out in the Bill, and its examination is more appropriate to a later stage; but there are one or two
  434
  points which it is appropriate to bring to the notice of the House at this stage.
  The cost of the operations to make the agricultural drainage effective is a charge imposed on the owner who is failing to discharge his obligation. That is undoubtedly a very important provision of the Bill. When I used the term "obligation" I do not mean legal obligation, because, as I have just explained, under the existing law there is no legal obligation, but I mean failure to discharge the natural obligation which arises and which ought to arise from the ownership of land. If this Bill receives the sanction of this House the situation will be this, that a landowner whose land is being injured through the default of a neighbouring landowner will be able, using the machinery of this Measure, to compel the defaulting landowner to fulfil the obligation which he ought to have fulfilled without any compulsion. A further point to which I think it is right to draw attention is that the Bill secures a right of appeal to the sheriff, that is, to a judicial authority, so that any matter in dispute failing amicable settlement can be decided by the sheriff on appeal by the party interested.
  I think I should give a word of explanation as to why we think it is necessary that these powers in Clause I should be conferred on owners of land. Since 1918 the number of occupying owners in Scotland has increased by 10,000. That has followed the break-up of many large estates. With their disappearance has disappeared estate management. When we had a number of tenant farmers holding under a common proprietor and under common estate management these difficulties of drainage were much more easy of adjustment than they are when a large estate has been broken up, and instead of tenancies we have a large number of occupying owners. That is why, although the law of Scotland has stood for a very long time as I have defined it, it has now become imperative if adequate protection is to be given that there should be some such power as we propose in the first Clause of this Measure.
  The second Clause, which is the major part, is intended to authorise the Department of Agriculture to propose and to carry out schemes of drainage works. Two purposes are contemplated; I am not going into the details, they are there

  435
  in the Bill. The purposes are, first, drainage works with a view to the improvement of agricultural land; and, second, drainage works to remedy or to prevent damage to land or buildings in landward areas in Scotland. The House will see on reference to the Measure that in every case a condition precedent must be satisfied. In the first case the condition precedent is that the agricultural land should be capable of improvement, and in the second case the condition is that the land or building in the landward area is being, or is in danger of being, flooded. Those conditions, which are inserted in the Bill, will prevent, as under Clause 1, any arbitrary use being made of the powers which the Bill confers. I should add, as regards Clause 2, that not only has the Department power to execute works as defined by the Bill, but the Bill also provides for the maintenance of the works when they are executed.
  There are two questions that may arise. The House may say, as regards Clause 2: What kind of schemes have you in contemplation? If you refer to the interpretation Clause, Clause 7, it will be found that the expression "drainage works" is given a very wide definition. As the definition stands, it would apply to field drainage and to any form of land drainage, but although the interpretation Clause is wide what we have in view is what is known as arterial drainage. What we contemplate is the deepening of the channels of existing watercourses mainly by the removal of obstructions, and further we contemplate the making of new watercourses. The purpose in each case is the same, namely, to prevent flooding.
  In certain areas of Scotland flooding takes place periodically. It may be described as seasonal in certain parts of Scotland. The flooding occurs mainly in the north-east and in the south-west. I am not going to detain the House by giving numerous illustrations of it, but may I just mention one? The River Spey is the most rapid river in Scotland, and I think I am right in saying it is the most rapid in Britain. If you take the stretch of 10 miles running roughly from Newtonmoor to Kincraig you will find that each year there is flooding of the agricultural land upon a most extensive scale. The effect of that has
  436
  been to bring down the vegetation of that neighbourhood to a mere marsh vegetation within the lifetime of a single generation. There has been very great depreciation in the value of arable and pastoral land in that neighbourhood. That is merely one illustration taken from the higher reaches of the river; but when you come to the lower reaches, nearer the sea, you will find that in 1928 the river in flood made for itself an entirely new channel to the west, endangering, I think, the villages of Garmouth and Kingston. Other streams which periodically overflow their banks are the Deveron and the Findhorn. When we come to the south-west of Scotland, we have the Annan, the Nith and the Cree and in the West of Scotland parts of the Clyde. In carrying out the schemes which the Department of Agriculture contemplate in this matter, there are one or two points of importance for which the Bill makes provision, and to which I should like to refer very briefly in general terms. First of all, the House will know that part of the cost is to be recoverable by the Department and to be apportioned among the lands comprised in the area to be affected by the scheme to which the Act applies. The remainder of the cost is to be borne by the State. In putting into the Bill a provision for placing part of the costs on the owner, we have proceeded upon the principle that the land-owner should pay in respect of the betterment of his land effected through the work executed by the Department of Agriculture.
  Another point of importance for which provision is made is that in fixing and apportioning the cost regard is to be had to the matters set out in Clause 2 of the Bill. As regards the apportioning of costs, the first point is the probable increase in value as a result of the operation. The second point is the estimated depreciation on the basis that there had been no undertaking at all. In other words, you impose a charge in respect of so much depreciation on the hypothesis that there was no undertaking. The words are:
  "(3) In fixing the amount of the cost recoverable by the Department and in apportioning that amount, or in apportioning the cost of maintenance among the lands comprising the area affected by the scheme, the Department shall have regard to any probable increase in the value of any such lands."

  437
  That is the first point. The second important point is that the Department shall have regard to
  "any depreciation in the value of any such lands, which might be expected to occur if no such drainage works as are proposed in this scheme were undertaken."
  In respect of the estimated depreciation, we think that is an equitable principle, because it simply means that if the owner of land is going to have depreciation of his land stayed or stopped through the undertaking of the Department, it is right that he should pay a part of the charge in the same way as if there were a practical increment benefit.
  The third factor to be taken into account in fixing and apportioning the cost is any other benefit by way of relief on drainage operations. This is all contained in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 of the Bill. The only other matter that I need to mention is that the Bill provides, on the other hand, that compensation shall be paid in respect of injury and damage caused through the operations, and there, again, in order that these matters will not be left to the uncontrolled arbitrament of a Government Department, provision is made for arbitration in respect of these matters.
  There is one other matter upon which it is perhaps right to say a word or two. The House will note that the carrying out of the drainage schemes authorised by the second part of the Bill is entrusted to the Department of Agriculture. That has been done deliberately and after careful consideration. We propose by this Bill to make the Department of Agriculture of Scotland the executive and administrative authority, and the reasons why the Government have so decided after very careful consideration is that in Scotland with one solitary exception we have no ad hoc drainage authorities, and that exception is in the case of the Pow Burn in Perthshire, under a local Act. That is the only instance in Scotland of an ad hoc land drainage authority. We have in Scotland nothing analogous to the Commissioners of Sewers in England, some of which go back to the time of Henry VIII and even earlier. The reason why you do not have ad hoc authorities in Scotland as in England is that there is a great difference in the natural conditions of the two countries. In Scotland, the natural fall of the rivers
  438
  is good; in England, the natural fall of the rivers is bad. To take only one illustration, the Spey, the total length of which is from 90 to 100 miles, has a fall of no less than 1,500 feet from its source to its mouth at sea level. The position really is that, while in Scotland we have our own problems, with marsh and moss and bog, we have nothing corresponding to the fenland of the Eastern Counties of England. That is why in Scotland, as I have said, we have no ad hoc drainage authorities that we could press into the service of this Measure.
  The second reason why we propose that the carrying out of the major part of this Measure should be entrusted to the Department of Agriculture is that we take the view, and we think it is confirmed by experience, that an ad hoc authority is unsuitable. We take the view that the county council in Scotland is not the best authority, owing to local influences which it would be difficult to disregard, and we think it better that the matter should be dealt with outside the machinery of local administration. There is a third reason why we propose a public authority, and that is that, of course, under modern conditions, this matter of arterial drainage cannot he left to the individual owner. In former days it was no doubt true that great work was done in Scotland by individual owners. We do not dispute that there were enlightened landlords when labour was cheap and when the prices of produce were relatively high. We do not dispute that there were enlightened landlords who carried out at their own expense very valuable schemes of arterial drainage.
  I confess that I was amazed, when looking into this matter a short time ago, to find that in the old maps in Scotland there are indications of arterial drainage in practically every county in Scotland, carried out many years ago, when conditions were vastly different from the conditions that obtain to-day. If it were germane to to-night's Debate, I could give illustrations of them. There is, for example, the Laigh of Moray, which was drained arterially many years ago, and is now one of the most fertile districts of Scotland. Again, you have the How of Mearas, in Kincardineshire, and it is not generally known that a great deal of marshy land around Loch Leven was arterially drained

  439
  and brought into proper condition. To mention one other instance, a great experiment in arterial drainage was carried out in what is known as the Moss of Kincardine by a very celebrated Scottish judge of the 18th century, Lord Karnes. He was a landowner as well as a judge—they combined the two things in those days—and he carried out an amazing scheme of arterial drainage by diverting one of the tributaries of the Forth, until he was interdicted in his own court because he was spoiling the salmon fishing of some neighbours. The days, how-over, of ventures of this kind by individual owners are past, and, as we must have some form of public authority to carry out the kind of scheme that we contemplate in this Measure, we came deliberately to the conclusion that it was much better that it should be done by the Department of Agriculture than by the local authority.
  I do not propose to enter into the question of the cost entailed by this Bill. There is a Financial Resolution to be moved afterwards, if the House is pleased to give a Second Reading to this Bill, on which the matter of cost will be explained. I would only say that the cost is relatively small compared with the benefit which we anticipate will result if this Bill becomes law. I have already referred to Lord Kames as one of the pioneers in this matter of arterial drainage. I made the other day an interesting discovery. I found that in the year 1779, Lord Kames wrote an essay on "A Board for improving Agriculture." What he wanted to do was to set up a Board something analogous to our modern Department of Agriculture. That was away back in the year 1779, at a time when trouble WAS developing and becoming acute between us and America. That great old Scottish Judge then wrote:
  "A small share of the money and attention bestowed on raising colonies in America would have done wonders at home."
  There are many of us, on this side of the House at any rate, who think that that was not only a very simple but a very wise observation. I, for one, believe that, if we would spend on agriculture at home, on arterial drainage at home, on every aspect of agriculture at home, one fraction of what we spend on projects abroad, we should accomplish a great work for
  440
  the development of our country and, incidentally, for the relief of the most pressing problem of our time, the problem of unemployment. Therefore, I commend this Bill to the consideration of the House, not only because it is a good Bill in itself, not only because it is demanded and required by the agricultural community of Scotland, not only because it is going to improve agriculture in Scotland and help the agricultural community, but because we believe it to be a contribution, and a not unsubstantial contribution, to the problem of unemployment. For these reasons I hope that, whatever criticism may be offered on the details of the Measure, the Bill may receive the support of all sections of the House and obtain a Second Reading.
  Sir JOHN GILMOUR: My first word must be one of welcome to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate to this House, and to express what I am sure will be the feeling of all Members of the House, that his first speech in explaining a Measure of some importance to Scotland has been one of clarity, and meets with the approval of Members in every part of the House. He has truly said that arterial drainage in Scotland is a matter which should receive the attention of the House. It is obvious to those who know the circumstances of agriculture in that country that, if you improve your system of drainage, you must at some point take steps to see that the arterial drains are clear and efficient for carrying off the drainage. Our country has been less affected by that problem than across the border, because of the nature of the fall of most of our streams, but we can all agree that the time is ripe for some attempt to improve arterial drainage.
  I shall not enter upon the legal points, which will be dealt with by others, but, speaking as one interested in agriculture, and with a little knowledge of some of the circumstances which attend the flow and outfall of some of the rivers, I want the House to realise that the Bill for the first time is going to give the right to certain individual owners to enter a complaint against an adjoining owner, that it will allow of their taking steps to impose a considerable outlay on the part of another owner, and, while that outlay may be justified, I think the House will agree that it is our duty to be quite clear in our minds, that the machinery that is

  441
  to be used for this purpose is going to be fair to the individual, and that the circumstances of each case are going to be investigated by someone of sufficient technical knowledge to be able to express an opinion which is of real value as to the benefit to be derived from the proposed alteration and expenditure.
  The right hon. Gentleman has truly said that within recent years a large number of the bigger estates have been broken up and that in many cases the agricultural lands are held by owner-occupiers in comparatively small holdings. If I am right, clearly you have instances where this land may be held by a man who has used every pound of his credit to obtain the ownership of a particular farm abutting upon one of our great streams. He is no doubt in a position of responsibility not only for the maintenance of his own agricultural land but for the protection that he ought to give to his neighbours. But I am a little disturbed when I think he may have a complaint made which may not be entirely justified. No doubt the appeal to the Sheriff is one which we are long acquainted with, but I should like to feel satisfied before the Bill is sent to a Committee that, in addition to the complaint of the owner or the tenant abutting, when it goes to the Sheriff he will have the advantage of some really practical advice in coming to a decision.
  Of course, the Department of Agriculture, which is to be the main body used in framing the schemes, may, no doubt, have at its command engineers with a knowledge of draining, but in forming a big scheme such as one to do with the drainage of an area like the Spey, where undoubtedly grave and difficult technical problems will have to be solved, I would plead with him to consider whether it would not be essential to have at the command of the Department the advice of technical engineers, who cannot be found in the Department itself in the present instance but must be brought in from outside. The Department of Agriculture is, in many instances, the owner and occupier and the responsible Department for a large agricultural area. I am not going to assert for a moment that when they come to deal with problems where their property abuts upon the property of others, they will act unfairly or
  442
  unjustly, but I think it would greatly facilitate the acceptance of this scheme by the agricultural community if they felt that, if they had any idea of grievance in the action of the Department, there should be some provision made for an appeal beyond their decision.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Department of Agriculture was deliberately chosen because he thought a local authority was not very suitable for looking after this problem. I am a little uncertain as to whether that is really the case. Flooding in our rivers happens with great suddenness. You get a cloudburst in the high hills somewhere beyond Kincraig, which affects the flow of the river, and damage happens with great rapidity, and if provision is to be made with equal rapidity, is it not the case that that could be done through some local contact a little nearer the point than a Department situated at Edinburgh?
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do you mean that it would prevent the cloudburst?
  Sir J. GILMOUR: No, but you could deal with the effects of the cloudburst with greater rapidity than if you centralised too much the provision for a problem of this kind. Quite clearly, difficulties may arise in respect of a river such as the Tay, where there are sections in which artificial boundaries have had to be built. These artificial boundaries, unless they are periodically inspected, are gradually worn away, either by the action of rats or rabbits, or by a small breakage which may appear of very small moment to the little farmer on the spot. It is essential that this House should know that if the Department is going to be responsible for this matter, some definite officer in the district is going to make periodical inspections of that problem.
  In the first Clause of the Bill the complaint is made by one proprietor against another, or, it may be, by one proprietor against a group of proprietors. The problem of putting right the trouble may be a very expensive one. It seems to me that in this case there is, under Clause 1, no possibility of any part of that expense being met by the State. Obviously, under a scheme provided for in Clause 2 it is a different matter. Take the case of the small man. I know of the case of a small farmer on the banks of the Tay

  443
  who, if his bank is broken, will find it quite impossible, even with complete bankruptcy, to meet that problem. I see nothing in this Bill to deal with a problem of that kind unless, having found a situation of that character, you are intending to transfer it to Clause 2, so that under a carefully thought-out scheme you can deal with the problem. Damage to individual property, while it may be of a devastating character as far as the particular part of the property is concerned, may also affect the public highway or the neighbouring properties below; and, if left too long, the damage might even be carried further.
  If in Committee we can safeguard some of these problems, I see no reason why we should not, all of us, co-operate for the purpose of improving the system of drainage in Scotland, and, as far as I and my hon. Friends are concerned, we will try our best to do so. I think that sometimes an improvement in a stream may be thought by some people to be of greater value than it really is. I am anxious to repeat that I hope that in coming to decisions on structural alterations, which will cost a considerable sum of money, the Department will obtain the very best advice possible. Unfortunately, we have in Scotland to-day too much land free from flooding, which is perhaps not being cultivated to its fullest extent, and it may well be that in some cases it would be the height of folly to squander further money in an endeavour to deal with some areas which admittedly are being flooded, but which, even if they were de-flooded, would not be of sufficient agricultural value to warrant the outlay. With these reservations, and with the hope that my right hon. Friend in Committee will be prepared to consider in a friendly way, and, I hope, in a spirit of co-operation, Amendments on these points, I have nothing further to say.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I should like, first of all, to associate myself with my right hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) in extending a very hearty welcome in the Debates of this House to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. Our friendship has been one of many years standing, and I am delighted to think that I was present in this House when I heard him
  444
  make his first speech in it. I think the House will agree with me that his speech was a Second Reading speech which has rarely been equalled in this House, and I think equally rarely have we had so lucid an explanation of a very difficult problem. The Bill, he told us, was divided into two parts, Part A which deals with the individual, and Part 2 which deals with the area. I think it would be a perfectly legitimate criticism to make of the first part of the Bill that it was more of a legal reform than an agricultural remedy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate explained to us, in discussing the first part of the Bill, how the law of Scotland stood, and he made it plain to me, at any rate, that it was high time that the law should be reformed. From that point of view the introduction of the Bill, as far as this part of it is concerned, is indeed highly desirable. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Pollok when he says that when you are dealing with the property of any individual, as you are dealing with it under Part 1 of this Bill, the circumstances should be fairly investigated. There is no doubt in my mind that a cantankerous occupier might give a very bad time to his neighbour if you allowed him free scope under the first part of the Bill. I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, if he is in charge of the Bill in Committee upstairs, will be asked to see to it that fair safeguards are inserted so that there can be no abuse of a Clause of this kind.
  It is true that there is an appeal to the sheriff under this part of the Bill. There are sheriffs and sheriffs, and I think that when dealing with a highly complicated question of this sort, it would not be too much to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider whether it would not be advisable to include assessors when a question of this kind is raised and there is an appeal. It is too large a burden to place upon the shoulders of one man to investigate difficult and abstruse problems of this kind. I should be very willing to support any scheme of that kind as far as it is possible to prevent any abuse of the powers under this Clause.
  With regard to the second part of the Bill, it is obviously what my right hon.

  445
  Friend the Secretary of State for Scot-land has called his contribution to the solution of the agricultural problem in Scotland. Frankly, I do not think it is much of a contribution. Take the amount of money that is asked for under this Bill. It is only £100,000, and 50 per cent. of it will very likely be collected, as far as I can make out, locally by means of rates or otherwise. It is not a Bill of universal application to all places in Scotland where drainage may be proved necessary. It is a Bill strictly limited in scope. I understand the Lord Advocate to have given the only examples which will be brought under the scheme. Am I right in understanding that? He cited the case of the river on whose banks I was born. I know that district particularly well. There is no district in Scotland where the depredations of the rapid river Spey has been so marked as in that part of its course. I know that what he said is true. In that particular case there would be very great advantage under a scheme of this kind.
  That is one part of the scheme. As to the other part, there is the Deveron, the Findhorn and the Kelvin. As far as I can make out, the scheme is going to be very limited in its scope. Not only is it to be limited in scope, but that scope is to be limited to a certain period of years. The scheme is to be in existence for five years only, so far as the second part of the Bill is concerned. I hope that I am not misquoting the right hon. Gentleman. I am willing to admit that a great amount of preliminary work has been done in engineering surveys, and I am prepared to accept the fact that a great many drainage schemes may be in existence, but I am still far from agreeing that it is a wise thing to limit the number of years within which the scope of working is to be effective.
  To take another point of criticism, I am not at all sure that it is a wise thing to give complete control to any State department in this respect. Apart from the fact that there is an appeal on the question of costs, under the second part of the Bill, the Department of Agriculture is given complete control of the whole scheme.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. T. Johnston): Part of it.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The Lord Advocate said that they had deliberately introduced the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture is upon its trial. Had it been the Board of Agriculture, instead of using the word "deliberately," I should have said that they had done it with malice aforethought. I am willing to give the Department of Agriculture a fair chance. The only explanation which can be given for dragging in a Department of State in this way is probably the explanation which has been given by my right hon. Friend. I agree with what has been said by the late Secretary of State for Scotland. I am certain that a large local body, knowing local conditions, would in many cases be far more effective to deal with questions of this kind than a Department of State in Edinburgh, not knowing the local conditions and without any precise knowledge of the agricultural conditions as they affect that particular locality. I am, however, prepared to give the Department of Agriculture a chance. It is a new board, which has been recently reconstituted, and it may be that it will be effective, but as I am not sure about that my opinion is held in abeyance until after the Second Reading or the Report stage. If I find things are not as right as I think they ought to be, I shall be prepared to support Amendments dealing with this particular part.
  9.0 p.m.
  There is another criticism which I should like to make. The Lord Advocate laid down three canons which were to guide the sheriff when he was considering an appeal or an arbitration. I think it is a very dangerous thing to lay down canons of that kind. I do not see how they can guide anybody. One seemed to be contradictory of the other, and I can foresee all sorts of difficulties arising when the arbitrator or the sheriff, as the case may he, is asked to decide.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Not the sheriff. Part II of the Bill is not concerned with the sheriff.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: It is arbitration. In Part I of the Bill it is the sheriff and in Part II it is arbitration. The only appeal on arbitration is on the question of costs. Once the Department has fixed upon its scheme, that scheme is never

  447
  varied. I am sure of it. Under the Bill the Department of Agriculture has the power to settle a scheme once for all, and upon the scheme itself there is no appeal, no right to go to arbitration, however much the local authority or the local people concerned may object to the scheme. The Department of Agriculture can say: "It is our scheme. It has been settled. It is the law of the land, and it cannot be altered." It is only on the question of compensation costs that an appeal to an arbitrator or a court of arbitration arises. The Under-Secretary of State, quite rightly, pointed out that the ultimate control of this scheme is in Parliament. What does the Bill say? The Bill, to all intents and purposes, introduces a Clause which one associates with the dismissal of judges. If a judge is to be dismissed, or a question as to his ability or otherwise is raised in Parliament it must be by an Address from both Houses. That is exactly what is in this Bill.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Either House?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Either House. What does it matter? What happens is that the scheme which has been settled by the Department of Agriculture is laid before the House of Commons. There is no chance of discussion. It is by an Address of this House of Parliament that this scheme can be altered. I should be prepared to support any Amendments on Report stage which will alter that and give the House real and effective control over any scheme of this kind. It cannot really be in the mind of the Government that any Department of State should have the final say in what may affect the whole future of the country so far as agriculture is concerned. That cannot be good doctrine, and I hope to see it altered if it is at all possible. Clause 2 of this Bill is departmentalism run mad. I thought that this Government at least would give the House of Commons a greater share in governing the country, but this Bill, which is the first contribution they have made towards an agricultural policy, really takes away from the people of the country their fair right of judgment on particular matters and places that right, that final decision, not on the people of the country as a whole but on a Department of State in Edinburgh.
  Mr. McKINLAY: Who controls the Department?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The Secretary of State controls the Department. The fact remains that, instead of having free and adequate discussion, we are to have these schemes laid on the Table of this House. We know what has happened in hundreds of cases where this procedure has been followed. They have never been heard of again, and these schemes will practically be taken away from the control and judgment of the representatives of the people. With these criticisms, which I think are justifiable, I welcome the Bill, and I shall do all that I can to perfect it during Committee and Report stages. I believe I am speaking on behalf of the party to which I belong when I say that we regard drainage as one of the most essential improvements so far as agriculture is concerned in Scotland. We realise that the drainage of smallholdings may not come directly under this Bill, which is on a bigger scale and has to do with arterial drainage, but we welcome it, and if the Bill is carefully thought over by all hon. Members and their minds are applied to improving it in Committee it will he of great benefit to agriculture as a whole.
  Mr. BROOKE: I should like to join in the chorus of welcome which has been accorded this Bill from all sections of the House. It is going to deal with what I believe to he one of the most serious and damaging factors in agriculture at the present moment. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) has described it as a puny and small contribution. I have been reading recently a considerable amount of literature on agriculture issued by the party to which the right hen. Gentleman belongs, and in every one of the treatises I have read a good deal of stress is laid upon the urgent necessity, the immediate need, of the question of the drainage of agricultural land being undertaken as speedily as possible. I should like to have heard from the right hon. Member in what way the powers of this Bill are puny and small. In one part of his speech he complained that too many drastic powers are being given to the Department of Agriculture.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not like to interrupt, but what I was trying to show

  449
  was that it was a puny contribution from the point of view of money. Only £100,000 is being spent.
  Mr. BROOKE: I stand corrected, and I am glad to know that the right hon. Member does not regard it as a small and puny contribution. That was the impression I got, and when he went on to complain in the latter part of his speech of the large and drastic powers which are being given to the Department of Agriculture I could not quite reconcile the complaint in the earlier part of his speech with the complaint he made later on. I was glad to hear the welcome given to the Bill by the late Secretary of State for Scotland. This Bill is going to be regarded as a nonparty question. My division, which is a large county area in Scotland, is suffering from flooded areas, and every authority on agriculture, the farmers themselves, agricultural workers, and smallholders, and everybody who speaks with any authority on the question of agriculture, are all agreed that a Bill of this kind is vital and urgent. Nobody in my division who is interested in the problem at all is offering any opposition to the Measure in any way whatsoever. I am not a country dweller and I have no very intimate knowledge of the agricultural industry, but it does not require a man to have any knowledge of the day to day work of agriculture to realise the great need for this Measure and the wastage which is going on on our countryside. One has only to walk through some of the larger counties in Scotland, through the eastern portion of the county which I have the honour to represent, and the ordinary powers of observation which one possesses will prove how urgent and necessary it is that the powers in this Measure should be put into operation at the earliest possible moment. To many of my constituents at any rate it will come as a boon and a blessing.
  The Kelvin Valley runs through a great part of my Division, and I have just returned from an inspection of the flooded areas. Curiously enough, one of my agricultural constituents, who is deeply interested in this Measure, has sent me a photograph of part of the flooded area, and he describes it as a familiar scene. It is a very depressing and saddening sight to see scores of acres of some of the
  450
  best agricultural land in Mid-Scotland, land which is rich in alluvial deposits, completely submerged by floods from the River Kelvin. If you could take a bird's eye view of the Kelvin Valley which I understand is to be included in the scheme proposed under this Bill, you will see that roads have been washed away, walls down, fences almost submerged and often, corn stacks floating about. Even the railway line which runs through part of the area is in serious danger of being undermined by the condition of the land. That means that there is a prodigious waste. All that waste could be prevented, and could have been prevented in the past if the powers contained in this Bill had been given to the Department of Agriculture or to the old Board of Agriculture.
  I am informed that there is a serious loss of cattle, and that there is very great damage to land and to property, and some of my hon. Friends who know that countryside pretty well say that there has even been great danger to human life from the floods there. It is not simply the fact that this flooding is a new problem which has presented itself for the first time to the country. It is not the fact that the floods occur only rarely or once or twice in a generation. I am informed that the flooding occurs eight and even 10 times in a year and that it has been taking place almost on the present huge scale during the last 30 years. Yet in all that period no adequate steps have been taken by any previous Government to cope with it. One right hon. Gentleman who has spoken seemed to have some fear in regard to Clause 1, under which power is given to an owner to compel an adjoining owner to drain the adjoining land. That, power, is given, not only to owners, but to tenants. I have been informed by several of my constituents, especially those on small farm lands, Who have themselves been under-taking small drainage work, that often the work that they have completed at their own expense has, been nullified either because the adjoining owner has refused to take any action on his part of the land, or because the outlet into the arterial drainage has not been big enough and the arterial drainage itself has become choked.
  This Bill, I think for the first time, gives the tenant or the owner power,

  451
  if he is suffering from the inactivity of an adjoining tenant or owner, to see that proper drainage is undertaken on the adjoining land. I believe that the protection of both parties is adequately provided for in the appeal to the sheriff. The Bill says that before the sheriff gives his decision he has to be satisfied as to the complaint, and must have before him authoritative information as to the work to be undertaken and the condition of the land.
  I hope I can make an appeal before I sit down. I want to reverse the usual practice of this House. It is generally the constituent who appeals to his Member for help. On this occasion I happen to have as one of my constituents the Under-Secretary of State, who, I believe, is to be responsible for seeing some of these schemes carried out. I want to ask the Under-Secretary to see that the River Kelvin and the constituency that I represent get their fair share of the benefits of the Bill. We do not want more than our share but only our proper proportion. Every agricultural authority in my Division, a large number of farmers, smallholders and agricultural workers, have assured me that they are giving their full support to the Bill. They are expecting great benefits from it. Because of that, and because I believe that the Bill is going to render great service to the agricultural community in Scotland, I give it my full support, and I hope that the House will give it a speedy Second Reading.
  Mr. SKELTON: I rise to deal with only one point. First, I would like, as a fellow member of his profession, to add my word of congratulation to the learned Lord Advocate for his most interesting and, if I may say so, most attractive maiden speech. The one point with which I want to deal is this: I congratulate the Government upon the main provision of Clause 2, with its recognition of the fact that under modern conditions there are certain large expenditures by way of capital on the land in which State finance is necessary. But I confess that I am a little anxious with regard to the relation between Clause 2 and Clause I. If, as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), the Clause 2 schemes, where Government
  452
  assistance and finance play a part, are to be confined to schemes of considerable dimensions, then I fear we may find individual farmers, or small proprietors of any sort, under the operation of Clause 1 forced into very heavy expenses which they cannot themselves face. As I read the Bill first I thought that Clause 2 was not going to be confined to very large schemes, and therefore I thought that the area on which Clause 1 would operate was correspondingly small. But if you have Clause 2 schemes, only on a first-rate scale danger may be incurred because of the present form of Clause 1.
  Let me give, as an example, a case in my own constituency. Many Scottish Members must know the town of Blairgowrie and the River Ericht which runs through it. A couple of miles below the town a bank of the river has, in the course of years, crumbled away to the extent of 400 or 500 yards. Immense damage is being done, not only by seasonal flooding, but as a result of the absence of the bank great boulders and quantities of gravel are now beginning to cover a very considerable expanse of agricultural ground. That particular farm happens to belong to a small trust. The total expense of rebuilding the bank would be entirely out of contemplation, in view of the funds available in the trust. Under Clause 1 any of the main proprietors or occupiers might come and insist upon the reconstruction of those 400 or 500 yards of bank, which work, I am told, will cost at least £2,000. I do not pretend to give detailed proposals at this moment, but I would ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or the Under-Secretary, whether it is not possible to insert in Clause 1 provisions under which Government finance could also be available?
  One can foresee many cases where the burden upon an individual farmer, owning three or four hundred acres of land in which the river bank has given way, will, as a result of his neighbours being able to call upon him to repair the damage, be immense. It is to be noted that, among the matters for consideration of the Sheriff under Clause 1, the financial capacity of the defaulting owner to deal with the situation is not mentioned. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should consider whether the application of Government money under Clause 1 should not be automatic as it

  453
  is in the case of Clause 2. I suggest that it is worthy of most serious consideration whether provision should not be made so that there might be some method by which, if necessary, the assistance of a Government grant should be given. I do not think that would be any assault on the principle of the Bill, because, after all, the difference between Clauses 1 and 2 is only a matter of degree. I think that when the right hon. Gentleman considers the actual facts in regard to drainage in Scotland he will find that, unless some provision is made for Government assistance, even in Clause 1 cases, the Government may find themselves—quite against their own wishes I am sure—placing great hardships in particular cases on those owners of land whose particular part of the river is causing damage to others.
  Those are the only substantive points that I wish to raise. There are many other points which could be raised in Committee, but I do warmly congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues on introducing the Bill. I hope that, while turning their attention to the question of arterial drains, which is vital from the point of view of field drainage, the greater will make them turn their attention to the less, and that they will not forget the pressing and permanent problem of field drainage in Scotland and the vast sums of money required for it.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I rise to join in the general welcome which this Measure has received in all parts of the House. I am not speaking at the moment, though I shall have a few words to say presently, about the use which is likely to be made of it, but I am grateful for and delighted at what I conceive to be the general purposes of a Bill. I think the Secretary of State and his colleagues deserve congratulation upon taking a real step in the right direction in dealing with one of the urgent aspects of the agricultural problem. In the past it has not been urgent, because, as the Lord Advocate has said, our rivers are faster. We have not until recent years felt so much the need for a large scheme of arterial drainage in Scotland, though it has for many centuries existed and been apparent to the people in England. It is for the very reason that improvements have been
  454
  made in land drainage, and particularly in hill drainage owing to the growing importance of sheep grazing in Scotland, and that large numbers of hill drains are being put in carrying the water down to the lower ground where the arterial drainage has been quite inadequate to carry it away, that the problem is now getting acute. If, as I hope and believe is the case, the Government really do intend to tackle the urgent problem of land drainage, then it becomes all the more necessary as a first step that the Government should have introduced so wisely and rightly this Bill for tackling arterial drainage, so that the channels shall be provided by which the additional water can be carried into the sea.
  There are various Committee points with which we shall have to deal when the Bill reaches that stage, but there are one or two points which I wish to raise of more general importance. I hope we shall consider very carefully in Committee the burden that this Bill is likely to throw upon the individual owners and occupiers of land. There are many thousands of owners who are very small people and who are passing through a time of very acute depression. This depression is particularly difficult to encounter in the case of those owners who bought their property at very high rates and who have very heavy burdens of mortgages upon them at present. Of course, it may be said by those who dwell in cities and do not understand rural problems, that they will get the benefit of the expenditure and will be able to pay for it out of those benefits, but those benefits will take a very long time to accrue. When the land has been wet and sour for many years it takes a good deal of nursing, liming, and manuring before you can get it into good heart and get any return from it. Therefore, I particularly urge, in regard to these payments which have to be made and the rate of 5 per cent. per annum to be imposed under Subsection (6) of Clause 2, that they should be graduated and be made as low as possible in the first five or seven years when there would be very little return to the owner or occupier from expenditure.
  There is another point with which the Lord Advocate did not deal and with which no one else has dealt, but which

