Sitting of 13 May 1930

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Boston Corporation Bill [Lords].
London County Council (General Powers) Bill [Lords].
Falmouth Corporation Water Bill [Lords].
Bills to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Maidstone Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Quay Extension, etc.) [Lords] (Certified Bill).
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Private Bills [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
Shoreham Harbour Bill [Lords] (Certified Bill).
Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Kirkcaldy Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  BRITISH ARMY.

    BRITISH TROOPS, CHINA.
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for War how many British troops are at present stationed in China; and whether he can give the average yearly cost involved in the employment of these troops?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The establishment of British troops in China is approximately 365 officers and 7,000 other ranks. These figures include the British, Indian and Colonial troops which form the normal establishment in China and the additional British troops temporarily serving there. The approximate annual extra effective cost of em-

    1597
    ploying the additional troops in China is £270,000, as shown on page 295 of the current Army Estimates.
    Mr. DAY: Is it proposed to increase the complements in China on account of the troubles?
    Mr. SHAW: There is no immediate intention of so doing.
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Do those figures include the Hong Kong garrison, or are they extra to the Hong Kong garrison?
    Mr. SHAW: The numbers include the Hong Kong garrison.
    Major COLFOX: What are the Colonial troops?
    Mr. SHAW: I cannot state from memory from what particular Colony the troops are drawn. There are Indian troops and a few Colonial troops.

    OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS AND CADET UNITS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War what are the differences in the regulations for the training of cadets in military cadet corps and schoolboys between 13 and 15 years of age in the officers training corps?
    Mr. SHAW: While there are not specific regulations for the training of boys of the Officers Training Corps between 13 and 15 years of age, the general principles laid down in War Office training manuals form the basis of training both in the Officers Training Corps and Cadet units. Those principles are modified and applied by the Officers Commanding to suit the age of the boys, and the other circumstances of their contingent or unit.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it intended to alter the regulations of the Officers Training Corps in reference to the training of boys under 15?
    Mr. SHAW: The question of the Officers Training Corps is borne continually in mind and is being considered.

    MEAT AND FLOUR SUPPLIES.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with the Government's efforts to reduce unemployment, any
    1598
    instructions have been given in his Department that preference must be given in supplies for the Army and Air Force at home stations to meat of home origin and to flour milled from home-grown wheat, and in the case of foodstuffs regard must be had in accepting tenders to the economic standard of the workers in competing countries?
    Mr. SHAW: As regards meat and flour, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) on 10th February last. As regards foodstuffs generally, preference is given as far as possible to home and Empire supplies over those of foreign origin.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, since he gives preference to Empire food products, he does not give a preference to British agricultural food products, by providing home-grown meat and flour for the troops?
    Mr. SHAW: "Empire" and "British" to me are synonymous terms.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has not considered that, whereas we have to pay taxes in this country—[Interruption.]
    Mr. HURD: Is it not now an accepted principle at the Imperial Conference as it has been for some years that British home products—[Interruption.]

    TERRITORIAL FORCE ARTILLERY (TRAINING).
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that orders have been issued to Territorial Force Field Artillery Brigades that they are allowed to train with horses, but on mobilisation are all to be mechanised, he will arrange for them to train in peace under the same conditions as those under which they would have to mobilise in case of war?
    Mr. SHAW: I assume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the Army Field Brigades of the Territorial Army which will be mobilised on a mechanised basis. These brigades train on a mechanised basis in peace, except that

    1599
    the battery staffs may be horsed if the brigade commander thinks it desirable. I am advised that the training of the Territorials is in no way prejudiced by this latitude, one of the reasons for which is that the question of mechanising all battery staffs is still the subject of experiment in the Regular Army.
    Major COLFOX: What are the duties of a battery staff which make is necessary for them to be mounted?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that we can go into all these matters.
    Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great advantage to some of these field brigades of having the right to retain horses for the battery staffs, and that it is the experience of many brigade commanders that it very materially helps recruiting?
    Mr. SHAW: My answer already contains the definite statement that if the brigade commanders think it desirable, what the hon. and gallant. Member asks for is done.

  SCOTLAND.

    NATIONAL TRUST.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to set about the formation of a Scottish national trust?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): Consideration of the question of forming a Scottish national trust is deferred pending the report of the National Park Committee which is now sitting under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

    UNSIGHTLY HOARDINGS.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Scottish Office has refused to sanction the by-laws to deal with unsightly hoardings submitted by the Scottish county councils and supported by the Association of County Councils and the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: I understand my hon. Friend's question to refer to a form of by-law under the Advertisement Regulation Acts, which was prepared some years ago by the Association of County Councils in Scotland and was submitted for confirmation by several county councils. Two alternative forms of by-law were suggested by the Scottish Office to the Association, who regarded the first one as unacceptable. The second does not appear to have been fully considered by the Association. The whole question is now being examined following upon a deputation which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State received on my behalf.

    LITTER NUISANCE.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider making provision to deal with the litter nuisance in Scotland?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: Local authorities in Scotland have powers to make by-laws dealing with this matter, and I have had no representation that these powers are insufficient.

    RATING RELIEF.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, seeing that owners and occupiers in Scotland of industrial lands and heritages within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, are entitled to receive the full derating of 75 per cent., or three-fourths of their rates, the same as such owners and occupiers receive in England, he will say why only seven-fifteenths are being paid?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): In England and Wales where rates are levied half-yearly full derating of industrial lands and heritages took effect as from the date when it came into force, namely, 1st October, 1929. In Scotland where rates are levied annually it was necessary to make provision for derating to be spread over the whole year from 16th May, 1929, to 15th May, 1930. The relief which in a normal year is three-fourths of the rates payable accordingly becomes seven-fifteenths in the year 1929–30.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not the case that there are differences as between the Inland Revenue officer representing the Government and these burgh authori-

    1601
    ties in regard to this matter; and is the hon. Gentleman aware that some have received 75 per cent. and others have received the seven-fifteenths; and will the hon. Gentleman receive representations from any of these bodies with a view to a settlement of this question?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Certainly, we shall always be glad to receive any representations from any local rating authority on the matter, but the position, as stated in my answer to the question, is, I understand, the legal position.

    BRACKEN.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet made any advance in his researches into the means of destroying bracken in Scotland?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The investigation into the disease affecting bracken has been continued throughout the winter. It is hoped to put into operation during the summer a scheme of intensive experimental work into methods of eradicating bracken including the use of diseased plants and of chemicals.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Has the hon. Gentleman personally visited any of these experiments and has his Department yet discovered the difference between frosted bracken and diseased bracken?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, I should require notice. The answer to the first part is in the affirmative.
    Major COLFOX: Has the hon. Gentleman's Department experimented with the use of the ordinary pig as a destructive agent of bracken and its roots?
    Mr. McSHANE: Is this bracken a weed?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: I understand so.

    AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATION COMMITTEE.
    Earl of DALKEITHasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received the report of the Committee on Agricultural Co-operation in Scotland; and when he proposes to publish it?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: I have received the report. It is in the hands of the printers, and I hope it will be published early next week.

    GREYHOUND RACING TRACK, GLASGOW (TOTALISATOR).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that complaints are being made of the manner in which the totalisators are being operated at the Albion Greyhound Racing Track, Ibrox, Glasgow; whether any complaints have been made to the local police or the Procurator-Fiscal; and whether any action is proposed to be taken?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): I am aware that complaints of the nature referred to by my hon. Friend have been made by one association, and that in one case an alleged contravention of Section 4 (1) of the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, was reported. The available evidence, however, negatived the contravention.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Has the office of the right hon. and learned Gentleman not received complaints of juveniles being allowed to use these "totes" on tracks, which is in contravention of the Act?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: There have been allegations of a general kind of the nature indicated by the hon. Member, but the only specific case received by the criminal authorities is the case referred to in the question, and, on investigation, the evidence negatived the idea of contravention.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that the case of a boy betting under 17 years of age was taken before the police on the racecourse, who took the boy's name, and that nothing further has been done?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: That case, if it happened, was not reported to my Department.
    Mr. FOOT: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself taken into consideration the wording of the Act restricting the totalisator to horse racecourses, and cannot he, apart from the decision of the courts, give us some guidance in this matter?

    HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS (INQUIRY).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that on Friday night, 2nd May, Hugh Campbell was taken from his home at No. 30, Hamilton Street, Govan, by two men and a sheriff's officer and lodged in Duke Street prison at the instance of a

    1603
    hire purchase firm for failure to return a cycle he had obtained on the hire purchase system; that Campbell owed £1 10s., and had been unemployed from 4th February until the beginning of April, but had paid £1 off this debt on 14th April, which was returned by the firm on the same day, and on 19th April had offered the full sum of £1 10s., and an arrangement to pay 13s. 4d. expenses imposed by instalments; that this payment and arrangement was also refused by the firm, and arrest and imprisonment made on 2nd May; and if this man is still in prison?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am informed that Mr. Campbell owed 30s. and 16s. of expenses, and he sent £1 on 14th April, that this was returned with an intimation that in view of previous delays the whole sum due must be paid, and that no offer was made prior to Mr. Campbell's imprisonment to pay 30s. in full or to pay the expenses by instalments. An offer to pay 30s. was made on the 3rd May. The creditor decided to accept this and to allow Mr. Campbell time to pay the expenses, and, on payment of the 30s. on 5th May Mr. Campbell was immediately liberated from prison.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this payment of 30s. was offered on the 19th April in the presence of a witness and was refused by two members of this particular firm, and do the expenses which this man is being asked to pay include, in addition to the 16s. mentioned, the expense of taking him from his home to the prison?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: With regard to the latter part, I imagine it would be so, from what I have learned about previous cases. With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I have no information about the offer to pay on the 19th April, but, if my hon. Friend wishes, I will make further inquiries.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the hon. Member make inquiries whether or not that is an actual fact, as I have seen the witness, and, if it is, can anything be done to prevent this man paying additional expenses that ought never to have been incurred if this firm had accepted his original offer?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: That will certainly be inquired into.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Lord Advocate the number of people in Scotland who have been imprisoned in Scottish prisons on instructions from hire purchase firms for debt or, as stated in the order of imprisonment, for failure to implement decree ad factum practandum, during the year 1929 and the first three months of 1930; the longest period of imprisonment served during those periods; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction that exists in Scotland over the abuse of this order, he will favourably consider the setting up of a committee to inquire into the grievance and recommend proposals for its amendment?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: The number of persons imprisoned in Scotland at the instance of hire purchase firms in 1929 was 265, and, in the first three months of 1930, 25; the longest periods of imprisonment served during these periods were 119 days and 24 days respectively. My right hon. Friend has had under consideration, in consultation with the Lord Advocate, various complaints which have reached them in recent months regarding cases which have arisen under hire purchase agreements, and he has decided to appoint a committee to inquire into the matter.
    Mr. MACLEAN: While thanking my hon. Friend for that information, may I ask if all the facts in these cases will be taken into consideration, and if, in addition, the new hire-purchase agreement will be incorporated in any recommendations made by that Committee that will prevent these firms from visiting punishment in this way?
    Mr. JOHNSTON: What will arise under the deliberation's of the Committee I could not very well say. All that I can say to the hon. Member at the moment is that the Committee will be appointed with the greatest expedition, that it will be a strong Committee, and that no relevant considerations will be omitted.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    DEVELOPMENT GRANTS AND GUARANTEES (UNIVERSITIES).
    Mr. MORLEYasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will consider introducing a

    1605
    short amending Bill to the Loan Guarantees and Grants Bill to enable grants to be made to universities and university colleges for the purpose of building extensions?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 10th March to the hon. Member for English Universities (Miss Rathbone), a copy of which I am sending to him.

    RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (LIVERPOOL STREET).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made with the scheme relating to Liverpool Street Station?
    Mr. THOMAS: I cannot at present add anything to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) on the 18th February and the 8th April, copies of which I am sending to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much, out of the £75,000,000 mentioned by the Chancellor of the Duchy, has been expended already?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have said repeatedly, in answer to Members in the House who are very interested in the development of Liverpool Street, that I wanted to encourage the scheme, but I am still waiting on the London and North Eastern Railway Company.
    Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman no power of persuasion with the London and North Eastern Railway Company to build a new tube out of Liverpool Street as part of the £75,000,000?

    LAND ACQUISITION.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Lord Privy Seal when he proposes to introduce the Bill further to enable local authorities to acquire land for the purpose of unemployment schemes; and when the text of the Bill will be available?
    Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave him on this subject on 4th February, to which I have nothing to add.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the time is getting
    1606
    on, and that some months ago he said that this Bill was a very urgent one?
    Mr. THOMAS: I still think so, and I am aware how time is getting on by the time that certain Measures take in getting through this House.

    LIVERPOOL.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Lord Privy Seal the amount of the schemes that are not yet sanctioned for grant, which have been submitted in proper order by the Liverpool Corporation, for the relief of unemployment?
    Mr. THOMAS: As the answer is a long one and involves figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The Unemployment Grants Committee have still under consideration six schemes estimated to cost about £95,000 submitted by the Liverpool City Council for grant in respect of works for the relief of unemployment. As regards schemes submitted to the Ministry of Transport, grants have not yet been issued in respect of 10 schemes estimated to cost about £610,000 which were approved in principle as part of the Liverpool Corporation's five year programme. It is understood, however, that it is very improbable that seven of these schemes, estimated to cost about £290,000, would be commenced by the local authority during the current financial year and the issue of grants is therefore being deferred. Details of the three remaining road schemes are being considered with a view to the early issue of grants.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Lord Privy Seal the amount of schemes submitted in proper order from the Liverpool Corporation for the relief of unemployment since 17th April to date?
    Mr. THOMAS: Since the 17th April, 1930, no further schemes have been submitted by the Liverpool City Council for grant towards works for the relief of unemployment.
    Mr. HALL-CAINE: Will the Lord Privy Seal not make some further representations to the Liverpool Corporation, urging them to submit further schemes, as we have a great many unemployed in Liverpool and on Mersey side?
    Mr. THOMAS: I hope the continued questions of my hon. Friend will have the desired effect.

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Committee considering certain unemployment proposals have now reached any conclusions?
    Mr. THOMAS: I have nothing to add to the previous replies which I have given the right hon. Gentleman in answer to this weekly question.
    Sir K. WOOD: Since the last reply, is it not true that the Committee in question have definitely and unanimously rejected the Mosley Memorandum, and is it not a fact that this statement has appeared in the official organ of the Labour party; and has the Attorney-General been employed to make some inquiries in the matter?
    Mr. THOMAS: The only interesting part of the supplementary question is the knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman reads that paper.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is there not one point wrong in the right hon. Gentleman's reply, namely, his reference to the right hon. Gentleman's weekly question? Should it not rather be his daily question?

    LEEDS.
    Mr. DENMANasked the Lord Privy Seal whether a grant will be made to enable the Leeds City Council to accelerate the construction of civil buildings?
    Mr. THOMAS: It has been decided that in certain circumstances grants towards the construction of municipal offices will be given. The basis of grant in individual cases is still under consideration.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES (BRITISH OATS).
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any information whether the railway companies have followed his advice to give a preference to British products, notably in the purchase of oats for the feeding of horses owned by them?
    Mr. THOMAS: The railway companies do not receive any grant under the Development Act in respect of the purchase of oats for their horses.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to the railway companies to give a preference to British products?
    Mr. THOMAS: Where Government money is involved; but I said that we made no grant towards oats for feeding purposes.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Was that distinction made in the speech which the right hon. Gentleman delivered at Derby the other day?
    Mr. THOMAS: I had not oats in my mind.

    CARMARTHENSHIRE.
    Mr. HOPKINasked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made on works for the relief of unemployment in Carmarthenshire; what amount of money has been spent on roads, land drainage, waterworks and sewerage schemes; and if he is satisfied that every step is being taken by all parties concerned to reduce the number of the unemployed in the county?
    Mr. THOMAS: Every effort is being made to deal expeditiously with schemes submited for the relief of unemployment but as stated in my reply of the 6th March to my hon. Friend, the local authorities in this area have so far taken only a very limited advantage of the facilities available. I will, if I may, circulate details of the various schemes in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. HOPKIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman now convinced that the only way to deal with this problem is to set up a National Board for Wales?
    Mr. THOMAS: No, I would see no justification for setting no a National Board for Wales because one particular local authority will not play its part. That is rather the justification for bringing as much pressure as possible upon the local authorities by the hon. Member and those interested.
    Major COLFOX: Since the Government are clearly one of the parties concerned, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his Department and the Government generally are doing all that they can to help unemployment?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am not only satisfied of that, but, when the hon. Member

    1609
    realises that we have sanctioned over £90,000,000 of expenditure in 10 months, as compared with £10,000,000 in two years by the late Government, I am sure that he will see that we are doing all that we can.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: But look at the unemployment figures!
    Following are the details:
    The Unemployment Grants Committee have since 1st June, 1929, approved two schemes submitted by local authorities within the county of Carmarthen, one in respect of waterworks estimated to cost £2,500, and the other for the preparation of a playing field, estimated to cast £484. These schemes have been in operation for some months. Six other schemes estimated to cost about £23,000 are under consideration by the Committee. Two of these estimated to cost about £14,000 have been received within the last two or three weeks. It is understood that there are certain other schemes in contemplation. The Ministry of Transport have approved for commencement, under the five-year programme, road schemes estimated to cost £38,970. Further road schemes estimated to cost £17,259 have been approved in principle on the understanding that they will be put in hand during the current financial year. Under the trunk road programme, schemes estimated to cost £9,096 have been approved for commencement. Further schemes estimated to cost £10,491 have been approved in principle, and still further schemes estimated to cost approximately £58,000 are under consideration. No information is available as to the expenditure to date on these road schemes. As regards land drainage, no scheme has yet been submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture for grant.

    GRANTS (CONDITIONS).
    Mr. LAWTHERasked the Lord Privy Seal if, where representations are made by the local authorities, he will seek to have the conditions at present laid down by the Unemployment Grants Committee relaxed, as it is felt by some local authorities in some areas that they ought to have more freedom in the selection of workmen, having regard to the circumstances and conditions operating in that particular district?
    Mr. THOMAS: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any case he has in mind, I shall be glad to look into the matter in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

    MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD.
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been drawn to complaints of delay in the final approval of schemes for the relief of unemployment submitted by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board; and what action he has taken in the matter?
    Mr. THOMAS: No complaint of delay has been made to me by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. Provisional sanction for the major schemes costing over £2,000,000 was given on the 8th February. Subsequently a further minor scheme was submitted and approved on 2nd May.

  PUBLIC CONTRACTS (LABOUR STANDARDS).
  Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to any contract awarded by local authorities or railway companies to foreign tenderers, in which there was reason to believe the economic standards of the workers in competing countries were not taken into account; and, if so, whether he will state the names of such bodies allotting these contracts?
  Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir.
  Mr. SMITH: Having regard to his declaration a few days ago, will the right hon. Gentleman give this matter his careful attention and investigate any such contract?
  Mr. THOMAS: The question put to me is whether my attention has been drawn to any such contract, and my answer is "No." If my attention is drawn to it, I will look into it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Hopkin.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult—[Interruption].
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have called on the next question.
  Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister, if, in view of the recommenda-

  1611
  tions given to railway companies and local authorities that, in accepting tenders, not only must a preference be given to British produce, but that consideration must be given to the economic condition of the workers in competing countries, he will see that a similar practice is followed in all services controlled by the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): It is the accepted policy of Government Departments to give a preference in their contracts to British goods, regard being had to all the circumtances, including the compartive prices of British and foreign articles. I do not think it necessary to give any further instructions on the subject.
  Sir BASIL PETO: Does that cover agricultural products as well as others?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It covers everything.
  Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means by comparative prices? Are we to understand that if there is any decrease in the price of foreign goods the preference will be given to the foreigner, notwithstanding that that affects employment in this country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Not at all. It simply means that in deciding matters like this everything that should enter into a sound economical business calculation is taken into account.
  Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Are we to understand that it is only when the prices are the same that preference is given to our own producers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say "only." When the prices are the same, undoubtedly that preference will be given; but I did not say "only."
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask whether the good example shown in regard to the railway companies cannot be extended to the other industries of the country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The industries themselves must take the initiative in the matter.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MONOPOLIES AND RINGS.
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the recent tendency towards the creation of monopolies and rings in industry and trade; and whether he will consider the appointment of a Departmental Committee to inquire into the effect of such monopolies and rings upon the price of important commodities which are adverse to the interests of the country?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given on this subject to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Ramsay) on 14th April.

    IRON AND STEEL TRADE.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade the aggregate tonnage of all imports of iron and steel into the United Kingdom from 1st January, 1929, to 30th April, 1930, including iron and steel in a more highly finished form than billets, blooms, and slabs, and sheet tinplate bars?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: As shown in the Trade and Navigation Accounts for December, 1929, and April, 1930, th aggregate weight of goods classified in the trade returns as "Iron and Steel and Manufactures thereof" imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland, registered during the period from 1st January, 1929, to 30th April, 1930, was 3,901,000 tons.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the answer which he has given is the greatest possible reason why we should have safeguarding for iron and steel?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question only asks for actual figures. Nothing arises from that.
    Mr. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade the approximate number of men employed in United Kingdom conditions of production required to produce the iron and steel of all kinds similar to those imported into the United Kingdom from 1st January, 1929, to 30th April, 1930, including iron

    1613
    and steel in a more highly finished form than billets, blooms, and slabs, and sheet and tinplate bars?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. I regret that it is quite impracticable to give any reliable estimate of the kind requested.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Would it be wrong to say that the approximate figure, although not accurate or reliable, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 120,000 men and boys?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any rough estimate of the number of workpeople employed in producing steel that has been exported from this country?
    Mr. GRAHAM: In reply to the second supplementary question, I am afraid that I should require notice; in reply to the first, it is quite impossible to quote a figure that is in any way accurate, and I hesitate to adopt for one moment the figure which my hon. Friend suggested.

    CANADIAN TARIFF.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government have made, or are proposing to make, any representations to His Majesty's Government in Canada with a view to securing that advantages proposed to be extended to certain trades of the United Kingdom under the new Canadian tariff should be extended also to the cotton trade?
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received particulars of the proposed changes in the Canadian tariff; and, if so, whether he will say to what extent, and in what way, they affect imports from Great Britain and other parts of the Empire?
    Major COLVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Canadian Government to make extensive improvements in the preferences granted to British goods; and whether any request for reciprocal action on the part of His Majesty's Government has been received?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have learned with great interest of the tariff
    1614
    changes recently introduced by His Majesty's Government in Canada. These changes were proposed without any request for reciprocal action on the part of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom who would not feel themselves in a position to make representations in favour of increased preference for cotton goods as suggested by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel).
    The right hon. Member is, however, of course aware that special representations in regard to the proportion of the value of the labour or materials of Empire origin required to enable British cotton goods to qualify for preference have already been addressed to the Dominion Government.
    Some preliminary information in regard to the nature of the tariff changes has been published in the Board of Trade Journal of 8th May, but full particulars are not yet available. It is, however, clear that the new rates, most of which are already in force, represent important decreases of rate under the British preferential tariff on a large range of goods and an increased measure of preference. This tariff is accorded to goods the produce and manufacture of the United Kingdom, and of most, though not the whole, of the British Empire, but so far as I can judge from the information at present available the reductions of duty mainly concern goods which are not imported to any great extent from Empire countries other than the United Kingdom.
    Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give his special attention to the question addressed to him by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in view of the fact that hitherto the right hon. Gentleman has been opposed to arty policy of preference?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I give the greatest attention to all questions.
    Major COLVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of Question No. 39 with regard to reciprocal action? Is it not the case that the action which the Government have taken in regard to the tariff truce ties their hands?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, I do not take that view.

    TARIFFS.
    Major COLVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if any downward tendency in the tariffs imposed on British goods by the foreign nations which signed the tariff truce has yet become apparent?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: No, Sir. The hon. and gallant Member will no doubt recollect that under the arrangements concluded at Geneva the question of tariff reductions is to form the subject of future negotiations.
    Major COLVILLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this stands in contrast to the action of the Canadian Government at the present time?
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information respecting increases in the tariffs of Greece; whether they are likely adversely to affect British exports to that country; and, if so, whether he proposes to make any representations to the Greek Government?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Certain increases resulting from the revision of the Franco-Greek Convention of 1929 took effect from 1st April last; full details were given in the Board of Trade Journal of 3rd April. I have received no complaints from British traders in regard to these increases, and, in the circumstances in which they were made, I doubt whether representations could usefully be made. I also understand that the Greek Government has proposed certain increases of duty on a few classes of goods seriously competitive with Greek industries. Such increases would naturally tend to affect adversely British exports to Greece of the goods concerned, and the question of making representations to the Greek Government in regard to them is under consideration.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the increases in the tariffs of Greece have been antecedent or subsequent to his proposals in regard to the tariff truce?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I should like notice of that question. I cannot say at the moment what is the precise date.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is not the date when these tariffs were imposed
    1616
    within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman, and can he not say whether they were antecedent or subsequent to the tariff truce proposals?

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. R. S. YOUNGasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give figures of trade with the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and this country for the first three months of 1929 and the first three months of 1930, or any other comparable period?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: As my hon. Friend will find recorded in the Monthly Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for April, the total declared value of merchandise imported into the United Kingdom and registered as consigned from the Soviet Union (Russia) during the first three months of 1929 amounted to £3,166,000, as compared with £4,812,000 during the corresponding period of 1930. The total value of exports (including re-exports) from the United Kingdom registered as consigned to the Soviet Union during the former period amounted to £1,168,000, and during the latter period to £1,954,000.
    Sir B. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation of why the Soviet Government buy from us only about a quarter of what we buy from them, and in those circumstances, what necessity there is for granting them special credit terms?
    Mr. GRAHAM: It is obviously impossible for me, in a reply to a supplementary question, to explain why one country does not do more trade with another.

    IMPORTS (BOUNTIES).
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade what treaties are at present in existence by which this country is forbidden to impose countervailing duties upon bounty-fed imports of any kind?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) on the 28th January last, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Major COLFOX: Would the right hon. Gentleman circulate in the OFFICIAL

    1617
    REPORT, in tabular form, a list of the most-favoured-nation treaties which are at present in operation?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I think I have already given some information on that point in reply to previous questions. I should like notice of the precise request, but in any event, I will look into it.

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. PHILIP OLIVERasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the production of cotton yarn spun from Egyptian, American, and Indian cotton, respectively, in the United Kingdom for the years 1928 and 1929?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am unable to state the quantities of yarn produced from cotton of various growths in the periods specified, but it is estimated from figures published by the International Cotton Federation that the consumption of Egyptian, American and Indian cotton in cotton-spinning mills in Great Britain in the twelve months ended 31st January, 1929 and 1930, was approximately as follows:

    Mill Consumption of Cotton in Great Britain.

    Million lbs.

    Year ended 31st January, 1929:

    Egyptian

    273

    American

    926

    Indian

    65

    Year ended 31st January, 1930:

    Egyptian

    247

    American

    889

    Indian

    65

    Mr. OLIVERasked the President of the Board of Trade what were the exports of cotton piece goods from the United Kingdom to India in the categories subject to the new India duties on grey cloths at 3½ annas during each of the years 1927, 1928, and 1929, and in each of the months of the present year for which figures are available?
    Mr. GRAHAM: From the published trade returns for India, it would appear that, in the years ended 31st March, 1927, 1928 and 1929, the imports into India from the United Kingdom of grey unbleached cotton piece goods of the categories subject to the 3½ annas per lb.
    1618
    minimum duty amounted to 148, 158 and 130 million yards respectively. No later information is available.

    MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade what imported articles have to date been required to bear an indication of origin; what applications are at present before Standing Committees; and in respect of what articles have applications been rejected by such Committees?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The lists of the articles in question are too long to read out, and I propose, therefore, to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the lists:
    Classes and Descriptions of Imported Goods in respect of which Orders in Council have been made under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, requiring them to bear an indication of origin.
    General Merchandise.

    Gold and silver leaf.

    Woven labels.

    Wire netting and woven wire.

    Mill bobbins.

    Felt hats and felt hat hoods.

    Iron and steel wire and wire nails and staples.

    Water taps and metal fittings.

    Tyres and tubes.

    Mowing machines.

    Gloves.

    Furniture and cabinet ware.

    Shuttles.

    Boots, shoes and slippers.

    Pottery.

    Insulated electric cables and wires.

    Electric incandescent lamps.

    Enamelled zinc sheets.

    Glue and gelatine.

    Tooth-brushes and shaving-brushes.

    Cast-iron porcelain-enamelled baths.

    Cutlery.

    Ball and roller bearings.

    Flame safety lamps and parts.

    Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary instruments and appliances; aseptic hospital and dental furniture; and dental supplies.

    Rims for motor and other cycles; cycle parts.

    Pumps.

    Briar tobacco pipes.

    Carbon paper.

    1619

    Cotton wool, gauze tissues, sanitary towels.

    Travelling trunks and bags; attaché cases; fancy bags, etc.

    Copper plates, sheets, strips, rods, wire and tubes.

    Carpets, rugs and mats.

    School rules.

    Grave monuments and enclosures of granite and parts thereof.

    Spring balances.

    Rubber manufactures.

    Elastic cords, webs, braids and fabrics.

    Small arms.

    Scientific glassware.

    *Domestic, fancy and illuminating glassware.

    *Hosiery, knitted goods and fabrics.

    *Implements and tools.

    Steel nails.

    Portland cement.

    Asbestos cement products.

    Wood split pulleys.

    *Roofing slates.

    * These orders have been made, but are not yet in force.

    Agricultural and Horticultural Produce.

    Honey.

    Fresh apples.

    Currants, sultanas and raisins.

    Eggs in shell and dried eggs.

    Oat products.

    Rose trees.

    Raw tomatoes.

    Draft Orders in Council in respect of the following goods are at present before Parliament.
    General Merchandise.

    Strap butts.

    Machinery belting.

    Tiles and refractory bricks, etc.

    Agricultural and Horticultural Produce.
    Malt products.
    Applications on which the Standing Committee (General Merchandise) have made reports, now under consideration by the Board of Trade.
    General Merchandise.

    Bolts, nuts, rivets, etc.

    Wallpapers, ceiling papers, etc.

    Brooms and brushes.

    Coathangers.

    Fountain pens, propelling pencils and gold pen nibs.

    Applications before Standing Committees, but not yet reported upon.
    General Merchandise.

    Artists' materials.

    Wall board.

    Wrought enamelled hollow-ware.

    Motor vehicles and parts.

    Photographic materials, etc.

    Lattice reinforcements, etc.

    Ice skates.

    Toys and games.

    Agricultural and Horticultural Produce.
    Frozen or chilled salmon and trout.
    Applications referred to the Standing Committees in regard to which no Order in Council has been made.
    General Merchandise.

    Iron and steel.

    Screw bottle stoppers.

    Sheet lead and lead pipes.

    Tea.

    Cardboard boxes, etc.

    Building bricks.

    Bottles and jars. (Food, etc., containers.)

    NOTES.—In the case of sheet lead and lead pipes, tea, cardboard boxes, etc., building bricks and bottles and jars, the Committee did not recommend an Order.
    In a number of other cases, the Committee have rejected parts of applications, otherwise successful, or have reported that on the evidence put before them they were not prepared to recommend marking.
    Agricultural and Horticultural Produce.
    Natural oats.

    DYESTUFFS ACT.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to relieving the uncertainty respecting future conditions, he will take an early opportunity of stating the policy of the Government with regard to the renewal of the Dyestuffs Act?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The matter is still under consideration; a statement will be made as soon as possible.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the very considerable state of anxiety in those industries as to what is to be the future policy of the Government, and why can he not give a reply?
    Mr. GRAHAM: This is a very large subject. The Act does not expire until January, 1931, and I think the circumstances are such that there will be no detriment to anyone if the Government makes the statement which it proposes to do at an early date.
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give any information?

    UNITED STATES (LACE DUTIES).
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any representations have been made by him to the Government of the United States, America, with regard to the proposed increase of duties in lace and lace net?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the question on this matter put by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton) on the 8th May.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Was not that reply to the effect that the President of the Board of Trade has done nothing, and will he explain this gross neglect of duty?
    Mr. GRAHAM: On a previous occasion, I was asked, in a supplementary question, whether I would make representations, and I was not sure whether in fact they had been made. The reply made it clear that they had not in all cases. Representations are not made unless they are likely to be effective.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to give notice that I will move a reduction in the salary of the President of the Board of Trade on account of his very unsatisfactory reply.

    SOUTH AMERICAN TRADE.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been and are being taken to secure an adequate distribution of the report of the British Economic Mission to Argentina to all those engaged in South American trade?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the question put by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) on 16th April. In addition, the Stationery Office
    1622
    are advertising the report in the usual way. They are also issuing a special leaflet which the management of the British Empire Trade Exhibition, to be held in Buenos Aires in 1931, have undertaken to distribute to a large number of firms in this country.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    PATENT OFFICE.
    Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade the surplus of revenue over expenditure of the Patent Office for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and whether the staff of the Patent Office has been increased during the same period?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: As regards the first part of the question, the surplus of receipts over expenditure for the Patent Office amounted to approximately £157,000 for the year 1929. As regards the second part of the question, the number of the examining staff of the Patent Office on the 1st January, 1929, was 239, and on the 1st January, 1930, 287, since when it has remained practically stationary, but I may add that the competitive examination from which the examining staff is to be strengthened has now taken place so that additional appointments will shortly be made.

    STATISTICS.
    Brigadier-General BROWNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what were the number of civil servant employés in all Government Departments in April, 1929, and the numbers in April, 1930; and what was the increase or decrease in the annual cost to the Exchequer in salaries and pensions of these employés for the two years ending 5th April, 1929, and 5th April, 1930?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The number of whole time and part time civil employés in all Departments, including staffs employed in Government industrial establishments and the Post Office on the 1st April, 1929, was 434,165. The cost of salaries and wages for the year ended 31st March, 1929, was approximately £84,480,580; and the amount paid in that year in respect of the superannuation privileges of retired civil employés was £6,788,897. I regret

    1623
    that comparable figures for the year ended 31st March, 1930, are not yet available.

  COMPANIES ACT.
  Sir JOHN FERGUSONasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps he proposes to take to give effect to the Act of Parliament which requires public companies to make a return of their balance sheet and annual accounts within a specified time; and is he aware that on 30th April last 600 companies had failed to comply with the law four months after the prescribed date, notwithstanding repeated applications to them by the proper authorities;
  (2) whether he will lay down regulations that in each future year, while the present relative Act is in operation, the Board of Trade shall, during the first week in every February, secure punctual compliance by public companies of the provisions of the law which requires the filing of annual reports and balance sheets?
  Captain AUSTIN HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade when he will be in a position to state by what methods he proposes to improve the system of securing compliance with the law by public companies which have failed to provide annual reports and balance sheets punctually within the period required by Statute?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The consideration of this matter, which I promised in my reply last Tuesday to the questions by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton) and the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), will take some time, and I cannot at present say when a conclusion will be reached. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir J. Ferguson) has been noted.
  Sir J. FERGUSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman push this to a head as soon as possible, in order to allay the feeling of great uneasiness which is prevalent among the investing public at the present time?
  Mr. GRAHAM: Oh, yes. I think we can claim to have been very active in recent months. I informed the House that we have only acted from the end of
  1624
  January, and the number of cases in which there has been delay or default has been very considerably reduced in that short period.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the new system by which he proposes to protect the public by ensuring punctual compliance with the provisions of the law, which require that public companies shall furnish annual reports and balance sheets within a certain period, shall be put in motion by the Board of Trade on its own initiative, without a shareholder being expected to take police court proceedings or without the attention of the Board of Trade being drawn to the matter by a question in Parliament?
  Mr. GRAHAM: It has always been the practice of the Board of Trade, on the receipt of reports by the Registrar that companies are in default in regard to the filing of the annual return, to take the necessary action to ensure compliance with the law, and accordingly no alteration of practice in this respect is necessary. Any action taken by the Board of Trade does not, however, deprive a shareholder of his right to institute proceedings under the Statute to protect his own interests.
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, in the case of some companies, it is very hard for the shareholders to take action, and will he arrange for his officials to take action in the case of any companies that are notoriously slow in this matter?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I have already indicated that in recent times we have been very active, and that will continue; but I think it would be altogether wrong to go so far as to relieve shareholders of their plain duty in this matter.

  SAFEGUARDING AND IMPORT DUTIES.