  455
  strikes me as deserving of general support. It is provided that the Crown lands should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill. As I read that, it seems to me that a private landlord or the occupier of agricultural land having water coming on to it from Crown estates or estates in the possession of the Department of Agriculture—and it should be remembered that between them they are among the half-a-dozen largest landlords in Scotland—will have no redress and will not be able to take advantage of the Clauses of the Bill.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: May I draw the hon. and gallant Member's attention to the last words of Clause 5, which say that nothing shall be done without the consent of His Majesty or the Government Department? I think there will be absolutely no difficulty.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I do not think that will be very much comfort to the occupier or owner of land. I hope the Secretary of State will consider the matter again, because I honestly do not think, if he goes to an owner or occupier of agricultural land in Scotland and tells him that he will have no statutory rights, but will be able to go to the Department and fling himself on its mercy and ask it to do something to help him, that that owner will consider it adequate. Owners would rather have a statutory right. There may be some technical difficulty, but I ask that the question of conferring upon them, as upon all other owners and occupiers of land in Scotland, a statutory right should be considered.
  I am a little disquieted about the amount of legal costs involved in the various Sub-sections of the Bill. There is, for example, in regard to the question of distributing the cost of the scheme among those affected, a provision that there should be an appeal to arbitration. The arbiter will have to he paid heavy fees. I am merely putting this forward as a point which might be considered. If proof has to be laid, it may be extremely expensive—even more expensive than proceedings in Court. Could we not bring in the Land Court in this connection? That would be a cheap and easy method, and the Land Court consists of people who have a great knowledge of land all
  456
  over Scotland. The Under-Secretary may say that if that were done there would be an appeal to the Court of Session, but it would be possible to enact specially that in cases of this kind the decision of the Land Court should be final. Under Sub-section (7) it is provided that if there is a dispute over the compensation, either party may go to a Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session to have an arbiter nominated. That is a costly proceeding merely in order to have an arbiter appointed. Surely there must be some simpler and less expensive way. Again, in the case of the acquisition of land, there is to be an appointment made from a panel of arbiters. That system works very well in many cases, and I am not making any general criticism against panels of arbiters, but there are cases in which arbiters have been brought into counties of which they know nothing. The Under-Secretary and I know of a case in which some extraordinary valuations were made by a man who did not know the circumstances of the particular county with which he was dealing. The Land Court would have a better general knowledge of the conditions all over Scotland than any other body. Different arbiters will give different decisions, and I suggest that a much fairer and stricter standard would be obtained if the Land Court decided these cases.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) referred to the fact that under Clause 2 the Department of Agriculture had the whole control of the scheme and that there was no appeal. I am very far from saying that we should hamper or restrict the action of the Department of Agriculture, and I am sure try right hon. Friend takes exactly the same view, but I do not like the provision under which the only form of appeal, the only opportunity of revising the decision of the Department, is that every scheme is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and if either House presents an address to His Majesty within 28 days, the scheme is to be annulled. Under that provision, if the House of Lords chose to vote down a scheme which had been thought out by the Department, on which a great deal of time and money had been expended, and which was of real importance to a district, then the whole of that time and money would be wasted and that district

  457
  would be deprived of the benefits of the scheme. I do not like that part of the Bill, and I appeal to the Under-Secretary to see if some provision cannot be introduced by which, if the Department of Agriculture is to be subject to some form of appeal, that appeal should be to a small expert body which could give a decision quickly on the general outlines of a scheme—a body to which local people can appeal if they did not approve of the scheme instead of the method of laying each scheme before both Houses of Parliament.
  When we come to the use which is to be made of this Bill, as opposed to the character and purpose of the Bill itself, I find myself less enthusiastic in its support. We are giving a powerful weapon to the Government, and I ask the Under-Secretary what use is he going to make of it? Are we only going to drag on during the next five years with schemes on the Spey and in the South and West of Scotland when we have thousands of acres all over Scotland waterlogged and waiting to be reclaimed from river and sea. I ask hon. Members to consider what is being done abroad. Look across the North Sea and see the Zuider Zee and the Haarlem Meer being reclaimed. In 25 years, as the result of a continuous policy, Holland has reclaimed 250,000 acres, and in 60 years Belgium has reclaimed 1,000,000 acres. In 60 years Denmark has reclaimed 500,000 acres of forest and 1,000,000 acres for agriculture; Germany and France are going on the same lines, whereas in Great Britain our land is going back in use instead of being more and more developed as the years go past. On the other hand, our industries are depressed and the figure of unemployment is mounting up year by year. Every year we vote fresh millions, not for productive expenditure, but merely for the relief of unemployed men and women. Why cannot we bring in agriculture to redress the balance?
  The Lord Advocate in a very able and eloquent speech referred to the opinion of Lord Karnes and quoted him as saying that if only we had spent a little more on the development of our soil at home, instead of so much upon the American colonies it would have been much better for the country. Why does not the Lord Advocate preach that doctrine
  458
  to his own Government? But it seems that the Government's vision is narrowed to such miserable limits that only £100,000, of which £50,000 is State money, is going to be spent on a Measure which could be made, not merely a means of getting more production from the soil of Scotland, but a means of dealing with, at least, one important aspect of the problem of unemployment. Here we have a great new, glittering, powerful machine, but we have no petrol, or at any rate, we have only £50,000 worth of petrol to make it go. What has happened to other schemes in Scotland? There have been many schemes. There was the Flanders Moss scheme which was going to reclaim land and make it worth £3 an acre. That was a business proposal and the Joint Executive of the Distress Committees of all Scotland wanted that scheme. Why cannot that scheme be revived now that these new powers are being obtained?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Hear, hear!
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am glad to have the approval of the hon. Gentleman in that suggestion. I think he represents the constituency in which Flanders Moss is situated and I am sure he will be anxious to revive the scheme just as we are anxious to revive it. I am sure that both he and the Secretary of State desire to advance on those lines. We are anxious to help them and to keep before us the greater use which can be made of what we believe to be a thoroughly good Bill. Here is an opportunity to develop our land, to employ our people productively, and to tackle one of the great problems of national reconstruction. We have a right to expect and public opinion impatiently awaits some indication of what the Government intend to do. Here is the Bill. We shall pass it to-night; we welcome it; but I would ask what use is going to be made of it; what are you going to do?
  Major MCKENZIE WOOD: There is no difference of opinion about this Bill or the purpose of this Bill, but I should like to deal with a question or two which, in my opinion, are of more than mere committee importance. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) referred to the question of appeals, and I should like the Secretary of State for Scotland seriously to consider the point which he

  459
  made. As a matter of fact, the drafting of this Bill has resulted in this—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not mean it—that the control of all these schemes is vested in the House of Lords. When a scheme has been formulated and the cost worked out, it comes to this House and to the other House. We know here that no opportunity will ever be given to us to get the time to consider any such scheme, but in another place it is different. They have the time there, and it will be very easy for them to render null and void all the work that has been done, either because they do not like the apportionment of the cost or because they do not like the scheme itself. That is a matter of very great importance, and I hope it will be considered before the Committee stage is reached.
  The next point to which I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is the difference that is to be found between the wording of Clause 1 and that of Clause 2. Clause 1 refers to the maintenance, if I may put it so, of schemes already in operation, and Clause 2 refers to new schemes; but whereas Clause 1 only deals with agricultural land, in Clause 2 it is not merely agricultural land, but "any land or building in a landward area." The question I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Under-Secretary of State, if he is going to reply, is, Why is there this difference between the two Clauses? This question of drainage is a matter which affects not merely agricultural land, but other land as well.
  The Lord Advocate, in his masterly speech at the beginning of the Debate, referred especially to the Spey. He dealt with the agricultural land in the higher reaches of the Spey, and also with the town land, if I may put it so, at the mouth of the Spey. During these last Christmas holidays many of the people of Garmouth and Kingston Port have been up all night, watching the water rising and fearing that they were going to be washed away. Is their case not to be considered in connection with Clause 1? Supposing they were affected by the fact that a scheme previously in operation has not been carried out, if the people of Garmouth or Kingston-on-Spey can show that their difficulties are largely caused by the fact that somebody
  460
  further up the river is not doing his duty, are they to have no redress under this Clause? It seems to me that that is a matter that requires a little further explanation. I might also say that, in regard to Clause 2, the phrase "any land or building in a landward area" is a little obscure, because I do not know what is meant by "a landward area."
  The last point to which I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is the incidence of the capital cost in respect of schemes under Clause 2. There is no question about the incidence of the cost of maintenance. All maintenance is to fall upon the owners and occupiers of the land in question, but with the capital cost it is different. A certain proportion of that cost is to fall upon the State, and the rest apparently on the owners and occupiers. My point is that there is nothing in this Bill to say what proportion is to fall on the State and what proportion on the others involved. There are some directions to guide the arbiters in apportioning the cost as between the different occupiers and owners concerned, but there is nothing at all to say how much is to be borne by the owners and occupiers as a class and how much by the Government, and it seems to me that there should be something in the Bill to give light on these points.
  Major COLVILLE: I have only one point to raise in regard to this Bill, which vests in the Department of Agriculture for all time responsibility for the maintenance of these drainage works, I think, under Clause 2, and they can have the sums required for this purpose levied as a rate. The result is that a non-elected body is levying rates, and though the amount may be small, the principle is a great one. In the Coast Erosion Bill there is a similar proposal, which was criticised from this side. It is undesirable and unconstitutional that a non-elected body should have the power of levying these rates, and I suggest that where the schemes have been approved and carried out, their maintenance should be handed over to the county council, and that if the area covered by a scheme, as it well might do, covers more than one county, it might be entrusted to a drainage committee nominated by the county councils affected. I should like the right

  461
  hon. Gentleman to take that proposal into his careful consideration.
  Before sitting down, I should like to say that I welcome this first definite proposal on the part of the Government to assist Scottish agriculture, and I trust that it will be followed by other proposals, because, important as is the question of land drainage, I think that even more important and pressing is the question of keeping good land from going out of cultivation, as it is doing at the present time. I trust the Government will speedily put forward proposals for dealing with that problem as well.
  Mr. MacROBERT: I should like to congratulate my successor in office upon his very clear and lucid statement in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is clear from the speeches that have been made that the aim and object of the Bill are being supported on all sides of the House. No doubt it will be scrutinised carefully at a later stage, but at the present time I should like to draw attention to one or two points. First of all, in regard to Clause 1, there is no provision at all, as I understand, for any money payment being made by the Government. Under Clause 1 it is open to any occupier or owner to require any other owner to do something on his estate. It does not require to be an adjacent or adjoining owner. If an owner or occupier can say that his particular property is being injured or is likely to be injured, he can go against the owner who, he alleges, is injuring or is going to injure him. That is what I understand the first Clause says, and I do not take any exception to it, because I understand that it is quite clearly intended to impose a new obligation upon an owner of land, and, because you are going to impose a new obligation, it is all the more essential that you should act fairly and reasonably towards the person upon whom you are imposing it. I think that there must be some mistake in the wording of this particular Sub-section. I refer to the words, in line 11:
  "in or adjoining such last-mentioned land."
  According to the Clause as it is drawn, an owner is liable to execute work on an adjoining water-course which does not belong to him. That is quite clear from the words of the Bill, and I am certain
  462
  that that is not intended. I. think that what was really intended was that—
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: In the event of one of these water-courses being next to the boundary, would it apply over the boundary as well?
  Mr. MacROBERT: Accordingly, I do not think the Government intend that an owner should be responsible to doing any work in respect of a watercourse which is not on his property. I think that what was really intended was not to have the words "or adjoining," but some such words as "any watercourse in or partly in his land," because a watercourse is either within the property or without the property. It may be partly within and partly without, but this Clause deals with a case where the watercourse is adjoining, and that, of course, implies that it is outside the property of the proprietor who is going to be called upon to do the work. I am certain that that is not intended.
  10.0 p.m.
  I do not think that the provisions with regard to appeal are satisfactory. Speaking generally the Sheriff should have power to say that the cost of the work which you seek to impose upon a particular owner is unreasonable in the circumstances, and he should be empowered to say, "I will not impose the duty upon him." The result would be that this particular matter might fall under Clause 2, and form part of a scheme. In that way, Government assistance could be given, but the Sheriff might reasonably be given powers, in the case of a small owner who, because it is alleged that he is injuring an owner in the vicinity, is to be called upon to spend a large sum of money to refuse to grant the order if the cost is going to be prohibitive or unreasonable. That would be a reasonable provision, and it would always be open to the particular person whose application had been refused, to move with a view to coming under Clause 2. It is true that Clause 2; is limited to five years, but if it be a good thing, it will be continued at the end of that time. There is another point with regard to anneals. In an appeal, the sheriff has no option if he is satisfied that injury is being done, but to grant the warrant to an outsider to do the work upon the other man's land. The sheriff

  463
  should have power to allow the owner himself to do the work, and to give him an opportunity of doing it. Further than that, the sheriff should have the opportunity of saying, "Although this owner has not executed the work within the month under Clause 1, Sub-section (2), the particular work which he was called upon, to do was of some difficulty, and he had to take more time than the month to consider his plans." If the sheriff thought that the owner was taking all reasonable steps to carry out the work in question, no warrant should be granted. These are some points which I hope will be considered, and can be considered at a later stage.
  Clause 2, again, as it is drawn, seems to a large extent limited. The Clause reads that, where the Department
  "are of opinion that any agricultural land is capable of improvement by drainage works, or that any land or building in a landward area is being or is in danger of being injured by flooding and that such injury can be remedied or prevented by the execution of drainage works, the Department may, in accordance with the provisions of a scheme made under this section, enter on the land."
  The Clause is limited in this respect, that you have to find an area which is a flooded area, or an agricultural area, which is capable of improvement, and it is only within that area that you can carry out drainage works. It is quite clear that you might have to carry out the drainage work very far away, say higher up the river, and therefore it seems to me that it would be wrong to limit it in the way that is suggested. Do the Government mean by "any land or building in a landward area" that it shall not be limited to agriculture? I understand that they intend it to go beyond agricultural land. I am not taking any exception to that, but I would like to point out that you may be doing something that is not fair if you limit it to the landward area, because one can conceive a case where there may be a few houses outside a burgh and in the landward area which are being flooded; and, when a scheme is made for that part of the landward area, all the owners of that part are responsible and liable to pay a proportion of the expense, whereas the benefit is being received, it may be, by the whole of the burgh and all the owners
  464
  in the burgh. In a case like that, it would be wrong to limit responsibility in the way suggested in this Bill.
  The case has been mentioned of Kingston-on-Spey. That is not a burgh, but a small village, and therefore it might properly be called landward. Supposing Kingston had been a burgh, and there had been certain properties affected by the flooding just outside the burgh. It would be very hard that these owners should have to bear the whole cost, and that would be the case if Kingston had been a burgh. One might easily have a case of a burgh being damnified by flooding, and no scheme would be applicable to it at all. But if you found a few houses outside also flooded, in that case you could have a scheme, and the cost would be thrown on the owners of the landward area. In that respect I think the Bill requires consideration.
  Then I wish to ask what is the intention of the Bill with regard to mines. Hon. Members opposite seem surprised that I should refer to mines, but if they will look at the wording of this Clause they will see the phrase,
  "Any land or building in a landward area is being or is in danger of being injured by flood."
  It is quite common knowledge that mines are in the landward areas, and it is known that many mines are flooded to-day. Does this Bill intend to deal with them? [An HON. MEMBER: "In so far as mines are agricultural."] The hon. Member has not appreciated the very point of this Clause. The Clause is not confined to agricultural land. That is why I am making these remarks. If the Clause had been confined to agricultural land many of my observations would rot have been apposite. It is only because it has been extended to go beyond agricultural land and buildings that these difficult questions are arising. One must remember, too, that, although we are talking of drainage, when we look at the definition we find that we are not really legislating for drains only hut for all the rivers of Scotland. It was said there are no public bodies in charge of any of the drainage schemes, and that is quite true; but it is not true of the rivers. There are the Clyde Trustees and the Forth Conservancy Board; and there may be other authorities

  465
  which I do not happen to know. One is apt to forget that owing to the wide-ness of the definition Clause this is a very far-reaching Bill indeed.
  Some questions arose with regard to cost. I understand it is the purpose of the Bill that a certain proportion of the cost will be thrown upon the owners. It may be that it is the intention of the Government that they should pay only so far as they will be benefited. That may be the policy at the back of the mind of the Government—I do not know if it is—but if it is, it is not quite provided for in the Bill, because I see the Department are only to have regard to certain matters of benefit and the like. That is a point which needs to be carefully looked into. It is quite true, as some other speakers have stated, that there is no appeal at all from the Department with regard to the very important question of settling the schemes, and as far as I can see there is no appeal from the Department with regard to the settling of the cost of the scheme. The only appeal is this: when the Department seek to apportion the cost amongst owners, there may then be an appeal in that case, and in that case only. [Interruption.] I mean an appeal to the arbitrator. It would be arbitration under Clause 2. The method of appeal there, if a person is dissatisfied, is to ask for arbitration, and the arbiter could decide that the Department were wrong in the apportionment they made. If it were left to the Department to say without appeal what the scheme is to be and what the cost of it is to be, that might be a very serious matter for the people concerned, and I think it would be right to give some form of appeal.
  It has been mentioned that the Department is an interested party. As we all know, the Department is one of the largest landowners in Scotland, and it is rather repugnant, to me, at least, to think that it is to be the judges of so many things while it may be an interested party. But these, as I have said, are matters which can be considered at a later stage. In conclusion I have to say that while there are many points which will require careful consideration and on which we shall require to see that the rights of owners are protected, so far as that can reasonably and fairly be done, nevertheless the main purpose of the Bill is one to commend
  466
  itself to this side of the House and we have much pleasure in supporting it.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: My first duty is to acknowledge, on behalf of the Government, the very sympathetic reception which this Bill has had from all quarters of the House. Many points have been raised to-night to which I am certain my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give very sympathetic consideration when the Bill gets into Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman and the late Secretary of State for Scotland raised, for example, the point as to whether or not it might be advisable for the sheriff to have an assessor or assessors with him under Clause 1. My right hon. Friend is willing to consider that question in all its aspects when we get upstairs. The question was also raised as to whether outside engineers might be brought in in exceptional cases. That, again, will be sympathetically considered; at least, powers may be taken to bring in outside engineers if the Secretary of State for Scotland for the time being should consider that course to be necessary. Then the point was raised by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) and by other hon. Members as to the small man under Clause 1 and whether he could be transferred to Clause 2 on good cause being shown. I think so; at any rate that was our intention. It was clearly the intention of the Government that such a course should be followed where it could be shown that the lack of drainage or the lack of proper precautions against flooding by one man was materially injuring agriculture in his neighbourhood. That, I think, would be a case where Clause 2 would be brought in.
  These and similar points, I can assure the House, will be very reasonably met if we can at all meet them when we come to the Committee stage; but we are exceedingly anxious that the main structure of the Bill should get through. We are prepared to meet hon. Gentlemen on details if we can get the main structure. What is this main structure? We do not know how many acres are flooded in Scotland. In England they had a Royal Commission. That Royal Commission has said that in 1927 there were 1,750,000 acres in danger of flooding and in immediate need of drain

  467
  age.There are 1,250,000 acres suffering regularly from flooding. At the present moment in Scotland, there are great stretches of land requiring to be dealt with. The Chamber of Agriculture and other organisations which claim to speak on behalf of agriculture in Scotland have demanded that something should be done and done speedily in regard to land drainage in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland has already secured £30,000 a year for field drainage, and that is three times more than the amount of money which was spent last year. I am perfectly certain that if it is found that that sum is not enough, we shall do our best to secure a larger sum. Anyhow we have already taken steps to multiply by three the amount of money that was voted for field drainage last year.
  Now comes the question of the arterial drainage required in Scotland. We do not want to be choked off with any small proposals. We must have something like a great and comprehensive scheme to tackle and deal with this subject. There are quite 10 or 12 schemes which ought to be carried out. There is the scheme dealing with the Spey where the railway bank is in danger, and agricultural land is actually being washed away. The great flood of 1928 caused one-and-a-half acres of arable land to disappear; market gardens were washed away, and dwelling houses were undermined. It is no good coming forward suggesting that we should deal with these matters with our present powers, and we must provide some central authority to deal with them. I do not want to introduce political considerations into this question, but we had a local conference on the subject of flooding on the Spey and our engineers produced a scheme to deal with it. The railway companies agreed to the scheme and offered to pay a contribution towards the cost, but the landowner refused.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: What part of the Spey was that?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I am referring to the scheme produced to stop the washing away of houses and the threatening of the railway line at Garmouth. What we propose to do now is to produce our scheme and give objec
  468
  tors power to object. When their objections are heard, it will then be formally intimated to all the proprietors that the scheme will provide for the expenses—not necessarily only a part, but it may be all the expenses—being borne by those who are to get the actual benefit, including those who are saved from suffering depreciation of their properties, and who may rightly be called upon for a contribution towards the cost of the scheme. I need not repeat what the Lord Advocate has said, but it is provided in the Bill that, if objection is taken, an arbiter shall be appointed by a Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session, absolutely free from any suspicion of Government influence, to settle the amount of compensation if compensation be necessary.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood) drew attention to the fact that, as the Bill now stands, a hostile Resolution in either House would kill any one scheme. I agree. We desire to get our Bill through, and, accordingly, have put in these safeguards, but we are so absolutely certain that we can make out a 100 per cent. good case that we are willing, in the interests of the agriculture of our country, to take that risk. We feared that, if we did not put in these safeguards, however extravagant they may seem to us and to hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House, we should not be able to secure that measure of support and agreement in this House which would be necessary for the carrying out of our purpose. If in Committee there is anything like a majority for lessening these safeguards, I am sure that no Member on this side of the House would regret it if some of them, which we believe to be absolutely unnecessary were taken out.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was mistaken in saying that there is not much in Clause 2 of the Bill, and that, on further consideration, he will amend that opinion. Thirty-three branches of the Farmers' Union—the people who know the facts—have formally sent us appeals to get on with this Bill as speedily as possible; and all the agricultural interests in Scotland so far as we know—the Chamber of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union, the Farm Servants' Union, the surveyors, everyone—believe that the Bill,

  469
  even as it now stands, may mean the salvation of agricultural land in Scotland. Reference has been made to the Spey, and also to the Kelvin. I have lived by the banks of the Kelvin all my life. I see 3,000 acres, eight times in an average winter, under flood, sometimes three feet deep. I have seen roads washed away. I believe it has cost the Treasury more money for the repair of roads in that area than would have bought the whole of the land outright. Cattle have been washed away. Recently a woman disappeared, and her body was not found until some weeks afterwards, having actually passed through a town. We know that this flooding could be stopped. We have detailed reports of skilled engineers, and we have estimates of what it would cost to do it. We believe that we can, in that one valley alone, bring 3,000 acres of the finest land in central Scotland into immediate use. We believe that we can do that profitably and economically.
  As in the case of the Spey and the Kelvin, the Annan also persistently floods arable land. I am informed that at present the sour, marshy, flooded areas by the River Annan are let at 30s. and 40s. per annum, while land adjacent but just outside the flooded area lets at £6 and over. It is obvious that, if we could only take what steps are in our power to bring this land into use, as other countries have done, we could make it profitable and do something to put agriculture on a more economic footing. We hear a lot about rationalisation of this industry and the other industry. If the statements made by the agricultural interest in Scotland are correct, one-seventh of the capital resources of agriculture is urgently requiring treatment by drainage.
  Here is a method by which, for a trifling sum of public money, we shall be able to do something for our greatest industry. We shall be able to make those who receive the benefit pay a large proportion of the cost. We shall be able to make those who are seeing their property depreciate pay something to have the cessation of that depreciation, and, if we cannot carry the public ownership of the land which we should desire, and other Members who desire individual ownership, and believe that everyone has a
  470
  right to do what he likes with his own, cannot justify this flooded anarchy any longer, surely we can sit on the Standing Committee upstairs, and, without party politics, discuss amicably and reasonably the many useful points which have been raised in the discussion to-day. I can assure the House that, if the Bill is met upstairs in the same spirit as it has been met in the House to-night, we shall do our beet to meet all reasonable points of difference. Let us trust that we shall get the Bill through as speedily as possible, so that the engineers' schemes which are already in draft can be put into use at once, and we shall see something done this summer to better agricultural possibilities.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should not have taken any part in the Debate but for the-perfectly amazing speech which we have just heard. The hon. Gentleman has told us that there is flooded anarchy, whatever that means, in the agricultural districts of Scotland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Water!"] I should rather imagine that floods and water are usually more or less closely connected. Here is a scheme brought forward and supported by practically every Scottish Member. I propose, as an English Member, as time goes on, to look into the cost of the Bill and certain other details connected with it. When I find Scottish Members fairly steadily combining to extract money, when I find over a considerable period that these same gentlemen want to get quietly on with it, I think, as a representative of the general taxpayer, I have some right, on these rare occasions when one has an opportunity of raising one's voice, to put in a word for the general taxpayer.
  I should like to call the attention of the House to the Memorandum. It is a most extraordinary Memorandum. I do not wonder that there is no representative of the Treasury here. No representative of the Treasury, unless he was more decadent than the present representatives on the Front Bench, could possibly come and answer for such a Bill as this. The Memorandum says that
  "the whole cost of execution of the schemes in view may be in the neighbourhood of £100,000."
  It says "may be." There is nothing definite. It may be £100,000 or it may be £1,000,000, for all we know. All we know

  471
  is, that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland believe that they have a limitless sum upon which they can draw. Are we entitled to pass any Bill at the present time which gives them a limitless sum? I would not mind the granting of a given sum, provided I knew the precise amount. It is absolutely wrong to go forward with a Bill of this kind unless we have an understanding as to what the actual sum is likely to be. The Memorandum goes on to say:
  "It is thought that 6ome 50 per cent. of the cost of all the schemes, excluding compensation, may ultimately be recovered."
  It is a queer and vague Memorandum. "It is thought"—on two occasions those words recur. We have had no estimate of what the total sum is likely to be. The House of Commons, which is supposed primarily to be a financial House, has not the remotest knowledge of the actual cost from what I have heard of the discussion this afternoon, and I have heard a very considerable portion of it. I, like others, have to leave the Chamber—we are all human—about eight o'clock for a short time, but I am no worse than any other hon. Member. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman undoubtedly speaks from his own desires and feelings, but there are some who have other ideas in life beyond that. I am sorry for the interruption, because it is a bit difficult to go into a Bill which is so complicated.
  The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State referred to the question of floods on the Spey. I understand that great damage is being done. [Interruption.] I am perfectly innocent in regard to this matter, and, surely, that is all the more reason why I should try to find out about this matter. The hon. Member says that enormous damage has been done and that the railway company are liable and willing to help. I did not notice that any other person was liable and willing to help. I conclude that the railway company are a business concern, and probably have Englishmen on the management. What about the local people from the various local authorities? No offer of any kind, as far as I can make out, has been made by local authorities to put the matter right. I always understood that if there was
  472
  money in it, the Scotsman was the first to be there.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: May I assist the hon. Gentleman's peroration by saying that the County Council was willing to pay, and actually invited a conference?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having helped me out on this occasion. We have an assurance with respect to the county council and the railway company. That is all to the good. But we have no knowledge that the people who make profit out of the land are going to help in any way. I should like to be certain that value will be obtained for the money spent and that in some instances we are not paying perhaps one pound in order to recover one shillingsworth of land. If the land was as valuable as we are led to believe, one would have thought that not only the railway company and the local authorities but others would have been willing to move in the matter. There may be a considerable number of big owners and tenants interested. If it could have been shown to me that the work was worth doing in every case, I should have been only too glad to give support, but it did not appear to me that the case had been proved. I cannot understand Clause 1, but I hope that the result of my intervention so far as that Clause is concerned will not be that I shall be punished by being placed upon the Scottish Committee. It is one of the most complicated bits of legislation that I have ever had the pleasure or otherwise of looking into. When my hon. and learned Friend was trying to explain what would happen under Clause 1, line 10:
  "or to join in maintaining the banks or to cleanse the channel of any watercourse in or adjoining such last-mentioned land,"
  I interrupted him, not from mere opposition, but to ask whether it was possible to say what would happen with regard to a stream which was on the border of the two countries. I wanted to give an opportunity to the Government to explain whether this Measure stands alone or whether it is the forerunner of an English scheme. I deliberately asked the question, and I have been given to understand from different sources that this Bill is a sort of preparatory scheme to an English land drainage scheme. If that is the case,

  473
  if we can be assured that all the various details of this Bill are likely to be repeated as far as England is concerned, if we can be certain that the unlimited expenditure of money which is likely to occur under this Bill is likely to occur on a wider area when England will benefit as well, I should not be quite so averse to the Bill, but when I find that there is no direct encouragement to us to believe that it will be extended on a wider scale, when I find that this grant of public money is a grant to Scotland and will not come to England, then every English Member, regardless of party, should join with me in saying that we should have such a Measure in England as well. I do not say that I should approve even in that case, but there would be a better chance of getting my approval if the provisions of a Measure such as this were extended to this side of the Border. I want to raise a point on Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. I do not profess to have a comprehensive knowledge of Scottish legal terms. [Interruption.] I am sure hon. Members will agree that I am therefore entitled to get some knowledge on these matters. I want to know what the words in this Sub-section actually mean:
  "Where a notice has been served in pursuance of the foregoing sub-section and the requirements thereof have not been complied with within one month after such date of service, it shall be lawful for the person serving the notice to apply to the sheriff for a warrant authorising Him to cause the operations specified in the notice to be carried out or to join with any other person in so doing."
  It seems to me that this is authorising a tremendous interference, a collosal interference, with the rights of individuals in almost any circumstances. You may have a small man occupying a comparatively little homestead who, by some misfortune which he is entirely unable to control, is causing the blocking of a particular river. Down comes upon him this notice from the Sheriff and ultimately the whole cost of the operation, as I read the Bill, may sooner or later be put on his shoulders. I say quite honestly that in such a matter as this— [Interruption]—I am glad to find there is one hon. Member who cheers the word "honestly," because it is not so popular with the party opposite at the moment. I put it to the Secretary of State for Scotland, as a man who has had a very hard struggle in life in many ways,
  474
  who has been successful, can he really say that, so far as this Subsection is concerned he considers that the small man has adequate protection? I do not; I very much doubt it. It is very nice for the right hon. Gentleman's lawyer friends to say that it is all right, but the right hon. Gentleman is a man who has kindliness at the bottom of his heart, and I say frankly that if I were in his position and had to force through such a thing as this, I would not be at all sure that I would not want very much bigger powers for safeguarding the small individual with his hard lot and small margin of profit.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put accordingly, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the drainage of agricultural land in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses to be incurred by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland under the said Act so far as those expenses are not recovered in the manner provided by the said Act."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. William Adamson.]
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): After the large amount of information which has been given by the learned Lord Advocate and by others who have taken part in the Debate on the Bill, a very few words of explanation of the Money Resolution will suffice. The Bill has received the unanimous approval of the House and has been spoken of favourably by Scottish members in all quarters. I,