    LACE TRADE.
    Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade by what amount production for the home market of the lace trade has increased since 1924?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: It is impracticable to frame any reliable estimate of the kind asked for by the noble Lord in view of the fact that the only information at my disposal is that supplied by certain manufacturers who represent little more than half the industry.
    Sir H. CROFT: With reference to lace finishing, would it not be correct to say that 163.5 per cent. was approximately the increased production at home?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir; for the reason I have given those statements are very dangerous, to say the least. I would not commit myself to any figure, but I cover only half the industry in the returns.
    Sir H. CROFT: The right hon. Gentleman would not contradict that figure?
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: If the increase had been 163 per cent., would not employment have increased rather than slightly decreased?
    HON. MEMBERS: It has not decreased.
    Mr. BROWN: It has decreased.
    Sir HENRY BETTERTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the present situation of the lace trade, he will now consent to receive a deputation representing all sections of the trade in order that they may have an opportunity of putting their views before him?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I understand that such a request has been received from the operatives in this industry, and that arrangements are being made to receive a deputation.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this departure has been made at this belated moment? Is it a case of "grovelling for votes"?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Not at all; the circumstances are not nearly so violent as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think. The cold fact is that this request was received a day or two ago, and we propose to meet the deputation.
    Sir K. WOOD: Why at this particular time?
    Sir H. CROFT: Is it not the fact that, just prior to the introduction of the Budget, 14,000 trade unionists petitioned
    1626
    the Government, asking them to receive a deputation or take action, and they were told that it was a waste of time?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am not familiar with the date on that point, and I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to give me notice.
    Sir H. CROFT: I shall be very glad to do so.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be present at the reception of this deputation, or is he going to pay a personal call on Nottingham? [Interruption.] May I press for an answer to the specific question whether, at the reception of the deputation which the President of the Board of Trade tells us will now be received, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself will also be present?
    Mr. GRAHAM—
    Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. Is it in order for a question to be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade which should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did not see anything out of order in the question.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: With great respect, the President of the Board of Trade rose to reply to my question.
    Mr. GRAHAM: The request has only been received, and I have indicated to-day that we are willing to receive a deputation. Arrangements will be made, and I have no doubt that information with regard to their nature will be open in due course to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May I put down a question on Thursday, asking if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consent to receive the representations of the deputation?
    Sir W. BRASS: Does he think he is going to learn anything from the deputation?
    Dr. HUNTERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can supply separately the figures for the import and export of the various types of lace for each year from 1924 to 1929, inclusive?
    Mr. GRAHAM: As the figures asked for involve considerable labour, I pro-

    1627
    pose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as they are ready.

    APPLICATION FOR INQUIRY.
    Sir H. BETTERTONasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been made for an inquiry under the Safeguarding procedure since 1st June, 1929?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: One, Sir.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Was it granted?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Speaking from memory, I think it did not proceed, but I should be glad if the hon. Member would give me notice of this question.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Prime Minister when the Committee of Imperial Defence is likely to report upon the strategic aspects of the Channel Tunnel?
  Colonel ENGLANDasked the Prime Minister what procedure he intends to follow after the Committee of Imperial Defence have made their Report upon the strategic aspects of the Channel Tunnel?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The inquiry into the military aspects of the Channel Tunnel was taken up as soon as the Report of the Channel Tunnel Committee on the economic aspects was received, and has been continuing ever since. The project, as set forth in the Economic Report, contained a considerable amount of detail that was not available when the question was last reviewed by the Committee of Imperial Defence. It was found necessary to re-examine the whole matter in the light of the latest technical developments, and, to meet the changed conditions, new methods have had to be considered and worked out, both in their military and financial aspects. It would be a profound mistake to scamp this inquiry, only to find afterwards that some essential factor bearing on the final decision had been overlooked. As soon as the recommendations of the Committee of Imperial Defence are available, the whole question in all its aspects will be examined by the Cabinet, after which an announcement of the Government's policy will be made in Parliament.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how often the Committee of Imperial Defence meet to consider this subject, and when it is expected that they will be able to make their report?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The last part of that question I cannot answer. As regards the first part, the Committee of Imperial Defence meet as soon as possible after there is material available to justify them meeting.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: How often do they meet?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Very irregularly.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: When did they last meet?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The other day.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman the chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but I am not chairman of all the sub-committees.

  ESTATE DUTIES.
  Major NATHANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state his estimates of the amount payable by persons with annual incomes of £5,000, £10,000, £25,000, and £50,000, respectively, in Income Tax, Super-tax, and insurance, to cover Estate Duty in the year 1913 and in the year 1930?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I assume that in asking for an estimate of the amount of insurance to cover Estate Duty, the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the calculation made by the Colwyn Committee on National Debt and Taxation. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table drawn up on this assumption. I would, however, call his attention to the fact that, as the Colwyn Committee themselves pointed out, this method of calculating the burden of Death Duties has obvious limitations.
  Following is the table:
  In Section III (pages 79 et seq.) of their Report (Command Paper No. 2800) the Committee on National Debt and Taxation effect an annual measure of the incidence of the Estate Duty on the assumption that an individual insures to such an amount that after payment of Death Duties his original capital will be intact. It is assumed that the value of the estate remains unaltered and that the same rates of Estate Duty continue in force. The Committee took two types of income, one purely investment and the other half

  A.—If the taxpayer derives all his income from investments.

  Total Income.

  Equivalent Capital.

  Year 1913–14.

  Year 1930–31.

  Income Tax.

  Supertax.

  Net Insurance Payment to provide for Estate Duty.

  Total.

  Income Tax.

  Surtax.

  Net Insurance Payment to provide for Estate Duty.

  Total.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  5,000

  100,000

  292

  —

  298

  590

  1,007

  306

  819

  2,132

  10,000

  200,000

  583

  175

  725

  1,483

  2,132

  1,381

  2,322

  5,835

  25,000

  500,000

  1,458

  550

  2,000

  4,008

  5,507

  5,881

  8,583

  19,971

  50,000

  1,000,000

  2,917

  1,175

  5,176

  9,268

  11,132

  14,506

  25,349

  50,987

  B.—If the taxpayer derives half his income from investments and half from earnings.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  5,000

  50,000

  292

  —

  113

  405

  951

  306

  274

  1,531

  10,000

  100,000

  583

  175

  290

  1,048

  2,076

  1,381

  812

  4,269

  25,000

  250,000

  1,458

  550

  906

  2,914

  5,451

  5,881

  3,012

  14,344

  50,000

  500,000

  2,917

  1,175

  2,000

  6,092

  11,076

  14,506

  8,167

  33,749

  The figures are given to the nearest £.

  Major NATHANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state his estimate of the normal amount saved and available for investment in industry by persons with the annual incomes of £5,000, £10,000, £25,000, and £50,000, respectively, who insured against estate duties in the years 1913 and 1930, respectively?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I am unable to furnish such an estimate. The amount of income saved depends not alone on the amount of taxation to be paid out of income but on the amount of personal expenditure, which is a matter beyond the powers of official estimate.
  Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: Is it not a fact that a very large proportion of this money is invested in foreign countries?
  investment and half earned, and they capitalised investment income on a five per cent. basis. The policy moneys are included in the estate at death for charge to Estate Duty. The following tables, which include the Income Tax and Surtax payable, follow the examples given by the Committee and show for a married man, aged 45 years, with three children (A) with income all investment, and (B) with income half investment and half earned, the net annual payment required to meet the Estate Duty on death.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: No doubt a proportion of it is so invested, but I could not say how much.

  CONSUMERS' COUNCIL BILL.
  Mr. R. S. YOUNGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether since the publication of the Consumers' Council Bill, he has received any indications which may lead to reduction in prices in any of the commodities mentioned in the Bill?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am not sure what my hon. Friend has in mind, but at this very early stage price movements which could be connected with the publication of the Bill are hardly to be expected.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    SHIPPING RISKS, FIRTH OF FORTH.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that several vessels have recently gone ashore at the May Island, in the Firth of Forth, any inquiry has been instituted into the circumstances attending these cases, with the object of further minimising the risks of vessels running aground at the island in thick weather?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: All the cases, except that of a foreign trawler which was refloated, have been, or are being, inquired into, and the question whether steps can be taken with a view to reducing the risk of running ashore on the island, is being considered.
    Mr. MILLAR: In considering this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the setting up of a special gun or whistle at the North End because the fog horn on the South End is not heard there; and will he also consider furnishing a rocket apparatus for those in charge of the signals?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am impressed by the difficulty, especially within recent times, at this island, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take every proposal into review.

    LOAD LINE CONFERENCE.
    Sir B. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade what countries, if any, have declined the invitation of His Majesty's Government to send delegates to the International Load Line Conference in London on 20th May?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: We have not yet received replies from all the countries invited, but so far 17 countries have declined the invitation to participate in the Conference. I am circulating a list of these 17 countries in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The 17 countries in question are as follow:

    Albania.

    Lithuania.

    China.

    Liberia.

    Colombia.

    Newfoundland.

    Czechoslovakia.

    Persia.

    Dominica.

    Salvador.

    Ecuador.

    Siam.

    Egypt.

    Union of South Africa.

    Guatemala.

    Haiti.

    Venezuela.

    OFFICERS (CERTIFICATES OF COMPETENCY).
    Sir B. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that neither the master nor the navigating officer in charge of the British steamer "Seaforth," which was sunk after collision with the Spanish steamer "Cristina" on the 12th July last, held certificates of competency, whereas under Spanish law officers in charge of a watch must hold certificates of competency, he will consider the introduction of legislation to provide that officers of British merchant ships are in all cases required to hold a certificate of competency if in charge of a watch?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: This is one of the questions which will have to be reviewed when general legislation to amend the Merchant Shipping Act is under consideration.
    Sir B. PETO: Can the President of the Board of Trade say when the Bill will be introduced?
    Mr. GRAHAM: We are always reviewing these matters in the Department, but of course it will be quite impossible for me to indicate any date on which I could promise a Bill.

  FORESTRY COMMISSION (COTTAGES, NORFOLK).
  Mr. W. B. TAYLORasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what are the present rents charged for cottages in the Norfolk area under their control, and the rents which were charged prior to their taking over such cottages?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The standard rent for cottages on the Forestry Commission's Norfolk areas is 3s. per week. There is only one at a higher rent, namely, 3s. 10d., but there are a number of lower rents where the occupants are widows, pensioners or protected tenants. For such of the cottages as existed when the areas were acquired, the average rent was approximately 1s. 11d. per week, but many of the present cottages are new, and others have since been reconditioned.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by the term "protected tenants"?
  Mr. SMITH: I understand that it indicates that in some of these cases certain reservations are made in regard to rents.
  Mr. TAYLORasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners what cottages, if any, on their estates in Norfolk are let to persons of independent means owning property elsewhere?
  Mr. SMITH: The Commissioners know of none except cottages let with other property and those occupied by employés of tenants of sporting rights.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Does that mean that there are some which are let to people of independent means?
  Mr. SMITH: No, unless in special cases of letting them with farms—usually they are occupied by employés of the tenants of those farms—and also where sporting rights are let.
  Mr. TAYLOR: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that persons of independent means who acquire sporting rights may control the cottages?
  Mr. SMITH: That would be so if there were any cottages that went with them, but generally speaking there are none.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask the Prime Minister how far, in the event of the Motion standing in his name on the Paper being carried, he proposes to go to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Government's idea is to take the first four Orders, but I think that hon. Members will notice that, as regards the first two, there is really no controversial matter, and the subjects have already been discussed on Resolutions. The biggest item, of course, will be the Mental Treatment Bill, but in that case the objection is confined only to one or two, whose position, I think, has been more or less met as far as is reasonably possible. In the case of the Overseas Trade Bill, there are no Amendments on the Paper. There-
1634
fore, although there are four items, I hope that the House will regard them as non-contentious.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Would the right hon. Gentleman, for our convenience, state whether there is any change in his previous intention to take the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on Monday?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. I announced yesterday that the Finance Bill would be taken on Monday, and I did that, as a matter of fact, in order to give notice to the House lest there was a desire to make representations. I find that they have been made, with the result that there is an agreement all round that Tuesday would be a better day than Monday, and the Government are very happy indeed to confirm that.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I presume, therefore, that the Second Reading of the Bill will be taken on Wednesday night? Is that so?
The PRIME MINISTER: We are following exactly what happened in 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929 in giving one day for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. That has been done since and including 1925, except once, when there was no discussion on the Report stage of the Resolutions, and then another quarter of a day or half-day was given. Otherwise, it has been one day.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Will not the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the very great consequences of the present Budget, with its immense new impositions of taxation, and meet the general desire which I believe exists among the Opposition to have at least one day and a portion of another day for the discussion of such an important Measure?
The PRIME MINISTER: I doubt very much, if the right hon. Gentleman would throw his mind back to his own Budget of 1928, whether he would discover that there is more variety in this Budget than there was in his. We also then asked for an extra day, quite reasonably, I agree, but the Government would not give us it.
Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by the word "agree-

1635
ment"? There is no agreement over this question of the Finance Bill at all. I have to be very careful.
The PRIME MINISTER: It was an agreement that Tuesday would be more suitable than Monday. That is what I meant to say. Having announced it for Monday, there was an agreement that it had better be taken on Tuesday. That did not involve any agreement as to when the Division should be taken.
Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether in all the circumstances it would not be more convenient to give a further half-day for the Second Reading.? [Interruption.] I am asking the hon. Members' leader and not them. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that before Thursday?
The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very willing to consider it, but really I must say I can hold out no hope whatever that precedent will be departed from. We are working on what has been done since 1925, and including 1925, and I think it is very fair to the House, in view of the time that has been given to the Resolutions, to ask that the Bill should be taken on one day.
Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot he understood to assent in any way at this moment.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 153.

Division No. 289.]

AYES.

[3.53 p.m.

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

Elmley, Viscount

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

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

England, Colonel A.

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Kelly, W. T.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')

Foot, Isaac

Kennedy, Thomas

Alpass, J. H.

Forgan, Dr. Robert

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

Arnott, John

Freeman, Peter

Knight, Holford

Aske, Sir Robert

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Ayles, Walter

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Lathan, G.

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Barnes, Alfred John

Gill, T. H.

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Barr, James

Glassey, A. E.

Lawrence, Susan

Bellamy, Albert

Gossling, A. G.

Lawson, John James

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Gould, F.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

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

Leach, W.

Benson, G.

Gray, Milner

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Lees, J.

Blindell, James

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Groves, Thomas E.

Logan, David Gilbert

Bromley, J.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Longbottom, A. W.

Brothers, M.

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Longden, F.

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Lowth, Thomas

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Lunn, William

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Burgess, F. G.

Hardie, George D.

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

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

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Haycock, A. W.

McElwee, A.

Calne, Derwent Hall-

Hayday, Arthur

McKinlay, A.

Cameron, A. G.

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

MacLaren, Andrew

Cape, Thomas

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Charleton, H. C.

Herriotts, J.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Church, Major A. G.

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

McShane, John James

Clarke, J. S.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

Cluse, W. S.

Hoffman, P. C.

Mansfield, W.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Hollins, A.

March, S.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Hopkin, Daniel

Marley, J.

Cowan, D. M.

Horrabin, J. F.

Marshall, Fred

Daggar, George

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Mathers, George

Dallas, George

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Matters, L. W.

Dalton, Hugh

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Melville, Sir James

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Isaacs, George

Messer, Fred

Day, Harry

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Millar, J. D.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Johnston, Thomas

Montague, Frederick

Dickson, T.

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Dukes, C.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Morley, Ralph

Duncan, Charles

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

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Ede, James Chuter

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Edmunds, J. E.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pentypridd)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Mort, D. L.

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Moses, J. J. H.

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Sullivan, J.

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Muggeridge, H. T.

Sanders, W. S.

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

Nathan, Major H. L.

Sandham, E.

Thurtle, Ernest

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

Sawyer, G. F.

Tinker, John Joseph

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Scurr, John

Tout, W. J.

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Townend, A. E.

Palin, John Henry

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Paling, Wilfrid

Sherwood, G. H.

Turner, B.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Shield, George William

Vaughan, D. J.

Perry, S. F.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Viant, S. P.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Shillaker, J. F.

Walker, J.

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Shinwell, E.

Wallace, H. W.

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Watkins, F. C.

Pole, Major D. G.

Simmons, C. J.

Wellock, Wilfred

Potts, John S.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

West, F. R.

Price, M. P.

Sinkinson, George

Westwood, Joseph

Quibell, D. F. K.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

White, H. G.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Raynes, W. R.

Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Richards, R.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Snell, Harry

Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Ritson, J.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

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

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Romeril, H. G.

Sorensen, R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Rosbotham. D. S. T.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Rowson, Guy

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

William Whiteley.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Albery, Irving James

Elliot, Major Walter E.

O'Neill, Sir H.

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)

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

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Penny, Sir George

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

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Atkinson, C.

Ferguson, Sir John

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Fermoy, Lord

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Balniel, Lord

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Preston, Sir Walter Rueben

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Purbrick, R.

Beaumont, M. W.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Ramsbotham, H.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

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

Remer, John R.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

Bird, Ernest Roy

Gower, Sir Robert

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Ross, Major Ronald D.

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

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

Boyce, H. L.

Gritted, W. G. Howard

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bracken, B.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Salmon, Major I.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Brass, Captain Sir William

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

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Briscoe, Richard George

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

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

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Savery, S. S.

Buckingham, Sir H.

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

Simms, Major-General J.

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Haslam, Henry C.

Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)

Carver, Major W. H.

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Skelton, A. N.

Castle Stewart, Earl of

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

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Smithers, Waldron

Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)

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

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Hurd, Percy A.

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Stanley, Lord (Fyide)

Colfox, Major William Philip

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Colman, N. C. D.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

Colville, Major D. .

Lymington, Viscount

Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.

Courtauid, Major J. S.

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

Tinne, J. A.

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Macquisten, F. A.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Train, J.

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Meller, R. J.

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.

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

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

Warrender, Sir Victor

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Muirhead, A. J.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Eden, Captain Anthony

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

Wells, Sydney R.

1638

1639

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Sir Frederick Thomson.

Bill read a Second time.

SCOTTISH CENTRAL ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Lieut.-Colonel Sir Lambert Ward to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Local Authorities (Enabling) Bill and the Playing Fields (Exemption from Rating) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

COURTS OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS BILL,
"to provide for courts of domestic relations to deal with certain matrimonial cases," presented by Mr. Snell; supported by Mr. Walter Baker, Mr. Church, Mr. Llewellyn Jones, Dr. Phillips, Mrs. Hamilton, and Mr. Cecil Wilson; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 27th May, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Local Authorities (Enabling) Bill and the Playing Fields (Exemption from Rating) Bill): Mr. Cadogan, Mr. Compton, Captain Crookshank, Mr. Everard, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Hollins, Mr. Hurd, Miss Lawrence, Mr. Sandham, and Major Sir Archibald Sinclair.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
They have agreed to,—
Derby Corporation (Certified Bill), with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Middlesex County Council in reference to the completion of the North Circular
1640
Road, the acquisition of the Duke of Northumberland's River, and other matters; to enlarge the powers of the local authorities in the said county; and to make further provision for the health, local government, and improvement of the said county; and for other purposes." [Middlesex County Council Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the borough of Walsall; to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough to purchase and discontinue certain tramways in the borough of Wednesbury and the urban district of Darlaston connected with the tramways of the Walsall Corporation and to run omnibuses in substitution for the tramway services; to make other provision with regard to the omnibus undertaking of the Corporation; to authorise the purchase of lands for various purposes; to make further provision with regard to the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." [Walsall Corporation Bill. [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundary of the borough of West Bromwich; to empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough to purchase tramways outside the borough; to acquire lands; to make further provision with regard to their tramway and omnibus undertakings and the health, local government, and improvement of the borough; and for other purposes." [West Bromwich Corporation Bill [Lords].
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the boundaries of the borough of Wednesbury; to confer further powers on the Wednesbury Corporation; to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, and local government of the borough; and for other purposes." [Wednesbury Corporation Bill [Lords].
Derby Corporation Bill (Certified Bill),
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.
Middlesex County Council Bill [[Lords],
Walsall Corporation Bill [Lords],
West Bromwich Corporation Bill [Lords],
Wednesbury Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  AIR TRANSPORT (SUBSIDY AGREEMENTS) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The purpose of this Bill is to give the President of the Air Council, the Secretary of State for Air for the time being, statutory authority to enter into long-term agreements to spend by way of subsidies up to £1,000,000 in any year for the next 10 years. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to make these agreements for the purpose of civil air transport, whatever policy may be adopted, although no change of policy is anticipated. The Bill simply regularises the position regarding these agreements where previously there was some slight doubt. I would like to point out to the House that there is no proposal to give the President of the Air Council an open cheque limited to £1,000,000—if the House will excuse an Irishism—for the expenditure of that amount on subsidies. The amount is entirely a covering amount, and is a gross figure. It includes Appropriations-in-Aid, for instance, in the case of the Cape to Cairo service. I might mention that these Appropriations will amount to more than 68 per cent. of the cost of subsidies. It will be seen, therefore, that it will be quite impossible, at any rate for some years, for the President of the Air Council to spend the whole subsidies or even as much as the £1,000,000, except in so far as those subsidies do include these particular Appropriations. The covering figure of £1,000,000 is estimated in the light of possible and hoped-for future developments in civil aviation.
  As we had a very full Debate upon the Financial Resolution, the ground being very fully covered, and I made a fairly long statement in moving the Financial Resolution and in replying to the Debate, I hope that we may have the Second Reading of this Bill without undue expenditure of time, particularly as I believe it to be in essence a Bill that is agreed to by all sections of the House.
  Sir SAMUEL HOARE: On the Financial Resolution of this Bill I ventured to make the criticism that it was unnecessary to ask the House to give the Air Ministry powers it already possesses. This afternoon, I do not propose to return to that line of criticism, but to make one or two observations upon other aspects raised by the Bill. First, let me congratulate the Under-Secretary and the Government upon yet another example of their their flight from Free Trade. Here we see the Government doubling the subsidies, or, anyhow, enabling the Secretary of State for Air to double the subsidies to a new infant industry, the air transport industry. What a curious example of the confused economical theories in which the Government have lost themselves! To-day they ask the House to give them authority to double these protective subsidies for air transport, at the very time when they are proposing to take away not dissimilar help from other industries such as the lace industry in Nottingham. But to-day I do not linger upon that side of the question, and I do not desire to be drawn into it any further.
  The Bill, as the Under-Secretary has just said, empowers the Secretary of State for Air to make long-term agreements for the support of air transport with a maximum expenditure of £1,000,000 a year. That is to say, we are asked to-day, if not to authorise the expenditure of £1,000,00C a year, at any rate to envisage the possibility of an expenditure of £1,000,000 a year during the next 10 years. In the present Air Estimates the actual expenditure that we have been asked to vote amounts only to £428,000. If, therefore, the Bill becomes law, an expenditure is contemplated of more than double that amount. I am glad to think that the Government and the Treasury now contemplate so great an increase to the expenditure in support of civil air transport.
  This afternoon, I want the Under-Secretary of State for Air and those Members of the House who are particularly interested in the question of civil aviation, to ask themselves the question how this great increase in civil aviation expenditure is actually going to be spent during the period of time in which this Bill gives the Secretary of State for Air power to make agreements with air transport

  1657
  companies. I imagine that the Government, by inserting the figure of £1,000,000 in the Bill, and I imagine that the Air Ministry, by accepting that figure, have in their minds some definite view as to how this money is likely to be expended. This afternoon I should like to ask the Under-Secretary some rather more detailed questions than we were able to ask on the Financial Resolution, and to let him take the House into his confidence as to what lines of policy are behind the actual terms of this Bill. For instance, I should like him to tell the House what new air lines he has in his mind as fitting objects for the increase in subsidy that is contemplated under the Bill? At present, the Imperial Airways Company has a monopoly of subsidy, if not a monopoly of operation, over the main European lines, over the line to India and over the contemplated line to Cape Town. I imagine that the Government have no intention of breaking the agreement that at present exists with the company, and that, therefore, they do not contemplate, under this Bill, subsidising other services upon these three main Imperial Airways lines. But I should like, before the end of the Debate, the Under-Secretary to give us a definite answer upon that point.
  Then, assuming that there is no intention of subsidising services over lines that are already subsidised, are there any other services that the Government actually have in mind at the present time? For instance, one of my hon. Friends the other day asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what was the intention of the Government in connection with the proposed civil air service in the West Indies. The Under-Secretary said that, unfortunately, the West Indies were very hard up, and while the Government viewed the project with sympathy, little or nothing could be actually done for that service. It is rather hard that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should leave the West Indies to drift on towards bankruptcy, should suggest no possibility of helping their finances, and yet the Under-Secretary comes down here and says that, because the West Indies are so hard up, they can do nothing for this West Indian line. In any case, we should like to hear, before the end of the Debate, in some-what greater detail than we heard the
  1658
  other day, what really the Government do intend to do with a service that has now been under consideration for a great many years.
  Then there is a second suggestion, which has been made many times in the past, to start an air service to South Africa, not along the central or eastern routes, but along the western route, and to take on its way the West African Dependencies of the British Empire—a very useful service, and a flying line already opened some years ago by Sir Alan Cobham. Will the Under-Secretary tell us during the Debate whether this is one of the lines that it is contemplated to subsidise when the Government have their powers of spending twice the amount of subsidies which they possess to-day?
  There is a third line about which I should like to ask for some information, for it raises a point of a different kind. Do the Government under this Bill contemplate subsidising air lines outside the British Empire? I mean by that, do they contemplate subsidising an air line like the air line across the Southern Atlantic from this country to South America? From the point of view of trade and traffic, there is a great deal to be said for subsidising a service of that kind, and I should very much like to hear the views of the Government upon the subject during the course of this Debate.
  There is the question which was raised at some length by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the Financial Resolution of subsidising internal air lines in Great Britain. I have never disguised that I have never thought that, when there is only a limited amount of money at the disposal of the Air Ministry, it is wise to attempt to subsidise short distance air lines over these shores when it is remembered that they would have such keen competition with other highly developed methods of transport. But now they are contemplating an expenditure of twice the present amount of expenditure in civil aviation, I should like to hear the views of the hon. Member upon the question. It may be that now we contemplate spending twice the amount of money on civil subsidies, there may be an opportunity of subsidising a line, say, for instance, between Ireland

  1659
  and Liverpool and London, for which I have always thought there is some justification. It may now be possible to contemplate a line of that kind when within an expenditure of £300,000 or £400,000 a year such a project would have been impracticable.
  I am sorry to weary the hon. Member with so many questions, but they all bear very directly upon the considerations raised by this Bill. There is the question of air transport by airship. The hon. Member told us the other day upon the Financial Resolution that it was contemplated in the Resolution and under the Bill, supposing a practicable project came forward, to include subsidies to airships in this general authority, the Subsidies to Air Transport. I am aware that as far as airships are concerned we are still in the experimental stage. The two airships upon which we have spent so large a sum of money and to which we have devoted so much research work and so many operational experiments during the last five or six years are only now taking their first flights. I understand, however, that in the next few months it is proposed that one of them should fly across the Atlantic to Canada and that the other should make a flight to India. Like every Member of the House, I hope that the experiment is going to succeed. I hope that these flights are going to be carried out with safety and comfort, and I agree that even after these flights a further series of experimental flights will have to be arranged.
  But I should like to ask the Under-Secretary to-day, for I suppose he has a clear objective in his mind as to the airship policy in the future, what he intends to be the next stage? Supposing these experiments succeed—and I am one of those who believe they are going to succeed—what is going to be the next step? We want to avoid a gap between the experimental stage and the operational stage of a regular airship service. How does he propose to bridge that gulf and how does he propose to bring airships, as he suggested the other day upon the Financial Resolution, into the scope of this Bill?
  When I was at the Air Ministry I had always contemplated that as soon as the experimental flights had been completed we should do everything in our power
  1660
  to transfer airship development to commercial interests. It seemed to me that when an enterprise was as new and uncharted, as was the development of airships, the sooner the Government could get out of it and the sooner private enterprise could come into it the better for everyone concerned, and the more likely that the experiment would succeed. I therefore contemplated that about the stage that has now been reached in airship development we should begin to consider the possibility of creating an Empire Airship Transport Company. I say particularly an Empire company. I am sure that everyone who has studied the question of airships will agree with me that it is most important to spread the expense and the knowledge and experience as wide as possible, otherwise the overhead charges of an airship service will be so great that I am very much afraid that no single company will be prepared to face them. It costs a sum of about £150,000 to build an airship shed and it costs about £75,000 to build an airship mast. Overhead charges are so high that they would weigh down any airship service that was started upon a narrow foundation. I hoped, therefore, to do what was possible to start an Empire airship service for regular airship transport between London and the Dominions and between one Dominion and another. I would like to ask the Under-Secretary of State to-day whether that still is the general policy of the Air Ministry under this Bill, and, if it is not the general policy under this Bill, what is their policy for the next stage in airship development?
  Important as these specific questions are in connection with air transport and in connection with the authority which the Government are asking under this Bill, they do not seem to be as important as one or two questions of an even more general character. The Bill envisages a period of 10 years. Ten years may seem a comparatively short time but it is a very long time in the history of aviation. It is about half the whole period of the life of air transport. During the last 10 years we have seen many startling changes in the field of air transport. What kind of changes do the Government contemplate are going to take place in the next 10 years during the existence of this Bill? At present we have a limited number of civil air liners plying regularly over two or three air lines.

  1661
  They have built up for themselves in the country and in the world a remarkable good will. They have a fine record for regularity, punctuality and safety, but no one, not even the keenest adherent of civil air transport—and I would venture to number myself amongst the keen adherents of air transport—would say that we should be satisfied with the present state of affairs or that the experiments we have made during the last two years justify us in saying that air transport has revolutionised the whole system of Empire transport. We have built the foundations. We have gone, on the whole, slow. I think that in the early days we were wise in going slow. We first had to show to the world that an aeroplane could start definitely at a regular time and that it could carry passengers and freight comfortably to a given destination, and return to these shores at a regular and definite time. But that is only the first stage in the enterprise upon which we are engaged. I should be very sorry if, during the years contemplated under this Bill, the progress of the next 10 years proved to be as slow as the progress of the last 10 years.
  So far we have had what I thought was wise in the early days of civil air transport—a system of monopoly. We found that when the Government were subsidising a number of civil air transport companies all that they were doing was subsidising competition against themselves. I therefore had no doubt during the time that I was responsible at the Air Ministry that in the early days of the development of civil air transport this system of monopoly was the wisest system, and I was supported by the fact that most of the countries of Europe had in recent years followed our example. But I am most anxious during the next 10 years that the existence of this monopoly should not mean monotony, and that the fact that we have concentrated on one or two specific points should not mean that during the next 10 years there should not be a greater variety of operations and a greater diversity of experiment than has been possible in the last 10 years. Let me suggest to the Under-Secretary certain ways in which I believe this increased expenditure could be well devoted to stimulating variety and diversity for insuring a much quicker progress during the next 10 years than has been possible in the last 10 years.
  1662
  At present there are about 30 British air liners flying backwards and forwards between certain given points carrying passengers, mails and freight. They carry them at no very great speed, the average speed is something under 100 miles an hour. Although great improvements have been made in recent years they do not carry passengers in any great comfort as compared with a modern train or an Atlantic liner. They are still noisy, the cabins are narrow, and there is the inconvenience—a very difficult matter inded, I admit—that the aerodrome is very often a long way from the point to which the passengers are going. I should be very sorry if all that happened as a result of this Bill was a doubling of the subsidy to existing services and that this state of affairs, although it compares well with systems in other parts of the world, should jog on during the next 10 years without any material change. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that with the greater powers behind him, and in view of the fact that the Treasury contemplate the possibility of spending more than double the amount we are spending now, he should devote a substantial part of this sum to the encouragement of new experiments with a view to trying out, first, new kinds of service and, secondly, new methods of operation.
  Let me take, first, new methods of operation. I suggest that he would be very wise to devote a substantial amount to encouraging diversities of types of machines and diversities of services. Now we have a general omnibus machine attempting to carry out duties of all kinds. The Under-Secretary will do well to make the experiment and differentiate between passenger services and mail services upon some given line. The existing machines only go 100 miles an hour, they travel by stages of not more than 300 and 400, at the utmost 500 miles, and they do not fly by night. From the point of view of the mail services, the post is not gaining the advantages which it really might gain under a much quicker kind of service. The Under-Secretary would do well to devote some of this money to an experiment on mail services with small, quick machines, which go at the pace of several of the military machines now actually in service and on which I have made many long distance flights. They

  1663
  should travel at the rate of not less than 150 miles an hour, for longer stages of 700 miles, instead of 300 or 400 miles; and, let me point this out, that you will avoid some of the complications connected with landing in foreign countries if you have these longer stages, and they should fly by night, which is very important. With a service of that kind, exclusively for mails, tried out experimentally under this Bill, it would be found that mails could be taken to and from India in about 36 hours instead of the six, seven or eight days now taken by the passenger service. Further, if a similar mail-carrying experiment was tried in the case of South Africa, I believe it would be possible to take British mails to South Africa and bring the South African mail back here in not more than 72 hours for each journey. That is a valuable experiment, and I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us that it is one of the experiments contemplated under this Bill now that there is more money at the disposal of the Air Ministry.
  There is a further side to this problem. Just as I would try out an experiment with mail carrying so I would try out an experiment for making passenger lines a great deal more attractive and popular than they are at the present time. Only a limited number of men and women travel on air liners and, although improvement has been made, the number of passengers is still a great deal less than many of us hoped would have been the case. With these increased subsidies it would be extremely wise to insist upon the development of much bigger and more comfortable passenger machines than are at present in operation. We have now a good deal of data at our disposal upon the question of passenger machines and the time has come when experiments might be made with an air line for instance down the West Coast of Africa by big flying boats, in which we can offer much greater advantages to the ordinary passenger by air than have been possible during the last few years. I say particularly by flying boats. I know that it is a question of controversy between experts, but I have always thought that the really big machine of the next 10 years will be a flying boat rather than a land machine.
  1664
  During the time I was at the Air Ministry, we built one or two big land machines and we were always faced with the practical difficulty of their great weight and the strain upon the wheels when they landed, and with the difficulty of finding land aerodromes sufficiently big for really large machines to land and take off. Side by side with these experiments we made other experiments with bigger flying boats, and I think we have now sufficient data to make a really long step forward, perhaps not during next year but at any rate during the period in which this Bill will be in operation. I should like to see this experimental passenger service started down the West Coast of Africa—I take that as a useful and practicable kind of service—with flying boats that will take nut 10 or 12 people, but 30 or 40, and at the end of 10 years, an even greater number of passengers.
  Further, and this is the last suggestion I shall make to the House, there is the problem which I hope will not be ignored when the Government comes to decide the allocation of the subsidies under this Bill, and that is the problem of getting the ordinary passenger from the capital, from London for instance, to the point where the machine is actually going to start upon its long distance Empire service. It may be said that if the development of the next 10 years is going to be to a large extent upon the really big flying boat that the inconvenience to the ordinary passenger will be greater in the future than in the past, and that instead of having to go by car from London to Croydon, he will have to go to Southampton, or Liverpool, or Portsmouth, or whichever port from which the flying boat service actually starts. I am aware of that difficulty, and I suggest to the Under-Secretary that under these subsidies he should find a place for experimenting with air taxis, a small machine, with great controllability, which can rise and descend in a very small space, and which could take a passenger from the centre of a great city to the aerodrome or the port from which the long distance service actually starts.
  So constantly has this side of the subject been in my mind that for several years I took a close interest in the development of various experimental

  1665
  machines that might, if the experiment were successful, be extremely useful as air taxis, flying for services such as I have mentioned. For instance, there is the machine known as the autogyro which can rise and descend almost vertically, and which might make possible an air taxi service between London and the port of emigration. We have already shown in the Fleet air arm that it is possible for high speed machines to land safely and take off from the deck of ships themselves going at great speed. The problem of flying an autogyro in a comparatively small space in the centre of London, and landing again when the autogyro returns in the same spot, is really a much simpler problem than that of landing a high speed Fleet bomber on the floating deck of an aircraft carrier. I suggest, therefore, that the Air Ministry will be wise to contemplate a substantial expenditure upon further experiments with machines such as the autogyro.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: How would the right hon. Gentleman make the experiment?
  Sir S. HOARE: I would make the experiment by actually making the service. I do not think a single experiment would be sufficient. I would also suggest that with such questions as the future of Charing Cross bridge and Charing Cross railway station coming up for consideration, he should, in connection with the future of air transport, make strong representations to the Ministry of Transport and to the various authorities concerned that an opportunity should be given for the construction of some big flat roof, or other space which would make possible such an air taxi service as I have mentioned.
  I have purposely covered a wide field in dealing with this Bill, because it is a Bill which envisages expenditure not for this year or for next year but for a period as long as 10 years. It is vitally important that every Member of the House who is interested in the development of civil aviation should ask himself how he thinks that development should take place, and how that money can be most wisely spent during the 10 years in which the Act will be in operation. What I want to avoid, and what I believe every hon. Member wants to avoid, is civil aviation subsidies degenerating into
  1666
  nothing more than a dole to keep alive one, two or more civil transport companies during a period of years, and then as the 10 years run out, the Air Minister of the day, whoever he may be, coming here and saying: "I must have another 10 years' Act, and I must have another long period of subsidies, because we are no further on towards making civil aviation self-supporting than we were when the subsidies started."
  In a matter of this kind we have to take a long view of the future and to insist, in the interests of the taxpayers and of every one who is really keen about civil aviation, that this money which we are asked to authorise to-day should be used not as a dole for keeping alive this or that air transport company, but as a temporary stimulus which year after year will help to make civil air transport more self-supporting, so that at the end of the period no further subsidies will be needed. To-day, we have much data upon which we can base our views of the future. We have a very good record in the field of operations. We stand perhaps the highest in the world in the matter of safety and reliability. We have first class ground organisation over the routes already in existence, and we have the best pilots in the world. What we wish to see is a development upon these foundations which, during the next 10 years, will make progress much faster than has been possible in the first chapter of the history of civil flying, so that at the end of the 10 years no further Bill will be necessary, and civil aviation will be economic and paying for itself without Government subsidy.
  Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: I was very glad that the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) did not pursue the argument that the subsidy to air transport was analogous to the safeguarding of the lace industry, and compel me to point out the complete absence of any analogy between the subsidisation of air transport and the Nottingham by-election. The right hon. Gentleman asked certain very pertinent questions. He asked us to consider what is going to be the development of air transport in the next 10 years. That is the important question to which we have to turn our minds to-day, and on which we have to press the Under-Secretary of State to give us some indication of what is in the