  475
  therefore, think that the money necessary to carry out the purpose of the Bill should be granted without further discussion. The sum needed is £100,000. With this money we shall be able to carry out not only the ten principal schemes already referred to, which would have been explained in detail if time had permitted, but a number of subsidiary schemes as well. I hope that the Committee without further explanation will see their way to agree to the Resolution.
  Major WOOD: I want to ask one question. Are we to understand that these schemes contemplated by Clause 2 are always to be contributed to out of public funds? Supposing there is a case where it is quite obvious that the advantage to the owners concerned is as much as, or more than, the cost of the scheme, will the whole of the cost be made payable by the different owners? In some cases these schemes will not entail any expense at all on the Exchequer.
  Mr. ADAMSON: It very much depends upon the circumstances.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend wants to know if a scheme comes forward in which the advantage is entirely to the proprietor, will no public money be expended?
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I wish to make a protest that no representative of the Treasury is here when we are dealing with a Money Resolution. I also want to support the point which was made by an hon. Member on Second Reading, namely, that when you have Scottish Members in all parts joining together, then it is time for English Members to look out and to see that the English taxpayer is not done down by the Scottish. It is said that the cost will be £100,000 but there is nothing in the Resolution about £100,000. The Financial Memorandum says it is thought that the whole cost of the execution of the scheme may be in the neighbourhood of £100,000, but we do not know whether we are letting ourselves in for £100,000 or £1,000,000. There may be new schemes which are not mentioned here. The Financial Memorandum then says:
  "It is thought that some 50 per cent. of the cost of all the schemes, excluding compensation, may ultimately be recovered."
  476
  We do not know that 50 per cent. will be recovered. Then it says:
  "The Department have no reason to suppose that claims will be unduly heavy."
  What does "unduly heavy" mean? The Committee cannot pass a Resolution of this sort without a great deal more information as to what we are letting ourselves in for.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: We are dealing here with a Money Resolution which is the way in which the House provides the finance, and the Resolution says that it is a question of making further provision for the drainage of agricultural land. I take it that means something in the nature of capital charges. Although the Bill is based on the Money Resolution, the only part of the Bill which is in italics is in Clause 4, which says:
  "The expenses of the Department under this Act so far as not recovered in manner provided by this Act shall, to such an amount as the Treasury may sanction, be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."
  Therefore I take it this is really the only part of the Bill with which Parliament is concerned in finding the money. I gather that the Under-Secretary assents. But then I turn to Clause 2, Sub-section (12), and I find something quite different. It says that the cost incurred by the Department in maintaining drainage works executed in accordance with the various schemes shall be levied on and recovered from the owner by the rating authority and paid over by the rating authority to the Department. I take it that Clause 4 means that if, for one reason or another, the rate is not levied, the Treasury has to make good the difference.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: We are taking power to levy the rate.
  Captain CROOKSHANK: I quite see that the Government are taking power to levy the rate, but they cannot levy the rate if, for one reason or another, there is default, which is, I imagine, quite possible, particularly in Scotland. In Clause 4 power is taken by the Department to recover that amount from moneys which Parliament puts at its disposal. That is purely a question of maintenance, yet the Under-Secretary, when I put my first point, indicated that it was merely a question of capital works. Which is it? Surely it is perfectly simple to say whether the Government Department is

  477
  to find contributions in aid of some kind of capital works, or whether we are finding an amount of money for the maintenance of works constructed under this Bill. Having to make good any default may involve a recurring charge and no reason has been given so far for limiting it to £100,000. It is a question of whether we are dealing with capital expenditure or with possible maintenance grants from year to year, and that is a matter of concern to every Member, whether he sits for a Scottish constituency or not, because we are all jointly responsible for the finances of the country. I hope that the Secretary of State, instead of looking at the clock, will reply to this point.
  Mr. W. ADAMSON: I would point out that there is very little time now at my disposal. We are putting forward this Money Resolution for the purpose of enabling us to go forward with this Measure, and, in the Money Resolution, the cost is estimated at £100,000. Had time been available I could have given the amounts set aside for each scheme, but the estimate of the total, as I say, is £100,000, and before the Treasury finally part with the matter it will be provided for in the Scottish Estimates. This Money Resolution is necessary to enable us to get the other stages of the Bill, and, having explained that to my fellow Members from England, and having pointed out that there is a unanimous feeling in favour of the Bill, I appeal to them to restrain themselves and allow us to get the Resolution.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should be the last to—
  Mr. SEXTON: On a point of order. What have we done to deserve this?
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: These interruptions make it difficult for me to get on with the job. What I wish to know about this Resolution, of which we have had no explanation, from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—
  Mr. W. ADAMSON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
  Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
  Mr. W. J. BROWN: I wish to raise the matter about which I gave notice at Question time to-day. I refer to the discharge of ex-service men now serving as temporary civil servants in Government Departments. I do not deny that successive Governments have done a good deal to ease the problem of temporary labour in the Civil Service; I do not deny that in the early stages of the post-War period dismissals from the Civil Service on a large scale were inevitable; but for some time past the size of the temporary clerk problem in the Civil Service has been so small as to make it a perfectly practicable thing to give security to the remaining temporary staff. Successive Governments have pledged themselves in the plainest possible language that no efficient ex-service temporary clerk should be discharged from the Civil Service to make room for incoming recruits from school. That pledge was made by the last Government. It has been endorsed by the present Government, but I shall submit to the House that, if that pledge is being carried out in the letter, it is being violated in the spirit in a way in which this House ought not to tolerate. It may be true that an individual ex-service man is not being put on the street in order that a boy or girl from school may come in to occupy his particular seat; but What is happening in the Civil Service is that temporary men are being discharged, that established civil servants already in the Department are being transferred to the seats that these men leave, and that then open competition recruits are being brought in to fill the place of the civil servants thus transferred.

  479
  The evidence for what I have said may be found in the fact that during the last four years no less than 2,354 boys and girls have been brought through open competitive examinations into the Civil Service. During the same period, dismissals of temporary ex-service men who ought never to be called temporary after from 10 to 15 years' service for the State, have been proceeding at an average rate of 450 per annum. My hon. Friend who will reply will probably tell the House that a considerable proportion of the ex-service men dismissed year by year have subsequently been found places in other Departments through the operations of the Joint Substitution Board. I am not concerned whether that is the case or not. If only one ex-service man finds himself on the streets after 10 or 16 years' work for the State, in order that a boy or girl may come in from school, my case remains just as good as if the number ran into scores or hundreds or thousands.
  That ought not to happen, but, if my hon. Friend says that he has been able to replace the bulk of those being discharged, what does that mean? It means that what I say is true. If over a period four years, during which you have had to dismiss a number of men, you have found it possible to replace them in other Departments, surely the logical deduction is that it is perfectly practicable at this stage of the problem to assure every efficient ex-service temporary clerk that he can have security of tenure somewhere or other in the Civil Service. I ask the House to conceive the attitude of mind of men of anything from 30 to 50 years of age, in most cases with families, and with anything from 10 to 15 years' service in a temporary capacity, being presented, as a hundred men at Kew are now being presented, with a notice that in one month from now their services will not be required in that Department. That is a situation in which we ought not to place any of those men if it is possible, as I tell the House it is possible, to give them security of tenure.
  The next point I wish to make is this. The Government have set up a Royal Commission on the Civil Service. It is part of its terms of reference to consider the future of these very men of whom
  480
  I am talking. I say it is a monstrous thing, while that Commission is considering the future of these men, that their future should be destroyed by dismissals. The essence of the appointment of a Commission of that kind, if the Government are sincere, is that while it is sitting and until it presents its report the men into whose fate it is inquiring ought to be assured of security of tenure, and nothing ought to be done to sabotage the work of the Commission before it has had the opportunity of considering the problem and reporting.
  The next point is this; even where the Government are able, when men are dismissed from one Department, to send them to another, that often imposes a very severe tax upon the individuals concerned. They are poor men. The maximum salary of a Grade III Clerk, as most of them are, is 67s. 7d. a week. None of those men can yet have reached the maximum, and the average rate would be about 62s. If a man is moved from Kew, where he has been for a large number of years, and where he has made his home, and is sent to the Custom House in the East End of London, or to the Money Order Department in North London, or some other department in the City of London, the net effect is to tax him to the tune of several shillings a week for travelling expenses as the result of the move. I beg the Minister, if he is compelled to effect those transfers, to do to these men what be would do with established civil servants, and make good to them the extra cost of travel. I think it is inhuman that the Government should mulct those individuals who have given military service, and after that long periods of Civil Service, of several shillings a week from a paltry wage of 62s. or thereabouts, on which they have to keep a wife and family.
  I shall probably be told by the hon. Gentleman who is to reply that there is need for a measure of open competitive recruitment to the clerical and writing assistants' classes of the Civil Service. I am not going to deny the desirability of a measure of open recruitment from the point of view of this State service, but if one half of these 2,300 seats which have been filled by boys and girls from school had been utilised to give permanency to men who are now insecure we should not have needed to put questions to-day about

  481
  dismissals from Kew or to raise this matter to-night. It is not a matter of ignoring the needs of the State's service, but of relating the State's service to the State's own responsibility towards an exceedingly deserving body of men.
  At some other time I shall need to raise in the House the effect of the recruitment of boys and girls from school to the executive class of the Civil Service and the clerical class of the Civil Service, with promotion prospects to writing assistants, typists, P men, and so on. I am not raising that issue to-night. To-night I am raising these two specific points. I, as an old civil servant, tell the House that it is a perfectly practical thing for the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench to say in this House to-night that every temporary clerk who is efficient shall be assured of security of tenure, and he can do that and "till meet his needs in the way of open competitive recruitment. That is a perfectly practicable thing to do; and I ask him to do it. The second thing I ask him to do is to deal with that point about extra travelling expenses where transfers are involved.
  My last word, for I want to leave the hon. Member plenty of time to reply, is, we do not want to find him acting as the mouthpiece of Treasury officials on this issue. Nothing has discouraged me more as a newcomer to these benches—and I am going to put this with the utmost possible candour—than to witness the way in which our Ministers make themselves the mouthpiece of replies that any civil servant could tell them were wrong replies. We want something better than that from Labour Ministers. We passionately want something better than that when the employment of married men with families is at stake. We are entitled to ask for it, and I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will give it to us.
  Commander SOUTHBY: I want to associate myself with all that has been said by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown), and I am sure every temporary Civil Service clerk will be grateful to him for the way in which he has put forward their case. After the War these men went into the Civil Service, and they were assured of jobs in the Civil Service as long as they were able to carry out their duties
  482
  efficiently. Although it may be argued that this contract has been honoured in the letter, it cannot be argued that it is being honoured in the spirit. We may be told that it has been necessary in the interests of economy to replace these men by boys and girls, but this House, I am sure, would not wish to see economy practised to the detriment of men who fought in the War and who were assured of jobs when they returned, as long as they were competent to carry out their duties.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): As hon. Members who have been in the House for some years are aware, we have always been exceedingly careful to do justice in this matter. The House has to take care of the efficiency of the Civil Service, but so careful have we been in the past that even the efficiency of the Civil Service has not been allowed to stand in the way of justice being done to the ex-service men, and we have frequently appointed committees in order to make sure that everything possible was being done to protect the interests of the ex-sevice men. Let me say what has taken place. In the first place, apart from the ex-service men who were pre-War in the Civil Service, established in the ordinary way, the following steps have been taken to protect the interests of the ex-service men. Acting upon the recommendations of the Lytton and Southborough Committees there was an examination and the result of it was that 16,000 ex-service men have been established as civil servants. There was a number of men who did not qualify, and as a result it was felt that there was still a large number of ex-service men who might become dispossessed of their employment. Those who did not pass the examination were examined and their case was brought under review. Acting upon the principle that those who had the highest claim upon the State should be given preference, a further 8,000 were put into a P class, and those men would be quite certain to retain their jobs although they were not exactly established and did not become pensionable as the ordinary established men were.
  That means something like 5,000 ex-service men were left as temporary civil

  483
  servants. Those 5,000 men are subject to two promises. The first is that for every three vacancies that occur in the P Class through promotion, discharge, death or any other reason, one of the remaining ex-service men who are not established shall be given a P Class position. The second promise is one which was given by my predecessor in office and which I have confirmed, namely, that pending the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the appointment of new entrants to the clerical class of the Civil Service by open competition will not be allowed to result in discharge from the Government service of any efficient ex-service temporary clerk in order to make room for a successful candidate from such examination. At the same time I think it must be clear to hon. Members, who are accustomed to deal with ordinary affairs, that it would not be possible to go beyond that, and promise that there would be no recruitment from outside the Civil Service. I do not think that my hon. Friend who raised this question suggested that. I may perhaps be permitted to quote a recommendation contained in the Second Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, presented to this House in 1929. They said—
  Mr. STEPHEN: A Tory committee.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not know how long the hon. Member has been in this House, but I may inform him that these Committees are not party Committees—
  Mr. STEPHEN: I have been long enough in the House to know that they are.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sorry; I was facing the other way and did not notice that it was my hon. Friend who made the interjection. The Select Committee's recommendation was as follows:
  "Whilst your Committee agree that in the circumstances existing after the War the arrangements made were appropriate, they consider, in the interests of future efficiency and in view of the urgency of correcting the existing distribution without delay, that steps should be taken as occasion arises to resume the system of open competition, with the intention, on the one hand, of improving the standard of admission to the various
  484
  classes and, on the other hand, of maintaining a regular flow of recruits at the normal ages."
  I think it must be apparent that it would be impossible for the Government, being responsible for the efficiency of the whole Civil Service, to do away with open recruitment so that people at the ages required should be admitted; I at as I have already pointed out, it takes care at the same time to safeguard the position of the ex-service men.
  Captain RONALD HENDERSON: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any information as to how many men have been promoted from the "P" class on to the permanent establishment? The "P" class men have no pension rights, and it is an inferred moral obligation that they would be gradually promoted from the "P" class on to the establishment with pension rights.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am told the answer to that is 1,100. course, I cannot give any definite promise that as jobs peter out there will not be some discharge of temporary men.
  Mr. BROWN: What becomes of the pledge?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The time is very short. If hon. Members want me to deal with the subject, I must be allowed to proceed, or they will suffer through my answer not being satisfactory.
  Mr. BROWN: The hon. Gentleman has occupied nearly two-thirds of his time with a recital of past history, and has not yet come to the specific point of my speech which is: How does he reconcile what is happening with his own pledge?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I must take the subject as a whole. If hon. Members had not interrupted I should have come to the point. I cannot promise that as jobs peter out men will not be discharged, but that is not the pledge. The pledge is that men will not be discharged in order to find room for new entrants through examination. At the, same time, it is the effort of the Joint Substitution Board to find places for men who are discharged, and I assure my hon. Friend that in certainly the great bulk, if not in all cases, jobs have

  485
  been offered to the men who have been discharged in either the same or in some other Department on the same lines as those from which they have been discharged. With regard to the men who are subject to discharge at present, I am informed that already the Joint Substitution Board has found places for several of them, and before their notices expire, a very considerable proportion of the men discharged will have had places found for them, and although I must not be taken to give any definite pledge, I am hopeful that a substantial number of those who remain will before a very great while after their discharge has taken place, be replaced in some Department, so that they will not suffer appreciably.
  Mr. BROWN: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is, if the Government has given a pledge that no ex-service man shall be turned out to make room for an incoming open competition recruit, that at one and the same time you have boys and girls coming in by the hundred—600 from the last examination alone—and men being discharged? How can he reconcile that with the pledge?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The fact is, that those engaged in Government Departments are not all exactly the
  486
  same. Human beings are not like sheep in a field. They all have different work, different grades of work, and different responsibility. It is not possible absolutely to say that every man who is turned out can be put into any job that arises. We have to take all sorts of things into consideration, but broadly speaking every man that has been discharged has been found work at the same time that the new entrants have come in. The pledge has been observed not only in the letter but in the spirit, and it is the intention of the Departments to keep that pledge in the latter and in the spirit in the future.
  Mr. BROWN: May I give notice, that in view of that wholly unsatisfactory, lame, inadequate and irrelevant reply, I shall raise this matter on another appropriate occasion if I am in order in so doing.
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I am sure the whole House thinks that the hon. Gentleman's answer has been entirely unsatisfactory and nothing but mere quibble all the way through.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

INDIA.
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE.
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE.
  COMMUNAL ELECTORATES, FIJI.
  COMMUNAL ELECTORATES, FIJI.
  LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND PROVINCIAL COUNCILS' ELECTIONS.
  LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND PROVINCIAL COUNCILS' ELECTIONS.
  MAHARAJA OF BHARATPUR.
  MAHARAJA OF BHARATPUR.
  AIR FORCE.
  AIR FORCE.
  FACTORY INSPECTORS.
  FACTORY INSPECTORS.
  WOOLWICH COUNTY COURT (ACCOMMODATION).
  WOOLWICH COUNTY COURT (ACCOMMODATION).
  ARCHÆOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS.
  ARCHÆOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS.
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  ENEMY DEBTS, CLEARING OFFICE.
  ENEMY DEBTS, CLEARING OFFICE.
  CLAIMS AND RECORD OFFICE, KEW.
  CLAIMS AND RECORD OFFICE, KEW.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  INSURANCE, CHILDREN.
  INSURANCE, CHILDREN.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.
  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
  WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.
  NAVAL CONSTRUCTION, GERMANY.
  NAVAL CONSTRUCTION, GERMANY.
  BEER (EXCISE DUTY).
  BEER (EXCISE DUTY).
SCOTLAND.
  FISHING INDUSTRY (RELIEF AND LOANS).
  FISHING INDUSTRY (RELIEF AND LOANS).
  ADMINISTRATIVE SCHEMES.
  ADMINISTRATIVE SCHEMES.
  RENT RESTRICTION.
  RENT RESTRICTION.
  BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.
  BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
EDUCATION.
  PHYSICAL TRAINING, ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  PHYSICAL TRAINING, ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (RUBBER PLANTATIONS, WAGES).
  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (RUBBER PLANTATIONS, WAGES).
  EAST AFRICA (RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION, LABOUR).
  EAST AFRICA (RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION, LABOUR).
  BRITISH ARMY (HAY SUPPLY).
  BRITISH ARMY (HAY SUPPLY).
  COAL INDUSTRY (AMALGAMATIONS).
  COAL INDUSTRY (AMALGAMATIONS).
  BRITISH SHIPS (FOREIGN PURCHASES).
  BRITISH SHIPS (FOREIGN PURCHASES).
POST OFFICE.
  ADVERTISEMENT SPACE CONTRACT.
  ADVERTISEMENT SPACE CONTRACT.
  MAILS (PROTECTION AGAINST THEFT).
  MAILS (PROTECTION AGAINST THEFT).
  SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS (INTEREST).
  SAVINGS BANK DEPOSITS (INTEREST).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
  MUNICIPAL INCORPORATION.
  MUNICIPAL INCORPORATION.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMITTEES.
  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMITTEES.
  CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.
  CAPITAL EXPENDITURE.
  INDEBTEDNESS.
  INDEBTEDNESS.
  FOREIGN TENDERS.
  FOREIGN TENDERS.
  HAYES AND CRANFORD (AMALGAMATION PROPOSAL).
  HAYES AND CRANFORD (AMALGAMATION PROPOSAL).
AGRICULTURE.
  POTATOES.
  POTATOES.
  DUTCH SKIMMED-MILK CHEESE.
  DUTCH SKIMMED-MILK CHEESE.
  FRENCH WHEAT (IMPORT).
  FRENCH WHEAT (IMPORT).
  CATTLE (MARKETING).
  CATTLE (MARKETING).
  BEEF (GRADING AND MARKING).
  BEEF (GRADING AND MARKING).
TRANSPORT.
  REPAIR GARAGES (STOLEN CARS).
  REPAIR GARAGES (STOLEN CARS).
  AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
  AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
  ACCIDENTS, CAMOMILE BOTTOM.
  ACCIDENTS, CAMOMILE BOTTOM.
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (TREATMENT).
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (TREATMENT).
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (FIRES).
  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (FIRES).
  ECONOMIC POLICY.
  ECONOMIC POLICY.
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  TUBERCULOSIS.
  SMALL-POX.
  SMALL-POX.
HOUSING.
  NON-PARLOUR HOUSES.
  NON-PARLOUR HOUSES.
  DEMOLITION.
  DEMOLITION.
  STATISTICS (LONDON).
  STATISTICS (LONDON).
  SOUTHWARK.
  SOUTHWARK.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ROTHESAY TRAMWAYS AND OMNI BUSES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Sections 8 and 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Rothesay tramways and omnibuses; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ARNOLD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Arnold.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I think it would be convenient if, before we go into the details of the Report stage, I made a very short statement as to the attitude of the Government towards the Amendments which appear upon the Paper. I desire in doing this—and it is one of the reasons for my doing it—to treat the House with all respect on a complicated matter of this character. Most of the Amendments are in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Salisbury, and I think I am right in saying that all of them are in the nature of drafting Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They are all consequential.
LORD PARMOOR: Therefore I do not propose to put the noble Marquess to the trouble of going through them all.
162
But on the last Amendment, at the end of Clause 19, I think a question might arise, so if he would take that by itself there are one or two matters that my noble friend Lord Arnold would tike to call attention to in connection with it. The other Amendments, however, are consequential on the Amendment which was carried on Tuesday. Of course, we cannot seek to alter the opinion of the House at this stage on a point of that kind.
There are also two other Amendments. Perhaps I may say a word on an Amendment to Clause 7 which has only just been put into my hands, in the name of Lord Cozens-Hardy. I would suggest to him that if he wants that Amendment fairly considered it would be much more advantageous for him to move it after the Third Reading, for I have not had any time to consider it. I understand also that it has not been seen by the Lord Chancellor, whose opinion we value on matters of this kind. It is well within the right of the noble Lord, Lord Cozens-Hardy, to bring it forward if he likes, although it is not among the Marshalled Amendments, but I am suggesting to him that the more prudent course, if he wants this matter fully discussed, would be not to press it at this stage but to deal with it, as he could equally well do, after the Third Reading. That is a matter for his consideration.
The other Amendment is in the name of Lord Darling, who suggests a new clause after Clause 3. We have expressed our view more than once on maintaining Clause 4 as it was placed in the Bill. We do not want to trouble your Lordships with unnecessary Divisions. We shall, of course, wait and hear what Lord Darling has to say, but I do not see that his Amendment is likely to raise any different question from that which was raised in the first instance. We shall have to insist on the form of the clause, and, as your Lordships are well aware, when this Bill goes down to another place that will be the forth that we shall attempt to reintroduce. I do not want to go into any question of Privilege, except to say that in our opinion these are Privilege Amendments. Of course, we often put in Privilege Amendments, and then put in the clause afterwards. There is no harm in that, but these are matters primarily for the decision of the House of Commons, and we regard them from that point of view. I have only said

163
these few words in order that I might shorten the discussion as much as possible. We have a good deal more work to do to-night before we adjourn, and I hope your Lordships will consider that the course which I have suggested is a convenient one.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the courteous tone of his speech. With regard to the Amendments which stand in my name, they are all designed to be consequential. If it should turn out that one of them has strayed beyond that strict limit I shall be very glad to be corrected by the Paymaster-General when he comes to deal with it. With regard to the question of Privilege, everyone knows that Privilege is becoming every day more and more a sham. The Government themselves in the course of this Bill here have inserted Amendments on their own Motion which are a breach of the Privilege of the House of Commons according to the strict interpretation; that is to say, Amendments moved by the Paymaster-General would have the effect of throwing an extra charge upon the taxpayers. He did not make any apology for doing that and I did not wish him to make an apology; anyway he did not. In another place the Government of course will make no apology and the matter will be put through directly without the least trouble. Therefore, this matter of Privilege is growing more and more threadbare almost every day. I will not say that every Bill which comes to your Lordships' House, but one out of every two Bills involves Amendments in your Lordships' House which are breaches of the strict rule of Privilege. All that the House of Commons does is this: if the majority agree with the breach of Privilege the Amendments are put in and if the majority do not agree they are not put in. That is really what happens, though there is a certain form of course which is put through. I think that the great officer of State, the Speaker, calls attention to the fact of its being a breach of Privilege; but beyond the form nothing happens.
The only other reference which the noble and learned Lord made was to the Amendment standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Darling. I will not discuss it at this moment because we shall be discussing
164
it directly. For my own part I regret very much that the Government have not seen fit to produce an Amendment in place of Clause 4 which your Lordships thought fit to strike out. I will not say more than this. No one could have listened to the debate without realising that the Government did not much believe in Clause 4 themselves. The proper method which I think they should have adopted in consequence of your Lordships' action is to have put on their considering caps and considered whether they could not produce something better than Clause 4 and place, it upon the Paper for your Lordships' consideration.
LORD PARMOOR: I think the noble Marquess is not justified in suggesting what our attitude has been towards Clause 4. Our attitude was very direct and specific—that Clause 4 from our point of view must remain in the Bill in the form in which the Bill came from another place. Had the noble Marquess thought it would have helped matters to try to re-insert Clause 4—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD PARMOOR: I am very glad to see that the noble Marquess shakes his head and I entirely agree with him. It would have been, I think, I will not say an insult to the House but hardly in conformity with the true dignity of the House after the very large majority by which Clause 4 was displaced to seek to re-introduce it. I think we made it clear that our policy is involved in Clause 4 and in no alteration of it. Subject to that I am obliged to the noble Marquess for what he has said, and I hope we shall not take long in dealing with the Report stage of the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:—
Amendment as to disqualifications for receipt of benefit.
4. If, on a claim for benefit, it be proved that the claimant has refused, and refuses, without reason, to work when employment is found for him, or if it be proved that the claimant is not endeavouring to obtain employment, he shall be disqualified from receiving benefit for a period of six weeks or for such shorter period and from such date as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may be.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I feel that I owe an apology to your Lordships for having been so audacious as to put upon the Paper an Amendment concerning this Bill. Only forty-eight hours ago your Lordships came to a conclusion upon Clause 4 which left it out of the Bill altogether. When that had occurred there was no provision whatever for dealing with this subject of payment to people who were out of work, supposing they were not attempting to obtain it. I did not expect, I must say, that matters would have been left until now in that condition. The position was this. Here was a Bill which had received the attention of His Majesty's Government, introduced with all their authority, not in the form in which they first brought the matter before the House of Commons but in a more considered shape. After considerable debate, in which the Front Bench opposite took a notable part, Clause 4 was struck out of the Bill, and this great work appeared in the form in which people have deplored to find many another piece of our literature. A gap in those circumstances is generally marked "Hiatus valde deflendus." That was the condition in which I beheld this Bill after Clause 4 had been omitted. I was almost reduced to tears to see it in that condition, and I felt that as no one else would do anything to remedy this wrong I might be pardoned for making some slight effort to redress it.
I had naturally expected that the noble and learned Lord who speaks for the Government would have bent his mind to it. I cannot think that Clause 4 is the only way in which he can think of dealing with this matter after the criticisms that were passed. It had occurred to me that, being in earnest, as I have no doubt he is, to remedy this deficiency in the provision for these people, he would have come before your Lordships with some alternative proposal. If he would not do it I thought the Paymaster-General might perhaps do it. If neither of them was ingenious enough, there was the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill relating to traffic who could have done it. None of them moved. I am not so surprised that my noble friend Lord Banbury, upon whose motion Clause 4 was left out, did not attempt to supply any alternative
166
because in the technical sense he is not a learned person.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Not a learned person?
LORD DARLING: In the technical sense. The noble Lord knows many things that I have never learned, but in the technical sense what I said is correct. Therefore, I found myself in this position. I expected, as I said, some pabulum to be provided by the Front Bench opposite and there was nothing. My disappointment was such—I will not use my own words to express my feelings, but I will use those of John Milton:
"The hungry sheep look up and are not fed."
So I tried to think of something which would escape hostile criticism from noble Lords opposite. I could not satisfy myself that I had found something which would be absolutely agreeable to them, when I read in the newspaper yesterday morning that the very White Paper for which my noble friend Lord Askwith had asked, the very White Paper which, apparently, could not be prepared until this clause was thoroughly out of the way, had been laid upon the Table; which Table I do not know, nor where, but I saw that it had been laid upon the Table somewhere. So I thought that I might possibly get some inspiration from the White Paper. I got the White Paper. I have it here. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has seen it yet. He had not seen it forty-eight hours ago, and it may not yet have been brought to his notice.
It is dated January, 1930, and bears the title: "Registry of Friendly Societies. Extracts from the Rules of Registered Trade Unions in respect of the seeking of work as a condition for the receipt of Unemployment Benefit." Its price is 4d., but I was given one for nothing. I read it, and I thought I might get that inspiration which had not been supplied to me from any other source. Here, I thought, might be the very food of which I was in need. Perhaps some of your Lordships have this Paper. I find on page 8 the rule upon this matter of a trade union which has 308,046 members. It is called the National Union of Railwaymen. Here, I thought, is the very thing to conciliate my noble and learned friend Lord

167
Parmoor and the Paymaster-General and all the galaxy of talent on the Front Bench opposite, because I believe, until quite lately their colleague the Lord Privy Seal, Mr. J. H. Thomas, was the secretary of this union and must be thoroughly acquainted with this rule. As he was secretary of the society for years he must know it by heart. He must be taken to approve of it. Now, I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, has not seen this White Paper; he told us so forty-eight hours ago.
LORD PARMOOR: Forty-eight hours ago I had not seen it.
LORD DARLING: Now that I have made this discovery and bring it to his notice (I thought), he will assent without question to putting this in the place left vacant by the conduct and attitude taken upon Clause 4 by my noble friend Lord Banbury. So I simply copied this rule from the rules of the National Union of Railwaymen, merely making one or two verbal changes to fit it into the place left vacant by the excision of Clause 4. The words of the National Union of Railwaymen upon this subject are these:—
"Any member in receipt of donation benefit refusing, without reason—"
So, apparently, it is known that some of these people do refuse without reason. I have heard it questioned, but the railwaymen know they do refuse without reason, and so they say:
"Any member in receipt of donation benefit refusing, without reason, to work when employment is found him, or not endeavouring to obtain employment, shall forfeit his claim to the benefit …."
Note the words "or not endeavouring to obtain employment." That casts upon him the doing of the act which should bring wages to him. They do not say that the secretary must go cap in hand and say: "I have found you a job; will you condescend to accept it?" No, they say: "If you who claim this benefit do not endeavour to obtain employment you shall forfeit your claim to the benefit."
In the last Session your Lordships may perhaps recollect I called your attention to a Statute of Henry VIII which is still in force, which entitles the Lord Privy Seal to come to your Lordships' House, to sit there upon the "sacks," as they are called in the Statute. From his place there, as Professor Pollard, who wrote upon the subject, believes, the Lord Privy
168
Seal is entitled to address your Lordships. This is the Minister to whom it has been confided to solve the problem of unemployment. He was the secretary of this very union, and for all I know he may have drafted this rule. He must know of it, and he must approve of it. He must have seen it acted upon over and over again and I had hoped—but one is so often disappointed in one's dearest anticipations—I had hoped that he might have been here to contribute to this debate from the position which the Statute of Henry VIII gives him a right to occupy. He is not. But now that I have read to your Lordships this rule, and have shown you exactly where I take it from, with all humility trying to assist my noble and learned friend Lord Par-moor and his colleagues, I do hope that they will show some sense of gratitude. I hope that instead of saying: "No, we are quite content to leave this blank from which Clause 4 has been excised," they will say: "Here is a locus penitentiæ offered to us; we will take it; we will accept words which have the approval of the Lord Privy Seal; we will not put the House to a Division upon this, but we will assent to the clause being included in the Bill." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Darling.)
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, speaking for myself I am very glad indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, has raised this question. The day before yesterday I voted in favour of the Government to maintain Clause 4, not because I was particularly in love with the wording of Clause 4 but because I thought that after this House had accepted without a Division the Second Reading of the Bill it was hardly fair to the Government to introduce what was in reality a wrecking Amendment, and not even to suggest, I will not say to move, but not even to suggest a direction in which the rejected clause might be improved. I confess it did not seem to me to be consistent with what I regard as the duty of this House as a revising Chamber, the principle of the Bill having been already accepted. Therefore I am exceedingly glad that the noble and learned Lord has enabled us to give the Government an opportunity of reconsidering the question.