  1667
  minds of the Air Ministry. I do not think that anyone on either side of the House will oppose this Bill. The Bill gives the Government power to enter into contracts for the next 10 years, amounting to £1,000,000 a year. Many of us have consistently urged that, in the development of air work, where you are developing a new service and a new industry you must have long-term contracts. For that reason, I am sure that the settlement of orders spread over a long period—it might also apply to military aviation with very great benefit—will be of great benefit to trade and industry.
  We want to know to-day, on broad lines, what are the future developments on heavier-than-air lines that the Air Ministry have in mind, what increase, if any, there is to be of the subsidies to the existing contractors, the Imperial Airways, and what new air lines the Air Ministry expect to be put into operation during the next 10 years. Further, how much of this £10,000,000 is to be devoted to lighter-than-air craft? I have seen no indication in what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, or in the remarks made during the discussion on the Financial Resolution a few days ago, of any great development in regard to heavier-than-air craft. On the Air Estimates, a few months ago, I pointed out that we were losing our position in many quarters of the globe where air transport is going to be a subject of tremendous development. For example, in South America and also in the United States of America they are running regular passenger services practically round the whole continent, certainly round South America. There are French and German companies already there, but there is not a single British company and, as far as I am aware, there is not a single attempt being made for British companies to operate in South America.
  Then there is the route to the Far East. It is in these long-distance routes that the greatest development in aircraft is going to take place. I have always contended that there is very little value in developing the route between London and Paris. There is no time factor of any value in that service, but when you get to these long-distance routes, you get tremendous advantage in the time factor
  1668
  by the development of such routes. As far as the routes to the Far East are concerned, either across Siberia or any extension of the routes to India, either Russian and German services in the first case, or French services in the other, are getting in first, and in fact are the only companies in the field. There is another recent development which I should like the Under-Secretary to consider, and that is the transatlantic route. We cannot fly across the Atlantic regularly with heavier-than-air craft, and airships are not likely to fly across the Atlantic regularly for years, if ever they do fly regularly across the Atlantic.
  The use of aircraft in connection with transatlantic steamship services means a saving in time of many hours. That service is already being operated by other countries. Over a year ago the French Messageries Maritimes first carried out experiments on these lines, and only last week it was announced that two of the latest Atlantic liners, the Bremen and the Europa, intend to make this a regular practice in their translatlantic service. When their ships arrive 300 miles west of Lands End they will launch aeroplanes as a regular part of the routine service. These aeroplanes will deliver mails in Berlin, and will also stop at the air station in Southampton, with the result that they will probably be two days ahead of the mail service delivered by the liner itself. What is the Air Ministry doing about this service? Is it in touch with any of the great British steamship companies? Has the Air Minister approached the Cunard Line or the White Star Line to see whether anything can be done with regard to the existing ships of those lines, or is he getting into touch with those companies to see whether in the new ships that both companies are laying down—the gigantic ocean Leviathans of 50,000 or more tons which are reported to be about to be laid down—something can be incorporated in their design to admit of aeroplanes flying from the ships as part of their regular routine when they arrive 300 or 400 miles from this country?
  What is the policy of the Air Ministry in regard to the air routes already in operation? Take the India route. The right hon. Member for Chelsea, quite rightly, paid tribute to the regularity with which the India route is being operated,

  1669
  but anyone who examines the figures cannot fail to see that the India route is doing very badly, commercially. The gain to commercial interests in Bombay and Calcutta is not sufficiently good to justify the payment of the extra money, and there have been far too many accidents, far too many breakdowns, due, I believe, to the fact that I pointed out in this House two years ago, that there are inadequate machines and pilots on this route. There is nothing experimental in the development of air routes. It is more or less purely a question of money. We have machines that can fly under almost any conditions, that will carry any sort of load, passengers or goods, that will fly by night as well as day; we have seaplanes, we have plant for every purpose, and the only factors that are preventing development over the new routes in South America or new routes across Siberia or in continuation of the India route are not technical difficulties but the initiatve of the Air Ministry and the spending of money.
  5.0 p.m.
  Before we give the Air Ministry sanction to enter into contracts amounting to £1,000,000 a year for 10 years, we ought to know what new routes the Air Ministry have in contemplation, and what increases they contemplate in the existing routes in order to make them more useful to the commercial and private people who use them—particularly the routes to India and Australia—has the Air Ministry in contemplation. We ought to be told also what has happened to the Consultative Committee. Last year that Committee was appointed—I think the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) is a member of the Committee—to go into the whole question of civil air transport. What has that Committee done? What conclusions have they come to? Have they presented a report to the Air Ministry and, if so, will the report be published? If they have been examining this question they must have produced by this time a very useful report. It seems rather strange and treating the matter hardly seriously that one member of the Committee, the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) should have been appointed to another Commission, which necessitated spending his time in Palestine. It
  1670
  seemed to those of us who are outside, that the Civil Aviation Consultative Committee were not really treating the matter seriously.
  There is an even more serious question to which I would call attention, and that is the amount of money which the Air Ministry intend to spend upon lighter-than-air craft in the next 10 years. My suspicions that the Air Ministry have a policy in mind in this respect are confirmed by a report which appeared in the official organ of the Government this morning—The "Daily Herald." My hon. Friends will agree that the "Daily Herald" is never wrong, that it is always accurate in what it puts forward. I find from the "Daily Herald" this morning that the Government is about to launch into a new airship policy. They are going to build a new airship, to be called R.102, which will be bigger and faster than the other two airships, and they are going to start a new method of airship mooring masts. I have been always suspicious that the Air Ministry were contemplating some development of this sort, and now we have confirmation of it.
  Before we pass the Second Reading of this Bill, we ought to know a great deal more about the details of the airship programme which is being prepared. If we are going to launch out into a seven million cubic feet airship, that money is going to be poured down the sink. The right hon. Member for Chelsea spoke about R.100 and R.101 as being in the experimental stage. I think that is quite true. It is also quite true to say that anyone who looks upon the airship question with an unbiased mind must realise that R.100 and R.101 are failures, both commercially and technically. They are failures commercially, because they cannot carry a load which will make them pay commercially.
  That would not matter if these two airships were likely to be of any benefit from the technical point of view, but those of us who have watched their development must realise that R.100 and R.101 are also failures technically. For instance, they are unable to fly fast enough to enable them to make any long-distance flight with success in any wind other than a light breeze or a dead calm. What is the good of an airship of that sort to take out for commercial purposes?

  1671
  Moreover they cannot get out of their sheds except when it is practically a flat calm. As we saw the other day, when there was little wind, one of the airships at Cardington was damaged when being brought out of its shed. They cannot land, except at two or three places in the world, where mooring masts costing £75,000 have been erected. In that respect, they are very far behind the German Zeppelin airship, which will land anywhere where there are landing facilities.
  If anyone doubts that these two airships are a failure, I would remind them that the man who designed the airships and who was responsible for energising three Governments to spend over £2,000,000 on these airships has now turned King's evidence, and has described the failure of these two airships in a book which he has written. No one could be a better judge of their possibilities than the man who designed them and forced three Governments to spend over £2,000,000 in putting his policy into operation. He, surely, is the one man who ought to know. What does he say? He says that these airships are failures, and that the public ought to realise that they are failures, and face the fact. He says that the only possibility of building an airship with any chance of success is to build an airship twice the size of R.100 and R.101—an airship of 10,000,000 cubic feet capacity, and invent an entirely new method of mooring them, something like a floating dock. I understand, according to the report which appears in the newspaper this morning and according to my own inside information, that some of the Air Ministry experts agree with Commander Sir Denistoun Burney. They agree that the present airships are failures and that you must start again and build airships very much bigger.
  The difference of opinion between the Air Ministry experts and Sir Denistoun Burney is this, that the Air Ministry know that they cannot come before this House and ask for approval to build a 10,000,000 cubic feet airship, because that means rebuilding all the airship sheds all over the world, but they realise that you can probably get a 7,000,000 cubic feet airship inside the existing sheds so long as the wind does not blow or, at any rate, does not blow in the wrong direc-
  1672
  tion. Therefore, I understand that the Air Ministry are in favour of going on with a scheme half-way between an airship which has been proved a failure and the airship which Sir Denistoun Burney thinks will be a success. In other words, the Air Ministry are proposing to build very soon, when they can get approval, a 7,000,000 cubic feet airship. I suggest that one of the reasons for scrapping the old programme and saying that they have achieved certain results by the experiments and then putting forward a new proposal, is in order to carry on the bluff for another two or three years. There is no justification whatever for launching out in this way, and I hope that before the House passes the Second Reading of this Bill enabling the Air Ministry to enter into contracts for the spending of £10,000,000 of public money during the next 10 years, we shall get an assurance that no policy of the sort I have mentioned is contemplated.
  The Air Ministry has what I might call the airship complex. It is advised on these matters by interested people. It turns to people who are doing very well in the development of airships within the limited resources they have at their disposal. I pay them full compliment for what they have done at Cardington and Howden, but they are fighting against forces which they cannot overcome, and I suggest again, as I have suggested before, that before any more money is spent on these gas bags the Air Ministry ought to take outside technical advice. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will review the whole position before the Bill is read a Second time. We must know what is in his mind in regard to heavier-than-air craft. What new routes does he propose? On what increased augmentation of existing routes is the money to be spent? What is the Air Ministry's view about the future of airships, or lighter-than-air craft? Before we give the powers that are asked for in this Bill we want to be quite certain that this country is getting its money's worth out of expenditure upon a service which is going to develop the facilities for trade and commerce and to be a big factor in bringing the nations of the world together.
  Viscount LYMINGTON: When the Under-Secretary of State moved the Second Reading of the Bill, his words

  1673
  were that "no change of policy is remotely anticipated." One could not help feeling, when we are asked to authorise the spending of something double the amount that is being spent to-day, that that announcement of the hon. Member calls for thorough examination.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: When I referred to no change of policy, I meant no change of policy in regard to subsidies, which is all that this Bill has to do with.
  Viscount LYMINGTON: I accept the hon. Member's explanation and apologise if I misconstrued his statement. At the same time when we are discussing the Second Reading of this Bill, one cannot but feel that when history is written we may be blessed for some of the things that we have done, and it is very likely that prayers will not be offered for our sins of commission but because we did not know what we might have done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) showed an enormous appreciation in his wide survey of the possibilities of air development which may take place, and which we ought to investigate from every point of view, and in regard to which we have a right to an answer from the Under-Secretary of State. Up to date we have gone, as we have done on a great many other things, much on the lines of least resistance. When we started an aeroplane service it was between London and Paris. Then it went from London to Switzerland, then from Switzerland, and finally to India, and now the talk is of extending it, a little late in the day, I cannot help thinking, from India to Australia.
  We have never, as it were, taken the sphere of the world and put our fingers upon the points of strategically-known commercial communications and said: "There, and there and there are the lines upon which the world's air communications are going to develop, and that is where we want to get in first." Take the island's between Australia and India, or take the air communications of the West Indies, which were referred to the other day by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). It is obvious that the great commercial communication lines of the future must centre on such islands as these, situated as they are between great continents and between great com-
  1674
  mercial centres. It is worth while risking more money and applying more money to envisage, with real imagination, some hope for the future, to get an air service where we in this country will have been the pioneers and will have had the first whack of prosperity that may be coming.
  The right hon. Member for Chelsea also pointed out the complexity of air services, and the hon. Member who has just sat down did the same thing. When I started farming, I thought there was such a thing as a dual purpose cow, and that she could be milked and fattened. I gradually found, to my cost, that there are two lines of development—beef and milk. When you come to aeroplanes, you cannot really make an effective compromise, except at a great price, to get an air service that will both carry passengers and mails with equal success, and the price is not worth paying. In America, to-day there are immense developments purely and entirely on the principle of paying for your mail rather than your passengers. For instance, this summer I wanted, in a hurry, to get from Chicago to New York. One would have thought these great cities would be the first cities in America to encourage passenger service. Such a service was not in existence, and they would not carry passengers on their air mail service. The air mail service went there coûte que coûte, and they did not take the risk of carrying passengers. Right through America they have an enormous commercial air mail service flying by night, flying under all conditions and in all weathers, with the routes lit from start to finish.
  For these reasons, we have a right to know whether there is any idea in the mind of the Under-Secretary of State for development not necessarily in this country but throughout the countries where we have the right to fly and a right to demand a future for civil aviation. Canada has not been mentioned to-day. Surely, Canada, as a link between the Far East and ourselves, is a country where there is more need, because there are fewer road communications and fewer rail communications, than in any other of our Dominions, for a great air service and a great air policy. Here is a chance for us to step in, and to step in with imagination, with the help of the Canadians. The Canadians we have

  1675
  just heard to our gratitude have given us an enormous preference in their tax arrangements. We are debarred, through various ca-uses into which one need not enter, from giving them anything like the same preference in our trade, but we can, with a view to developing our air transport subsidise Canadian and British air services and help to establish commercial communications over the whole of that vast hinterland in the North of Canada, which is largely forest and lake, and where air communications is, to-day, practically the only possible means of communicating with efficiency and speed.
  There is another point of view which has not been stressed and that is the desirability not only of getting into the air services of the world but of getting in with machines of our own manufacture. To-day we have the reputation of building machines as good as any in the world, and there is a great opportunity here—just as was the case with the motor industry 20 years ago—for expansion and for finding new avenues of employment for our people. It is worth while considering a system of subsidies directed towards the factory just as much as towards the actual manipulation of the air services. We should encourage the development of the mass production of commercial aircraft. Mr. Ford has seen the possibilities of mass production in America, and there are also great possibilities for us in regard to the mass production of aeroplanes to provide the means of intercommunication in such places as the North of Canada. If we step in now, we might develop an industry there far greater than we could ever have at home. At home we have telephone lines, and electric power lines running Criss-cross all over the country; we have high hedges, small fields and a foggy climate, all of which militate against what is called, in the jargon of the times "air mindedness." I cannot help feeling that our air power of the future must lie outside as well as inside this country and in the linking up of the scattered parts of the Empire throughout the world. Our great merchant navy has become absolutely necessary to us as a people dependent on imports and surely the time is not far off when a great merchant air navy will be just as necessary to us.
  1676
  It has been reckoned that if one takes the coast lines which the British Empire has to defend, and the lines of communication which we have to maintain for commercial purposes, our naval needs are equal to those of the United States, France, Italy and Japan combined. That there may be various fallacies in the reckoning I am willing to admit, but that that sort of comparison is at all possible in the case of the Navy, surely makes it imperative that we should look to the future and to the time when it will be necessary for our air service to be developed as highly as our great merchant navy is developed to-day. We have been told, rightly, that safety and reliability are the key-notes of the air service which we have already built up. To-day we have some 28 machines as our commercial air fleet. We have an airship tied by a nose-ring to a post, like a bull at a fair—or two airships—but that is the total of which we can boast to-day. When we look at the enormous developments which have taken place in Europe, the United States and South America during the last year or two, surely it seems time that we added to the motto of "safety and reliability" that of "adventure and foresight."
  Major MILNER: A few questions arise in connection with this Bill, concerning which many hon. Members on this side of the House would like further information. I understand that the Bill proposes to pay subsidies and "to furish facilities" to those "persons" who enter into agreements to run regular services of aircraft. Are these subsidies to be limited to private enterprise—to companies and individuals who run these services—or have the Government any idea of public or semi-public services to which such subsidies will also be paid? There is no definition of "persons" in the Bill. For instance, have the Government any idea of setting up an organisation on the lines of the British Broadcasting Corporation, or is it merely proposed to subsidise those organisations which are at present running aircraft services? The obligation to pay subsidies is, apparently, limited to those who run services. There appears to be no provision for local authorities who are willing, at considerable expense, to provide aerodromes. At present many municipal authorities are keen to have their cities in the fore-

  1677
  front of developments in flying, but the only help which the Air Ministry gives is to extend advice and technical assistance. We know that the Director of Civil Aviation is active in going round the country and "boosting" flying, and endeavouring, quite properly, to prevail on local authorities to provide aerodromes. In point of fact, at the present moment there does not appear to be a sufficient number of people sufficiently interested in flying to take advantage of these aerodromes if they are provided.
  I should like to know if these subsidies are also to be made available to local authorities who, if not willing to provide regular services, are at any rate willing to provide aerodromes? For a good many months the councils of Leeds and Bradford have been desirous of providing an aerodrome. The Air Ministry have advised as to a site and, indeed, have promised to license more than one site. The advice of Sir Alan Cobham and other authorities has also been obtained, and the hesitation of the municipality is due solely to the fact that financial conditions in that part of the country are not good and it is doubtful whether the provision of £20,000 or more is worth while in the present stage of aviation development. If these subsidies could be made available for local authorities, I am sure that development would proceed more quickly. Then I should like to ask, if these subsidies are to be given only to private enterprise, what control will the Air Ministry exercise over the companies or individuals running these services? Do they propose to lay down conditions, and, if so, what are the conditions?
  One knows that at present subsidies are being paid to limited companies carrying on flying services in this country, and I understand that the Air Ministry have very little control over those companies. Those companies are offering wholly inadequate terms to local authorities in respect of the provision of aerodromes. Apparently they are only willing to pay a rent of 2 per cent. or something of that sort, and, as regards the provision of buildings, they are only willing to pay the municipalities some 4 per cent. of the sum which the municipalities have to put down to provide the buildings. If subsidies are going to be given, will the Air Ministry have some
  1678
  control over these concerns and will they be in a position to insist upon these concerns making fair bargains with local authorities? That is the essential thing to my mind.
  I should also like to know if it is the policy of tine Air Minister to license aerodromes, however close together they may be, or do they exercise some control in regard to the provision of aerodromes so that there shall not be competition between neighbouring authorities? I suggest to the Under-Secretary that it would be right and proper, and would meet with favour from the greater portion of the membership of this House, if we had some indication that the Ministry intended to ensure greater public control than exists at present in these matters. Such an indication would encourage a good many of us to vote for these subsidies to private concerns even in the present stage of the development of flying. I think it is the general desire that the Ministry should exercise adequate and proper control in the interests of all those with whom these companies have to make arrangements, in the interests of the public authorities, and in the interests of those who desire to make use of the services.
  Mr. BAILLIE-HAMILTON: I wish to ask the House, in the first place, for that indulgence which is always extended on the occasion of a maiden speech, and I guarantee at the beginning of my speech that I will not take up more of the time of the House than I can help. In fact, I would not have intervened at all in this Debate had it not been that, having listened to the speeches made when the Financial Resolution was first introduced, there remains in my mind a certain feeling of doubt as to the working of this subsidy. I listened with great interest to the speeches made on the Financial Resolution, and I could not agree with the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), when he said that he considered the Resolution unnecessary. It seems to me to be a vital thing for civil aviation in this country that it should have as much publicity and as much advancement as possible. That is why I welcome most heartily that particular Resolution.
  I do not think I am alone when I say that I consider that civil aviation in this country needs more encouragement than