169
I do not know that there is anything I need add to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, but I would point out—I think possibly this may commend itself to the occupants of the Government Benches—that I do not entirely agree with him as to the onus of proof in regard to the Amendment which he has put down, because, although it says, or implies, that it is the duty of an applicant for unemployment pay to be looking out for employment, yet the onus is upon somebody else to show he is not doing so. The words are perfectly clear:
"If, on a claim for benefit, it be proved"—
That is to say, proved by somebody other than the claimant—
"that the claimant has refused, and refuses, without reason, to work when employment is found for him, or if be proved"—
That again means proved by somebody other than the claimant—
"that the claimant is not endeavouring to obtain employment, he shall be disqualified from receiving benefit for a period of six weeks or for such shorter period and from such date as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may be."
Now I submit that this is a very proper and a very praiseworthy effort to persuade this House to put itself right not only in its own eyes but in the eyes of the public. I can hardly conceive any more unpopular action on the part of this House than that it should throw out a clause of this sort without suggesting any Amendment which would improve it and make it more workable. I shall certainly support the noble and learned Lord if he goes to a Division.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I also am glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Darling has brought in this Amendment, but I think, although I am not learned, I can point out to him that he has made a mistake in the drafting. My noble and learned friend Lord Darling proposes that the words shall be:—
"If on a claim for benefit, it be proved that the claimant has refused, and refuses, without reason, …."
And later his proposed new clause goes on:—
"or if it be proved that the claimant is not endeavouring to obtain employment …."
170
The result of that is, as was pointed out by the noble Lord who has just spoken, to put the onus of proof upon the labour exchanges. If the noble and learned Lord will look at page 8 of the White Paper which has been just issued he will see that the words used by the National Union of Railwaymen are these. I am reading them, without any alteration, or without omitting any of them:—
"Any member in receipt of donation benefit refusing, without reason, to work when employment is found him, or not endeavouring to obtain employment, shall forfeit his claim to the benefit."
If the noble and learned Lord will consent to leave out the words "it be proved that" in the first line and the words "it be proved that" in lines 3 and 4 of his proposed new clause, the clause would then read:—
"If, on a claim for benefit, the claimant has refused, and refuses, without reason, to work when employment is found for him, or if the claimant is not endeavouring to obtain employment, he shall be disqualified from receiving benefit for a period of six weeks or for such shorter period and from such date as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may be."
That Amendment would make the clause of my noble and learned friend correspond exactly with the words of the regulation of the Railwaymen's Union. If he would allow me, I should, if he goes to a Division with the Amendment as I suggest, be extremely pleased to tell with him. I therefore, beg to move to leave out in line 1 the words "it be proved that" and to leave out in lines 3 and 4 the words "it be proved that."
Amendments to the proposed Amendment moved—
Line 1, leave out ("it be proved that").
Lines 3 and 4, leave out ("it be proved that.")—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not think that all members of the House, unless they have studied the Bill carefully, can be quite aware of the points of difference between the Amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, and the noble Lord, Lord Banbury. The proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, is practically the trade union regulation, but with the additional security to the man that it is not to be alleged against him without proof that he has not attempted to obtain employment or to discharge the duties which the trade union regards

171
it as necessary he should discharge. I do not know whether your Lordships will consider it wiser to go as far as Lord Darling proposes to go or whether you think Lord Banbury's more drastic proposal should be accepted; but there is one point I should like to put to your Lordships because it has not yet been said in the debate, and that is that one or other of these Amendments must be accepted or some similar Amendment must be put in. Otherwise the Bill would be in an inchoate state which it would not be in character with the dignity of this House to send to another place. Clause 6 of the Bill enacts a difference in the existing arrangement for testing the genuineness of the applicant. Clause 6 of the Bill is still there. Therefore, if Clause 4 remains out, without any words being inserted, there would be absolutely no process whatever which any applicant can go through to obtain any benefit that he wishes to receive. That would be an absurdity.
I would make an appeal to the Government that they should give the House some guidance. We know that their view is that Clause 4 must be restored to the Bill. That view has not been supported as far as I know by any speech from any member of the Government. They have not in any way succeeded in proving to your Lordships why this drastic change which was made in the Bill during its passage in another place, transferring the onus from the man to the labour exchange, should be preferred to the trade union rule which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, has proposed to your Lordships to-night. I earnestly trust that we shall hear from the Government what their view is as between the two Amendments. I trust that whether we vote for one Amendment or another, we shall at least make the Bill consonant with the views expressed.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down I find myself in a difficulty in deciding between these two Amendments. So far I have heard arguments from only one side of the House to help me to make up my mind which is the better for the Bill. Noble Lords opposite have maintained a conspiracy of silence all through this debate. I quite understand that they may not
172
want to disagree with their colleague, the Lord Privy Seal. I can quite see that this might cause dissension in the Cabinet, but I do hope that, even at the grave risk of any trouble like that, they will give us some idea of the arguments against the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling, so that we may be able to make up our minds what is the best thing to do to improve this Bill.
LORD CUSHENDUN: My Lords, before we decide the matter which is before us, I should like to suggest that we might be instructed by my noble and learned friend who moved this Amendment. It appears to me that the Amendment to the Amendment which has been proposed by my noble friend Lord Banbury would make no difference whatever to the sense of Lord Darling's Amendment. Your Lordships will see from the Amendment as it stands on the Paper that something has to be decided by the court of referees. That court will have to decide whether a claimant "has refused, and refuses, without reason," and so forth. Is that not exactly the same thing as saying: "If it be proved that"? Really, the court of referees cannot decide that question unless it is proved to their satisfaction that the claimant "has refused, and refuses, without reason to work," and it appears to me, therefore, that the Amendments proposed by Lord Banbury would not alter the meaning of Lord Darling's Amendment in the smallest degree.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should not like it to be thought that I was disrespectful to the House. I think I stated as plainly as I could that our view was and remains what it always has been—namely, that Clause 4 should be in the form in which it came from another place. I agree, of course, with the noble Earl that it is almost impossible to frame the language of the Bill intelligibly without putting in something in place of Clause 4. But that is not our responsibility. Whether it is a question of onus one way or another is a matter into which I will not enter. The question that Lord Cushendun has raised is not our responsibility. We have stated most clearly what our position is, and we certainly cannot alter that position at all.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has not contributed a very great deal to your Lordships' consideration of this matter. Of course he has contributed courtesy—he always contributes courtesy—but I say quite plainly that he has not contributed very much else. There has been a rather remarkable circumstance since the debate which took place in your Lordships' House two days ago—namely, the laying of a White Paper upon the Table. I had not seen the White Paper until I came down here, but I have done my best to glance through the rules of the trade unions. I think twenty-six examples are given here, and certainly in twenty-five out of the twenty-six it is made a provision of the granting of out-of-work pay that the unemployed workman shall have done his best to find work. In every case except one—and I am not certain that I could not include the one—an obligation is laid upon the unemployed man to do his best, in some form or other, to find work. All the diatribes about the hardships thrown upon the worker which, I have no doubt, were indulged in in another place disappear. The workers themselves, when called upon to legislate for their own relief of unemployment, use the very same method which the Opposition are denounced for advocating in Parliament. Why in the world do not the Government follow the advice and example of the trade unions? The Government have to explain that. It is no good getting up at the Table, if I may say so with all consideration to the noble and learned Lord, and saying that the Government cannot vary from the position which they have taken up.
LORD PARMOOR: Well, they cannot. That is true. They will not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They will not?
LORD PARMOOR: They cannot.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is much more likely to be "cannot" than "will not."
LORD PARMOOR: Both of them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Government are called upon to defend this before Parliament and the country. They have not followed the practical advice of the trade unions. It is sometimes
174
thought that noble Lords who sit on this side of the House are in some way opposed to the trade unions. I can assure the noble Lord that, so far as I aim concerned, that is not the case. I believe that the trade unions are an essential part of our industrial equipment and that we could not do without them. I have always said so. For my part I should have been ready to avail myself of their assistance far more than the Government have shown themselves ready to do. If the Government had definitely included in the Bill provisions under which they would have used the trade unions as intermediaries through whose agency they could have ascertained whether a particular unemployed man was genuinely seeking work or not, personally I should have been very glad to consider that suggestion in the most favourable spirit. I see no reason in the world why we should not avail ourselves of the co-operation of the trade unions in matters of this kind. After all, they are very well acquainted with the work. They do it every day and they know far better than most people what is in the mind and what are the convictions of the working class. Why should we not have availed ourselves of them? I have always been in favour of that, and there is an example.
Here are the trade union rules, in the White Paper laid before Parliament, in which in every single case except one—and I am not quite sure about that one—the rules provide that the unemployed worker, before he receives any benefit, is to have shown some evidence of his efforts to find work for himself. Why is that ignored? Why have not the Government anything to say in explanation of their inconsistency with the trade union example? There they are, a number of very able men sitting in a row, and yet they have nothing to say except that all is done that can be done. We want to know why the trade union example has not been followed. My noble and learned friend comes before your Lordships' House and proposes to embody, in a substitute for Clause 4, phraseology taken out of one of the trade union rules. I think that the drafting of such a clause can be properly undertaken only by the Government itself. We have not access to all the information which is at the disposal of the Govern-

175
ment, and personally I should not like to be responsible for advising your Lordships to adopt any particular form of words in substitution for Clause 4. But that does not prevent my saying that Clause 4 is a very bad clause, and that your Lordships, if I may say so respectfully, did very right in striking it out of the Bill. That clause has gone. We call upon the Government to consider once snore their position. We call upon them to read the White Paper themselves, and we call upon them to provide some further guidance to your Lordships than the speech to which we have just listened from the Leader of the House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I have listened to this debate with feelings of very real apprehension and fear. It seems to me that the noble Lords beside me are gradually drifting into an opposition, a constant and irreconcilable opposition, to His Majesty's Government such as they were drifting into twenty years ago in this House. In the end it led to a clash, the result of which I believe every member of your Lordships' House sitting on this side deplores profoundly to-day. I do hope we shall take a lesson from what happened twenty years ago and not act in the same way as certain of your Lordships did on that occasion. If I might say something more particularly in regard to this Bill, it is to support His Majesty's Government in their position. This position happened over and over again twenty and twenty-five years ago. The Opposition of that day constantly took out provisions of a Bill which were thought vital and the omission of which was fatal to the Bill. On many occasions noble Lords on this side of the House used to implore us to amend their Amendments so as to make them more practicable and useful than they were. I do not think on any occasion we assumed such a responsibility. We said then, as I believe His Majesty's Government say now, that it was no part of our duty to amend Amendments with the very principle of which we profoundly disagreed. If they put an Amendment in the Bill vitally altering it, then the responsibility lies with those who make the Amendment and it is for them to introduce such alterations as are necessary to bring it into harmony with the rest of the Bill. Therefore I have some sympathy with the Government in this respect.
176
Is there not something in what the noble Marquess has said which would really persuade him that this is not the proper place to deal with this question? He has called attention to the practice of a number of trade unions. Are there not in another place members of trade unions intimately acquainted with this question, who are accustomed to administer the very regulations to which he has drawn attention Would it not be better for them to be asked to make such Amendments if they think Amendments are desirable in that House, whether the Amendments are in accordance with the provisions of the Bill introduced by His Majesty's Government or not? It would be an admirable thing if these people, who are intimately acquainted with this very position, were asked to deal with it rather than that we should be asked to deal with it. It is evident from the very nature of the thing that these regulations drawn up by members of trade unions for members of trade unions would find much more able technical critics in another place than we can find here. Therefore, I hope His Majesty's Government will not think it necessary to make any alterations or suggest any Amendments beyond the Bill as they have introduced it into your Lordships' House.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I am really astonished at the speech of the noble Earl, the Leader of the Liberal Party. He seems in a very timorous mood this afternoon. I do not know what has made him adopt this attitude. Perhaps it is that so few of his followers followed him into the Lobby on this very Amendment. I believe they were only two or three and now one of his supporters, Lord Sandhurst, says this afternoon he was very sorry he did go into that Lobby. The reason the noble Lord gave was that there was nothing in the Bill in place of the omitted clause and as far as I understand the noble Lord is now going to vote for one of my noble friends' Amendments. It is not a very wise or courteous course for this House to send back this Bill to the other place without Clause 4. It makes the Bill look foolish and all we are trying to do is to remedy a gap which the Government ought to make good. The noble Lord has told us that we must always agree, but I always thought that this House was a House of revision. What are we here for if we are always to

177
agree with what is put up by the other House? We might as well be abolished at once, and I would prefer that rather than come here and be told we must always agree with whatever Amendment or proposal is put forward by whatever Party is in power.
That is not the right way to deal with public business. I suggest we should make good the gap this afternoon and I am really astonished that the Government have not told us whether these rules of the trade unions were considered or were known to them when the Bill was passing through the House of Commons. Were they or not? We have never had an answer on that point. They are laid before us marked "January." It is most important for us to know whether these rules were present to the minds of the Cabinet when the measure originally came before the House of Commons. After all, this Party has never been against trade unions. These rules were made by those who know the work of workmen best, the trade unionists themselves. They are made to protect those men who are working or genuinely seeking work from the depletion of their funds by those who are unworthy of support. In the same way it is our duty here to protect the public purse from people who are making inroads upon it that might not to be made. I am really surprised at finding that the Government do not deign to answer our question. There are eight noble Lords on the Government Benches at this moment and they remind me of Mr. Disraeli's phrase: "A lot of extinct volcanoes." I am sorry it has come to that so early in the history of this Government and I hope that, before the debate closes, the Paymaster-General, who knows everything about this Bill and even corrected the Leader of the House about the Amendment on the Paper, will tell us this afternoon whether that White Paper, which has been so grudgingly furnished to us this afternoon at the latest moment, was in possession of the Cabinet when the Bill was discussed in another place. We are entitled to an answer on an important question of that kind, because then the House can decide what it is going to do on the respective Amendments.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I point out that on page 2 of the White
178
Paper Sir George Robertson's letter is dated "January 15," a, week ago?
VISCOUNT SUMNER: My Lords, I hardly agree with my noble friend's comparison of the Government Bench to a range of extinct volcanoes. Volcanic they may be, but some of them have never begun to erupt at all. I think that they must be internally bubbling with heated convulsions about this question on which, I suppose, they are putting a stopper by the process of sitting on one another and keeping it down. The fact is that without further communication with another place, without seeing what is going to happen there, the Government Bench here are not going to commit themselves to anything. They take refuge in the legal question, which is embodied in the old Clause 4, and that is the burden of proof. Which of two parties is the one to begin? It is often a very nice question in litigation, and the person who can hold the tongue the longer is sometimes at considerable advantage; but it is not a position of great dignity for Ministers of the Crown in your Lordships' House to be doing their very best to keep to themselves the policy which they propose to lay before the Government in the event, which they have no right to exclude, of your Lordships' action in striking out Clause 4 meeting with acceptance in another place.
The Lord President is not only a most prominent and influential and experienced member of the Government, but he is also Leader of this House, and we are entitled to look to him for guidance, and to his colleagues for assistance, but he has taken up the attitude—not without some encouragement from, I hardly venture to call him his ally, but from his friendly critic—of saying: "We will have our own way or we will have none, and you may say what you like about Bills in this House, but when we get them back to another place nothing will come of it, and we will have our own way as before." However it may be dressed up in words, that is not, I venture to say, the way in which to treat your Lordships, and I do not think you ought to be intimidated when it is practised upon your Lordships, by your being told that if you are not careful the events of 1911 may recur. There are some people who never can forget the

179
events of 1911. Like the words of Mr. Cobden, they seem to be an obsession.
It is obvious that this Bill is an administrative measure, difficult to work if there is nothing corresponding to Clause 4. But why is the Government, which said that this Bill was necessary and brought it before the Legislature, to refuse now to withdraw the Bill and yet say it will have no more to do with it? Why is it to be allowed to contend that a Bill, owing to a perfectly legitimate Amendment, has been interfered with, and say: "Unless we have Clause 4 as it came to this House, we will not say another word in your Lordships' House at all"? Clause 4 in this House is not the clause as it started in another place. Second thoughts may be best, and this was a second thought. Nobody exactly knows how the original Clause 4 suffered change and became the deceased Clause 4. The attitude which the Government take up by the mouth of the Lord President is that they will have no more to say about Clause 4 No. 2, mark you, not about Clause 4 No. 1. Of course, debate is killed under that system. If there are two sides, but one side will not say anything, you cannot have debate. You can only have dissertation, and I think it is contrary to the place which your Lordships' House is entitled to hold in the legislative system that we should be treated in this way.
On Question, Amendments to the proposed Amendment negatived.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Repeal of fourth statutory condition]:
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, my Amendment is purely consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 16, at end insert ("until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Examination and determination of claims]:
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY had given Notice of two Amendments, including one to insert a new subsection after subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment which I have
180
ventured to put down is one which does not contain any principle to which I think the Government would object. It has reference to the definition of "reasonable" under trade union rules. I hope that time for consideration will enable the Government to accept the Amendment in some such form as I propose. Therefore I accept the suggestion of Lord Parmoor and do not press the Amendments now.
Clause 15 [Further amendment of s. 14 (12) of 17 & 18 Geo. 5. c. 30]:
Amendments moved—
Page 10, line 17, at end insert ("Provided that no person shall be entitled to receive benefit under the said subsection (2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, as extended by the Unemployment Insurance (Transitional Provisions Amendment) Act, 1929, or by the present Act, after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").
Page 10, line 42, at end insert ("until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 16 [Minor Amendments]:
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 20, leave out ("be made") and insert ("have effect")
Page 11, line 22, at end insert ("until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19:
Interpretation, repeal, application, short title and commencement.
(8) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, and no longer.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 30, leave out ("are hereby repealed") and insert ("shall")
Page 12, line 31, at end insert ("cease to have effect until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, at the end of the last subsection, to insert "and thereafter the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1929, shall have effect as if this Act had not been passed." The noble Marquess said:
My Lords, I understand that the Government have some observations to make upon this Amendment, and, of course, I will be willing to be guided by them.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 15, at end insert ("and thereafter the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 and 1929, shall have effect as if this Act had not been passed").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the only observation I have to make is that we shall be prepared to go to a Division upon this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I had not intended to say anything disrespect
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Second Schedule:

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Minor Amendments.

Enactments to be amended.

Amendment.

—

—

The Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920:

Section 5

Subsection (5) shall, so far as it relates to persons of the age of sixty five years or upwards, be deemed to have been repealed as from the second day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty eight.

ful to the noble Lord. He will perhaps help the House if he will say why he objects to this Amendment.
LORD ARNOLD: I have nothing to add to the statement made by the Leader of the House at the beginning of business. We did not trouble your Lordships with a Division on Lord Darling's Amendment, but we shall do so on this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 10.

CONTENTS.

Wellington, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Chaplin, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Linlithgow, M.

Falkland, V.

Greenwood, L.

Salisbury, M.

Falmouth, V.

Hampton, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hayter, L.

Bradford, E.

Knutsford, V.

Heneage, L.

Clarendon, E.

Sumner, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Cottenham, E.

Ullswater, V.

Jessel, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lamington, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Abinger, L.

Leigh, L.

Fortescue, E.

Alvingham, L.

Lloyd, L.

Howe, E.

Armstrong, L.

Luke, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Askwith, L.

Monkswell, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Biddulph, L.

Raglan, L.

Midleton, E.

Byron, L.

Redesdale, L.

Morton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Remnant, L.

Onslow, E.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Cushendun, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Sandwich, E.

Danesfort, L.

St. Levan, L.

Stanhope, E.

Darling, L.

Saltoun, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Dynevor, L.

Sinclair, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dulverton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Wraxall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Russell, E.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Passfield, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Amulree, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Arnold, L.

Thomson, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in the reference to Section 5 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, to leave out all words after "be" and to insert "repealed." The noble Lord said: My Lords, in explanation of this Amendment I desire to say that in December, 1927, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour issued a leaflet (309X) for the information of employers, giving particulars of employers' contributions payable on and after January 2, 1928, for employed persons of sixty-five years and upwards. In paragraph 2 (b) of the leaflet it is stated that contributions are payable by

183
an employer, notwithstanding that the employed person may be over seventy years of age or in the enjoyment of an old age pension. Now the Corporation of Huddersfield, on whose behalf I have the honour of introducing this Amendment, had in January, 1928, several old servants over the age of seventy in receipt of the old age pension. They kept these employees on for a few hours each week in order to give them a little extra money, having regard to the long period during which they had served the Corporation. It is really an act of charity.
The Town Clerk of Huddersfield advised his Corporation that the statement in the leaflet so far as it related to the liability of an employer to pay contributions in respect of these old age pensioners over the age of seventy, was wrong as subsection (5) of Section 5 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920—which reads as follows—
"Contributions shall not be payable in respect of any person who is in receipt of an old age pension under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908 to 1919"—
had not been repealed. The Town Clerk communicated his contention to the Minister of Labour and received a reply that the Minister was advised that Section 5 (5) must be regarded as repealed by Section 31 (1) of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, so far as persons of 65 years of age and over were concerned. The Town Clerk of Huddersfield again communicated with the Minister of Labour disagreeing with this contention, and subsequently received a letter dated January 24, 1928, from the Secretary stating that the Minister of Labour fully appreciated that the question raised was one of considerable difficulty. It would seem that the Minister had some doubt as to the merits of his contention. The Secretary then went on to say that unless and until the matter was otherwise determined by a court of competent jurisdiction the Minister of Labour was bound to act upon the advice he had received.
That correspondence took place in January, 1928. The Corporation of Huddersfield heard nothing further in regard to this matter until February, 1929. I ask your Lordships to note that more than a full year passed without the Minister of Labour attempting to do anything.
184
He, therefore, must have been very uncertain and doubtful in his own mind about what action to take. On February 22, however, the solicitor to the Ministry of Labour wrote a letter to the Town Clerk of Huddersfield stating that the Minister of Labour felt obliged to endeavour to enforce payment by the Corporation of Huddersfield for contributions in respect of these old age pensioners, and so to obtain a decision of the Court on the point in question. The solicitor went on to say that he had been instructed to take proceedings by way of Attorney-General's information. Thereupon the Corporation of Huddersfield took counsel's opinion, and were definitely advised by counsel that in his opinion subsection (5) of Section 5 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, was not repealed by Section 31 (1) of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and that the view of the Corporation as expressed in their letters to the Ministry of Labour was the correct one.
There was some further correspondence upon the matter and eventually on December 17, 1929, the Town Clerk of Huddersfield received a letter, dated December 16, from the assistant solicitor of the Ministry of Labour to this effect:—
"In the Unemployment Insurance Bill which is at present before Parliament amongst other suggested amendments of enactments is the following: 'Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. Section 5, subsection (5), shall, so far as it relates to persons of the age of 65 years or upwards, be deemed to have ceased as from the second day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, to have effect.'"
The solicitor went on to say:—
"In the circumstances, I am instructed to take no further action until the Bill has become law."
The clear inference from this statement is that the Ministry of Labour contemplate proceeding against the Corporation of Huddersfield so soon as the Bill becomes law, should it be passed as it stands, either for penalties for failing to stamp as from January 2, 1928, or for payment of unpaid contributions. The Corporation take very strong exception to the underhand course which the Ministry of Labour has adopted. It is clear that the Minister is now of opinion that he was wrongly advised and that the view of the Corporation was right, and the

185
Ministry are endeavouring to extricate themselves from the difficulty in which they are placed by introducing this retrospective legislation.
I submit that restrospective legislation has always been repulsive to English ideas of right, equity and justice. Even so far back as the eighteenth century, the great and learned jurist and interpreter of the law, John Marshall, in drawing up the Constitution of the United States, inserted a clause making retrospective legislation unconstitutional, and so it has remained ever since in that vast dominion of the United States of America. I have heard this question raised several times in your Lordships' Chamber since I had the honour of listening to your deliberations, and you have always condemned it. I hope you will condemn it on this occasion and not allow this Bill to pass into law with this provision in it. The Unemployment Insurance Bill had passed its Third Reading in another place on December 17 and it was impossible, therefore, for the Corporation of Huddersfield to take exception to the working of the Bill as it now- stands through a Member of Parliament. I suggest, therefore, that the Second Schedule be amended so that paragraph to which my Amendment refers can only operate as from the coming into law of this measure. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name in order to bring about this desired result.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert ("repealed").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord and explained so fully and clearly deals with a comparatively small but a real point which arose in the working of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. The position is that when the Widows' Pensions Act of 1925 was passed it was provided that contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act should be paid in respect of persons over sixty-five at the exempted persons rate as it is called—that is, the contributions should be paid by the employers and by the State, though they were not paid by the employed man himself. This provision did not exclude the case of a person in receipt of an old age pension at the age of seventy under the Old Age Pensions
186
Acts which were in operation before that Act. There was an ambiguity as to whether up to the age of seventy no contributions at all were payable in respect of persons in receipt of old age pensions, or whether they should be payable at the exempted persons rate. The Department had advice on the subject, and they were advised that the provisions of the Widows' Pensions Act of 1925 prevailed. That meant contributions were payable at the exempted persons rate by all those over sixty-five after January, 1928, the date when the pensions to persons over sixty-five began to be paid. This provision is put in the Bill in order to give effect to this advice from that date, and the noble Lord desires that it should not go back to that date.
He does not object, I gather—because he leaves those words in the Amendment—to the Amendment operating as from the passage of this Bill, but he says he does not want this provision to be retrospective. He cites the case which he put very fully before your Lordships and which I will say a word about, the case of Huddersfield. I cannot, see my way to accept his Amendment, because I think this little matter ought to be put right, and put right back to the date of January, 1928. If that is not done, there is a certain ambiguity still remaining. I will say this to the noble Lord in reply to his speech, that so far as the Huddersfield Corporation are concerned, no proceedings will be taken against them for the interim period between that date and the passage of this Bill, but they, like all employers of the persons in question, will have to pay in future after the passage of this Bill. It is not really a big point, as your Lordships will see. I think that if the matter were elaborated more fully it would be clear that what has been done in what I may call this interim period has really been in accordance with what was always the intention of the Act going back to 1920. As a matter of fact, there ought to have been in the 1925 Act a repeal of one little subsection in the 1920 Act. That was not done. It was overlooked. These things do happen from time to time, and for once I am glad to be able to stand at this box and say it was not the fault of the present Government, because they were not in office and had no responsibility for it. In those circumstances, I

187
hope your Lordships will accept the proposal of the Bill in full, particularly with the assurance which I have given to the noble Lord in regard to the case which he has brought before the House to-day.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: My Lords, I have heard with a good deal of surprise the language put forward by the Paymaster-General. See what the position is. Attention is called to the fact that in a Schedule to this Bill a provision is inserted to make a certain change in the law retrospective generally. Everybody knows that is most objectionable, because, during the interval between the date of the enactment and the previous date to which the Bill is to be made retrospective, not only this Corporation but all sorts of people may have conducted themselves on the faith of the legislation as it stood, may have incurred liabilities, and may have been advised, and possibly rightly advised, that they were in the right; and then find that by an Amendment of the law, which is none the less objectionable for being tucked away in a corner of a Schedule with no attention drawn to it—at any rate in the other place—their opportunity of discussing whether they were right or not is taken away from them.
The interpretation of the law as it stood when they acted, and all their rights, are to be concluded without their being heard; and, without the Courts of Law being allowed to pronounce upon it, a retrospective provision in the Second Schedule is to put them out of court. I should think that that requires a good deal of justification. The justification for it that is offered by the noble Lord, the Paymaster-General, is an odd one. He says this is not a very important matter, and, if the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment likes to be "squared," if I may be permitted to use a word that expresses his meaning though not the words he used, he will undertake not to make the Huddersfield Corporation pay, as the law which we are now called upon to pass says they should pay. I do not know what dispensing power this Ministry thinks it has, or what the value of a promise given under those circumstances is to the Corporation of Huddersfield, but it is for the noble Lord who speaks for that Corporation to decide what course he will pursue. But I do protest against this
188
line of argument, and I do trust that such a course will never be pursued again.
It is quite clear that there was, to say the very least, an arguable case. The noble Lord, the Paymaster-General, himself said that it was ambiguous, that there was a regrettable omission such as will happen, and then he takes, I dare say, just credit to himself and the Government of which he is a member for the fact that they were not in office when the previous legislation was passed. He is entitled to what legitimate satisfaction he can get out of that, but that does not touch the matter. Whether the Ministry was rightly advised or wrongly advised as to the meaning of this ambiguous provision it is not for us to decide. It ought to be decided by the competent Courts of Law, and here was an opportunity in litigation started for the purpose of deciding that very thing. Why, upon the view which the noble Lord takes upon the information that is put before him, it should be assumed that the ambiguous provision meant something which takes the Government's line and not the subject's line, and why the law should be altered retrospectively as the right way of getting over that ambiguity, I am quite at a loss to understand. It may be—I do not care whether it is so or not—that there are other people who have been acting on the view which the Corporation of Huddersfield took. If there are they will find themselves in the wrong and will be made to pay although they acted upon the construction which at the time that they did so was at any rate arguable and may have been right. I do not know what the section is and I am not going to pass any opinion upon it. I should not even if I had read it. But it is a proper matter for determination by the Court and not a matter to be dealt with in this form. There is no limit to which the mischief of this kind of legislation might be carried if once it is allowed to pass.
Your Lordships may probably have read, and if so I am sure you have read with admiration, or if you have not read I would urge you to do so, the recent luminous and convincing treatise of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, on the encroachment of the bureaucracy upon the functions of the Legislature. This seems to be a very grave case of that kind. The Ministry is

189
advised—I know not by whom, but let us suppose by the highest authority, the Law Officers of the Crown—that one view and not another is right of an existing section. Instead of taking the proper course of passing a declaratory section operative for the future to establish that meaning, if Parliament is pleased to accept it, or instead of repealing the old legislation and substituting other legislation if Parliament is pleased to do so, they introduce something the effect of which is to decide the matter in favour of the Ministry upon the suggestion of the Department itself and as far as I can make out with the very minimum notice that could possibly be given under our existing system. I hope your Lordships will declare yourselves quite unequivocally against this kind of thing being tolerated for a moment.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, this really is, I can assure your Lordships, a matter of much greater gravity than you would gather if you think it is limited to the grievance of the Huddersfield Corporation. I have been favoured with the correspondence which passed between the Huddersfield Corporation and the Ministry before this Government came into office and since. A letter in that correspondence suggests that this is a point which relates to many other people, and of course it must do. It must relate to all people who employ anybody over 65 or certainly over 70 years of age—everybody, that is, within certain grades. That means that it implicates thousands and thousands of people, and it is 'mentioned in this correspondence that this dispute between the Ministry of Labour and the Huddersfield Corporation was really a test case. Therefore it will not be sufficient even if the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, could be what the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Sumner, I think very properly called "squared." It does not settle the grievance of all these other people. If he obtained by this means a privilege for the Huddersfield Corporation, I do not think he would take the course of giving away all the case of these other people, this being a test case, simply because they settled with the people who had the correspondence with the Ministry of Labour.
The important section has not been read, and I think it would interest your
190
Lordships if I showed you precisely and very briefly how the matter stood when the question was first raised between the Huddersfield Corporation and the Ministry of Labour. By the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, employers are required to make weekly contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and by subsection (2) of Section 22—and this is the most important part—it is enacted that if any employer should fail or neglect to pay a contribution he is liable for each offence on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10. £10 every time he does not make a contribution in respect of a person for whom he should make a contribution ! Now the employer says: "Well, I have in my employ certain people over 70 years of age, and I have come to the conclusion that I am not liable to a fine of £10 every time I do not make a contribution in respect of them." That is the conclusion I have come to. Why have I come to that conclusion? Because I have read in subsection (5) of Section 5 of the Act of 1920, this:—
"Contributions shall not he payable in respect of any person who is in receipt of an old-age pension under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908 to 1919."
This is perfectly plain and for some time it is obvious no contribution was payable in respect of them and it was not paid.
Then what happened? In 1925 another Act was passed. It is called the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925. It is admitted, as I am sure the noble Lord, the Paymaster-General, will agree, that that Act of 1925 contained no repeal of the section I have just read to your Lordships—no repeal in so many words. When the question came to be raised between the Ministry of Labour and the Huddersfield Corporation it was said by the Ministry of Labour that the section which I have just read is impliedly repealed. The Corporation asked: "Where is it repealed" They were told: "Oh, it is impliedly repealed. There are no words which repeal it, we cannot point you to any words which repeal it, but the whole course of legislation is such that it is impliedly repealed." That is in this correspondence, as I could show if I chose to trouble your Lordships with it. There are many letters, and long letters. This question was raised by the Ministry

191
of Labour, not the present Ministry but the former one. The noble Lord, the Paymaster-General, says: "Oh, but there is a great difference between us and them." Yes, there is, and it is this, that the Ministry of Labour wrote that this was a case, as the Minister admitted, of considerable difficulty and therefore he agreed with the Huddersfield Corporation—but before I go on there is something I have omitted.
The Huddersfield Corporation, being told that this was, as they knew, a matter of considerable difficulty, took the opinion of very learned counsel, particularly able to advise upon this sort of question upon these Statutes, and they then wrote and told the Ministry of Labour: "We have, as we have told you, submitted a case to counsel. We have received his opinion." It was one of His Majesty's counsel. I have got it. I have read the case and I have read the opinion. He advised that the Huddersfield Corporation's constructions of the various sections were the absolutely right ones, and he advised them that if proceedings were taken against them for these penalties—because that was the question—the proceedings should be resisted by the Huddersfield Corporation. So the matter stood and there are letters passing between them which show that it was allowed to stand over, over the long vacation, and the letters show that what was desired by the Minister of Labour of that day, but not of this, was to have the authoritative decision of a Court of Law, an unbiased decision. And the Corporation said: "If it is against us, of course we will pay, but if it is in our favour we will not pay."
Who are these people, the Huddersfield Corporation? They are trustees for the people who pay rates out of which they pay these men. Is it to be said that they should pay what they are advised that it is not legal that they should pay? They did not take that view. They seemed to have a higher view of what is the obligation of the law than some people nowadays. They took counsel's opinion. They told the Minister at the time, and it was agreed that the Attorney-General should file an information and should by that means contend that these penalties are due to the Crown—that was the proper way—that the matter should be adjudicated upon by the Judges and
192
that, if the Attorney-General's view was upheld, the Huddersfield Corporation should pay the money.
What happened? The Minister went out of office. The Paymaster-General tells us how much better a Minister came in.
"I thank thee that I am not as other men are … even as this publican"
—the Minister of Labour in the late Government. What did they do when they came in? They put this little provision into this Bill which my noble friend Lord Fairfax desires to exclude, saying that the law was what the former Minister had suggested it was and not what the Huddersfield Corporation contended that it was. They attempted to decide by Act of Parliament that they were right in what had been admitted to be a most difficult question. They thereby took the matter away from the jurisdiction of the Courts, which, as my noble and learned friend Lord Sumner has said, is exactly what the Lord Chief Justice has lately pointed out that these Departments are always trying to do. There was a time when it was done. When necessary this is alluded to, even in Hyde Park by people standing on tubs, who say that it was done by the Star Chamber. They do not know what the Star Chamber really did, but they say: "It withdrew things from the regular Courts, the King's Bench, and decided them in the Star Chamber."
The Star Chamber has gone. I have not the slightest doubt that the Government deeply regret its decease. So they are driven to saying: "We are right, and all the advice that you received was wrong. Those who advised us are right but, as there is still some doubt as to whether we were right, just to make sure we will ask Parliament to say that we were right, and as part of that process we shall have to ask the House of Lords to say that we were right. We very much regret that, but we have to do it, such is the wicked Constitution under which we live." And so they come here and ask your Lordships to decide that they were right in their view of a very difficult question—the difficulty was admitted—and that the Huddersfield Corporation were wrong.
But that was not all. As my noble and learned friend Lord Sumner has said, they could have done that by a declara-

193
tory Act. But they had their eye on these various accrued sums of £10 for every offence, extending back over years, and so they say: "We will not be content with a declaratory Act, but we will make the section which gives us this money retrospective and we shall have, not only from the Huddersfield Corporation but from all the other people who may have omitted to make this payment, the sum of £10 for every offence that they have committed." To get the House of Lords to pass this retrospective legislation they try to bribe the noble Lord who brings this forward by saying: "This shall not apply to your clients; they are all right. Withdraw your Amendment and we shall be quite content to get the money out of all the other people."
Why is there objection to this retrospective legislation? I wish the noble Lord opposite would remember what Mrs. Malaprop says on this subject—that our retrospections should be all to the future. So it will have to be if your Lordships agree to the Amendment which my noble friend has proposed. It did not want Chief Justice Marshall of the United States to say that retrospective legislation is to be condemned. It was said long ago. The noble Lord opposite has so much to read that I hesitate to ask him to spend more of his time upon this subject, but if he would read the second "Institute" of Lord Coke he would find that retrospective legislation is condemned by him on these lines: that if there is any question in a Statute whether the clause to be considered has retrospective operation or not, it should, if possible, be held that it has not retrospective operation, because it is unjust to make offences which were not offences when the people committed them. That is what is being done here.
The next Bill to come before your Lordships is a Bill relating to traffic on the roads. Why not put a retrospective clause into that? There are lots of people who have not committed offences yet, but who will commit many of them if that Bill passes in the form in which it is. I commend this to the noble Earl opposite—but no; I am sure that the noble Earl is much too good a lawyer and too much of a statesman to avail himself of it. But it would be quite possible to put this clause into the next Bill. I do not know what you could not do by that means. You get all manner
194
of fines and penalties from people who at present have committed no crime at all, but who would have committed crime after crime if a retrospective clause were put in. I have troubled your Lordships, I know, at too great a length, but I have done so because this, in my opinion, is not a small subject and not a question of little moment. It is a deliberate attempt by this Department of this particular Government to deprive people of what may well have been their rights, and at all events to deprive them of the chance of going into the Courts of Justice and having it determined whether these are their rights or not.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): My Lords, as my noble friend the Paymaster-General cannot speak again, he has asked me to say a word upon this subject. The noble and learned Lord who has just addressed your Lordships somewhat fully upon this question complained apparently that the new Minister of Labour should say: "I am not as other men are." I do not know why he should complain that Miss Bondfield should say that. Your Lordships know what a soufflé is. A soufflé is a thing of a light character which occupies considerable space and has very little substance. There is no one in this House who is more competent than the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken to blow up a soufflé of a comparatively small matter. Really from the two speeches that we have heard we might have supposed that the Constitution was in danger. What is happening here and what is suggested here is what, after all, has been done by Parliament before. It is sometimes discovered that a mistake has been made, an oversight has taken place, under which, when all is said and done, nobody has been prejudiced or hurt, and you then do what you can to put it right. Now the suggestion in the Amendment is that this subsection, so far as it relates to the people of 65, should be repealed simpliciter and in the Bill that it should be repealed as from January 2, 1928. The object of that is an object Parliament is constantly trying to achieve. It is not to leave a period of indecision from 1928 to 1930 in which you are not sure what was or was not the law. It is admitted that this is a difficult and doubtful point, and that

195
people have been misled as to what was or was not the law. It is really a trifling matter, and if your Lordships take this view of it as a serious and constitutional question, the Government cannot do more than leave it to you.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL. [H.L.]
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Clause 18 [Limitation of time for which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously on duty]:
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out Clause 18 and insert as a new clause:
Limitation of time for which drivers of certain, vehicles may remain continuously on duty.
.—(1) With a view to protecting the public against the risks which arise in cases where the drivers of motor vehicles are suffering from excessive fatigue, it is hereby enacted that it shall not be lawful in the case of—

(a) any public service vehicle within the meaning of Part IV of this Act;

(b) any heavy locomotive, light locomotive or motor tractor; or

(c) any motor vehicle constructed to carry goods other than the effects of passengers;

for any person to drive or cause or permit any person employed by him or subject to his orders to drive the vehicle—

(i) for any continuous period of more than five hours and one half; or

(ii) for continuous periods amounting in the aggregate to more than eleven hours in any period of twenty-four hours commencing two hours after midnight; or

(iii) for such periods that the driver is not allowed an interval of at least ten hours for rest in every consecutive twenty-four hours:

Provided that it shall be a sufficient compliance with the provisions of paragraph (iii) to allow at least nine hours for rest in a period of twenty-four hours if the driver is allowed an interval of twelve hours for rest in the next following period of twenty-four hours.
(2) For the purpose of this section—

(a) any two or more periods of time shall be deemed to be a continuous period unless separated by an interval of not less than half-an-hour in which the driver is able to obtain rest and refreshment; and

(b) any periods spent by the driver on other work in connection with a vehicle or the load carried thereby, including in the case of a public service vehicle, any time
196
spent on the vehicle in any other capacity than as a passenger shall be reckoned as time spent in driving the vehicle.

(3) The Minister may, on the application of a joint industrial council, conciliation board, or other similar body, or on a joint application, by such organisations, representative of employers and workpeople in the industry, as the Minister of Labour may certify to be proper bodies to make such an application, and after referring the matter to the Industrial Court for advice, by order vary the periods of time prescribed in this section, provided that he is of opinion that such variation is not likely to be detrimental to the public safety.
(4) If any person acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence:
Provided that a person shall not be liable to be convicted under this section if he proves to the court that the contravention was due to unavoidable delay in the completion of any journey arising out of circumstances which he could not reasonably have foreseen.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when we adjourned last night we were on the new Clause 18 and that has now been printed on the Order Paper. There is one slight misprint as it appears on the Order Paper. In subsection (3) in the fourth line the word should of course be "representative" of employers instead of "representatives." The question now is that Clause 18 shall be omitted in order that we may insert the new clause.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 18.—(Earl Russell.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, this clause particularly affects the Commercial Motor Users' Association. The clause only appeared on the Order Paper for the first time yesterday afternoon and it must be quite obvious that the association and the interests chiefly affected have had absolutely no opportunity whatever of considering the new clause. They have had no opportunity to meet and formulate any considered judgment upon it. They do, however, recognise that the Minister has made an attempt to meet the objections to the detailed provisions of the clause which they put before him, but at the same time they consider that it is wrong in principle to introduce a clause dealing with the hours and conditions of labour in a Bill such as the present, which is designed to deal with safety on the road and the regulation of road traffic. Apart from this objection in principle, they would like me to make clear that they desire to reserve their right to move amend-

197
ments in detail at a later stage, possibly on the Third Reading in this House or in another place, when they have had further opportunity to consider the measure. The Minister and those in charge of the Bill might have a little more consideration for the interests affected. I do not understand what the extreme haste is with which everything connected with this Bill is being undertaken. If the Minister desires to put down Amendments of such far-reaching importance as this he should give the interests affected a good deal more time than he has seen his way to do on this occasion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I now move to insert the new clause which appears on the Paper, and in reply to the noble Earl I would say that he ought to be aware that this clause is the outcome of very prolonged conferences with all the interests concerned. I would not go too far in saying that we have satisfied all the interests concerned except those at whom this clause was originally aimed, those who have been in the habit of working people much too long hours and with great danger to the public.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 1, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, will this apply to fire engines and ambulances? There is a fear that men may have to work too long, particularly on fire engines. Perhaps the noble Earl would look into it?
EARL RUSSELL: I should have thought that no restrictions applied to fire engines, that the matter was too urgent, but I shall certainly look into it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Duty to give name and address and power of arrest in, certain cases]:
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 4, alter ("licence") insert ("for examination").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20:
Restrictions on prosecutions under the preceding sections.
20. Where a person is prosecuted for an offence under any of the provisions of this
198
Part of this Act relating respectively to the maximum speed at which motor vehicles may be driven, to reckless or dangerous driving, and to careless driving he shall not be convicted unless either—

(a) he was warned of the intended prosecution at the time the offence was committed; or

(b) within twenty-one days of the commission of the offence a summons for the offence was served on him; or

(c) within the said twenty-one days a notice of the intended prosecution was served on or sent by registered post to him or the person registered as the owner of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence,

but failure to comply with this requirement shall not be a bar to the conviction of the accused in any case where the court is satisfied that neither his name and address, nor the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle, could with reasonable diligence have been ascertained within the said twenty-one days, or that there is other reasonable cause for the failure and that the accused has not been prejudiced thereby.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out "of the intended prosecution". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment to Clause 20 has to be read in conjunction with the Amendment in the following line. The object is to leave out the words "of the intended prosecution" and to insert after the word "committed" "that the question of prosecuting him would be taken into consideration". The reason is one of which I have a clear appreciation because I once succeeded in getting off a client on the words "an intended prosecution." In practice the policeman who stops a motor car is not the person to decide whether or not there shall be a prosecution. He reports to his superior officer, and therefore a verbal warning by him at the time, of the intended prosecution, is of no avail. These words would meet that difficulty.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 11, leave out ("of the intended prosecution").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 12, after ("committed") insert ("that the question of prosecuting him would be taken into consideration").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Earl said: My Lords, if you will look at the clause you

199
will see that the police can proceed in three ways under the Bill against anybody who is accused of dangerous driving. The paragraph which I propose to leave out is the one which relates to the summons, and the reason why I propose to leave out this paragraph is that the summons, from the point of view of the person charged, is absolutely of no value whatever. It does not give the defendant any information which really would be of effective use to him in preparing his defence. I would like to submit to your Lordships that, as I have always understood it is the first principle of English justice that a man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty, you therefore ought to give a defendant every possible chance of preparing his defence, which obviously he cannot do unless the notice of the prosecution gives him some information as to time, place and so on.
A man so charged must be able to know the exact spot where the offence is alleged to have taken place and the time of day, so that he may be able to take steps to ascertain what is the width and character of the road, and the proximity of buildings to the highway and so forth. As it is a man may be charged, after the passage of this Bill, with having proceeded through some small out-of-the-way village at a speed which somebody thought was too fast. He may be charged with reckless driving, and if so all that information is necessary to be discovered. It is recognised that after the passage of this Bill and the abolition of the speed limit there should remain no loophole by which the dangerous driver could escape punishment, but with this tightening up of the law I think it is of the greatest importance that we should guard against injustice so far as we can. To this end I suggest that there should be a definite obligation upon the police authorities to state, by notice or summons, all the essential details of the incident upon which the charge is based. I therefore beg to move my Amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, lines 13 to 15, leave out paragraph (b).—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, as I understand the noble Earl, he thinks that the summons will not give sufficient
200
notice. If the noble Earl will look at the Government's Amendment to paragraph (c) he will see that in the notice of an intended prosecution we propose to insert the words "specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed." Those are three things which will be in the summons. They must be in the summons, and I do not know what more the noble Earl expects to get by way of notice, unless it is a transcript of the policeman's notes, which would be unusual and irregular.
EARL HOWE: With regard to the Government's forthcoming Amendment, I am not certain what "nature" exactly means in law. Does it mean the essential particulars of time and place, or only a vague outline?
EARL RUSSELL: As I understand, it would mean what part of the road the offence was committed in, and at what time, and the summons would state whether the accused was charged with reckless driving or dangerous driving, or driving at an excessive speed, or with not stopping for a police constable. The summons has to specify the exact charge which is made.
LORD RAGLAN: It is of course important that the defendant should know the exact spot, so that he may have an opportunity, as the noble Earl has said, of measuring the road, ascertaining how far the houses are from the road, and things of that kind.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in paragraph (c), to leave out "twenty-one" and insert "fourteen." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to try to get as early a notice of the prosecution as possible. Obviously it is going to be very difficult for a defendant to prepare a defence and get witnesses, and with the lapse of time people's memories become dim. I hope the noble Earl will see his way to agree to "fourteen" instead of "twenty-one" days.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 16, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("fourteen.")—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I should be very glad to meet the noble Earl if I could, but the police view is that fourteen

201
days is quite inadequate, and that twenty-one days is a reasonable time. I rather think it is the time in the present Act. The noble Earl will notice, too, that if he wanted to change this paragraph he would also have to change the time in paragraph (b). The Departmental Committee recommended twenty-eight days. This is a definite improvement on that, and I am afraid the noble Earl will have to be satisfied with twenty-one days.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the next Amendments are those of the Government, which I have just mentioned.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 17, after ("prosecution") insert ("specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed.")—(Earl Russell.)
EARL HOWE: It is not quite clear from what the noble Earl has said what is really meant by the Amendment. Does it really mean the exact spot or only roughly the district?
EARL RUSSELL: I am afraid it does not mean the exact spot as a usual rule, but I also think that the motorist will have no difficulty in obtaining the information from the police, and if he is not told the exact spot he would get an adjournment until lie was told. Ordinary justice on the part of the police always concedes that, I think, to the defendant.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the next Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 18, line 23, leave out ("neither his name and address") and insert:
("(1) (a) neither the name and address of the accused").
Page 18, line 26, after ("that") insert ("(b)").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "or, (2) the accused by his own conduct contributed to the failure." The noble Earl said: My Lords, it an accused by his own conduct places additional difficulty in the way of the prosecution ascertaining his name, he must not escape by a disability.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 28, after ("thereby") insert ("or, (2) the accused by his own conduct contributed to the failure.")—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Duty to stop in case of accident.
21.—(1) If in any case, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road, an accident occurs to any person or to any vehicle or animal in the charge of any person, the driver of the motor vehicle shall stop and, if required so to do by any person having reasonable grounds for so requiring, give his name and address, and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle.
(2) If in the case of any such accident as aforesaid there is no person capable of requiring or in a position to require the driver of the motor vehicle to give his name and address, or if in any case owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road an accident occurs to any vehicle or animal not in charge of any person, the driver of the motor vehicle shall stop and shall report the accident at a police station as soon as possible, and in any case within twenty-four hours of the occurrence thereof.
(3) In this section, the expression "animal" means any horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat, or dog.
(4) If any person fails to comply with this section he shall be guilty of an offence.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "motor.' The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment was moved in Committee and the noble Earl when dealing with it said that he could not accept it because in any case it would not apply under this Part of the Bill. The purpose of the Amendment is to try to bring in every vehicle using the road. I am, therefore, in a consequential Amendment moving to remove this clause from this portion of the Act and to include it in Part III, which deals with all vehicles on the road. There have been cases (and though they are not many still they are not altogether negligible) where horse-drawn vehicles have been concerned in accidents, and, not being damaged, have been driven rapidly away in order to avoid any subsequent difficulties in connection with the accident. I really cannot see what possible argument the Minister can have for saying that in cases of this kind they should not equally with motor vehicles he subject to the law.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 31, leave out ("motor").—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think we have dealt with this point again and again in Committee both on this and on other Parts of the Bill. I do not propose to discuss it further.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), after "occurs," to insert "whereby damage or injury is caused." The noble Earl said: My Lords, there are consequential Amendments which will make this part of the clause read:—
"If in any case, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on the road, an accident occurs whereby damage or injury is caused to any person, vehicle, or animal …."
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 31, after ("occurs") insert ("whereby damage or injury is caused").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 18, line 32, leave out ("or to any")
Page 18, line 32, leave out ("in the charge of any person").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD had on the Paper an Amendment to omit from subsection (2) the words "or if in any case owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road an accident occurs to any vehicle or animal not in charge of any person." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I see that Lord Russell has an Amendment immediately following mine designed with the same object. If he is advised that his Amendment is the better one I do not wish to press mine. The only point is that it seems to be rather unnecessary. You provide that if there is nobody who can ask for the name or address of the motor driver he has to report the accident at the next police station. I should have thought that covered all the cases, but apparently the advisers of my noble friend think that you ought to have a special provision for the case where the accident has occurred to a vehicle or to an animal which is not in charge of somebody. I should have thought that if it was not in charge of somebody it would be covered by the previous words and that it was rather unnecessary, but I do not want to press the matter.
EARL RUSSELL: I will explain.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My noble friend apparently does not wish me to move, and he will explain on his Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "in any case owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road an accident occurs to any vehicle or animal," and to insert "the vehicle or animal to which the accident occurred was". The noble Earl said: My Lords, you will see what the effect of this Amendment is. The words "in charge of any person" are gone—I am not sure whether the noble Viscount realised that—and if the accident occurs to a person or to a vehicle or to an animal the driver has to stop and give his name. But if the accident happens when there is no one there to whom he can give his name, then he has to report it at the police station or to a police constable as soon as possible. Does not that meet the point?
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 1, leave out from ("if") to ("not") in line 3, and insert ("the vehicle or animal to which the accident occurred was").—(Earl Russell.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes, it meets it, but my difficulty is this. In this subsection (2) you provide that—
"If in the case of any such accident as aforesaid there is no person capable of requiring or in a position to require the driver of the motor vehicle to give his name and address …."
That seems to cover every case. But you go on by my noble friend's Amendment to say that if the vehicle or animal to which the accident occurred was not in charge of any person then the driver shall stop, thus bringing back the case which you have already excluded in subsection (1). I should have thought that it, was unnecessary to keep those words in, but it is a question of drafting.
EARL RUSSELL: If it is a matter of drafting the noble Viscount may be right. I see his point now, and I will have it looked into.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment in subsection (2).
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 4, leave out ("shall stop and").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (2), after "station," to insert "or to a police constable." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this, I think, meets my noble friend Lord Howe.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 5, after ("station") insert ("or to a police constable").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there is a further Amendment in subsection (2).
Amendment moved—
Page 19, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("possible") and insert ("reasonably practicable").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), after "horse," to insert "foal, colt, silly, or pony of any sex or description or age." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as I think that on the face of it any reasonable person would assume that the term "horse" covered pony, you may think at first sight that this Amendment is unnecessary. The reason for putting it down is this. The word "horse," instead of being left alone to its dictionary construction, has been variously defined in Acts of Parliament. The most recent case was the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act, 1928, where ponies and fillies and colts were treated as if they were different animals from horses. There are other Acts of Parliament also. I should like to read a passage from "Stroud's Judicial Dictionary" to show how very uncertain it is what a horse is. In a Statute of Edward I, "horse, gelding or mare," it is stated,
"included foals and fillies … but a prisoner convicted of stealing a colt, did not lose his Clergy under these Statutes, because colts are not mentioned therein eo nominee.
Quà Metropolitan Market Act, 1851, …. 'Horse' includes 'mare, ass, and mule'….
Quà the Revenue Act, 1869, …. 'Horse' means and includes a horse or pony of any sex or description or age, except a foal, colt, or filly, which shall never have been at any time used for any purpose of draught or riding.'
206
Quà Army Act, 1881, 'Horse ' includes a mule ….
Quà Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1851, 'Horse' shall include any other animal of any kind commonly used or employed in drawing any kind of Carriage."
That being the case, it seems to me that it is arguable that a pony is not covered by the term "horse," and I hope therefore that your Lordships will accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 9, after ("horse") insert ("foal, colt, filly, or pony of any sex or description or age").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Viscount's researches have been so extensive—more extensive, I am afraid, perhaps than our own—that I really do have some doubt, after what he has said, what a horse means. I had certainly understood it to mean any equine animal of any description.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: So had I.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Viscount advised me verbally and in correspondence that one of the things he had in mind was the New Forest ponies which we know have been injured by motorists and which it is very desirable to protect. If he will allow me between now and Third Reading to consider these words again and to take advice, if the word "horse" is at all ambiguous I will certainly see what can be done.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am obliged to the noble Earl.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know whether anyone can tell me at once or not, but I think I should wish to be advised on the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Power to highway authorities to authorise on specified highways carriage of greater weights]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 32, leave out ("permit") and insert ("grant a permit in respect of").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24:
Power to prohibit the use of bridges by motor vehicles.
24.—(1) Where the bridge authority of any bridge over which a road passes are satisfied that the bridge is insufficient to carry weights above a certain amount they may, by a conspicuous notice in the prescribed form placed on or near the bridge, prohibit the use of the bridge—

(a) by heavy locomotives and light locomotives, or by heavy locomotives; or

(b) by motor vehicles and trailers whereof the weights or the maximum permissible laden weights indicated by marks placed thereon in accordance with any Act, order, or regulation for the time being in force are greater than such as may be specified in the notice:

Provided that no weight specified in the notice shall be less than five tons.
(2) If a motor vehicle or trailer is driven or drawn across a bridge on or near which such a notice is displayed in contravention of the notice without the consent of the bridge authority, any person who so drives or draws it or causes or permits it to be so driven or drawn shall be guilty of an offence without prejudice, however, to any civil liability of that person in the case of damage being caused to the bridge:
Provided that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under this subsection if he proves to the satisfaction of the court that at the time of passing over the bridge the total weight or weights of the motor vehicle, or the motor vehicle and trailer, as the case may be, did not exceed the weight specified in the notice.
(3) Any person or body of persons aggrieved by any restriction or prohibition placed on the use of a bridge under this section, may appeal to the Minister, and the Minister, if he considers that the bridge is sufficient, as the case may be, to bear light locomotives or to bear heavy locomotives or to bear weights greater than those specified in the notice, after considering any representations made by the bridge authority, may order the restriction or prohibition to be removed or to be varied in such manner as he may direct, and the authority by whom the restriction or prohibition has been imposed shall comply within such time as may be specified in the order of the Minister with that order, and if they fail to do so the Minister may cause the notice to be removed or varied so as to comply with the order and recover the expense summarily as a civil debt from the authority by whom the notice was placed as aforesaid.
(4) The Minister may determine any appeal under this section either as arbitrator or otherwise at his option, and where lie determines any such appeal as arbitrator, the provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, respecting arbitrations by the Minister, and the enactments amending those provisions, shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to the decision of appeals under this section.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out all words in subsection (1) after "insufficient" and to insert:—
"either—

(a) to carry a heavy locomotive or a locomotive, whether heavy or light, or any other motor vehicle of which the weight exceeds a certain maximum weight; or

(b) to carry a heavy locomotive or a locomotive, whether heavy or light, or any other motor vehicle of which the weight exceeds a certain maximum weight when travelling at more than a certain maximum speed,

the authority may, by a conspicuous notice in the prescribed form placed on or near the bridge and specifying the maximum weight, or the maximum weight and the maximum speed, as the case may be, prohibit the use of the bridge, as the case may be, either by a vehicle weighing more than the specified weight or by a vehicle weighing more than the specified weight when travelling at more than the specified speed:
Provided that the weight specified in any such notice shall not be less than five tons."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, there is a series of Amendments, five altogether, to Clause 24 and I would explain their effect to your Lordships. The bridge authority is by them empowered not only to restrict the weight of heavy vehicles on a weak bridge but also their speed, because the speed of the vehicle on a weak bridge is a rather important consideration when there is a heavy vehicle and there are any trailers. Then, there is a new subsection which provides that where a bridge is restricted there shall not be two heavy vehicles crossing it at the same time. That is really consonant with the provision of the law now, although it is not generally observed in the case of strong bridges. It is perfectly obvious that it would be unfair to say to the owner of a bridge, "You are to restrict your bridge to vehicles not exceeding five tons," and then allow two five-ton vehicles to be put on it; therefore, we are providing against that. Then subsection (4) has been redrafted to meet the criticisms in Committee made by the Master of the Rolls and the noble Viscount, Lord Sumner. The words in the Bill as it is were supposed to be rather doubtful and my explanation of them was not apparently very successful. We have, therefore, now redrafted them in a form which I think is intelligible even to the layman. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 6, leave out from ("insufficient") to end of subsection (1) and insert the said new provision.—(Earl Russell.)
THE LORD SPEAKER (THE EARL or DONOUGHMORE): The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has an Amendment to this subsection and I must put Lord Russell's Amendment so as to save that.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I suppose I am right in thinking that "bridge authority" covers every authority, that is to say, that it includes the lord of the manor and any local authority whose bridge is attached to a common? I imagine that "bridge authority" includes all owners.
EARL RUSSELL: I understand "bridge authority" to cover everybody responsible for the maintenance of a bridge, and, therefore, presumably, the owner of the bridge whoever he may be.
THE LORD SPEAKER: Does the noble Earl, Lord Howe, desire to move his Amendment to subsection (1)?
EARL HOWE: Yes. I desire to ask a question on it. Perhaps the noble Earl in charge of the Bill can satisfy me in a word or two.
THE LORD SPEAKER: Perhaps the noble Earl will move his Amendment now.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the bridge" and insert "to the roads leading to each end of the bridge approaches so as to be visible to the driver of a motor vehicle when approaching the bridge from either direction at a reasonable distance therefrom." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will explain the purpose of my Amendment to the noble Earl. It is obvious that the difficulty is that in many counties, Lancashire particularly, notices restricting the use of certain bridges are placed only on the bridges themselves. What we ask is that the notice shall be placed some little way back for this reason. A motor lorry, perhaps with a trailer and a very heavy load, comes to a bridge and it is not until it gets there that the driver can see whether the bridge is a restricted bridge or not. Could the Minister take appropriate action under the Bill, if he is not able to accept my Amendment, so as to put the notice up
210
further back and give these drivers a chance of turning before they get to the bridge? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 8, leave out ("the bridge") and insert the said new words.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the point raised by the noble Earl is a perfectly reasonable one. In the case of these large vehicles it may be practically impossible for them to make a turn in a road which has no turning off it when they come suddenly upon a bridge which they find they must not cross. But the Amendment in the form in which the noble Earl has placed it upon the Paper is impossible for a reason he will appreciate. It may be that the owner of the highway or the person in charge of the highway is not the same as the authority in charge of the bridge. Supposing there was a railway bridge or a canal bridge, they have no power to put up notices except on their own property. But the point will not be lost sight of. We will consider whether we can arrange either by means of an Amendment or in some other way. I am not sure if this is a matter that could be left to regulation, but we will see whether something can he done about it, because it is really a practical difficulty which involves public danger if these vehicles are trying to turn round and getting mixed up with each other on a narrow road.
EARL HOWE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment in that case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD SPEAKER: Then I will put the noble Earl, Lord Russell's Amendment as it stands on the Paper, excluding the proviso so as to save Lord Lovat's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (1) and insert: "Provided that the weight specified in any such notice shall not be less than five tons." The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, lines 18 and 19, leave out from ("Provided") to "tons" and insert ("Provided that the weight specified in any such notice shall not be less than five tons").—(Earl Russell.)
LORD LOVAT LORD LOVAT moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment to leave out "five" and insert "three." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to return to the charge on the subject of the limitation of the power of the highway authority to limit the weights carried over bridges and to put up notices to that effect. I am informed that many bridges, especially in sparsely populated areas, are not able to carry a burden of five tons. To give a single example. In one county where there are a thousand bridges which are only capable of carrying five tons and under, over half of them are not able to carry even five tons. To ask your Lordships to alter the law as it stands might appear at first sight to be a retrograde movement, but I can assure you that is very far from being the case. The sparsely populated parts of the country where these bridges occur are as a rule poor parts and it is obvious that it would be the gravest waste of public money, and something which county councils would be very loath to do, to put these bridges in order, and, as there is a limited amount of money to spend, probably neglect other parts of the road.
When the Bridges Act was passed last year in the House of Lords I am sure this slipped through, partly from inattention and partly from the belief which exists in almost every county that the county council have authority to put up notices saying that a bridge is not to be crossed if the weight to be taken over it is above a specified amount—three tons at the owner's risk. The county councils have taken counsel's opinion and have been informed that even if they conform with the law and put up a notice saying that the weight on a particular bridge is three tons at the owner's risk, if he goes over it and anything happens the county council is in no case absolved from an action. If some intrepid and misguided wayfarers should elect to cross such a bridge in one of the chars-a-bancs that we are preparing the roads for, and the bridge fell down and ten or twenty people were injured, it might be not only very unpleasant for those persons but equally so for the county council who would have to pay for the damage. I would, therefore, point out that you are proposing to put upon the county councils a grave risk which has no corresponding advantage.
It is true that you can declare by a subsequent clause that you will close up certain roads. County Councils would be very loath to close up roads. It would be better to put a notice on the bridge saying "This bridge is only capable of carrying three tons." It is not as if there were any danger that the county councils would close their roads in an increasing degree, or would progressively reduce them if money were allowed. As the noble Earl is aware poorer districts are even more hungry for money than the richer ones, and there is practically no part of a road which has not received a subvention in the form of improvements or otherwise, and it would be easy for the Ministry to control the action of county councils so as to see that this right of putting up three ton limitation notices was not in any way improperly used. To insist on a poor county council putting up anything up to 500 bridges, possibly at a cost of £300 or £400 each, would run into a fantastic figure, and would impose upon them an obligation which they could not discharge. If they had a 75 per cent. grant, now so easily obtained by certain districts, it would nevertheless be an intolerable burden upon the people. This is not a reactionary Amendment, but is one which will allow money to be spent in the best way to get the best advantage from the roads, and I urge that it should be accepted with the one single idea of having some sort of equality throughout the poorer districts as well as in the richer districts. I can see no argument against it.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Leave out ("five") and insert ("three").—(Lord Local.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I support the words which have fallen from my noble friend? I ask the noble Earl opposite whether this includes bridges of all kinds—bridges attached to manors for which lords of manors are responsible? There are a great many of these bridges in some parts of the country which were built for quite light road traffic—farm carts and so forth—and they are very rarely used except for that purpose. Now it is the practice for these large and heavy chars-a-bancs to go all over the country on to unfrequented roads in picturesque parts and it is possible they may wish—the public have a perfect right to use these bridges—to