  1679
  anywhere else in the world, if it be admitted, as it was admitted by the right hon. Member for Chelsea, that we in this country pay in subsidies to civil aviation far less than any other country where civil aviation is of vital interest. The doubt which was in my mind was as to the exact application of this subsidy, and the Under-Secretary of State for Air would set at rest the minds of a lot of people if he could give us an assurance that some form of guarantee or undertaking would be given by any firm of British manufacturers which was receiving a subsidy as to how that subsidy was going to be used.
  My noble friend the Member for Basingstoke (Viscount Lymington) referred to the possibilities of the extension of civil aviation in Canada. There we have a field with very vast possibilities, but as things stand to-day in Canada no apparent effort is being made to market British machines. The only British machine which is used at all in the west of Canada is the Haviland Moth. That has led to the assumption and the belief in Canada that British aircraft is too light for service in Canada and unsuitable for real hard work in the hinterland of that country. The main company, the Western Canada Airways, has now standardised the Fokker machine, and if it had not been for adverse conditions in Canada during the last year, a Fokker factory was to have been set up in Winnipeg.
  It seems to many of us that some guarantee should be given by British companies that when they are provided with subsidy money they will devote some of their energies and some of that money to popularising British aircraft, not only in Canada, but, as a previous speaker said, in South America and all over the world. We must try to combat American influence in this matter. There are many American firms operating in the west of Canada, while we have machines built in this country which are perfectly able to do the job which these American machines are doing. That is all, I think, which hon. Members in this House really want as an assurance from the Air Ministry. They want to know how this money is going to be spent, and they want a guarantee that it will be spent in the
  1680
  way that is most beneficial to aviation. When we look at the tremendous speed at which the progress of civil aviation advances, when we think of all the records which are broken daily, when we remember that even to-day we are in process of seeing a very gallant record in danger of being broken—I am referring to what may be happening the day after to-morrow—if these grants and subsidies are used in a really efficient and careful manner, with guarantees from the companies to whom they are extended, we can, as we should, be first and foremost examples in the world of the progress of civil aviation.
  Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Baillie-Hamilton) on the speech that he has just made, and I am sure the House will look forward on many occasions to hearing him address them again. In one way I welcome this Bill which has been introduced by the Under-Secretary of State for Air, and in another way I do not. I notice that the civil aviation expenditure on subsidies is £1,000,000 instead of about £448,000, as it was last year.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: May I point out that this is not a Bill for providing money at all, but for providing statutory authority for long-term agreements, which is quite a different thing?
  Sir W. BRASS: I agree, but at the same time, if the hon. Member had not brought in this Bill, it would not have been possible to grant these subsidies in the future. In other words, the subsidy paid to civil aviation is going to be increased by this Bill to £1,000,000 a year. The Bill directly allows the Secretary of State for Air to expend up to £1,000,000 a year, over a period of 10 years, for the purpose of paying subsidies and furnishing facilities to persons for maintaining regular services for the carriage by air of passengers, goods, and mails. I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone) said, except one thing. I do not think he was quite right when he referred to the "Daily Herald," as he said it always spoke the truth. I think possibly in the future the same thing may happen to the "Daily Herald" as has happened to George Washington recently, as we have noticed

  1681
  in the papers, and possibly the "Daily Herald" may be found out, though it never had the reputation that George Washington had.
  The hon. Member mentioned a good deal about airships, and I would like to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether airships can be included in this subsidising of civil aviation, because I notice that in the Air Estimates for 1930, on Vote 8, there is an item of £428,000 for air transport services, £15,000 for light aeroplane clubs, and £5,000 for National Flying Services, Limited, making a total of £448,000 for civil aviation subsidies. I want to know whether this Bill is restricted to the subsidising of light aeroplane clubs, National Flying Services, Limited, and any other services, like Imperial Airways, which is the big one, of course, or whether, as the late Secretary of State for Air mentioned, experiments can be made. If experiments cannot be made, I think this is a restricted Bill, because it is rather forcing the money from the Air Ministry to be spent on subsidies to companies which either exist now or will exist in the future, and which are regular service companies, instead of enabling the Ministry to spend that part of the money which they can devote to civil aviation on the development of experiments, which I think should be done—important experiments, for instance, such as the hon. Member opposite mentioned, in the delivery of mails from big air liners, and so on.
  I would like to see an experiment in the future made on these lines: I would like to see the mails which are now coming up from South Africa taken off by catapult or something like that near Madeira, taken on to Marseilles, and then brought up to England, and possibly also, on the east coast of Africa, that the mails should be delivered from Aden, taken right up until the aeroplane joins up with the India service, and then brought right back to the Mother Country. Those are experiments which, I think, are exceedingly important, because if in the future you can establish a feeling among the people of the country that their letters are being delivered by air mail regularly, I think you will find that they will begin to say, "Well, my letters are always delivered up to time, and I think I might
  1682
  just as well use the air service myself, and in future, whenever I get an opportunity, I shall try to go by air." That is a very important point.
  Then I want to know whether in these subsidies could be included, for instance, money for aerodromes, night flying aerodromes, lighting of aerodromes, meteorological services, and experiments in making big flying boats. I feel that flying in this country, this big, maritime Empire of our, depends tremendously on the development of the flying boat. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for Air has said on that point, and I would go further. I think the flying boat is going, in the end, to supplant the land machine altogether, because you can build a very much bigger flying boat than you can build a land machine, the reason being that you have not the space on the land for a very heavy land machine to land, and you have an aerodrome of infinite size on the sea. Consequently, you can build a very much bigger flying boat, with very heavy engines, that can run a long way before it gets off and that has a long distance in which to land.
  Therefore, I think you will find, in the not very distant future, that these big flying boats, like the German DO.X., will be developed tremendously, and I am only frightened that in this Bill, which I think is restricting the money of the Air Ministry to subsidising air lines, the money which ought to be used for the development of the technical part of aviation and the building of these big flying boats may merely be given as a dole, as my right hon. Friend said, to some of these big civil aviation companies, like Imperial Airways, which, as we all know, is more or less a monopoly at the present time.
  Could the Under-Secretary of State tell me, in his reply, whether the £1,000,000 which is put down in this Bill is cumulative, and whether it will be used as, for instance, the Empire Marketing Board money was used? If the money for the Empire Marketing Board is not spent in one year, it accumulates and can be spent in the next year. Can the same thing be done with the £1,000,000 which we are to allow to be spent in subsidising air services? With regard to the Civil Aviation Consultative Committee, to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, I

  1683
  prefer to say nothing about it, but to leave it to the Under-Secretary, who is the chairman, to tell us about it.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: I should like to join with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) in congratulating the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Baillie-Hamilton) upon his maiden speech. We listened to it with very great interest. I recalled our old colleague, the late Captain Foxcroft, of whom we were all fond, and in the hon. Member we see a worthy successor to him. I hope that he will be in the House a long time to join in these air Debates. I agree with him that this Bill is very necessary. The late Secretary of State for Air has said that he does not think that it is necessary, as he had managed to euchre the Treasury for a good many years. Other Ministers, however, have not the persuasive powers of the late Secretary of State, and it is right that the financial position of these services should be put on a proper footing.
  Several points arise out of the Bill upon which I would like to touch. I am afraid that the Under-Secretary is burdened with many questions, but he answers them so ably, that I am tempted to add a few more. The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe, I believe, belongs to the consultative committee, and I hoped that he would tell us something about the work of the committee, but he has passed it on to the Under-Secretary. We have had very interesting speeches from the former Under-Secretary of State for Air and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone), and they pointed out how necessary it is to develop these great air routes for transport and the carrying of mails. Who is responsible for advising the Air Ministry on what lines we should develop? We heard in the last Debate on this subject from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) about the carrying of air mails across the North Sea and to Ireland. We may want to carry air mails to distant parts of the Empire, and I should like to know who is advising the Air Ministry as to where we can carry mails economically and efficiently, because I feel that we are dropping behind. Does the Postmaster-General come into it?
  1684
  The hon. Member for Northampton told us about the development of air mails in South America. Only a short time ago I read in the Press that a great company in Germany had an undertaking with China to carry mails straight from Germany to that country. Then Canada carries mails across the United States down to South America, covering the 12,000 miles in 14 days. I think that we are rather being left behind. I know that the routes that we have are run very efficiently and economically, but we ought to press forward. I agree with an hon. Member that we ought to have information of what the advisory committee has been doing, and I would like to see a report published once a month. It is a good thing to have reports monthly to show how many meetings the committee have had and what they have advised to be done. The former Secretary of State for Air gave us an interesting book on Imperial communications, which was published in 1926, and I should like to see some information like that published showing exactly how civil aviation is being developed.
  The Under-Secretary has said how disappointed he was that the Air Ministry could not come to some arrangement in the West Indies for the postal services. I agree that the West Indies may be hard up, and that it is difficult for them to instal new services. The Under-Secretary was with me when Colonel the Hon. J. L. Ralston, Minister of Defence for Canada, gave an interesting lecture on how Canada had developed her civil aviation, and could he not get the Air Ministry to approach Canada and see if they could develop the air services in the West Indies on Imperial grounds? This country might be able to help a little. Canada would help, and no doubt the West Indies could find a little financial support. Canada might develop these services in the West Indies, because it is not right that the air services there should be run by the United States.
  Are the Air Ministry doing anything to develop Malta as a real air base? After the Naval Conference which has just taken place, I feel that the naval centre of gravity may shift from the Far East to the Mediterranean again, and it is very probable that we may have to run our mails straight from this country to Malta. We should, there-

  1685
  fore, develop Malta as a first-class air base. We want to have good facilities in Malta for landing the flying boats. Lord Strickland wants to build a breakwater. It was discussed in another place, and he was told that it would cost £15,000,000. I understand that it can be done for very much less than that, and that Lord Strickland says that it can be built for £3,000,000. That ought to be gone into to see if something could be done to develop Malta as a real air base, because Malta will become more and more important as years go on.
  If money is going to subsidiary services, who is to be responsible for the safety of the machines in those services? The hon. Member for Northampton referred to the large number of accidents on the England to India air route; who is to be responsible for giving airworthy certificates to new machines? Is anything being done to make the large flying boats more airworthy? I understand that if they crash, very often they may sink, and something ought to be done, perhaps by means of something in the wings, to give them more buoyancy, so that when they come down on to the surface of the sea, they do not break up at once. That brings me to the question of the safety of passengers in fog-flying. We know that fog extends for 400 and 500 feet up, and one method of indicating the position of the aerodrome is by a balloon; there are also radio beacons and equi-signal beacons. Is the Director of Civil Aviation being hampered at all by the Treasury in getting the latest instruments for giving the machines the proper position when flying in fog? This is an important point, because it means the saving of life, and everybody in the House wants to see that the passengers who are carried by aircraft are carried with the greatest possible safety. I would like an assurance from the Under-Secretary that every assistance, financial and otherwise, is given to the Director of Civil Aviation to get the very latest instruments that can be obtained for the safety of aeroplanes when flying in fog, and also in sandstorms which create the same problem.
  In dealing with the safety of the machines the hon. Member for Northampton made a rather severe attack on airships. I agree with him on many
  1686
  points, but I do not agree with him when he says that airships are quite useless. The R 100 and R 101 are big experiments; they are worthy of big-brained men, and I do not think that it is quite right to say that they are a failure. They have flown quite successfully, and the structures have stood up to the stresses. They may not be quite as fast as the hon. Member would like, but he should not condemn them until the trials to Canada and India have been carried out. When the R 100 flies to Canada, I suggest that the Under-Secretary should get his leading airmen to go into the whole question of the supply of helium gas to airships. It is a non-inflammable gas and much safer than hydrogen gas; it is used in the United States airships, but it is difficult to obtain. There are traces in the air to the extent of 0004 per cent. by volume, but it is difficult to extract from the air. In the United States, however, they can get it from mineral springs, and in Kansas they get something like 100,000 cubic feet per day.
  With the whole of Canada being opened up by civil aviation as it is now, there may be found mineral springs from which we can get helium gas. It ought to be looked into, because helium gas is a much safer gas to have in these giant airships, which will be driven in future in spite of what the hon. Member for Northampton says. They would lose a little in lifting power, for hydrogen lifts 70 lbs. per thousand cubic feet, whereas helium gas lifts 63 lbs., but it is worth while to give up that amount of lift in order to have safety. I would ask they hon. Gentleman to look into the point, and to get his men when they are in Canada to consult with the scientists to see if they can find helium gas in some of the mineral springs.
  6.0 p.m.
  In the air Debate I asked the Under-Secretary whether any experiments had been carried out in sending the outer cover fabrics of gas bag materials to hot climates to see how they stand the actinic waves. We sent some fabrics to Somaliland for experiments which were stopped by the War, and now the material is quite different. The gold-beater bags may be different in the way that the seams are joined together, but the question ought to be studied, because we do not want any accidents to airships

  1687
  when they work in hot climates. One other point concerns small airships. I understand that in America they are running six small airships, six Goodyear airships, and I would like to ask the Under-Secretary if he knows what they transport. They run from Ohio, where they have a training centre. I also wish to know whether he is giving assistance to those who are running the small airship, A.D.1, in this country, because there may be a future for advertising purposes in the development of small airships, and the enterprising young men who are running A.D.1 ought to have every encouragement. Then there is the point of separating civil aviation from the Air Ministry, which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull in the last Debate. I think it would be a most retrograde step to divorce civil aviation from the Air Ministry. Civil aviation is only in its infancy, and it needs tender nursing, because we want every assistance which the Air Ministry can give in "blazing the trail" and finding new routes in different parts of the Empire. I hope that the Air Minister and the Under-Secretary will do everything possible to help civil aviation and prevent it being separated from the Air Ministry, because it would not make for efficiency if they were separated. As a final word, I should like to ask why in this Bill we use the phrase "the President of the Air Council"? Why do we not stick to the words "Secretary of State for Air"? We had a tremendous fight to get that title in the past, and now we have it I think it should appear in this Bill in place of the alternative title.
  Major ELLIOT: The discussion has ranged over wide areas and air lines in other parts of the world, and I would like to bring it back to air lines somewhat nearer home. In Scotland we are particularly interested in a project, which may or may not materialise, for an air line between Scotland and Ireland, and the municipality of Glasgow in particular are interested in the possibility of forming an air port for their city. I understand that the project of an air port is very dear to the heart of the Air Ministry, and that it has done its utmost to press upon Glasgow the desirability
  1688
  of providing a municipal aerodrome; but while facilities are short, and finance is still shorter, the Ministry, in its turn, ought to do everything it can to encourage the municipality. The whole future of air transport must depend not merely upon the facilities which are provided by the Ministry but upon local authorities and other big institutions taking up the formation of aerodromes. An hon. Member referred to the desirability of fostering municipal interest in this matter and expressed his regret that the Bill did not make any provision for the payment of a subsidy towards municipalities which were starting aerodromes. I do not go as far as that.
  I want to point out that the locality chosen for an aerodrome by the municipality of Glasgow, the field of Abbotsinch, has been "jumped," if I may use the expression, by the Air Ministry. No doubt it is right that the Air Ministry should have an aerodrome there, but they propose to confine it solely to military flying and to use it for the Territorial squadron located in the city. It may be very inconvenient for two organisations to share the one aerodrome, just as for two gentlemen to share one bed, but that is better than that one man should have to sleep on the floor, and if this aerodrome is taken civil aviation will almost certainly have to sleep on the floor, that is to say, it will have to do without an aerodrome altogether, and the interest in civil aviation, which is developing there in a promising fashion, will tend to wither away. It is the more difficult to understand the action of the Ministry in this matter since the Renfrew aerodrome is being used by both civilian and military organisations. It is not as if the authorities were proposing to locate in Glasgow several squadrons of full-blown fighting aeroplanes. It is proposed to put only an auxiliary squadron there, and it is highly desirable that any facilities which can be given for developing an air port there should be provided, because we shall reap the benefit when transport lines come to be developed between Scotland and Ireland, and, possibly, between Scotland and England.
  The municipality asked the city Members to raise the matter with the Air Ministry, feeling they ought to be left to develop the aerodrome, which they found for themselves, and that if they

  1689
  were not permitted the sole use of it that at least the Ministry should share it. I agree with the remarks made that with the heavy expenditure which the development of a municipal aerodrome entails, it is not often we can get the local authorities screwed up to the point of undertaking it, and if a local authority, when it has screwed its courage up to that point, finds the aerodromes taken over by the Air Ministry and not used for civil flying it is a little apt to think that the enthusiasm of the Air Council for civil flying is not perhaps as great as it purports to be. The development of civil flying and the provision of facilities for aircraft are a necessary preliminary to arousing that commercial interest which will have to establish these long-distance air lines for which this agreement provides. Unless we get a certain airmindedness, it is impossible to suppose that the necessary interest will be aroused.
  Here is a case where a local authority had actually located the site for an aerodrome and had repeatedly written to the Air Ministry asking them to withdraw from the competition for this field. From the Air Ministry's point of view this offer of cash from the Scots is not lightly to be turned aside, but, if it is, at any rate let the municipality come in on a partnership basis. If this effort on the part of a local authority is discouraged it will be a long time before we can arouse enthusiasm again. Civil flying organisations, and notably the West of Scotland Flying Club, which is one of the largest of the civilian organisations, will be discouraged, and will either have to give up work altogether or will have to attempt to take over and redevelop the Renfrew aerodrome, which is so bad that the Air Ministry have given it up and will have no more to do with it. If the Under-Secretary would give this matter favourable consideration, and if he would plead with his powerful chief, to whom we cannot address our remarks personally to-day, that just now, when money and facilities are short, they should be shared with the localities, it would be a great satisfaction to us.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I cannot help thinking that a great deal of the discussion upon this Bill this afternoon, including the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), has
  1690
  been somewhat wide of the mark. This Bill does not provide money for civil aviation. It is perfectly true that a Money Resolution was necessary, but that was because a maximum sum of £1,000,000 is mentioned. Actually, no difference is made in the authority of this House over the expenditure upon subsidies or upon civil aviation under the Estimates. The purpose of the Bill is simply to give statutory authority to the President of the Air Council or the Secretary of State for Air to make long-term agreements instead of, as at present, allowing the whole question of those agreements to rest upon the year-to-year financial sanction of the Estimates themselves. That is all the Bill proposes to do, and some of the subjects dealt with have therefore been wide of the mark, but nevertheless I will do my best to answer some of the questions which have been put to me.
  Mr. MALONE: There is an important point which ought to be cleared up. There is statutory authority to enter into the contracts but no authority to pay the bills. What is the position with regard to a contract with an aircraft firm or anybody? Has my hon. Friend taken legal advice on this question?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I do not think we need go into the legal side of that question this afternoon. The Bill explains itself. The agreements must be settled by the House of Commons on the appropriate Vote. If an agreement is entered into there will be statutory authority for it, and even a change of policy on the part of a succeeding Government will make no difference to payments under that agreement. It is simply a Bill of that character, and not one which is providing a definite amount for the purpose of developing civil aviation or for subsidies to civil transport companies.
  Mr. MALONE: But each contract will have to be ratified.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: Each contract will have to be ratified by this House. Nothing whatever is altered with regard to procedure. In the past a White Paper has been laid and the amounts allocated to this purpose, as other purposes, have been debated upon the Estimates and sanctioned in the Votes. That procedure still obtains, but it has been considered that the rather vague point with regard to statutory authority for long-term