213
use a bridge built only for a light farm cart. Obviously such a bridge is not strong enough to bear the weight of a heavy char-a-bancs or a motor lorry, and it might be necessary for people to have to strengthen their bridges to this very considerable extent, though possibly their bridges might never be used at all for such a purpose. But if a bridge were used the owner would be liable in the same way as my noble friend Lord Lovat has pointed out. In such cases I think very great hardship might be caused, without any particular gain coming to anybody, by insisting upon this very heavy obligatory weight.
These bridges were constructed when horse traffic was the only form of traffic, and now you have this heavy motor traffic, and it does seem to me to be a hardship to put upon private owners the necessity of strengthening their bridges in very remote parts of the country so as to make them fit to carry this considerable increase of weight. As a rule when there are a number of bridges on frequented roads and the authority has taken over the bridges en arrangement has been made by which the private owners are no longer responsible. It is in the case of these out-of-the-way bridges that a difficulty arises. There are cases where the responsibilty is shared between the private owner and the district. Then you get another complication, and you get difficulties in that way. That does not very often happen, but it might happen. It is in the case of these small areas, where there is hardly ever a heavy vehicle, that I think some relief should be granted and that they should not all be forced to strengthen their bridges to carry this very considerable weight for which they were not built.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I think the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is mistaken in what he says with regard to the strengthening of bridges for I have a very vivid recollection of my noble friend Lord Londonderry, I think on the Second Reading of the Bridges Bill, saying that owners of bridges were not liable to strengthen them for more than the traffic for which they were originally built. I think I am right in saying that, but the noble Marquess will correct me if I am wrong. As I had a controversy with my urban dis-
214
trict council on the point I took special notice of what the noble Marquess said.
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, and to appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to consent to this Amendment. Your Lordships know the difficulties of road maintenance in the Highlands; they are very serious where the road in so many places takes the place of the railway. As regards the County of Sutherland, there are a great many miles of roads which cannot carry even an occasional 5-ton vehicle. After heavy rain or severe frost, if the road is subjected to a burden of that weight, the result would be very serious, and would probably necessitate complete reconstruction in the course of a few months. Quite apart from the question of the roads and bridges you have many culverts all over the country which would also cause a great deal of trouble. The noble Lord, Lord Lovat, when the Bill was in Committee, said, I think, that a penny rate in the County of Inverness produced £800. In the County of Sutherland a penny rate produces only £300, and the road rate at the present moment is 4s. 4d. in the £1. The road authority in the County of Sutherland has 670 to 680 miles of road to maintain, and a very conservative estimate of that mileage would be about 480 to 490 miles of road which would be quite unfit to carry a burden of anything like 5 tons. I would, therefore, appeal very strongly to the noble Earl to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lovat. He knows very well the difficulties of maintaining roads in the remoter districts. I hope your Lordships will agree that the reduction proposed to 3 tons is a very necessary one. The Amendment is one of vital importance to those living in the Highlands.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, who moved the Amendment, stated his case very fairly and I have no quarrel with him. The whole of this subject is rather a difficult one. I think the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite and the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, both felt none too certain about the facts of the matter and I am quite sure I am none too certain about them myself. I would like to remind your Lordships, however, how

215
this arises. There is an idea or suggestion that this measure is imposing some new duty or doing something fresh which hurts bridge owners. Of course that is not the case. As I pointed out to your Lordships in Committee, and as is now accepted, this measure is doing nothing but what has been the law for a very long time indeed, long before motors were invented—that is, that bridge owners cannot put on restrictive notices for less than five tons. There does not seem to be any reason why advantage should be taken of this Bill, and of a penalty clause in this Bill, by a side wind, to reduce that five tons to three tons.
Let me point out to your Lordships what this clause does. This clause says that where a bridge authority wants to protect a bridge because it does not think it could carry certain weights, it may do so by certain notices, but it does not say it may protect other bridges. It says that no notice shall prescribe or prohibit a weight of less than five tons. That really is only the existing law. What the Statute does is to give a statutory right of protection to certain bridges if they put up a statutory notice. I am advised that there would be no objection at all to owners putting up notices, which would have no statutory effect, saying that the bridge is not in a condition to carry more than one or two tons, as the case may be. I should have thought myself that if in the face of that notice a heavier vehicle was driven over the bridge and caused an accident the owner of the vehicle would be liable at any rate for contributory negligence. I understood the noble Earl said that was not so.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not think I said that.
EARL RUSSELL: Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Earl, but I should have thought that by the ordinary law if there is a notice saying something is unsafe and a person deliberately does it, he must be held liable or at least partly responsible, for any damage. The law does not say the bridge shall carry five tons. It says you cannot put up a statutory notice limiting it to less than five tons. I do not think we should be asked to make a change in this way in the case of a law which has existed for so many years. If the law ought to be changed, I should have thought the best opportunity would
216
be on the Bridges Bill or by some Bill specially promoted by the County Councils Association or others interested.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Perhaps the noble Earl can tell me whether the five tons referred to was laid down in order to protect bridges against traction engines? Perhaps that may be the case. I do not know exactly what the weights of vehicles are.
EARL RUSSELL: I confess I have not had time to make extensive researches into this rather complicated subject, but I am told that five tons was laid down with the idea that that was the maximum possible weight for horses and carts. That was how the five tons arose historically. But I think we really ought not to make this change by a side wind here. It ought to be considered when we can have the full facts before us. I do not know what practical difficulty would arise. Apparently a practical difficulty has not arisen as yet. When the noble Lord said he did not want to restrict roads, surely it would be a very proper thing that small roads and bridges should be restricted against chars-a-bancs and heavy vehicles which ought not to be on them. The county councils have now power to make those restrictions.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (2) and to insert as a new subsection:
(3) For the purposes of this section, the weight of a vehicle means, in relation to a vehicle drawing a trailer, the aggregate of the weights of the vehicle and the trailer, and where the maximum permissible weight laden of any vehicle or trailer is indicated by marks placed thereon in accordance with any Act, order or regulation for the time being in force, the weight of the vehicle or trailer shall not he taken to be less than the weight so indicated unless the person charged with an offence under subsection (2) of this section proves to the satisfaction of the court that at the time of passing over the bridge the weight of the vehicle or trailer, as the case may be, was some less weight.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is only a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, leave out lines 28 to 33 and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after subsection (2), to insert:—
(4) Where a notice has been so placed as aforesaid any person who causes or permits any motor vehicle, being either a heavy locomotive, light locomotive, motor tractor or heavy motor car to stop on the bridge or to be driven on the bridge while another such vehicle is on the, bridge shall be guilty of an offence.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the Amendment I mentioned earlier, to prohibit two vehicles being on the bridge at the same time.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 33, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "light locomotives or to bear heavy locomotives or to bear weights greater than those specified in the notice," and to insert "a vehicle of a weight greater than the weight specified in the notice, or a vehicle of a weight greater than the weight specified in the notice travelling at a speed greater than the speed so specified, as the case may be." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a consequential drafting Amendment involving the speed of the vehicle.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 38, leave out from ("bear") to ("after") in line 40 and insert the said words.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to omit all words in subsection (4) after "The Minister," and to insert:—
"instead of himself determining any appeal under this section may refer the matter of the appeal to an arbitrator to be appointed, in default of agreement between the parties to the appeal, by the Minister.
"On any such arbitration the arbitrator shall have power to make any such order as the Minister has power to make under subsection (5) of this section, and for the purposes of this section any order made by the arbitrator shall be deemed to be the order of the Minister."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the new arbitration clause and I hope your Lordships will agree that it is now in a form that can be understood. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 10, leave out from ("Minister") to the end of line 17 and insert the said new words.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27:
Taking motor vehicle without owner's consent or other authority to be an offence.
27.—(1) Every person who takes and drives away any motor vehicle without having either the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine:

Provided that it shall be a defence to proceedings under this section if the accused proves that he acted in the belief that he had lawful authority, or in the belief that the owner would, in the circumstances of the case, have given his consent, if he had been asked therefor.
(3) Any constable may without a warrant take into custody any person reasonably suspected by him of having committed an offence under this section.
(4) For the purposes of this section the expression "owner," in relation to a vehicle which is the subject of a hiring agreement or a hire purchase agreement, means the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "Every person who" and to insert:—

(a) unlawfully and without a claim of right or licence made in good faith, drives, moves or enters with intent to drive or move any vehicle; or

(b) not being a person lawfully in charge or lawfully in control of a vehicle, unlawfully and without claim of right or licence made in good faith, causes, invites or assists any other person to drive, move or enter with intent to drive or move such vehicle; or

(c) not being a person lawfully in charge or lawfully in control of a vehicle, accompanies any other person who unlawfully and without a claim of right or licence made in good faith, drives, moves or enters with intent to drive such vehicle;

shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves to the satisfaction of the court that lie committed the act with which he is charged in the presence of, and with the consent of, a person lawfully in charge or lawfully in control of such vehicle or that he had such excuse for committing the act with which he is charged as the court shall in all the circumstances of the case consider reasonable and sufficient or, in the case of a charge under (c) hereof, that he had no knowledge that the person whom he accompanied drove, moved or entered with intent to drive or

219
move such vehicle unlawfully and without a claim of right or licence made in good faith.
(2) Whether an excuse is reasonable and sufficient within the meaning of the foregoing subsection shall be a question of fact, and where a defendant charged with an offence under this section sets up as a defence that he had a reasonable and sufficient excuse for committing the act with which he is charged, evidence may be called by the prosecution to show, and the defendant may be cross-examined to show, that he has been previously convicted of an offence or offences under this section or of an offence or offences in relation to a vehicle under the Larceny Act, 1916.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the civil liability of any person who commits any of the acts referred to in subsection (1) of this section, whether the court holds that such person had a reasonable and sufficient excuse for committing such act or not.
(4) Every person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine, and on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to substitute for the stolen motor car subsection proposed by the Government subsections which are on all fours with a Bill introduced in another place by a private member. The advantages of that Bill over the Government proposals can be summarised in this way. In the first place no allowance is made in the Government proposals for a really genuine mistake in taking a car. In these days of mass production it is quite possible for a man to go to a car park and make a genuine mistake about a car and not discover the mistake for a little time. It would be very undesirable that anyone should be proceeded against in such circumstances. The second advantage which this clause would have over the Government clause is that it brings in the guilty accomplice. If a car is stolen anybody in the car and not alone the driver would be liable. Then aiding and abetting is made an offence, and furthermore, heavier penalties are provided than those provided in the Government clause. There is an increase in the fine to £200 as against £100 or £50, and another very important point is that the court is authorised to order payment in
220
full or in part of the fine to the aggrieved owner of the vehicle. Then there is compulsory disqualification from holding a licence for three years and the endorsement of the licence.
The view that is taken by a number of people is that the Government proposals are not sufficiently severe to act as a positive deterrent against car-snatching or car-stealing. There is a great epidemic of it at the present time and these provisions are very urgently desired to put a stop to it. Far more danger is caused to the public by a stolen car than by any other vehicle on the road. These cars are driven without the slightest consideration for anybody. Another most important point, which we shall come to when we reach the insurance clause, is that any person who is knocked down by a stolen car will have no chance of getting any insurance as a result, if he is seriously injured. If we can do anything to stop cars being stolen we ought to do it. I venture to submit that this Amendment will be more effective than the clause proposed by the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 9, leave out from ("who") to the end of line 25 and insert the said new subsections.—(Earl Howe.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment, except one passage in the second subsection, which runs:—
"Where a defendant charged with an offence under this section sets up as a defence that he had a reasonable and sufficient excuse for committing the act with which he is charged, evidence may be called by the prosecution to show, and the defendant may be cross-examined to show, that he has been previously convicted of an offence or offences under this section or of an offence or offences in relation to a vehicle under the Larceny Act, 1916."
Surely it offends against every idea of British justice that a man should be cross-examined on his past. It can be brought up after he is found guilty, but certainly not before. If the noble Earl is willing to withdraw those words, I shall support him if he goes to a Division.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the Government, perhaps not unnaturally, prefer the form in which they have drawn this clause. The noble Earl's clause is taken from the Bill of a Private Memmer, and it contains, as will be seen from

221
a later Amendment in the noble Earl's name, a somewhat remarkable provision regarding the fines being paid to the owner. I do not object so much as the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, does to the words referring to previous offences, because I see the reason for them. The man is, in effect, setting up good character as a defence and saying that he had a reasonable ground for taking the car and is a person of good character acting under an honest mistake. The object of the cross-examination is to show that this claim was a mere pretence. I should not object to that. But it is a remarkable provision which says that the court—
"may order that the whole or any part of such fine be paid to the owner of the vehicle."
That is a remarkable provision which has, I think, no parallel, at any rate in modern legislation.
The noble Earl thinks, as I understand him, that this clause will be more effective than the Government's clause. I do not know why he thinks that. He says that the penalties are more severe. Had he moved to increase the penalties in the Government's clause, that would have been an easy method of dealing with it, but the Government clause really, I think, covers everything that is likely to happen. It says:—
"Every person who takes and driven away any motor vehicle without having either the consent of the owner thereof or other lawful authority shall be liable"—
That does not require him to have a felonious intent. He merely has to do it without the consent of the owner or lawful authority. And then it is a defence
"if the court … are satisfied that the accused acted in the reasonable belief that he had lawful authority"—
I am reading the words as they will appear after the drafting Amendments that I shall propose have been inserted—
"or in the belief that the owner would … have given his consent."
The question whether he had that reasonable belief or not is a question of fact for the magistrates or the jury, as the case may be. You have to have some such provision, because there are innumerable cases of persons who quite innocently take the cars of their friends without asking permission because they know that no objection will be made.
222
Your Lordships will notice that the constable is given power to take the person into custody without a warrant, which, no doubt, would be necessary, and there is also a definition of "owner." I must say the Government prefer the clause that they have drafted. It has been very carefully considered, and indeed, had been very carefully considered by the Home Office before it was introduced into this Bill. It existed already, as your Lordships know, in the form of a Bill in another place, and I hope that your Lordships will think it wiser to adhere to the official drafting rather than to that which is taken from a Private Member's Bill.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, it seems to me that there is one difference that has not been mentioned between Lord Howe's clause and that of the Government. If a person enters a car and starts the engine and is stopped before he actually drives away, under Lord Howe's clause he would have committed an offence, but under the clause of the Government he would not.
EARL RUSSELL: If that is so, I will have it looked into. I see what the noble Lord means. The man has actually to take the car and drive away, whereas he ought to be charged when he is in the act of taking the car. I think that possibly that might be chargeable as an attempt, but I will have the point looked into. It will be quite easy to amend the clause. To that extent, however, the noble Earl's clause may be better.
EARL HOWE: I should like to ask one question regarding the people present in the car. The Government's clause does not, I think, deal with anybody actually found in the stolen car when it is stopped. My clause endeavours to deal with anybody who is found in the car, and not only with the driver.
EARL RUSSELL: It is not necessary that it should deal with anybody in the car because, if they have committed an offence, that is to say if they are parties to the offence, then, as the noble Earl knows, in a case of misdemeanour they can be charged as principals. It is merely a question of fact whether they are parties to the offence or not. If it is merely a girl who has been picked up by

223
the driver and does not know whether the car is stolen or not, there is no reason why she should be charged with this serious offence.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I have four drafting Amendments at this point.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 20, leave out from ("that") to ("acted") in line 21 and insert ("if on summary proceedings under this section the court, or on proceedings under this section on indictment the jury, are satisfied that the accused")
Page 23, line 22, after the first ("the") insert ("reasonable")
Page 23, line 25, after ("therefor") insert ("the accused shall not be liable to be convicted of the offence")
Page 23, line 32, after ("any") insert ("police").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this subsection is unnecessary in view of the definition in Clause 101 as it is proposed to amend that clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 35, leave out subsection (4).—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Restrictions on persons being towed by getting on to or tampering with motor vehicles]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 6, leave out ("enters") and insert ("gets on to").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29 [Regulations]:
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, after paragraph (g), to insert as a new paragraph:—
"The provision of appliances whereby the speed at which the motor vehicle is travelling may be automatically shown so as to be clearly visible to police officers or others on the road, and for empowering persons authorised by or under the regulations to test or inspect whether on a road or elsewhere any such appliances."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I put down in Committee but, owing to a public engagement, I was not here to move it. I believe my noble friend Lord Onslow
224
was good enough just to place it before the Committee without, I think, any argument on the point. The point really is this. I ask your Lordships' attention to it as a serious matter. The Government propose to retain the speed limit in a great number of cases. Practically they are exempting only the private car. Well, we know quite well that the great argument against the speed limit, and the one that has always pressed very strongly on me, is not so much that it does not contribute in some degree to public safety, but that it is so generally broken and disregarded that it brings contempt upon the law and has very little effect. What kind of security have you that the speed limits in the Schedule will be more generally regarded than the speed limits which exist at the present time? I can think of none. It is quite true that possibly, in the very low speed limits dealing with heavy motor cars, the vehicles are probably not constructed to go very much faster than they do and it may be that there will be some security there, but in the case of chars-a-bancs, public service vehicles and the lighter kinds of goods vehicle, they will all disobey the rule just as they do now. Why should they not? They have found that, by continually disobeying the rule, they have induced Parliament to abolish it in the case of one kind of motor car. They will say: "Let us go on disobeying it and we will have it removed in the case of the other motor cars."
I respectfully suggest you cannot leave the Bill exactly like that. If you are going to keep the speed limits at all you ought to do something to make it easier to enforce the law. Therefore I suggest in this Amendment that you should give power to the Ministry to provide by regulation for attaching at the back of a motor vehicle a speedometer of such a size as to be visible from the road. I will come to the details of the speedometer in a moment. It is not only a case of the speed limit. My noble friend Earl Russell has said with great truth that he thinks the great thing is to stop dangerous driving. He has said more than once in this House that he looked to a condition of affairs when people will be stopped from dangerous driving and liable to prosecution even though an accident has not occurred. He made a very strong case on that. Now what constitutes dangerous driving in the

225
great majority of cases? It is driving at an excessive speed in view of the circumstances of the case. I do not say that is the only possible form of dangerous driving, but it is the commonest. What happens when the policeman, the bystander or whoever it is, comes into court? He says: "This car came round the corner at a tremendous speed on the wrong side of the road." The owner goes into the box and says: "Not at all. I was driving at the most moderate speed. I can assure you that I am a very careful driver." I have never met a motorist who did not say he was a very careful driver and thoroughly disapproved of the type of motorist that takes unnecessary risks. I never met a motorist who did not say that except, possibly, a very few youthful and perhaps unnecessarily truthful individuals. He says: "I was driving with the utmost care. A mere snail's pace." Therefore you have a complete divergence of opinion and no means by which the court can settle which was right and which was wrong. That is a very serious thing and it makes a very serious blot on our legislation about dangerous driving.
It ought not to pass the wit of man to construct such a speedometer as I have suggested—a speedometer not of enormous size but, say, a foot across, or possibly not as much. It would not be a speedometer such as we are all familiar with on the dashboard of a car showing in great detail whether you are going at 25 or 26 miles an hour. You want a much rougher machine than that, which would indicate whether you are going between 30 and 40, between 40 and 50, or between 50 and 60 miles an hour. That can be done with the greatest ease. The only argument which the noble Earl urged on the last occasion was the impossibility of providing such a speedometer which could be visible. Since I have been sitting in your Lordships' House I have ventured to make a very rough diagram on the back of the Amendment paper of the kind of thing I have in view and here it is. It would only be for the case of a car of which the limit was 30 miles an hour. You would have 30 there, 40 there, 50 there, and 60 there, and a hand which would move round. Any policeman who was familiar with the make of these things would know directly he saw the hand that the car was travelling at between 30 and 40 miles an hour, or
226
between 40 and 50, or between 50 and 60 miles an hour as the case might be. Of course they would obviously be standardised. That is the object of giving the power to make regulations to the Minister. I do not suggest that this is the best or the only plan. It is a very rough illustration of the kind of thing that is in my mind. I am quite sure it could be very much improved and that a thing of that size, or a little bigger than that, would be perfectly visible, in daylight at any rate, and of course it would be lighted up at night. It would be a very important protection in this matter.
I cannot think it would be a very great hardship to require such a thing as that to be attached to motor cars and I ask the Government to consider very carefully whether some such power is not a desirable one to take. If they find in practice it is not possible to do it, then they need not exercise their power. Surely, there is a very serious need for doing something if we can find a means of doing it. It is a scandal that we should retain the speed limit in a great number of cases when the whole case for abolishing it in the one case in which we are going to abolish is that it cannot be enforced. If you are going to retain it without any provision to facilitate its enforcement where you do retain it, I think you are going to pass legislation which stands condemned on the face of it. I press still more strongly the desirability of having some means to ascertain the pace at which any car is going when we are all agreed that speed must enter very largely into the question whether the offence of dangerous driving has or has not been committed. I am very sorry to have detained your Lordships so long, but this is a matter to which I attach the greatest importance and I trust that it will have very serious consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 7, after ("gear") insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Viscount has given us an interesting account and an interesting illustration of the sort of instrument he has in mind. I think that, as I suggested in the Committee stage, it would be rather an amusing and interesting instrument to have

227
upon the roads. One's judgment of the speed at which a car is going on the road is an extremely variable one. One's estimate, even that of the most experienced person, is often incorrect, and it would be interesting to have a large speedometer telling you exactly at what speed other motor vehicles on the road were going. I do not know, even supposing it was desirable to do this, that the noble Viscount has considered the practical details. To begin with, I think the instrument would have to be twice the size of the diagram he held up to your Lordships. It has to be seen in all conditions of daylight, in all the circumstances of passing traffic, and for a very short time. It must be something you would have to observe quickly and I think it would have to be twice the size. I was wondering while he was speaking where in regard to a private ear it could be conveniently fitted. It would not have to be on one side only, it must be visible on both sides.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I contemplated its being on the back near where you put the number of the car.
EARL RUSSELL: It would not be as much use on the back as on the front, because if the car passed, by the time you saw the back it would have slowed up a good deal.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I only take what is possible.
EARL RUSSELL: I am not, sure that such an instrument is impossible, but I am quite sure it would be very expensive to fit, and I am quite sure of something much more important—namely, that it would be very easy to tamper with it, and undoubtedly, in the case of the young scorching driver of a private car capable of almost any enormity, it would be tampered with without doubt. It might also be tampered with in the case of commercial vehicles. Moreover, I am not certain what purpose it would serve if it worked all right. The Amendment says—
"speed at which the motor vehicle is travelling may be automatically shown so as to be clearly visible to police officers or others on the road."
What is that speed to show them when they look at it? Is it to show them that it is such a, speed as would bring the car
228
under the dangerous driving provisions? I suppose that is the underlying idea.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I explained carefully that it had two objects. Where the vehicle was one subject to a speed limit it would show whether that limit was being exceeded. Where the car was not subject to a speed limit, but was guilty of driving in the opinion of the police officer, at a speed which constituted dangerous driving, it would enable him to tell the court precisely at what speed the vehicle was going, and that would give them a much better chance of judging whether it was excessive speed or not.
EARL RUSSELL: It is perfectly true that with a, fixed speed limit it would enable the constable to see whether that limit was being exceeded, but it would leave a prosecution rather difficult even then, because as a matter of law I think a police officer would also have to prove that the speedometer was recording correctly. If the speedometer recorded forty miles an hour, the prosecution would still have to prove that the car was going at forty miles an hour. There would, I am sure, be some technical legal difficulties of that kind. Really I do not think that this proposal is going to serve a purpose sufficiently useful to justify its application. The instrument would necessarily cost a good deal, it would be liable to be tampered with, and I am not quite sure what actual useful purpose it would serve. I think I am right in saying, if it is any satisfaction to the noble Viscount, that under the regulations which are contemplated the Minister would have power to impose this obligation upon motor cars at any time it was thought right and proper; but as the noble Viscount has proposed it for something like five times in this House and in the Select Committee—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: The noble Earl is guilty of exaggeration. I have never proposed it in this House, except through the medium of Lord Onslow on the Committee stage. I asked in the Committee upstairs whether it was possible, and I was told, although they were hostile to every proposal which I made, that it was a possible thing to do.
EARL RUSSELL: It was suggested upstairs, but not moved as an Amendment.

229
I thought it was also in the noble Viscount's Bill.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No, it was not.
EARL RUSSELL: I suggest to the noble Viscount, because he thinks it is really workable and useful, that he should enquire among makers of these instruments and motor manufacturers as to the kind of instrument which could be produced and used, and as to whether it is a practical proposition. He can hardly expect us to accept it now, but if at any time he was able to convince the Minister, the Minister would be able to do it by regulation.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Why should not the Minister make inquiries?
EARL RUSSELL: think the Minister would not make inquiries for the reason I have mentioned, that he is not of the opinion that this would serve any useful purpose.
EARL HOWE: There is just one other point affected by this proposal, to which allusion has not been made. It is the case of foreign-owned cars. A large number of foreign-owned cars come to this country, and English-owned cars go abroad. Most of the regulations are international, and great efforts are made to bring them into line. If this regulation only applied to British cars—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Of course it would apply to every car on British roads.
EARL HOWE: Then it would have the effect of keeping foreign-owned cars out of this country.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Why not?
LORD DANESFORT: I would like to point out that the regulation is not to be compulsory upon the Minister but he is to apply it in his discretion if he thinks right. The clause says that "the Minister may make regulations." If this new paragraph were inserted it would not be compulsory on the Minister, if he found it impossible, but if he found it to be possible, then the paragraph would enable him to make a regulation.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Supposing these regulations are not observed by users of motor cars, under this actual clause there is no penalty.
EARL RUSSELL: There is a general penalty for disobeying the regulations.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there are a number of further Amendments to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 25, line 8, leave out ("the methods to be used and")
Page 25, line 13, leave out ("the intended movement") and insert ("any intended change of speed or direction")
Page 25, line 13, after ("vehicle") insert ("and the method of using any such appliance")
Page 25, line 14, leave out ("such appliances") and insert ("they")
Page 25, line 36, leave out subsection (2).—(Earl Russell.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with regard to subsection (2) I take it that the noble Earl is going to put in this provision later.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, that is being put in a general clause at the end.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think you would probably find this a convenient time to adjourn.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
Clause 30 [General law relating to carriages to apply to motor vehicles]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 14, after ("vehicle") insert ("or trailer.")—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31:
Provisions as to Northern Ireland drivers' licences.
31.—(1) If the Minister certifies that satisfactory provision is made by the law of Northern Ireland for the granting of licences to drive motor vehicles, it shall be lawful for the holder of such a licence, unless he is disqualified under this Act for holding or obtaining a licence to drive and be employed in driving a motor vehicle in

231
Great Britain, notwithstanding that he is not the holder of a licence under this Part of this Act:
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "a motor vehicle" and, after "Britain," to insert "a motor vehicle of any class or description which he is authorised by that licence to drive." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of these Amendments is to ensure that if in Northern Ireland the holder of a licence can only drive a particular class of vehicle a similar restriction can apply in Great Britain. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("a motor vehicle")
Page 26, line 11, after ("Britain") insert ("a motor vehicle of any class or description which he is authorised by that licence to drive").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 33 [Application to Scotland]
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to insert—
"(e) Section twenty shall have effect with the substitution of a reference to a complaint for the reference to a summons."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment for the purposes of Scottish law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 27, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34:
Obligation on owners of motor vehicles to hold insurance policies or other security against third-party risks.
34.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person to use, or to cause or permit any other person to use, a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the vehicle while being so used such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third-party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(3) Notwithstanding any enactment prescribing a time within which proceedings may be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction, proceedings for an offence under this section may be brought either within one year from the date of the commission of the alleged offence or within three months from the date on which it came to the knowledge of the prosecutor
232
that the offence had been committed, whichever period is the longer.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "vehicle while being so used" and insert "user of the vehicle by that person or that other person as the case may be." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment for the purpose of removing an obscurity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 35, leave out ("vehicle while being so used") and insert ("user of the vehicle by that person or that other person as the case may be").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "either within one year from the date of the commission of the alleged offence or within three months from the date on which it came to the knowledge of the prosecutor that the offence had been committed," and to insert:—

"(a) within a period of six months from the date of the commission of the alleged offence; or

(b) within a period which exceeds neither three months from the date on which it came to the knowledge of the prosecutor that the offence had been committed nor one year from the date of the commission of the offence."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is for the purpose of providing what I mentioned to your Lordships—a period of six months, or a period of a year if the prosecutor did not learn of the offence at once. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, leave out from ("brought") in line 14 to ("whichever") in line 18 and insert the said new paragraphs.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to insert:—
"(5) In this section the expression 'local authority' means the council of any county, borough (including a metropolitan borough), urban district or rural district and the common council of the City of London."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 27, at end insert the said now subsection.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35:
Requirements in respect of policies.
35.—(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Part of this Act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which£
(b) insures such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle on a road:
Provided that such a policy shall not be required to cover—

(i) liability in respect of the death in the course of his employment of a person in the employment of a person insured by the policy or of bodily injury sustained by such a person in the course of his employment; or

(ii) except in the case of a vehicle in which passengers are being carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or entering or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which the claims arise.

(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, the expression "authorised insurer" means an assurance company or an underwriter in whose case the requirements of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, as amended by this Act, with respect to deposits by assurance companies and deposits and guarantees by underwriters are complied with.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in ally enactment, a person issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall, subject to any conditions contained in the policy, be liable to indemnify the persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability against which they are insured by the policy.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after "liability," to insert "by way of compensation." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment for this reason. As the clause stands the words "any liability" are a little too wide. What is really intended, I take it, is any Common Law liability as to negligence in driving a motor which causes death or bodily injury to a person. That is what is meant to be insured against. As the words stand might they not include certain liabilities which are not really intended to be insured against? Let me give the noble Earl one illustration. Supposing A and B are in partnership, and A is under contractual liability to pay a sum of, say, £2,000 in the case of B's
234
death. A takes B out for a drive in his car, and B is killed. A will have to be insured against Common Law liability by way of compensation for the death of B, but it was never intended that in such case A should be insured against liability to B, his partner, a contractual liability for £2,000 which he had to pay in case of death.
There are many other illustrations that could be given, but the noble Earl will see that it is at any rate one of many cases where the liability is not intended to be covered, but it might be covered by the words that are used, "any liability." Therefore I propose words which I think will meet the case—after "liability" to insert "by way of compensation." Then it, will read—
"in respect of any liability by way of compensation which might be incurred by him or them in respect of the death or bodily injury of the person."
I think the noble Earl will see it is necessary to limit it in some way, and I think those words will limit it in a proper way.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 36, after ("liability") insert ("by way of compensation").—(Lord Danesfort.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is wrong. If he will read Clause 35 together with Clause 34 he will find that it must relate to an injury caused by the vehicle. I do not see that it would possibly cover such a case as he suggested, and I am glad to have an idea of what the noble Lord had in mind in his Amendment, because I thought he had in mind some sort of criminal liability. Naturally it would not cover that in any event.
LORD DANESFORT: No, contractual liability.
EARL RUSSELL: I think that case would not arise. The usual words in a third-party policy are something like these: "all sums which the assured shall be liable to pay by way of compensation for bodily injury." I do not know that putting these words in really makes it any better or any worse, but if the noble Lord thinks it an improvement I could accept them for the time being, and consider them.
LORD DANESFORT: These are the usual words, "by way of compensation," and those are the words I suggest. If

235
the noble Earl will kindly accept them now and later on finds they are unsuitable he can strike them out and put in proper words.
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to ask the noble Lord if he thinks "by way of compensation" is quite the same as "by way of damages"? What you recover in your action are damages for your injury.
LORD DANESFORT: I could accept "by way of damages" if the noble Earl thinks those words are better.
EARL RUSSELL: I should think it better not to put in either word unless the noble Lord presses it.
LORD DANESFORT: I should be glad to put in some words, and the noble Ear] might strike them out later if necessary. The noble Earl suggests "by way of damages" is better than "by way of compensation," and I will put those words in.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 36, after ("liability") insert ("by way of damages").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, in paragraph (i) of the proviso to paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after "death," to insert "arising out of and ". The noble Lord said: Those are the usual words.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 42, after ("death") insert ("arising out of and").—(Lord Dunesfort.)
EARL RUSSELL: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the next Amendment deals with the same question.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 2, after ("person") insert ("arising out of and").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved to leave out paragraph (ii) of the proviso to subsection (1) (b). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move to leave out this paragraph because I really do not understand it. Perhaps the noble Earl will take
236
the opportunity of explaining what it means. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see the proviso begins—
"Provided that such a policy shall not be required to cover"—
And later come these words, which I really do not understand—
"except in the case of a vehicle in which passengers are being carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or entering or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which the claims arise."
While I am sure that the noble Earl, if it fell to his lot to construe these words judicially, would be able to do it, I confess I have the least possibility of doing it myself. Perhaps if the noble Earl would explain it may turn out that the clause is all right.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 4, leave out paragraph (ii).—(Lord Danesfort.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the clause is perhaps a little difficult to read, but the object is to avoid covering a voluntary passenger who rides in a car with a negligent driver who turns out to be insolvent. Your Lordships will notice that the paragraph first refers to a case where passengers are being carried "for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment." That, I suppose, would refer to workmen going to or returning from work or something of that sort, but it excludes persons who are "being carried in or entering or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which the claims arise." It is intended to exclude voluntary passengers.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation, but may I suggest to him that before Third Reading he might consider whether words could not be employed which would make it clear that these are voluntary passengers? The words in the paragraph now are, "persons being carried in or entering or alighting from the vehicle." That would appear to include all persons, and not merely persons, as the noble Earl says, who are being voluntarily carried. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider the point.
EARL RUSSELL: I will certainly look into it.
LORD DANESFORT: In that case I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (1), after the words "persons being carried in or" to insert "upon or." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of inserting these words is to cover pillion riders who cannot he said to be "in" a vehicle.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 9, after the first ("or") insert ("upon or") —(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUKE LORD LUKE moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection:—
( ) Where any payment is made by an authorised insurer under a policy issued under this Part of this Act in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person arising out of the use of a motor vehicle on a road and the person who has so died or been bodily injured has to the knowledge of the authorised insurer received treatment in a hospital in respect of the fatal or other bodily injury so arising, there shall also be paid by the authorised insurer to such hospital the expenses reasonably incurred by the hospital in affording such treatment to an amount not exceeding twenty-five pounds for each person so treated.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the particular sufferers whom this Amendment should relieve are the hospitals near the great trunk roads in which beds are filled with people injured in motor accidents to the exclusion of local patients for whom the hospitals were provided. In the great majority of cases no return of expenses has been made to those hospitals. This Amendment was brought forward in Committee and met with such strong support from your Lordships that it was withdrawn only on condition that it should be dealt with on Report.
In the interval we were invited to visit the Ministry, and we took with us an Amendment which had been approved by the Voluntary Hospitals Committee of King Edward's Hospital Fund. After consultation we thought the noble Earl would have been able to move the Amendment, but we learned last Friday that he felt that he was unable to do so. I
238
should like to point out to him—he will probably have noted it—that we have met one of his principal objections. We have removed the words "deducted from" and put in the words "also be paid." That, I think, removes one of his main objections. I find that my own motor policy contains a clause which states that I am insured against medical expenses up to 25 guineas, covering passengers in the car—that is, covering a risk that may not be a legal one. I can barely imagine that motorists would object to paying an extra shilling or two in order to cover this risk to the hospitals of the expense of attending to the injured. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Luke.)
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment. As I have said before, it will be a very great disappointment to hospitals all over the country if they are unable to do so. When the Amendment was discussed before, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill expressed his sympathy with this object, and we were satisfied with that expression, but when he was removed from the audience to which he spoke with such force and came to the frigid and legal atmosphere of Whitehall Gardens I gather that more difficulties arose. We tried, in the interview that we had with him, to meet those difficulties, and sitting here, as I have all through the discussion of this Bill, I have been impressed by the able and, if I may say so without impertinence, the charming way in which the noble Earl meets all the cross-word puzzles put from this side. He seems always to find the right word at the right moment to solve every puzzle. May I say that I am convinced that you have only to put a difficulty to the noble Earl and he will surmount it at once. If I had to compel him to do something, I should say that it could not he done, for I am quite sure that the noble Earl would somehow do it at once. Accordingly I have great hopes that he will get over any of the difficulties that have been suggested to him outside this House, because, when he was in this House, he was so deeply in sympathy with this subsection, and his acceptance of it, if I may say so, is expected of him through the whole country.

239
I hope that the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Luke, moved is quite clear to the House. The duty of the insurance company will be first to pay the damages to insured persons for loss of limb, of capacity for carrying on business and so on—damages which, by the way, have been enormously decreased by the fact that a person has been treated in the hospital—and, after satisfying those damages, to pay a small sum up to a maximum of £25 for the treatment of what may be a very serious case involving the hospital in a great deal of expense. I am quite sure that your Lordships will realise that the insurance companies have to fix their premiums to cover the cast of medical expenses, and it seems unreasonable that, because the expenses are incurred in a hospital that makes no charge, they should escape that part of the reasonable payment for the recovery of the patient.
The hospitals—I wish to emphasise this, for I know that the noble Earl will take advantage of me—do not want to make any legal charge against any of their patients. We do not want to be put in that position. Many of us would think much less of the Good Samaritan if he had sent in a bill for the wine and oil supplied by him and the money paid for the maintenance of the patient, and we do want to carry on that ideal in the management of the hospitals. Therefore, we do not want to make any legal charge against any patients treated in the hospitals. We quite realise the legal difficulties, but we trust to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to get over them. We quite realise that an insurance company is only liable to the holder of a policy to cover his legal liability and that there is no legal liability to a hospital. It is to get over that anomaly that this Amendment has been moved. The result of this Bill will be that the insurance companies will have a very large sum paid to them every year because every driver is obliged to be insured. It does not seem unreasonable that they should be compelled to arrange the premium of those payments to cover the expenses where the patient is treated in a hospital, and that is the object of this Amendment which I hope will get the support of the House.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the debate if
240
your Lordships were to take the course which I am about to suggest. Your Lordships know that at the moment I am only a temporary and fugitive representative of the Ministry of Transport, but since yesterday we have had the real Simon Pure on this Bench. It would, I think, be convenient if my noble colleague were to state at this stage the objections and difficulties we have about this clause in order that subsequent speakers might address themselves to them.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I am very reluctant to break my silence so soon after coming to your Lordships' House and I feel it is quite unnecessary for me to take any part in the proceedings on this Bill considering the great ability my noble friend has shown in conducting it through this House. Moreover, I have only been at my office for rather more than six weeks so that I may seem ill qualified to take any part. I am further reluctant because resisting this Amendment may seem to denote an unsympathetic attitude on the part of the Government towards what seems a really clear case for the hospitals which has been so ably put by the noble Lords who have spoken. We are sympathetic to the underlying principle, and we only wish that it could be made practicable.
There is rather a temptation throughout this very far-reaching measure to bring in irrelevant points. The whole question of traffic nowadays comprehends such a vast number of subjects that it is very likely that from time to time we may go beyond the precise scope of the Bill. Even this afternoon we had some very convincing speeches on the subject of the burdens to be placed on bridges. I was very much impressed by them but as my noble friend pointed out, we cannot stretch this Bill to comprehend too many subjects, and the question of bridges must be dealt with separately. So we feel that we cannot make the Road Traffic Bill into a Bill for paying back to the hospitals the sums which they are being really deprived of by the number of accident cases which are brought to them. We feel that it is outside the scope of the Bill. It is true, as Lord Knutsford said, that when he and Lord Luke came to the Ministry of Transport

241
my noble friend was very sympathetic to the view they put forward. Who would not be? But when we came to face the cold facts, and to find out how this could be brought within the four corners of a Bill which deals with road traffic, we felt that it would be impossible for us to accept the Amendment. It really involves an entirely new principle in insurance, and it is rather difficult to bring that into a subject to which it is not quite relevant. It must necessarily, of course, increase the premiums, and that would be a consideration.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: It would increase them very little.
LORD PONSONBY or SHULBREDE: The point mentioned by Lord Knutsford is one which makes the matter even more difficult, for if the hospitals are reluctant to put forward any legal claim on a patient, how can the Government place the liability on the insurance companies in an Act of Parliament? To draft a clause which would do that would be almost impossible, and to make the Government of the day responsible for this new principle is, I think, asking too much. As I have said, I am very reluctant to resist this Amendment because we realise the heavy work which falls on the hospitals, and also the admirable work which they do. We should very much like to assist them in every possible way, but we feel that this is not the place to do it, and this Amendment must be resisted.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am sure you will welcome the speech of the noble Lord in one way, in that it is his first speech in this House, but we regret it in another way, because he was not able to give a more sympathetic welcome to what I think I may say is an Amendment the principle of which has received approval throughout the House and throughout the country. Still, although the noble Lord was unable to accept the Amendment, yet I think he regarded the principle of it, as did Lord Russell, with great sympathy, and therefore I would venture to appeal to your Lordships to carry on with your intention, and see whether, even if the particular form of words is not to be approved, it is yet possible on the Third Reading that something satisfactory to all sides may be introduced. The noble Lord said that it was entirely a new point
242
in the Bill, and if I understood him aright he seemed to think that this particular principle of insurance for hospitals was not quite germane to the present Bill. I venture to point out to your Lordships, however, that the clause with which we are now dealing is entitled "Requirements in respect of policies" and that it deals with the question of insurance. Therefore I would suggest that it is possible to place this Amendment in this clause, and that the question of the payment of hospitals is germane to this Bill.
It is said that this is a new principle in insurance. Perhaps it is, but are we not always introducing new principles in legislation I After all, this Bill is full of new principles. We are abolishing the speed limit: that is a new principle. We are adopting more stringent measures against dangerous driving: this is not a new principle, but it is a very considerable extension of an old one. And therefore I think that is scarcely a reason for not dealing in this Bill with a question which is admitted on all sides to be one of very considerable urgency. I do really hope that there will be some method found of accepting the principle of this Amendment. It is a matter which was strongly recommended by the Voluntary Hospitals Commission, and a recommendation on these lines was set forth in our Report, which was issued in 1925. If there were any further argument necessary to prove the very grave difficulty and disability under which hospitals stand in regard to this question, I would venture to cite briefly the case as regards the hospital in which I am more particularly interested, and of which I happen to be President—namely, the Royal Surrey County Hospital. I got some figures from the secretary the other day, which are both interesting and instructive.
I do not know whether your Lordships who motor on the Portsmouth Road know the hospital; I trust that you have not had occasion to utilise it. It is particularly favourably—or perhaps I should say unfavourably—situated for the reception of road accident cases. The number of these in 1927 was 156, in 1928 it was 170, in 1929 it was 153; the average number of days in hospital of these road accident cases was thirty-four; and there was a constant occupation during that time of

243
fifteen beds for road accident cases. As most of these were men, and we have only seventy beds for men, a very high proportion of the accommodation is taken up by this class of case. That being so, a very heavy expenditure is entailed on hospitals like ours in respect to these road accident cases. This clause will enable the insurer to include among payments in respect to insurance some of the costs of hospital treatment. I should like to say quite frankly that the hospitals make no complaint whatever of having to take these cases; it is their duty to take them. But where compensation is paid it seems not unfair that part of that compensation should go to the hospitals which are put to a very heavy expense by these cases. I therefore urge most strongly on the Government that they should endeavour to co-operate with us in finding some way out of this difficulty, the existence of which nobody denies.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I cannot believe that the last word has been said by the Government on this subject. I am connected with a large voluntary institution—not a hospital, but a great voluntary institution which is very similar in character to a hospital, which exists for the purpose of saving life and nothing else, and which is in that capacity performing an entirely indispensable national service. If by any chance the strain upon the hospitals becomes too great, and results in some of them having to put up the shutters, what will be the attitude of the Government then? It is a very serious problem with which we may be faced. The number of motor cars in this country is not going to decrease and there is not one word in this Bill, as it stands, that will increase public safety on the roads, In fact, I think it will decrease public safety on the roads. Accidents will tend, I think, to increase rather than to decrease in proportion. I notice that this statement causes amusement to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill.
EARL RUSSELL: I was only amused to find the noble Earl joining forces with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil.
EARL HOWE: It may be that those of us who, like the noble Earl himself, have a little first-hand acquaintance with these problems realise the seriousness of
244
them. I find no cause for anything except sincere anxiety on behalf of the hospitals. They are performing an entirely national service, and if they break under the strain that service will have to be performed by the State. As one who is a believer in private enterprise and endeavour, particularly in such matters as hospitals, I hope that the Government will be able to give yet further consideration to a problem which I regard as of first-class importance.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, unless the Government can assist the House in finding some practical solution of this very urgent question I say with confidence that there will be deep and widespread disappointment and dissatisfaction throughout the country. The voluntary hospitals have done magnificent work for years. Their finances were greatly strained even before the advent of motor cars. They carry on business on the voluntary principle and intend to continue on that principle. Since the advent of motor cars their finances have been more strained than ever. It is common knowledge that on every highway and big road going out of London to the country where there is a hospital there are invariably a number of cases taken into it owing to motor accidents. Those cases have to be treated. They are treated and gladly treated, but at very great cost, and with great strain on the finances of the hospital. By this Bill you are making provision for insuring third parties against motor risks.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: Only third-party risks.
LORD DANESFORT: Only third parties. When you are taking a step of that sort you are really bound to do what you can to help the hospitals out of the great difficulties with which they are faced. I was deeply disappointed, I confess, by the utterances of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. His first suggestion was that this provision was not germane to the Bill. I cannot imagine anything more germane. Here is a clause for the purpose of providing compensation to third persons in case of death or accident owing to motors. Why it should not be germane to say that compensation should be provided to the hospitals for the services they render in consequence of these motor accidents I cannot imagine.

245
I do not like to use any strong language, but I think it is amazing.
The noble Lord suggests that some other occasion might wise, goodness knows when or where, on which it would be possible to introduce a proper provision for paying the hospitals. Surely, the time is now, when we have the whole subject of motor traffic and compensation in respect of it before us. Now is the time to do it if it can possibly be done. The noble Lord went on to give some special reasons why this should not be done in the present Bill. He said that this is a new principle. Yes, but is not the principle of compulsory insurance itself a new principle? It is a principle which has never been brought forward in any previous Bill. The most appropriate principle, it seems to me, to bring in with such a principle as compulsory insurance is the principle of compensating the hospitals for the services they render. It seems to me to rest on the same principle.
Then the noble Lord says that there will be an increase of premiums. I think that increase would be exceedingly small and, if an increase took place, surely you could not have a better subject for an increase? The value you would get for that increased premium would be immense all over the country in the services rendered by the hospitals themselves, to the neighbourhoods where those hospitals are situate, and to the people who are served by those hospitals in those neighbourhoods. Finally, the noble Lord said why should you provide anything to pay the hospitals when there is no legal liability on the part of the insured person to pay the hospital? Why should that be a difficulty? I cannot see anything in reason or in law why such an expense should not be provided against. It is quite true that as a rule a man insures against legal liability, but is there anything in law or in the constitution of this country which would prevent Parliament from saying: "Here you are having a compulsory insurance. You must insure not only against those liabilities for which you are Legally liable, but you must insure to make good the expenses to which the hospitals are put in consequence of those accidents"? There is nothing in the constitution of Parliament that I know of, or in the English law which would prevent such provision.
246
I beg of the Government, if they cannot accept this Amendment in the exact form in which it has been brought forward, to do their best to carry out what is the undoubted wish of the vast majority of the people of this country to help the hospitals, and to help the people who are taken into those hospitals to be cured. The noble Earl has given ample proof, not merely of skilful conduct of affairs in this Bill, but of great legal knowledge and adaptability, and I am sure he and his colleagues, if they consult together, can get over any Departmental reluctance there may be to introduce a new and beneficial principle. If they get over this difficulty, they will deserve our gratitude. If they do not, I am afraid they will inflict severe disappointment.
LORD ARMSTRONG: My Lords, coming from the North, I should like to bear out what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has said with reference to the South. I am Chairman of the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle-on-Tyne, which has 550 beds. We have to reserve a ward of thirty beds entirely for motor accidents, and the cost to the infirmary we estimate at £5,000 a year. I have read several reports of other hospitals to the regional committee of the British Hospitals Association of which I am Chairman emphasising the same grievance, and unless something can be done I feel there will be very great disappointment for the voluntary hospitals of this country.
LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, may I press upon the Government and the noble Earl in charge of this Bill to give consideration to this Amendment. It is not really a very exceptional or a very wide extension of the insurance policy already in the Bill. At present a man is liable for any accident which he causes. He is liable for the cost of medical attendance. If the person to whom the accident has happened is taken to a private doctor or a private hospital or, I believe, to a Poor Law infirmary, there can be no doubt that the insurance company will allow all the expense to which the person causing the accident is put in consequence of that accident. The only case—and that I understand from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, is a doubtful one—where the liability may

247
not exist, is in the case of a voluntary hospital. As your Lordships will remember, my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin on the Committee stage put me right on a point of law when I said I believed voluntary hospitals had no legal claim. He said he believed they had a legal claim. Voluntary hospitals are very unwilling to exercise that legal claim, and in fact decline to do so. Surely it is a very small extension of the principle which is admitted in the case of every other medical service, to extend it to cover what is at least a moral and quite possibly a legal obligation upon a person causing an accident. Every decent person who causes an accident for which he is responsible would consider it almost a matter of conscience to pay the expense the hospital is put to.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said it would increase insurance premiums. But would it seriously increase premiums? A third-party insurance covers legal liability for medical attendance and the only extra burden the insurance companies would be called upon to pay would be in the case of a patient taken to a voluntary hospital. They already have to pay if he is taken to a private doctor or to a Poor Law infirmary. Surely the amount of extra premium to be paid in respect of motor accidents where the driver is responsible—and those are the only cases covered by this Amendment—would be very small. It is only in cases where the driver is responsible, and only in cases where the victim is taken to a voluntary hospital, that anything additional would fall upon insurance companies for which they are not at present liable under the third-party insurance policies they issue. We all know what are the rates for third-party insurance and to suggest that this Amendment should be resisted because it would mean increasing the premiums which motorists have to pay is really, I submit, to make a very large mountain out of a very small molehill. The extra cost for covering any liability to voluntary hospitals would be, I think, a very small sum indeed.
Now may I for a moment deal with a point, which is not covered by this Amendment, but is a very serious question, and that is the case of persons injured by their own driving, such, for instance, as a motor cyclist who rides furiously, runs into a lorry and is carried
248
in an ambulance to hospital. It is possibly not desirable to give hospitals the right to claim in such cases except against a voluntary fund, but I would suggest as a matter for consideration whether there is not something to be said for inviting motorists' associations to agree that there should be some small extra amount added to the cost of a driving licence, which sum should be administered by the Ministry of Transport or the Ministry of Health for the benefit of hospitals to which motorists are taken after accidents caused by the carelessness or negligence of a driver, or caused by the man himself by his own driving or by the carelessness of pedestrians in running into a motorcar. I suggest that it might be considered whether it would not be possible to create a fund by slightly increasing the licence fee which would enable the Ministry of Health, out of that fund, to compensate hospitals which administer aid in such cases to victims of road accidents. That, however, is not covered by this Amendment and I am afraid in another place I should have before now been called to order.
I would, however, suggest to the noble Earl that this is a very small extension, if indeed it is an extension at all, of principle. I believe most insurance companies would in fact pay to a voluntary hospital such expenses as the voluntary hospital has incurred. They would save the higher cost of a victim being taken to an institution where the expenses are incalculable and might be very much greater. I do not think insurance companies would seriously object to having this very small extension added to the obligations which they undertake in respect of third-party risks. The proposed subsection may be open to objection by experts in drafting, but I think the principle is one which might well be accepted. It is a very small extension, if it is an extension at all, of the principle of the Bill, and I therefore urge the noble Earl to consider very seriously and very kindly the suggestion that has been made.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I desire to associate myself with my noble friend Lord Onslow in our pleasure in seeing the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, amongst us. I think it must he nearly forty years since I had my first incipient lessons in oratory in an

249
assembly over which he had presided with great distinction. I am glad to be associated with him again. I appreciate, of course, the difficulty that the Department feels. This is a Road Traffic Bill and they naturally wish to keep within the title and within the atmosphere of the Bill. But surely, if this is a Road Traffic Bill, we are not going too far if we deal with a very important consequence of road traffic. I desire, not to repeat, but to fortify what noble Lords have said. This is a matter that I have been concerned with for the last two or three years, not only in association with my noble friend Lord Luke in connection with King Edward's Hospital Fund, of which he and I are privileged to be amongst the managers, but it happens also that I am chairman of the committee of a bureau of hospital information that deals only with the provinces, and I have therefore means of knowing that this is by no means an imaginary grievance. It is found all over the country and I suggest that it is really time that we should do something. There will be great disappointment if we do not.
I appeal most earnestly to His Majesty's Government not to resist this Amendment now. I appreciate their difficulty. They do not like the actual wording. Neither do I. I should have liked to go a great deal further, knowing what I do of the difficulties. This does not deal with the whole matter, but it starts to do something, and I hope, therefore, while appreciating their position—we all understand that His Majesty's Government are not fully satisfied or easy in their mind—that they will let this Amendment go in now, knowing that they will have the assistance of those with whom I am associated and, I am sure, of all your Lordships if it is possible to think of something better on future stages of the Bill, either in this House or in another place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the Government must be convinced that there is no doubt as to the opinion of your Lordships' House, and I should like to repeat every word of cautious advance which has fallen from my noble friend the Lord Chairman, who is now sitting on the Woolsack. We are quite aware that there may be great difficulties in respect of this Amendment, and for my part I
250
should not like to press the Government to accept it in this particular form if they could hold out any hope that they might be prepared to deal with the matter in some other form. Let me add that I not only welcome the presence of Lord Ponsonby among us but I very much appreciate, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, the manner in which he addressed your Lordships, which shows that he thoroughly understands the temper of your Lordships' House. I was puzzled, however, by the noble Lord's speech. It was capable of two explanations. Either he was representing merely what I might call the extreme conservatism of the Department to which he belongs—that may be the case—or it may be that there is some unavowed reason—I do not mean an improper reason—which lies behind the feeling of the Government which renders them very reluctant to accept this Amendment. The language he used was capable of being explained by either hypothesis.
I can hardly think he is so impressed with an undue regard for conservatism, and therefore I am tempted to think there may be some reason which the Government have not liked to avow which makes them reluctant to accept this Amendment. If that is so, and they convey it to us, it would have great weight, but, in the absence of any such explanation, I feel that, if your Lordships go to a Division, I cannot abstain from supporting my noble friends in their efforts to get this Amendment. The case seems to be extraordinarily strong, and I am naturally quite able to defend progressive opinion—I have no difficulty as extreme conservatism is foreign to me. Therefore, I am hopeful the Government will reconsider this. If, of course, they will tell us they would prefer to deal with it on the Third Reading, then, as far as I aim personally concerned, that would be conclusive; but in the absence of some such assurance, if your Lordships go to a Division, I shall be obliged to support the Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, one or two speakers have referred to the fact that I expressed myself very sympathetically to the object of this Amendment when we discussed it in Committee. I have nothing to withdraw. I am entirely sympathetic to the natural desire of the

251
voluntary hospitals to obtain some payment for the very large gratuitous work which they do now owing to this increase of accidents on the roads. I fully recognise the extremely difficult position in which many, particularly of the smaller country hospitals, are put by the present state of things. I then made a suggestion which my noble relative, Lord Stanley of Alderley, referred to just now in another connection, that some contribution, some levy of one shilling or two shillings or whatever is necessary, should be collected with each driving licence and formed into a central fund for this purpose. It seems to me that, if you wish to do something of this sort for hospitals, that would be, although a new departure, free at any rate from all technical and legal objections. The case of those who have argued in favour of this Amendment is a comparatively easy one. I have admitted the foundation of their case. No one can dispute it as it is not open to dispute. They are arguing in the direction in which one's natural sentiments lead one, and, if I have to appear to your Lordships in the unpleasant character of the formalist and the legalist, I hope your Lordships will believe that I only do it in the interests of good legislation and with reasonable regard for the ordinary requirements of the law.
I do not want to take my stand on such a point as the fact that it is not exactly germane to the Bill, and it certainly would not be true to say that our reluctance to accept this Amendment is due to any departmental conservatism. That would be most unfair to the officers of the Department. We have met on this question since the Committee stage. Three noble Lords, accompanied by Mr. Macmillan, who is well known to your Lordships as an extremely able lawyer as well as the chairman of a hospital, were good enough to come to the Ministry of Transport and we consulted with them as to what they wanted and as to what could be done about it. First of all, I wanted to know what was in their minds. They did not like, as was indicated on the Committee stage, my suggestion of a fiat-rate collection of one shilling or something like that on every driving licence.
252
I found that there was not only a reluctance but an absolutely firm decision that in no circumstances should hospital charges be a legal liability. On that they were firm. I wanted to know where we started, and we started with those two things. It was not necessary for them to develop the case of their necessities, because that was admitted.
I wanted to find out what exactly they wanted in this Bill, and I pointed out, what your Lordships know is the fact, and what my noble relative mentioned, that they will not recover something in all the cases of accidents occurring on the roads, but only where the injured person is himself entitled to recover from an insurance company. "Nevertheless," they said, "that is the case in which for the moment it will satisfy us to recover, and we want to know how it can be done." We discussed the matter quite amicably, and with every desire to assist them, and the matter was left in this position, that we would endeavour to draw up, if we could, some clause—we did not promise to father it—which was of a reasonable and possible character. A perfectly serious and genuine effort was made to draft a clause which would be free from fundamental objections, and, I tell your Lordships frankly, we were unable to do it. The noble Marquess suggested there was some hidden reason. There was no hidden reason. We could not draft a clause which we would ourselves move or which we could accept if it were moved on the other side, and I was reluctantly compelled to communicate with them and to tell them to put down their own clause, and if they did I feared I might have to oppose it.
I want to point out what fundamental principles this clause, or any clause like it, really violates. First of all the Amendment provides that where any payment is made by an insurer in respect of bodily injury to a person who has received treatment in a hospital there shall also be paid by the authorised insurer to such hospital the expenses reasonably incurred by the hospital in affording such treatment to an amount not exceeding £25 for each person so treated. That means that the insured person cannot, of course, sue for hospital expenses, because they are not a legal liability. He cannot put them in

253
his claim. The original suggestion was that this amount should be paid out of the claim, and it was pointed out that the result of that might be to leave the injured person worse off than he was now, because he might have to pay more than he recovered. For that reason the Amendment appears in its present form. It means that the insurance company is to have placed upon it a liability which is only a legal liability in the sense that it is imposed by Statute. It is no part of their original contractual liability to the insured person. But Parliament says you shall recover under the ordinary law the damages to which you are entitled, and over and above that the insurance company, although you are not legally liable and the insurance company is not legally liable, shall pay in addition a certain sum to the hospital for what is called voluntary treatment. That seems to me to violate almost every principle of law.
There is another aspect of that which struck me very strongly, and which I would ask those who are interested in hospitals to consider. Is it not rather difficult to go on talking about voluntary hospitals when you are compulsorily raising money by statutory obligation'. We have had references to rate-aided hospitals, and it seems to me in their own interests that hospitals are embarking upon rather a slippery slope when they insist upon receiving money under a statutory compulsion, and yet retain the title, and endeavour to retain the complete status, of voluntary hospitals. In their own interests I think they would be wise to be careful before they embark upon this point of view. Those seem to me very fundamental objections to the clause as it stands here. There is, of course, the other objection that it will increase the premiums—not very much, said Lord Knutsford. Well, I do not know.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: I did not say so, but I will now.
EARL RUSSELL: With the courage which always characterises the noble Viscount, he says 130 now. But let us consider what the three cases are. There are three cases, of course, as has been pointed out. There is the case of the treatment by your private doctor or nursing home; then is the case of treatment in rate-aided hospitals; and, thirdly,
254
there is the case of treatment in voluntary hospitals. In the first two eases it is perfectly true that the insurance company has to pay, and it could be included in the claim. In the last case it does not have to pay. If anybody says it is not fair that it should not pay, well, it is not fair that somebody should not pay —I quite agree. Morally, of course, somebody ought to pay, but legally no payment is available. Now, it may be said, and I think truly, that insurance companies, when they are fixing their premiums, have to provide for the average of all those three cases; that is to say, they clearly have to provide for two classes of case in which I think they are bound to pay, and they take their chance of the third class of case, in which they are not bound to pay. It may, therefore, mean a small—not a large—increase in premium. But I should not like to guarantee that, and certainly the Government would not like to be responsible for it.
You have now the rather more difficult case to consider of the person who under this Bill is allowed to be his own insurer. In his case—and his case deals mostly with what you might call the working class practically all of whom would normally be treated in voluntary hospitals—in his case you may say that on the average it will mean an addition of £10 or £12 to his claim for damages which he has to pay; because I assume —I do not know whether this Amendment succeeds in doing it, but I have no doubt it is intended to place the obligation upon himself as well as on the insurance company—
LORD LUKE: It is not intended to cover that.
EARL RUSSELL: If it is not intended to cover that, a very large class of cases will be exempted; but if his case is covered it will mean in his case probably an average of £10 addition to each of his claims. Now, again your Lordships may say it is right that the large employer whose servants are injured in the course of his employment in this way should contribute to the hospital. Of course it is right, and I think probably those responsible for the hospitals would say that in the majority of cases the large employers do contribute to the hospitals. There is another point where I

255
think the hospitals would, in their own interests, be wise to pause before they insist upon this. If there is an increase of premiums which is directly due to this, and if it is in any way substantial, or if there is anything which causes a sense of grievance in the minds of motorists, it may very well be that voluntary subscriptions will fall off to a larger extent than these involuntary subscriptions will be received. For all these reasons I think the hospitals are unwise in their own interests, but I really think it would be impossible for us as a Government to accept a clause which seems to me to violate fundamental legal principles. I know that is a dull and uninteresting line to take, but I am giving it to your Lordships as the effect on my mind after most carefully considering how these difficulties can be met.
The other suggestion I made of a flat rate of a shilling or so violates no principle at all if you like to impose it. Parliament can impose it and there is an end of it. Here you are really doing a very extraordinary thing. You are saying that people should be paid something to which they are not legally entitled. I am not sure that the fact that they are paid something under Statute may not lead, and possibly in a shorter time than might be expected, to some sort of control under Statute which I am sure is the last thing they would want. I am sorry, but the Government cannot accept this clause.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I have been a great deal impressed by the noble Earl's arguments and I want to put one question to him. Supposing I go, quite apart from this Bill, to an insurance company and say: "I want you to insure me"—whether at third-party risk or directly for my own injury makes no difference to the principle—"against the consequences of an accident. Of course, if I employ a doctor that will be part of the normal expenses. But I want you to go further than that. If I am carried to a hospital I should feel morally bound to pay something to the hospital. I want you to insure me against that moral claim as well as against the legal claim." Would the noble Earl say that would be an impossible thing to do? Of course, you could make such a contract. There would be no difficulty in making such a con-
256
If you can make it voluntarily, why cannot you make such a contract by Statute?
EARL RUSSELL: I do not quite understand the noble Viscount's difficulty. Of course, you could make such a contract. You could make any contract you like. You could make an additional contract if you liked that you should be paid £10 a week while you were there.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I tried to put the point very briefly to save time. I understood that the noble Earl's great difficulty was that they were asking to put upon the insurers a claim which is not a legal claim.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
VISCOUNT CECIL of CHELWOOD: In point of fact the insurers by contract might quite well undertake such a claim and might agree to pay it though it was not a legal claim at all. It is merely a question how you choose to draw your contract with the insurers. If you can do it by a voluntary contract I cannot see why it is so frightfully wicked to say by legislation: "We are going to make a contract by Statute," because that is what you are going to do for the insurers. Why cannot you say that that shall include this moral claim as well as the legal claim?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "subject to any conditions contained in the policy." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the difficulty is as the clause now stands that if the conditions of a policy are violated no compensaton will be payable to anybody. I will give you an instance.
EARL RUSSELL: I will accept this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: Then I need not say any more.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 22, leave out ("subject to any conditions contained in the policy").—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: The next two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 29, line 23, after ("persons") insert ("or classes of persons")
Page 29, line 24, leave out from ("liability") to the end of line 25, and insert ("which the policy purports to cover in the case of those persons or classes of persons").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, to insert: "(5) In this Part 3f this Act the expression 'policy of insurance' includes a covering note." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to authorise the issue of a certificate of insurance as soon as the covering note is issued in advance of the policy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 35, at end insert ("(5). In this Part of this Act the expression policy of insurance' includes a covering note").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36:
Requirements in respect of securities.
36.—(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Part of this Act a security must—
(a) be given either by an authorised insurer or by some body of persons which carries on in the United Kingdom the business of giving securities of a like kind and which has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court for and on behalf of the Supreme Court the sum of fifteen thousand pounds in respect of that business; and
THE EARL OF,CRANBROOK THE EARL OF,CRANBROOK moved, at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "business," to insert "or by a bank which is a member of the London Clearing House." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to widen the field from which the securities required by Clause 34 can be obtained. I believe the noble Earl is prepared to accept this Amendment and I will detain your Lordships no longer.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 1, after ("business") insert ("or by a bank which is a member of the London Clearing House").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, we think that this is a very desirable extension.
258
It may be necessary, possibly, to make some drafting Amendments to it but in principle we accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: The next two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 30, line 12, leave out from ("discharge") to ("and") in line 15, and insert ("any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under the last preceding section which may be incurred by him or them").
Page 30, line 30,, leave out from ("any") to ("have") in line 32, and insert ("such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy of insurance under the last preceding section which may be incurred by him").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 37:
Forgery of certificates.
37.—(1) If, with intent to deceive, any person—

(a) forges within the meaning of the Forgery Act, 1913, or alters or uses or lends or allows to be used by any other person a certificate of insurance or certificate of security; or

(b) makes or has in his possession any document so closely resembling such a certificate as to be calculated to deceive,

he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable—

(i) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding twelve months;

(ii) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.