  1691
  agreements should be settled definitely by this Measure. I have been asked a number of questions with regard to subsidies for the development of civil aviation in the West Indies and outside the British Empire and also on the subject of airship policy. It would be admirable from the point of view of prestige and commerce if we could develop British enterprise and British influence in various parts of the world. We have a number of schemes on hand at the present moment. We have the service to Delhi in conjunction with the Government of India. We must get on with those services before we can really consider any other large scale services such as those hon. Members have suggested. One hon. Member suggested a service across Russia to China. Those ideas may be important, but from the point of view of what is practical at the present time, I am afraid that we must confine ourselves to those larger projects which we had actually in hand. After all this question is not so simple as might appear to be the case. It is not a question of the Government itself running services in the West Indies. It is not proposed, I should imagine, by any section of the House at the present time that a service should be run as a State enterprise in the West Indies or any other part of the world.
  Of course the alternative to a State enterprise is a private company which may be subsidised as Imperial Airways has been subsidised, but the conditions of a subsidy to a private company must be completely satisfactory to the Government, and to the technical people who are competent to deal with those questions. In all such schemes we have to make sure that the schemes have a satisfactory financial backing, and that there are adequate prospects of them being a financial success. I do not know that that can be said to be the case so definitely as we should like to see in the case of the West Indies project, but this is a matter which is being investigated. There is the Venezuelan side, and there is also the fact that the West Indies are a link between Canada on the one hand and North America and South America. It is perfectly true that the subject has been discussed with Colonel Ralston of Canada, and negotiations and discussions are still going on. The Air Ministry are probing every possible direction in order
  1692
  to come to a solution on this West Indies question. We hope to find a solution and if a scheme is found to be practical on the larger lines of Canada, the West Indies and South America, no one will be better pleased than the Air Minister and myself.
  A question has been asked with regard to the next stage of the airship programme. I do not think it is reasonable to ask me to deal with a programme of that character which includes the whole of the civil aviation programme for the next 10 years. I cannot undertake to do that and I must point out in regard to airships that the next stage mint be one of experiment upon lines that will be of practical use for testing the possible commercial development of airships. In other words we must find out how far it is possible for long distance airship trips to be undertaken. We must experiment in order to know what kind of regular service it is possible for airships of this kind to undertake. I am unable to go into any of the largely conjectural questions as to what will be done with the airships when we know their commercial potentialities. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the 'Daily Herald?'] I am not concerned with what a newspaper may say. We have heard a good deal about "intelligent anticipation," but, if there is any anticipation at all on this subject, I should imagine that it would be as intelligent in the case of the "Daily Herald" as in any other case. I am not, however, going into that point.
  I have been asked a question about the consultative committee and whether it has reported. The committee which was appointed has met regularly and gone very thoroughly into a number of important questions as the hon. and gallant Member knows. It has reported to the Secretary of State on two subjects and will be making a third report very shortly. The first report was upon the subject of the West Indies and it dealt with all the difficult aspects which are involved, but I am not going into those questions this afternoon.
  Rear-Admiral SUETER: Is it intended to publish those reports?
  Mr. MONTAGUE: I do not think there is any idea of making those reports public, because they are reports to the Secretary of State, and the committee

  1693
  was appointed for the purpose of advising him. The first report is upon the subject of the West Indies, and the second report deals with the general question of aircraft manufacture and the relations of the Air Ministry to trade in regard to the conditions of manufacture. The third report will deal with the very important question of scientific research and development. Those are the three general subjects which have been discussed, and which are now under consideration.
  May I add my congratulations to those of other hon. Members to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Baillie-Hamilton) upon his maiden speech this afternoon, and I am sure that we all hope that in future debates on aviation, even if not in other debates, his voice will be heard.
  The question has been raised as to whether it is not possible to co-operate with Canada, in the development of aviation. May I point out that Canada has her own aircraft lines, and I think she is enterprising and vigorous enough to develop her own aviation. I do not know that we can, as a quid pro quo for the fiscal advantages given to us by Canada, impose our aircraft manufactures upon her. The subsidies we provide for air services are intended for maintaining Imperial communications. With regard to the question of a breakwater in Malta, I am afraid that the discrepancy which has been shown in estimating the cost of those undertakings is only one indication of the difficulties. The cost would be very formidable, and almost impossible taken in conjunction with the other commitments into which we have entered.
  I think I have now covered most of the points which have been raised which are relevant to this Bill. The last point I wish to refer to is the question raised about Abbot's Inch. It is not correct to say that the Air Ministry were in competition with the Corporation of Glasgow for the purchase of that particular piece of land, because the Air Ministry had that land in mind quite a long time ago, although it is perfectly true to say that the purchase was delayed on account of certain technical difficulties which arose but were later solved. In the meantime the Corporation of Glasgow have expressed a desire to establish a municipal
  1694
  aerodrome on that spot, and I am extremely sorry that there should be differences on this paint between the Air Ministry and the Corporation of Glasgow. We are most desirous that municipal aerodromes should be encouraged, and we do not wish to put any difficulties whatever in the way of any such development. Of course military conditions have to be considered. The former station at Renfrew is no longer suitable, and therefore it is proposed to transfer the squadron to Abbot's Inch.
  Mr. SPEAKER: There seems to be a misunderstanding that this is a Debate on the Air Force Estimates. That is quite an error, because this is a discussion on the Air Transport (Subsidy Agreements) Bill.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill authorises the payment of subsidies to persons and the furnishing of facilities for their aircraft? It seems to me that the expressions "any persons" and "to furnish facilities" would bring in the municipal aircraft place that has been mentioned, and that might give the Bill a rather wide meaning.
  Mr. SPEAKER: It might give it a rather wide meaning, but not so wide as we are going now.
  Mr. MONTAGUE: May I finish by expressing the hope that the Corporation of Glasgow will not slacken their effort to establish a municipal aerodrome and that we shall see one established there before very long. I hope that civil aviation in Glasgow, as well as in other cities and towns throughout the country will, within the next few years, have such an impetus as will bring civil aviation from the British point of view into a position more comparable with other countries than it is to-day, and nearer to the standard which all sides of the House desire to see civil aviation attain.
  Mr. MANDER: There are one or two points that I should like to put to the Under-Secretary. In the first place, I should like to ask him whether it would be possible, in the case of future development under this Bill, to pay subsidies to municipalities for light aeroplane clubs who may decide to run, either experimentally or on a permanent basis, passenger carrying or other services to

  1695
  different parts of England. It might be possible that a town in such an important central position as Wolverhampton might want to link up with London, Manchester, Glasgow, Norwich or Ireland, and there are many important centres in England which might conceivably in the future be linked together through the instrumentality of light aeroplane clubs, and possibly, in some cases, by the municipalities. I do not know if there is any scheme of the kind at the moment, but I should like to ask whether it would not be possible to use the money under this Bill for a purpose of that kind. It would seem to me to come within the provisions of the Bill as to a subsidy for passenger carrying purposes, and I think we might get a very interesting development along lines of that kind.
  In the Debate last week, the Under-Secretary said, in reply to a question I put to him, that it was hoped to resume the flights of the Indian Air Mail Service by the coast of Italy instead of taking the present route via Athens. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would say why there is such anxiety to make use of that route, which I understand takes a considerable number of hours longer than the present one, which goes across country via Athens. The Italian Government have made a great many difficulties in carrying the arrangement through, and I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman why it is that we cannot continue the present arrangement. Possibly it is that there is some very bad hilly country that has to be flown over before Athens is reached, but I think the House is entitled to know why we should revert to another route that takes longer.
  Then the point has been raised as to whether it is desirable to keep civil aviation linked up with military aviation at the Air Ministry. The Under-Secretary last week pointed out quite clearly that it was almost inevitable that civil aviation should be influenced to a considerable extent by military reasons, in connection with aerodromes, machines, and so forth. I think, however, that it is generally felt, not only in this country but in other countries, that it is desirable as far as possible to allow civil aviation to develop on its own lines, without any interference or influence or control in the interests of military aviation. The hon. Gentleman's reply last
  1696
  week made me wonder whether it is not desirable, in view of the influence that is inevitably exerted at the present time by the military side of the Air Ministry, to take civil aviation away from the Air Ministry and put it either in a separate Department by itself or under the Ministry of Transport or something of that kind. There may be objections and difficulties—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member now appears to me to be raising an entirely different question of policy from that of this Bill.
  Mr. MANDER: I only raised it because, in the Debate on the Money Resolution last week, a question on that point was permitted. I would only say, in conclusion, that it is my hope that as large a proportion as possible of this sum of £1,000,000 will be spent on civil aviation, because I think it is in the interests of this country and of the world that rapid progress should take place in that direction.
  Sir PHILIP SASSOON: Whatever view may be taken with regard to the procedure which has been adopted in this case, this Debate has shown that no one who is interested in civil aviation will quarrel with the decision to take a larger sum for the purposes of developing air transport. We know that other countries, with far less reason than ourselves, are spending very much more than we are every year on their civil aviation. Compared with the sums which are annually spent by France, Germany and the United States of America on this object, the sum of £1,000,000 is not very much to boast about, but anyhow it is a great advance on what we have been doing up to the present, and, therefore, I think that the House must have been all the more disappointed by the speech of the Under-Secretary of State.
  After all, this £1,000,000 is certainly a larger sum than the £448,000 allotted in this year's Estimates for civil aviation subsidies, and, therefore, we had hoped that the Under-Secretary would be able to tell us that he had been applying his mind to a great many more schemes of wider scope and of a different character from those which are now under consideration. For many years the West Indies scheme, for instance, has been under consideration, but even now, with this increase in the Civil Aviation Vote,

  1697
  the hon. Gentleman still seems to find it as difficult to envisage as it has been in the past. I should like to ask him what is in his mind in connection with this vastly larger sum. Has he any plan prepared, or is any policy being worked up? Does this Bill mean business, or is it merely a gesture? We live under a Government which is rather fond of gestures, but I have no hesitation in saying that the disappointment will be general and widespread if we see no concrete results from this Bill. Difficult as I know the present financial situation is, no one will grudge the sum of £1,000,000 spent on the development of civil aviation so long as they can see concrete results from it.
  After what the Under-Secretary has said, we cannot, apparently, expect to see, anyhow for a year or two at the beginning of the 10-year period, the whole of this £1,000,000 spent in that way, but I do hope that in one way or another the whole of the sum for which powers are now being taken will be spent. After all, the development of civil aviation does not depend only upon giving subsidies to air lines. As has been pointed out in the Debate this afternoon, there are many other ways of developing civil aviation—through, for instance, survey companies, light aeroplane clubs, and so on. I do not see what difficulty there would be in applying the whole of this sum very usefully even in the current year. If, however, time is needed for the Ministry and for civil aviation to get into their stride and prepare themselves for these great opportunities which are now being opened out to them, I hope that no time will be wasted, and that the Ministry will spend up to the hilt on the development and assistance of civil aviation the full sum for which provision is made in this Bill.
  Even on that point there are some questions that I should like to ask the Under-Secretary. Has any decision been taken as to who are to be the recipients of this great generosity? No one has a greater admiration than I have for Imperial Airways, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) said this afternoon, in regard to reliability, punctuality and safety they stand alone. They are the only non-self-supporting company in the world,
  1698
  that have got nearer than any other to the ideal of flying by itself; but, at the same time, they are in a position of splendid isolation in that they are the only British subsidised air line. It is doubtful whether it is advisable that this position of splendid isolation, essential though it may have been up to the present, should be continued indefinitely. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite believe in unrestricted competition. Their economic principles demand it. I am not so ardent a believer in unrestricted competition, but, nevertheless, I think a little competition is good for the soul, and I think that a little competition of this home-bred variety might be very good for Imperial Airways. I should like to be assured, therefore, that the whole of this sum in subsidies is not going to be given to Imperial Airways, and even that all of it that will not go to airships. I should like to see one or more flying companies in this country for the purpose of developing other air lines, both within these islands and outside.
  The uses of air transport in this country have been handicapped by the very high efficiency of other and older means of transport, but, all the same, I am certainly not prepared to accept the view that there are not openings—many good openings—for the development of air transport, even within these islands, in the United Kingdom or between Great Britain and Ireland. Competition in air transport does not postulate the running of rival services side by side over the same routes. We have progressed beyond that, and beneficially, with our railways. We have not brought all our railways under one group, and there is a definite competition between different railway groups. Competition of that kind would be very stimulating to Imperial Airways. There is no lack of openings within the Empire, or between parts of the Empire and other countries, for other services which would not compete directly with Imperial Airways, but which would act as a challenge to Imperial Airways to maintain the same outstanding position that they have held so far among the air lines of the world. That challenge would be two-edged; it would be good for civil aviation, and the competition would be mutually beneficial.
  Another and, I think, not unreasonable hope which I entertain, and which was

  1699
  very forcibly brought out in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea, was that subsidies might be given to encourage mail services as distinct from services that carry mails and passengers. I think that Imperial Airways have been greatly handicapped in the past by the effort, at this stage in Empire communication, to supply services for both passengers and mails. A passenger service, to be successful, requires a very elaborate ground organisation, its machines are larger and slower, the stages are shorter, and the possibility of attaining a night service is more difficult of attainment. By the use of smaller and faster machines, it ought not to be impossible to organise a mail service to India which would be equally as successful as the recent flight of the Duchess of Bedford to India and back in eight days, with a machine that was certainly not at all the latest product of aeroplane manufacture. Mails are carried between San Francisco and New York at a speed of 150 miles an hour, and there is no reason at all why we should not equal that. It ought to be easily possible to send a letter to India and get a reply by air in the same time that it now takes Imperial Airways to do the journey one way, either out or back. Such an expedited service would result in the carriage of an enormously increased amount of mails. At present, except for very special reasons, the amount of time taken makes it hardly worth the extra cost, but if a letter could be got to India in three days it would put the service in quite a different category, and a far wider public would be encouraged to take advantage of this quicker method.
  I have taken India as a convenient example, but, if the objective were merely the carrying of mails, many other routes would be made practicable at once. Our important trade with South America would be immensely assisted by speedier methods of sending mails. A passenger service to South America by heavier-than-air machines is still a thing of the future, but a service of mails is already within the bounds of possibility. I saw in the papers a few days ago that the French have already started a service of mails to South Africa. With all our important interests in South America we ought not to be dependent on foreign
  1700
  lines, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider that when he considers the many plans that he will, no doubt, be able to secure with this vastly increased sum. I should like to know how far the points I have raised have been considered as to the methods for utilising the sum of money which will be available under the Bill. I had thought, before the hon. Gentleman's speech, that they had all been considered. I hope that they have and that we shall soon be told what decision has been reached and what policy, if any, has been framed. If the purpose of the Ministry is to make full use of these added powers, I am sure they will find that, as far as this side of the House is concerned, there will be, both now and on the later stages of the Bill, nothing but constructive and helpful criticism.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope that I may be permitted, as an older Member of the House, to congratulate the Under-Secretary on the way in which he has presented the Bill and on the fullness and civility of his reply. I congratulate him as heartily as I do upon his article in the "Herald" this morning. I hope that nothing I say will persuade him to get on to his feet again and make a further reply, but I want to make one point which has not been made hitherto. Everything has been touched on except the safeguarding of the subsidies when once they have been advanced to these private companies. I can only register once again my protest against giving large grants of public money to private companies without securing on the boards of those companies some representation of the public interest. I do not want a lot of dummy directorships to be taken as retiring jobs by Members of Parliament. What I want is a representative of the Treasury on the boards of these companies, so that the money cannot be squandered. We have seen such wildcat finance during the last few years that it is increasingly obvious that, if large sums of public money are to be advanced in this way, there should be some check upon the way they are spent. I beg the hon. Gentleman to see that the Treasury consent to the proposals put forward by the Air Ministry is coupled in some way with Treasury representation on the boards of companies—whether by a paid director or by a pure representative of

  1701
  the Treasury does not matter, but let us have some check upon the squandering of public money.
  Mr. ALBERY: I wish to raise a point which, I think, has not been touched upon. The Minister has had many suggestions made to him as regards the using of this subsidy. A short time ago there was issued to those principally concerned, I think by the Post Office authorities, a very interesting time-table, with many details as to charges for air mails, accompanied by maps showing the extent of the air mails run by the Post Office. I was very astonished to note that in that map the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland found no place whatever. They were on the map, but there were no air services marked as running to the Free State or to Northern Ireland. It seems to me that, in subsidising air services of any kind, those that we ought to be most anxious to help at the very beginning are those which connect up our own people, and especially those parts of the Empire that are near at hand. It also seems to me that the Minister, unless there are some objections of which I am unaware, would meet with a favourable reception from the Irish Free State in proposing that a really efficient service should be set up, say, between Dublin and London. In present circumstances, not only are we without an adequate service between this country and Ireland, but, as the result of that, Ireland appears to be very badly placed as regards air communications with the rest of the world and the rest of Europe. I was, therefore, hoping that, if this was brought to the attention of the authorities of the Free State and Northern Ireland, they would go more than halfway towards meeting us, and, possibly, bearing their share of any subsidies that might be involved. I regret that I did not have an opportunity of raising this point before the Minister made his reply, because I should very much like to have heard whether there are any real objections to the scheme.
  Mr. HOPKIN: A little time ago I heard the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) make a fine appeal for Scotland. We have just listened to an hon. Member making an equally fine appeal for the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. Nothing has been said yet about Wales. I rise to
  1702
  make as strong an appeal as I can for Wales. There is a growing opinion there that, as regards matters of Britishinterest, Wales has been, and is being, neglected. We have one spot at least that may be most useful in this scheme. I want to make a strong appeal to the Under-Secretary to consider the claims of Pembroke Dock. I do it on two grounds. First of all, you would have in Pembroke Dock all the advantages that Switzerland has, for instance, at Geneva. There you have a fine stretch of water which, I am certain, could be used with great advantage. We have just heard about a scheme connecting up Ireland with this country by means of airships. You could not have a better jumping-off ground than Pembroke Dock.
  Further than that, I am certain that, in connection with a fast line of steamers, we will say from Milford Haven, you could have an airship service of great advantage which might run from Pembroke Dock to London. Why is it that every time public money has to be spent in this connection it always goes to England? We have much more suitable places for developing an air service, particularly in Carmarthenshire. We hear the clamant claims of Scotland and England, but it is England which gets the money every time. I would also base this claim on another ground, that is that, if we could get Pembroke Dock as an airship port, we should be doing something to solve the very great problem of unemployment. We have been promised a number of aeroplanes, which perhaps may employ 70 men. If we had this air port in Pembroke Dock, we should do a very fine thing for a town that is now absolutely derelict.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I should like to draw attention to a point which has already been raised, that if you are going to devote a sum of money of this kind for companies or persons developing these services, it would be advisable for the Ministry to see whether it would not be possible to link up the communications between the larger towns of Great Britain. The case has been mentioned of Glasgow, Edinburgh and the North of Ireland. As I read the Bill, it will clearly be part of the Minister's job to go into the distribution of this money, and I think he might have given some information as to whether he had any scheme in mind.