(2) If any person issues a certificate of insurance or certificate of security which is to his knowledge false in any material particular, he shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out Clause 37. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is proposed to leave out this clause because the substance of it will be incorporated in Clause 94.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 37.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Certain conditions to policies or securities to be of no effect]:
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL: I will accept the Amendment of Lord Danesfort.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 27, after ("effect") insert ("in connection with such claims as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section thirty-five").—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40:
Requirements as to production of certificate of insurance or of security.
40.—(1) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a road shall, on being so required by a police constable, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce his certificate, and if he fails so to do he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds:
Provided that, if the driver of a motor vehicle within five days after the date on which the production of his certificate was so required, produces the certificate in person at such police station as may have been specified by him at the time its production was required, he shall not be convicted of an offence under this subsection.
EARL RUSSELL: The first Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, lines 7 and 8, leave out ("liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds") and insert ("guilty of an offence").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I do not move my Amendment in the proviso to subsection (1), after "person" to insert "or by his duly authorised representative."
LORD SWAYTHLING: This Amendment is similar to one Lord Howe moved in an earlier part of the Bill with regard to a driving licence. In that case the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said he could not accept it on the question of identity. In this case there is no question of the identity of the driver. The certificate of insurance applies to a motor car, and the owner does not have to appear on the car. I hope the noble Earl will accept that the authorised representative should be allowed to produce the certificate.
EARL RUSSELL: The same arguments apply here as in the case of a driver. A man ought to have his certificate, and if he has not his certificate with him he is to be guilty of an offence. What is required is that the accused person who
260
would otherwise have been guilty of an offence should himself come and produce the certificate. I do not think it is a severe obligation to place upon him.
LORD SWAYTHLING: The noble Earl says it is the duty of a driver to have a certificate on him, but a considerable difficulty might arise where the owner lives in one part of the country and the car is in another part of the country and is driven by different men at different times.
EARL RUSSELL: I will consider that again before Third Reading. The next Amendments in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, line 14, leave out ("of an offence")
Page 32, line 15, after ("subsection") insert ("of the offence of failing to produce his certificate")
page 32, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("under this Act")
Page 32, line 27, after ("not") insert ("at the time")
Page 32, line 32, leave out ("liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds") and insert ("guilty of an offence").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, my next four Amendments are also drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, line 38, leave out from ("reported") to the end of line 40.
Page 32, line 42, leave out ("his") and insert ("for examination the relevant")
Page 32, line 43, leave out ("his")
Page 32, line 44, after ("not") insert ("or was not").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 41:
Regulations for purposes of Part II.
41. The Minister may make regulations for prescribing anything which may be prescribed under this Part of this Act and generally for the purpose of carrying this Part of this Act into effect, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, may make regulations—

(a) as to the forms to be used for the purposes of this Part of this Act;

(b) as to applications for and the issue of certificates of insurance and certificates of security and any other documents which may be prescribed and as to the keeping of records of documents;

261

(c) as to the issue of copies of certificates of insurance and certificates of security lost or destroyed;

(d) as to the custody, production, cancellation and surrender of certificates of insurance and certificates of security;

EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to add to paragraph (b) "and the furnishing of particulars thereof or the giving of information with respect thereto to the Minister or a chief officer of police". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is put on the Paper because the Minister may have to make regulations to provide that responsible officers should be able to obtain necessary information as to the existence of a valid policy and things of that sort from insurance companies.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 12, after ("documents") insert ("and the furnishing of particulars thereof or the giving of information with respect thereto to the Minister or a chief officer of police").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 33, line 13, leave out from the second ("of") to ("lost") in line 14 and insert (" any such certificates or other documents which are")
Page 33, line 17, leave out from ("of") to end of line 18 and insert ("any such certificates or other documents").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I understand my noble friend the Earl of Halsbury is content with the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl on Clause 93. He does not desire therefore to move the new subsection of which he has given Notice.
Clause 42:
Amendment of Assurance Companies Act, 1909.
(2) Where a company carries on motor vehicle insurance business, the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, shall apply with respect to that business, in the same way as it applies to accident insurance business subject to the following modifications:—
(a) Every assurance company carrying on or intending to carry on motor vehicle
262
insurance business shall deposit and keep deposited with the Accountant-General for and on behalf of the Supreme Court as respects such business, the sum of fifteen thousand pounds whether or not it carries on any other class of business; and
LORD DANESFORT LORD DANESFORT moved, at the end of subsection (2) (a), to insert:—
Provided that no assurance company shall be required to deposit or keep deposited such sum where such company commenced to carry on motor vehicle insurance business or accident insurance business in the United Kingdom before the passing of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is a very-simple one. By Section 32 (b) of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, companies which were at the time of the passing of that Act carrying on accident insurance business were exempted from the necessity to which other companies were liable of depositing a sum of £15,000. The object of my Amendment is to continue the exemption which was given by the Act of 1909 to those companies which were at the time of the passing of that Act carrying on the business of accident insurance or motor insurance. The effect of Clause 42 of this Bill as it stands is to remove that exemption from those companies to which they were entitled under the Act of 1909, and the result will be that every company which carries on or intends to carry on motor vehicle insurance business, no matter when it commenced to carry on such business, and even though it had already made the usual deposit in the case of other insurance business, would be bound to deposit £15,000 under the Act.
I venture to suggest that is not a reasonable proposition. It would be really an unnecessary hardship on those companies which had been carrying on this class of business for the last twenty years or more. I dare say it will be no hardship on large, rich companies with a great capital behind them to deposit this £15,000, but in the case of small companies who have been carrying on business successfully with the exemption given by the Act of 1909, to have to put up £15,000 might hamper or restrict their operations very much. It might have this additional result that it would largely diminish competition. It might have the

263
effect of turning over a large proportion or a very great part of the business to the big companies. That would be stifling competition which would have the effect probably of increasing premiums. Therefore, from every point of view I would urge the Government to continue this exemption to the companies of which I speak, which was granted by the Act of 1909. I can see no necessity for this deposit. They have carried on business for many years without it, and I ask the Government to be good enough to continue this exemption.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 44, after ("business") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Danesfort.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am not sure if the noble Lord is familiar with this subject, but it is definitely intended to exclude paragraph (b) of Section 32 of the Act of 1909 for a reason which I think will appeal to him. There is a Committee, called, I think, the Clauson Committee, which settled the draft of a new Bill which has been in draft for some time at the Board of Trade under which this deposit will be required in respect of these separate businesses, and it was thought desirable, as we were bringing in legislation in that connection, that it should accord with the Bill which will be presented by the Board of Trade as soon as is convenient, which has been agreed to by the association concerned and has been carefully considered in conjunction with the insurance companies. We are putting in the kind of legislation which we hope will in due course be provided in accordance with that agreement. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD DANESFORT: Would it not be better to wait until this comprehensive Bill is brought in and the whole subject dealt with? I suggest that this would be the more convenient course, meanwhile continuing the exemption given by the Act of 1909.
EARL RUSSELL: The Board of Trade would not be prepared to sanction any new legislation that did not accord with the draft Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 42, to insert the following new clause:—
Duration of Part II of Act.
( ). This Part of this Act shall continue in force for two years from the passing of this Act and no longer, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is obvious. It limits the operation of this Part of the Bill to two years. The trouble is, as has been stated by the noble Earl and by Lord Ponsonby to-night, that this is an entirely new principle in insurance. It is an experiment, and a wild and half-baked one at that. The noble Earl has given no assurance to the motoring world as to whether premiums are going to be increased or not. If a general rise occurs as the result of this Bill it will amount to an increase of motor taxation for which the Government will have entire responsibility. It is not at all certain that this legislation will achieve its object. There are cases in which there will he no compensation where the conditions of the policy are varied. Something has been done by the acceptance of one of my Amendments, but there will inevitably be other cases, such as that of the "joy rider." There is no compensation for anybody knocked down by a stolen car. The noble Earl was amused at my raising that point at an earlier stage, but it is true, nevertheless, and not a negligible point.
On the subject of premiums, the noble Earl spoke only to-night of a possible increase in premiums in connection with the hospitals. He did not show whether they would be increased. I have here some extracts from his speeches at various stages of the Bill, all pointing in the same direction. It is almost certain that there will be an increase in premiums under this Bill. I submit that the best way of securing a definite review of this Part of the Bill is to limit its operation to two years in order to see how it works. If that is accepted, the subject can then be raised under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That is the best way of securing a revision of legislation such as this. The original Motor Car Act passed in 1903 was passed under very much the same conditions. It was to run for three years and it was then continued from year to year by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl may see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 3, at end insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, if the insurance companies are rich enough, surely they are able to stand two years without raising their premiums. It is no use limiting it for less than five or ten years to stop that sort of thing.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Earl's optimism, is incurable and his persistence is admirable, but he cannot expect me to accept this Amendment. I know he is opposed to compulsory insurance, but the Government and both Houses of Parliament are going to insist on it whether the premiums are raised or not.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after Clause 42, to insert the following new clause:—
( ). This Part of this Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modification—
In Section thirty-four the expression "local authority" means any county, town, or district council.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is merely the application of this Part of the Bill to Scotland.
Amendment moved.—
Page 34, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 43:
Issue by Minister of directions for guidance of users of highways.
(3) Before such directions are issued under this section, they shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament, and such directions shall not be issued unless both Houses by Resolution approve the draft either without modification or addition or with modifications or additions to which both Houses agree, but upon such approval being given, the Minister may issue the directions in the form in which they have been so approved.
(4) The Minister shall cause the directions for the time being in force under this section to be printed and put on sale at a price not exceeding one penny for each copy, and the directions so in force shall be called "the highway code."
(5) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of the highway code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including
266
proceedings for an offence under this Act) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or to negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this and the next Amendment are intended to substitute an affirmative Resolution of both Houses in the case of the highway code. What is proposed is to leave out subsection (3) and to insert later a new subsection (5) which will read:—
"Any directions issued under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith, and shall cease to be in force on the expiration of a period of three months from the date on which they were issued unless at some time before the expiration of that period they have been approved by Resolution passed by each House of Parliament:
Provided that in reckoning the said period of three months no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
The general procedure as to the regulations arises later on Clause 93, but this is instead of the Amendment which was inserted by Lord Brentford which provided for the approval of the draft either with or without modifications. The question of modification would present great difficulty and we think that, if we provide here for an affirmative approval of both Houses of the regulations, that would meet the point.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 13, leave out subsection (3).—(Earl Russell.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I understand the difficulties which my noble friend feels about the words relating to modifications or additions. On that there may be some practical difficulty, but I cannot conceive why he wants to have the regulations in force for three months before they are repealed. That seems to me to be quite against the whole sense of the debate in Committee, which was that they did not think that regulations of this importance ought to come into force at all unless the two Houses of Parliament had agreed to them by an affirmative Resolution. I suggest to my noble friend that that is quite enough for the purpose which he stated to the House. If he thinks it is essential to leave out those words I personally

267
should have some regret, though I can understand a case being made for it, but I cannot see what case can be made for putting in the period of three months. It is totally opposed to the doctrine that a Minister ought not to legislate without the consent of Parliament.
EARL RUSSELL: I should think that possibly the words got in by force of habit, because they are regular words in cases of this sort; but they would not apply possibly to the highway code, which is not like regulations. If the noble Viscount will allow me I will consider the matter before the Third Reading.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope very much that the noble Earl will take the course he suggests, and reconsider the proposal. In fact I do not think many of us would be prepared to accept the Amendment in the form in which he has proposed it. I might say that the case is even stronger than it was put by my noble relative on the Cross Benches, because it is not merely that this code would be in force for three months without the assent of Parliament, but it might be for a much longer period, because he takes steps to say that no interval due to the Prorogation or adjournment of Parliament shall count. On the other hand the strong view of this House in Committee was that the code ought not to be brought in except by positive and affirmative Resolution of both Houses. No doubt by inadvertence, the Minister is taking power to put them in force for it may be six months without Parliamentary authority.
EARL RUSSELL: I cannot help thinking, when I look at the words, that the draftsman put them in rather by force of habit, under the impression that they were applying to something under which something had to be done. The highway code is not like the regulations, and I will certainly consider the matter.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I ask whether the best course would not be to omit simply those words of the subsection as it stands and consider later on whether any further Amendment is necessary, because I think it would be a little distasteful to some of us even to put into the Bill such a subsection as drafted at present.
EARL RUSSELL: I would rather consider the omission of these words. Would that not meet the noble Viscount?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do I understand that the noble Earl proposes to leave the Bill as it is and consider the matter?
EARL RUSSELL: No, I was suggesting that we should put in the new subsection (5).
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl admitted that as at present advised he does not see the reason for the subsection in the form in which it stands on the Paper. The obvious course is to leave the Bill unchanged until we find out the proper drafting.
EARL RUSSELL: I should be very sorry to do that, because really the words as they stand now in subsection (3) are quite impossible.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On the Third Reading you can deal with the matter.
EARL RUSSELL: Very well, if you insist upon that course.
THE LORD SPEAKER: The Amendment withdrawn?
EARL RUSSELL: No, negatived.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD had on the Paper an Amendment to move, after subsection (4), to insert:—
(4) A section of such code shall contain regulations for the prevention of reckless or dangerous driving and any person who fails to observe any of the regulations in that section shall be prima facie guilty of reckless or dangerous driving unless he can show that such failure could not in the actual circumstances of the case involve any danger to the public.
(5) Subject as aforesaid
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is prepared to consider this Amendment. If he tells me he is not, I do not think I will move it.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I would rather not accept this Amendment, because these provisions in the highway code are intended to be of general application, and it would be rather dangerous to insist upon the directions being regarded as being almost of the same

269
validity as the clause of the Act. I think that would be undesirable.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Under these circumstances I will not move.
Clause 44:
Power to restrict use of vehicles on specified roads.
44.—(1) The Minister may, on the application of the council of any county or county borough and after holding a public inquiry, by order prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as to occasional user or otherwise as may be specified in the order, the driving of vehicles, or of any specified class or description of vehicles, on any specified road within the area of the council in any case in which it appears to him, having regard to the result of the inquiry, to be proved that any such vehicles cannot be used, or cannot without restriction be used, on that road without endangering the safety of the vehicles or the persons therein, or of other persons using the road, or that the road is unsuitable for use or for unrestricted use by any such vehicles:
Provided that, where the application is an application solely for the restriction of the speed of vehicles, the provision in this subsection shall have effect as if references to a public inquiry were not contained therein.
(2) The Minister may on the application of the council of any county or county borough, or of any borough, not being a county borough, or urban district having a population of over twenty thousand according to the last census for the time being and after holding a public inquiry, by order prohibit, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the order, the driving of vehicles on any specified road within the area of the council otherwise than in a specified direction.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to leave out the proviso to subsection (1). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this and a succeeding Amendment refer to orders of the Minister relating to speed limits. The third and fourth paragraphs of the Second Schedule refer to inquiries which are to be held, as in the present case, where speed limits are to be imposed. This clause gives the Minister power to impose speed limits without, I understand, having any inquiry at all. This point was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, in Committee, and the noble Earl then said he did not think the words would prevent the holding of a public inquiry, but he said he would consider the matter. As the Bill stands at present, if an inquiry is not held it will be very
270
difficult indeed, if not impossible, for those interested in the imposition of any particular speed limit to find out that it is the intention to impose a speed limit until it has actually been done. The present practice, which has always worked extremely well, is that when it is desired to impose a special speed limit the Minister always gives notice in the Press, and a public inquiry is held. Provision is made in the Second Schedule for a public inquiry. I hope the noble Earl will be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, leave out lines 8 to 11.—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Earl is not so familiar with the practice in this matter as I am. In the early days these inquiries were comparatively frequent. If your Lordships will look at the clause you will see that it says the Minister may, "after holding a public inquiry" do certain things; that is to say, before he can act he is compelled to hold a public inquiry. The proviso which the noble Earl wants to leave out says that he may, without holding a public inquiry, make provision for the restriction of the speed of vehicles. That has always been the law, and it is under the law, standing exactly like that, that all the inquiries to which the noble Earl refers have been held. The Ministry has always caused these applications to be made known, and inquiries have been held whenever there was opposition to them, but in a great many cases—and this happened, I think, before the noble Earl was interested at any rate in the legislative side of motoring—as a result of conversations between representative bodies of motorists and of the local authorities compromises were arrived at, and some speed limits were not imposed, and it was possible to make the order without holding a public inquiry. If the Amendment were carried a public inquiry would have to be held in every case whether there was opposition or not. This has been the practice now since 1903, and has worked perfectly.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to insert at the end of subsection (2): "In the case of

271
the City of London an application under this section may -be made by the Common Council of the City." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 21, at end insert the said new words.—(Earl Russell.)
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, may I ask why this exception is made of the City of London? Why does it not apply to the borough councils as well in the County of London? As I understand the matter when applications are made now they have to go to the Comity Council. That is rather a cumbersome proceeding, because the County Council has to forward it on to another authority. If the City has the right of direct application, why cannot the borough councils in London have it also?
EARL RUSSELL: I do not know whether at the other end of the town the noble Lord would be prepared to compare the City with a borough council. I have not often heard it done. The City is always put in an exceptional position and that is the reason why the exemption is specially mentioned here.
LORD JESSEL: I agree that that is so, but with all due respect to the City of London, there is the City of Westminster which is far bigger in many respects. If the noble Earl looks into the question he will see that it is not a question of jealousy of the City of London but of the cumbersome procedure which has to be followed at present. This point has been raised by the Metropolitan Standing Joint Committee which represents all the London boroughs and on which there is a representative of the City of London. I hope the noble Earl will look into the matter. I wished to raise it on Clause 44. I did not put an Amendment on the Paper because I understood that it was not right at this stage, and as the noble Earl had an Amendment down I thought I would ask him to have the question looked into. I am not, I may say, representing any particular London borough on this question.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45:
Erection of notice boards, etc.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to notices prohibiting or restricting the use of bridges, no such signal, warning sign post, direction post, sign, or device as aforesaid other than such as comply with the regulations under this Part of this Act shall be erected, placed or displayed upon or adjacent to any road or otherwise than in conformity with any such general or special directions as aforesaid, or by any person other than the highway authority or a person authorised by the highway authority.
Nothing in this subsection shall apply to any signal, direction post, sign or device erected, placed or displayed by the owners or workers of any tramway in pursuance of powers conferred by any special Act of Parliament or order having the force of an Act.
(3) The highway authority shall by notice in writing require the owner or occupier of any land on which any such signal, warning sign post, direction post, sign, or device as aforesaid is erected or displayed to remove it if it is not authorised by the highway authority, and if any person fails to comply with such a notice the highway authority may themselves effect the removal, doing as little damage as may be, and may recover summarily as a civil debt from the person so in default the expense incurred by them in so doing.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to notices prohibiting or restricting the use of bridges"; and in the second paragraph of subsection (2), before "any signal" to insert "any notice in respect of the use of a bridge or to". The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two Amendments are intended to make it clear that the provisions of this subsection do not apply to notices in respect of bridges. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 36, leave out lines 14 and 15.
Page 36, line 24, after ("to") insert ("any notice in respect of the use of a bridge or to").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, in subsection (3), after "aforesaid," to insert "or any object which so closely resembles a prescribed sign or signal that it might reasonably be taken to be such a sign or signal." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to authorise the removal of misleading objects or lights which might be mistaken for signs or signals and so cause accidents. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 32, after ("aforesaid") insert ("or any object which so closely resembles a prescribed sign or signal that it might reasonably be taken to be such a sign or signal").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Provisions with respect to stretching of ropes, etc., across the roads]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the next two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 37, line 30, leave out ("road") and insert ("highway")
Page 37, line 31, leave out ("road") and insert ("highway").—(Earl Russell.)
VISCOUNT BERTHE OF THAME: My Lords, what is the object of substituting "highway" for "road"?
EARL RUSSELL: That is what I was really intending to tell your Lordships. The point is that if the public have access to a road which is not a highway it can only be on the invitation of the owner, who is liable at Common Law if he exposes them to danger.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Does "highway" include secondary roads?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes, of course it does —any road repairable at large.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 50 [Power to transfer toll bridges to highway authorities]:
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the Amendment I have put down to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 21, leave out from ("borrow") to end of line 23, and insert ("in the case of a county council under the Local Government Act, 1888, and in the case of a borough or district council under and subject to the provisions of the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1926").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51:
Provisions as to extraordinary traffic.
(2) The sums recoverable under this section shall be recoverable in the High Court, or if the claim does not exceed two hundred and fifty pounds, in the county court in
274
the district of which the road or any part thereof is situate:
Provided that proceedings for the recovery of any such sums shall be commenced within twelve months of the time at which the damage has been done, or where the damage is the consequence of any particular building contract or work extending over a long period, shall be commenced not later than six months after completion of the contract or work.
EARL FORTESCUE EARL FORTESCUE moved at the end of subsection (2) to insert:
"Provided that in no case shall the expenses recoverable by the highway authority from the undertaker be more than sufficient to restore the road to the condition in which it was before the extraordinary traffic commenced."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment because I think the refusal of the Government to accept one which was moved by Lord Elibank on behalf of Lord Lovat in the Committee stage may cause risk of hardship both to buyers and sellers of timber. It was said then that the cases of extraordinary traffic were very few nowadays. That may be partly due, I think, to the fact that so many woods were cleared during the War, but that may not always be the case. We have been recommended and exhorted to plant trees, and the natural place for such planting is land of little value for agriculture which is usually in rather remote parts. The roads in such places are naturally little used and are quite unfit for heavy traffic.
I may give your Lordships an example of what happened during the War. The Government bought a plantation on the borders of Exmoor of about ten acres, and I believe gave about £100 an acre for it. The timber had to be carted about ten miles to a railway station, and nearly half the distance was over a ridge which ran through moorland at an elevation at its highest of about 1,200 feet. The claim made by the district council for the damage done to the road—and it was severely damaged—was no less than £1,471, and after a good deal of discussion the Government agreed to pay £699 towards that, and the contractor who was doing the hauling had to pay another £60. The noble Earl said in Committee that, even if the vendor of timber had to pay something towards extraordinary traffic, he still got his profit. In this case if this gentleman, who happened to be yeoman

275
farmer, had had to pay £700 out of about £1,000 his profit would have come down to very small proportions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 21, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Fortescue.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, this proviso is to the effect that the expense recoverable shall not be more- than sufficient to restore the road to the condition in which it was before the extraordinary traffic. I do not think the noble Earl has given us any instance in which expenses were recovered larger than were sufficient to restore the road to its ordinary condition. I have heard of a great many cases of claims for extraordinary traffic, and I understand the local authority get a good deal less than the cost of putting a road back into the condition in which it was before. In spite of the plea of the noble Earl for the unfortunate owner of timber, he cannot suggest that a private individual is to plough up the public highways for his own purposes without paying for it. There is no necessity for this Amendment. They could not possibly recover more than the expense of putting the road into its proper condition.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after Clause 51, to insert the following new clause:—
Power of highway authorities to erect and light street refuges.
( ). Every local authority which is a highway authority within the meaning of Part II of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, may for the purpose of protecting traffic along the road from danger or of making the crossing of any road less dangerous to foot passengers, erect, light, maintain, alter and remove places of refuge in any road vested in the authority.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this matter has a rather curious history. Highway authorities were given power to put up refuges but were not given power to light them. That was rather curious and obviously made it impossible to put up refuges in certain cases. Also they did not count as road improvements and therefore could not receive grants from the Road Fund. The object of this new clause is to make both things possible.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, insert the said new clause.— (Earl Russell.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I should like to ask one question of the noble Earl. This new clause says:
"Every local authority which is a highway authority, within the meaning of Part II of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909."
The Local Government Act, 1929, altered the law with regard to highway authorities. I do not know how that affects this matter. Perhaps the noble Earl can explain.
EARL RUSSELL: This part of the Development Act of 1909 is the one always referred to for purposes of grants from the Ministry. Therefore I suppose it is all right.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: They are not quite the same thing now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Advances from Road Fund]:
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved, after subsection (1), to insert as new subsections:
(2) Where the functions of maintaining and repairing a county road are for the time being vested in the council of an urban district that council shall, in relation to that road be deemed to be a highway authority within the meaning of the said Part II.
(3) The expression "improvement of roads" in the said Part II shall include the erection, lighting, maintenance, alteration and removal of places of refuge in roads.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two new subsections also have the effect of making it possible to make grants to highway authorities. Under the provisions of last year's Local Government Act county councils will remain highway authorities in respect of county roads in urban areas even if the functions of maintenance and repair are exercised by the district council. The object of this Amendment is to enable grants to be made to urban authorities as if they were highway authorities, and to enable the provision and lighting of refuges.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 31, at end insert the said new subsections.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL RUSSELL: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 38, leave out ("such a purpose") and insert ("weighing motor vehicles or trailers").—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, after Clause 52, to insert as a new clause:—
Provision of footpaths.
—(1) It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers proper and sufficient footpaths by the side of roach under their control.
(2) Before sanctioning any works for the widening or improvement of any existing road or for the making of any new road, a highway authority shall consider whether it would be possible and desirable to include footpaths in such works, and if so, shall not sanction such works unless such footpaths are included.
(3) If the provision of footpaths is not proposed as part of such works no advance shall be made from the Road Fund towards the cost of such works unless the Minister is satisfied that such footpaths are not possible and desirable.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to which I attach a very great deal of importance. I ventured to move it, not quite in its present form but very nearly so, on the Committee stage, and after discussion the noble Earl was good enough to treat it extremely sympathetically and to say he would be very glad to consider whether something on those lines could not be inserted in the Bill. Since then he has been good enough to inform me that he is not prepared to make any such insertion. The only ground he has so far given me is that he does not think it right to make any difference in the duties of highway authorities. He has also told me that the practice in his Department is to provide footpaths in a certain number of cases. If he will forgive my saying so, the account he gave me of his Department's proceedings did not seem to touch the kind of case I had in mind at all. It appeared to deal with great arterial roads, provided with six-foot footways on each side, with green verges and I do not know what. That is not the kind of thing I had in mind.
What was in my mind was to provide a small footway, where possible, for the use of the infirm and particularly for the use of children. That was the object of the
278
Amendment I moved and I still think it extremely desirable that something of the kind should be inserted in the Bill. The first part of my proposed clause merely declares that it shall be part of the duty of the highway authority to provide a footway where they deem it necessary or desirable. It is not part of the duty of a highway authority at all to provide footways as far as I can make out the legislation, and the noble Earl told me I was not wrong in that respect. There is no duty to provide footways even where highway authorities themselves deem that they are desirable or necessary. I think this is really a very great grievance, particularly in the county districts. I earnestly press upon the noble Earl the immense importance of putting in some such declaration as this. It cannot do any harm. It is merely the declaration of a duty. It does not take away the discretion of the highway authority to say whether a footpath is necessary, but it points out to the authority that this is a thing it has to consider. It goes no further.
The two other subsections merely say that the Ministry, in administering the Fund, shall have regard to the necessity of providing footpaths, and when they are asked for a contribution to road improvements they shall enquire whether it is possible to make a footpath—not a six-foot path with verges but a little footway which will make it safer for the children going to school. I attach great importance to this, and I trust the noble Earl will be able to meet this serious grievance, which is felt by the most helpless part of the population, the part least able to protect itself. These children have not even votes. That, I am sure, will appeal to noble Lords on that side of the House. I hope something will be done. If not, I am afraid I shall have to ask the opinion of the House on the point.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 52 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, it is always very difficult to satisfy the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I beg you to try.
EARL RUSSELL: We tried to satisfy him with regard to this matter and we

279
furnished him with information as to what we were doing. The last paragraph of our communication is worth recalling. We told him that the policy and intention of the Ministry of Transport in this matter of footways were always brought to the attention of the Departmental divisional road engineers on the occasion of the periodical meetings convened by the chief engineer. There might be something to be said for the noble Viscount's Amendment if he confined it to his first subsection. I think he is right in saying that in the old schemes the idea of footpaths did not occur. But it is a little difficult to say what this would involve. Ought not the highway authority to deem a footpath to be necessary and desirable on every road? I should have thought the noble Viscount would be the first person to say so. If so, you would be imposing a very considerable duty which I think the authorities rather resent. It may be said that it rests with them to exercise their powers. If the noble Viscount would accept merely this declaration of the duty of the highway authority, so as to keep it before their eyes that it is desirable, coupled with the practice of the Ministry which he has already learned, there would be no great difficulty. There is not really very much point in the subsequent subsections, because they are observed in practice now, as I think we satisfied him.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: More or less.
EARL RUSSELL: This is putting a new duty on the highway authorities. I do not know that they will thank the noble Viscount. I should have thought that, if they were competent to exercise their duties, they probably would always act upon it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If I understand the noble Earl, he tells me that, if I will strike out the last two subsections, he will not resist the first subsection.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If that is the offer, at this hour of the evening I accept it.
EARL RUSSELL: Then I will not say that the noble Viscount is hard to satisfy.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: If you only tried, you would find me very easy to satisfy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 52, insert as a new clause:—
Provision of footpaths.
(".—(1) It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers proper and sufficient footpaths by the side of roads under their control").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Regulations.
53.—(l) The Minister may make regulations for prescribing anything which under this Part of this Act is to be prescribed, and for regulating the number, nature and use of brakes, including skid pans and locking chains in the case of vehicles drawn by horses or other animals, or any class or description of such vehicles, when used on roads, and for securing that such brakes shall be efficient and kept in proper working order and for empowering persons authorised by or under the regulations to test and inspect any such brakes, whether on a road or elsewhere
EARL RUSSELL EARL RUSSELL moved to add to subsection (1) "and for making provision for the removal from roads of vehicles in the case of which there has been a breakdown or which have been left in a dangerous position on a road." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment explains itself. It is for the purpose of removing vehicles which are broken down.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 6, after ("elsewhere") insert the said words.—(Earl Russell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg to suggest to the noble Earl that perhaps your Lordships would like to go to bed.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, we have now come to the end of the Amendments on Part III of the Bill. I would have liked to have gone further, but I cannot say your Lordships have delayed the Bill in any way. I would propose to put it down again on Monday, after the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, which I understand will not take long.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.

Preamble
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.],
BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL.[H.L.],
BOSTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L],
DARLINGTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.],
EPSOM RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.],
FALMOUTH CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.],
GUILDFORD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.],
LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.],
LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.],
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L],
MALVERN HILLS BILL. [H.L.],
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.],
SHAKESPEARE BIRTHPLACE, ETC., TRUST (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.],
SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY COUNCIL (BURSLEDON BRIDGE) BILL. [H.L.]
SOUTHPORT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.],
SUTTON COLD FIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.],
WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.],
WALSALL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.],
WEDNESBURY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.],
WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.],
Presented, and read 1a.
ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.],
BARNSLEY AND DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.],
BRIXHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.],
BROMBOROUGH DOCK BILL. [H.L.],
FAVERSHAM OYSTER FISHERY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.],
HASTINGS TRAMWAYS COMPANY (TROLLEY VEHICLES AND OMNIBUSES) BILL. [H.L.],
LLANELLY DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.],
LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.],
LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.],
MILFORD DOCKS BILL. [H.L.],
REDCROSS STREET BURIAL GROUND (BRISTOL) BILL. [H.L.],
ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE BILL. [H.L.],
SELSEY WATER BILL. [H.L.],
SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.],
SIDMOUTH ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.],
UNITED KINGDOM TEMPERANCE AND GENERAL PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL. [H.L.],
Presented, read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]

  SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  Presented (with the Certificates of the Lord Privy Seal that the Bills contain provisions relating to works the execution of which would substantially contribute to the early relief of unemployment), and read 1a. No Petition praying to be heard upon the merits against the Bills to be received unless presented on or before. Wednesday, the 12th of February next, pursuant to the Resolution of this House of the 11th of December last.
  CLACTON-ON-SEA PIER BILL. [H.L.]
  EAST KENT DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  FALMOUTH WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  MID KENT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  PORTSMOUTH WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Presented (with the Certificates of the Lord Privy Seal that the Bills contain provisions relating to works the execution of which would substantially contribute to the early relief of unemployment); read 1a, and referred to the Examiners. No Petition praying to be heard upon the merits against the Bills to be received unless presented on or before Wednesday, the 12th of February next, pursuant to the Resolution of this House of the 11th of December last.