  1703
  The hon. Member who has just spoken referred to a particular area. May I, as possibly the only representative of an even more important and greater area than has yet been mentioned, as a representative of the West country, point out that there you have a much more natural and efficient area for development, because the people of Wales are slow, the people of Scotland are behind-hand, and the people of Ireland are not reliable. The people of England are all right as far as Devonshire, but when you get further East, they cannot compare in intellectual outlook with those of us who come from the West country, and when you are administering these funds you ought to see that the best minds are using and applying the money. From that point of view, we have excellent sites, such as Plymouth and Devonport. I need not mention the obvious, which is the best point of all—Torbay.
  7.0 p.m.
  May I go back from that to the statement of the Minister? I do not know which speech was the most mixed, the first or the second, but the second undoubtedly was curious. Someone asked him about the legal position under the Bill. He waved it away with those airy gestures which we associate with the father of the House when he is getting over an awkward point. I want to know what the legal position is. We have had no explanation. All these hours I have been waiting in the hope that I should hear it, and I am disappointed. Could we not have it before the vote is taken? It might possibly save me from having to move the rejection of the Bill if I could see a Law Officer of the Crown come forward. The next point on which the hon. Gentleman was vague—I will not attempt to go into all his vaguenesses—was that he seemed to think that each agreement made under the Bill would have in some way to be laid before the House. Is that so? Under the Bill as it now stands, would it have to be laid as a White Paper of some sort and pass the House in the ordinary form, or would it merely come as an Estimate? My hon. Friend in front of me is in the same position. We neither of us know precisely what he meant. I would not put any money on it that he knew himself.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Intellectual supremacy?
  Mr. WILLIAMS: As far as that is concerned, my hon. Friend below the Gangway is very fortunate, thanks to the intellectual supremacy which he enjoys among the Scots, in having induced them to adopt him as a Member of Parliament, and they have been very lucky in the bargain, if I may say so. I want to go back to the three main points of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman amazed me in his first and second speeches. He said nothing about what was meant by "the carriage by air of passengers, goods and mails." He did not explain to us—I do not know whether I should do it for him, or merely ask him for a few details—what form of passengers he meant. He did not intimate on any general scale the uses of these three forms of carriage and this is the main principle of the Bill with which I am trying to deal. As far as passengers are concerned, may I put it from this point of view? Surely the object of carrying passengers to-day should be, as far as air is concerned, to endeavour to get the greatest possible facility for carriage between certain points which are widely separated. The point has been raised by other Members as between various parts of Great Britain itself. It has also been raised as between various parts of Canada. I want to know if under this particular system of carriage—I conclude that the money is intended to be used for the development of the Empire as a whole—it is to be possible for the Minister to help the carriage of passengers between two Dominions under this Bill as it now stands? I think that we should be given an answer as to whether a company running between two points outside Great Britain would be entitled under the Bill to get a part of the £1,000,000 or not.
  I come to the question of mails. There is a most important matter which I would like to emphasise, that, as far as mails are concerned, there have been a large number of Government contracts in connection with the Post Office, some of which have been good and some of which have been bad. In these contracts in some cases most curious things have been influencing the contracts themselves. There have been various forms of pressure, for instance. As far as any contracts made in connection with mails are concerned, we should have a definite

  1705
  assurance from the Minister that he would only enter into contracts of that kind if he had a reasonable and proper assurance that they were likely to be remunerative in a comparatively quick time. Then the hon. Gentleman did not tell us why he had fixed on this particular sum. After all, it would be perfectly possible for me to move, in due course, a reduction of this sum. It would be a great help and service in saving my time and the time of other people—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has missed his opportunity; he should have moved the reduction on the Financial Resolution.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: I quite agree as far as that is concerned. There is a point on which, I think, the hon. Member ought to have given us some information. That is a point which was asked by another hon. Member, as to whether the sum mentioned here, if it is not all expended by the end of the year, as seems very likely in present circumstances, would be allowed to accumulate as under the Trade Facilities Bill and be carried on to the following year, or whether it would automatically go back to the Treasury? I believe that the hon. Gentleman was asked that question once, if not twice, in the early afternoon. I realise his particular difficulty. He has not had the usual help on this question from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I think that the House has a perfect right to be told whether this is a sum which is going to accumulate.
  The next point I wish to raise is why he fixed this sum to go on for a period of 10 years. I do not believe that this point has been raised in the Debate. It is conceivable under modern conditions, that in four, five, eight or nine years' time there may be some modern invention in connection with a service like this which may quite easily render many of these agreements at the end of a few years so much waste paper. Something may come along which may revolutionise the whole position, some method of landing, or any other of the innumerable things which people well acquainted with these services would know much better than I. I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman if he has any particular reason, having regard to the points I have just raised, for thinking that this is a satisfactory term of years to which to ask
  1706
  the House to agree. It is quite clear, from the point of view of the State as a whole, that it would be better not to have such a long period as there is in the Bill.
  Just now the point was raised, that if you spend this £1,000,000, or if you give this guarantee, which deals with a very wide possibility of persons, there should be, if not in the Bill, at any rate in the contract—and this is an opinion which, I know, a very large number of Members behind me are expressing—definite terms laid down that the bulk, if not the whole, of the material used and subsidised by this money should be of British origin. It is a very important point and one which has been barely raised to-day. In these days, when we have great quantities of money being poured out by the Exchequer, we have the right to expect that a Minister of the Crown bringing in a Bill asking us to make further exactions, further demands from the people—it is no good the hon. Member shaking his head at me. There is no doubt at all that we have as a House of Commons the right to ask that he should give us a reasonable reply on this matter, and that he should lay down that British materials are to be used.
  There is a further point which I wish to raise. This Bill is quite openly and frankly a subsidy Bill. The whole principle which underlies the Bill is that of a subsidy. You cannot get away from that. The principle of the Bill is thoroughly and fundamentally unsound. There can be no great advantage in times such as these in the mere transfer of money, as you are doing under the Bill, to help or subsidise, or whatever you like to call it, one particular line or form of industry. It is not a sound principle and ultimately, although you may give a little shove-up to some particular thing or other, you cannot possibly develop on sound lines by the means which you are using here. I admit that, as things are to-day, it seems a fact that one section of the House after another is inclined to these Bills, yet, fundamentally, if you can do away with this kind of thing, and so do away with the congestion on the Exchequer, you would be able to free capital on a large scale, and then there would be no need whatever for a Bill of this principle.
  Although I would do everything possible to help forward these various

  1707
  kinds of transport by air, and I have no great preference as between passengers, goods or mails, this kind of action is rather reminiscent of the days of the Coalition Parliament, when at one time we were doing things and the year after we were undoing them. I think that this sort of Bill is bound to hurt other forms of trade and industry. Although you may spend money to advantage on one or two of these occasions, on the whole, directly you get the Government interfering in these matters, you get a natural contraction of mind. The Bill itself might have a few good things scattered about it in a nondescript way. Under this Bill the Government can reorganise these things, instead of allowing the natural genius of the British race to develop on its own lines. I believe that, if we left this form of Government control out of these matters, our air services would develop very much quicker than they are developing to-day, and in a very much more lucrative way, which would bring much good to our trade, industry and commerce.
  Mr. EVERARD: There are one or two matters of very considerable importance in regard to which we have not received any reply. The people of the country will be very dissatisfied when they see this Bill. They understood, as I understood, that we were to receive £1,000,000 a year for civil aviation. I now understand from the Under-Secretary of State that this is a sort of maximum and that there is no likelihood at all of £1,000,000 a year being spent. The public therefore have been under an illusion that this large expense was going to be incurred in regard to civil aviation. As far as I can see, the Air Ministry have no fresh schemes of any importance to bring forward at the present time.
  I should like to reinforce what was said a few minutes ago regarding the air services in this country. We are finding this money and, therefore, the English people—and I include the people of Wales, Scotland and Ireland—are entitled to the first benefits of the expenditure. I have been approached on several occasions—and I expect that other Members of the House have also been approached—by different individuals and by different firms wishing to start new forms of air transport in this
  1708
  country. Is there any likelihood at all of these new services which are being projected receiving any of this money, or any other money? It is well known, and the Under-Secretary knows it also, that you cannot start a new civil air service unless you receive a subsidy. This has been shown to be the case in every country in the world, and, unless some support is forthcoming, there is no doubt that these projected new services will not be undertaken. As a matter of fact, we are going backwards in certain respects. Two years ago, and again last year, when the House was not sitting, I spent some of my vacation playing cricket. I went over to play in the Channel Islands and was able on both occasions to get air transport there and back. I understand that that service has since been discontinued.
  The year before last, Imperial Airways undertook this particular service, as it was part of their arrangement with the Government that, unless they did a certain amount of transport overseas by means of flying boats, they would not get the subsidy. I believe, having carried out their arrangement with the Government in that respect, that, as soon as the India route came along, they were able to transfer their machines to that route. Therefore, as far as Imperial Airways were concerned, that route was discontinued last year. Last year another firm took on the work temporarily, but I think I am right in saying—and the Under-Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong—that to-day there is no service at all, and there is very little likelihood, unless a subsidy is forthcoming, of this service being started again. I put down a question to-day asking the Postmaster-General when the Channel Islands were going to be connected with the telephone system of this country. It is a very poor outlook for outlying parts of this country when they cannot be connected either by telephone or by air communication. We know the difficulties of other means of communication with regard to these particular islands, and I ask the Under-Secretary of State that at least part of this subsidy may be devoted to that purpose.
  Part of this money, I take it, will go towards the equipment of certain aero-

  1709
  dromes used by Imperial Airways and other services. I would like to call the attention of the Under-Secretary to one or two matters in regard to which part of this money could well be spent for the improvement of aviation in this country. You may pass up and down the country in any type of machine, and yet be struck by the fact that many of our aerodromes are not up to standard. We should do a great deal to popularise air communication if, in the great majority of these larger aerodromes, we installed systems of wireless telephony, so that the various aircraft proceeding from one part of the country to another could find its way and direction, especially during foggy weather, which is one of the great difficulties with which we have to contend in this country. I also believe that for the expenditure of a very small amount of money we could vastly improve our air communication by seeing that local authorities inscribed the name of their town, for instance, on the top of gasometers where it would not be detrimental to the general outlook and appearance of the town, so that those proceeding by air might very easily be able to find their way up and down the country. These are two ways in which the Government could assist materially in improving air transport, and making it more popular for the use of the whole community.
  I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has said regarding the use of this money for the purchase of British-made machines and equipment. I am convinced that the British machines are the best machines in the world, and there is no reason at all why any Englishman should fly in a foreign machine when he can fly in machines which are so well made by our own manufacturers. No subsidy should be given to any company for the use of any machine, any part of which is of foreign manufacture. The Under-Secretary of State should not be afraid of spending more of this money on civil aviation. Whatever opinions may be held in different parts of the House on the question of spending more money on the military side of aviation, I believe that there are few who would disagree with the spending of money on the improvement of the civil side and so assisting the trade and the easy passage of the people of this country. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able further
  1710
  to improve the various types of communication, and I would again particularly call his attention to the fact that the Channel Islands' service had to be discontinued.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Montague.]

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (EXPENSES) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It will be difficult to enlarge the discussion on the Bill for which I now ask a Second Reading. The Sea Fisheries Regulation (Expenses) Bill seeks merely to rectify an omission which arose by inadvertence in the passage of the Local Government Act of last year. Section 52 of that Act empowers county councils to defray travelling expenses incurred by members of the council or of any committee thereof to which the Section applies. The sea fisheries committees are in effect committees of county councils, and the majority of them are coterminous with the county in the area which they represent. Section 52 applies to them. It, however, goes on to say:
"This section shall apply to any committee of the county council appointed for the discharge of functions throughout the whole area for which the county council is charged with those functions, and shall also apply to any sub-committee or joint committee so appointed as if it were a committee of the council."
Sub-section (5) defines a joint committee as
"a joint committee or joint board appointed by a county council jointly with the council of another county or of a borough or with a court of quarter sessions."
Therefore, the power of paying travelling expenses is limited to those committees of county councils whose area is coterminous with that of the county council as a whole, or, in the case of a joint committee, with the combined area of the two county councils. This provision in the Local Government Act omitted to take account of three particular areas,

1711
where the fishery committee is not coterminous with the county. In Cornwall, Kent, and Lindsey there is more than one sea fishery committee in the county. Therefore, it is now, under the present wording, illegal to pay the travelling expenses of those committees. The simplest way of rectifying the anomaly is by an amendment of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, under which the committees are constituted. The present Bill is, therefore, drafted with that small and limited object in view. No new question of principle is involved at all.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: The right hon. Gentleman has been very chary in giving the House very much information with regard to the subject of this Bill. I do not see that there is any need to be ashamed of it, nor do I consider that the provisions are as depressing as the right hon. Gentleman, by his demeanour, would have us believe. He might have elucidated several points a great deal further than he did. He may say, perhaps, that it is largely a question for the county councils themselves; that it is largely a question of their interpretation of the Act. What is actually meant by these travelling expenses? What are the county councils actually entitled to refund? Do travelling expenses merely mean railway fares? Have the county councils, as a general rule, merely to interpret it in that way, or does it mean also that a member of a committee is entitled to recover his out-of-pocket expenses; for example, his lunch, or, should it be necessary for him to spend a night away from home, would he be entitled to recover all the expenses he thereby incurred?
There is also another point. It is very well-known that the districts which a good many of these fishery committees cover are very large, or, at any rate, very considerable areas. In many cases the railway facilities from port to port are of a very secondary character. If you wish to go from one port to another it often means that you have to go 10 or 15 miles inland to a junction, and then come back to the port on the seacoast, a journey of 20 or 30 miles in order to get to a place which by road is only eight or 10 miles away. I should like to know whether county councils in their interpretation of this provision consider that it enables
1712
them to make an allowance for the use of a motor car. That would save the representative time and money, and might easily result in the work being done in half or quarter the time. I do not know how county councils are interpreting the provisions of the Act, but I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether travelling allowance is being permitted on a liberal scale, not so much in amount but whether the subsidiary expenses which one naturally incurs in spending a day away from home are considered to be recoverable, and whether a member is entitled to use a motor car and receive a reasonable allowance per mile?
Mr. FOOT: I welcome this Bill, and more particularly because of representations I have received from those interested in the County of Cornwall. I put a question some months ago to the right hon. Gentleman asking what the experience was of the committees of the county in relation to these expenses and the answer he gave was that the subject was one of some legal intricacy and that inquiries were being made. I hope the Bill will receive a Second Reading and be passed into law quickly. I have some experience of this work on two counties. The County of Cornwall is, I understand, included, and I had an earlier experience in the County of Devon. For some years I had the honour of serving on the Sea Fisheries Committee of that county. The expenses of the representatives of a borough like Plymouth were paid, but they were paid by the borough. There is a little difficulty because the boundaries are not co-terminous with the counties of Devon and Cornwall. Some parts of the area of Cornwall come within the jurisdiction of the Devon Committee. In Cornwall I found that some of the fishermen who had served on the Committee in earlier days had been compelled to withdraw because of the difficulty of meeting the expenditure. There is a wonderful fishing community in Cornwall. One man, a fisherman, who commands the confidence of his neighbours had served for years on the County Fishery Committee and his presence was welcomed because of his personal experience. I asked why he was not still serving and he told me that it was because he could not afford to pay the travelling expenses. It is an excellent thing for the County of Cornwall, or for any other

1713
county, to be kept in vital contact and association with the needs of fishermen themselves, and if this is to be done there must be representation on the Committees by those who actually know the life of the fishermen.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present: House counted, and 40 Members being present—
Mr. FOOT: It is an essential element in the constitution of these committees that working fishermen should be amongst their members. That is good for the committees and in the interests of the fishing population. The impression among the fishermen at the moment is that these committees are something with which they are not really concerned and are made up mainly of the big people of the county. The meetings are held a long way away. If they can have direct representation, if one of their own number is a regular attendant at the meetings, they will be interested in the agenda and will discuss the proceedings in their own small communities in their own villages and bring a vigilant watchfulness to bear, which will be all to the good of the fishing folks themselves. I cannot understand that there will be any opposition to a Measure which will make these committees more useful and as the Bill is designed to bring the practical fisherman into direct association with the work that is being done I give it my hearty support.
Sir DENNIS HERBERT: I do not want to oppose the Measure but I think the Minister of Agriculture might have given us a little more information on one or two points. He told us that the Bill is to remedy a defect in Section 52 of the Local Government Act of 1929. His explanation of the omission there was, of course, perfectly satisfactory, but I was a little surprised to find that the most convenient way of remedying an error in Section 52 of the Local Government Act of 1929 was to introduce a Bill to amend different sections of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888. There may be something in it, but I think we should have some reasons why the Government have not followed what anyone would have considered to be the normal and ordinary course of introducing a short Bill to amend Section 52 of the Act
1714
of 1929 instead of a Bill to amend the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act.
I think we also want to be perfectly assured that when the omission of Section 52 of the Act of 1929 is dealt with in this way it is being dealt with quite correctly and that the power given by this Bill in regard to the payment of expenses by a Fishery Board is exactly the same in all respects as the power given to the county councils and other committees under the 1929 Act. I have been looking at the wording of this Bill and also the wording of Section 52 of the 1929 Act and, although I am not prepared to say that there is any real difference, there is certainly a difference in the wording which should be looked at very carefully. In Section 52 of the Act of last year it is provided that:
"It shall be lawful for the council of any county to defray any expenses necessarily incurred. … in travelling to and from meetings of the council."
When I turn to this Bill I find a totally different wording. It says:
"It shall be lawful for a local fisheries committee. … to repay to any member of the committee the amount of any travelling expenses necessarily incurred by him in attending any meeting of the committee. …"
I am not sure whether they necessarily mean the same thing. If they do I do not see why the Government should not follow the actual wording of the Section which they desire to remedy. I am not as well acquainted with fishery committees as those hon. Members who sit for constituencies on the sea coast but I notice the provision in this Bill is that it shall be lawful for a local fisheries committee to repay these monies. The other monies, travelling expenses, to be paid under Section 52 of the Act of last year, are to be defrayed by the county council, and I think we should know why these expenses are not to be defrayed by the county council, we should know the difference between the funds at the disposal of the county council and the funds at the disposal of the fishery committees. Perhaps the Government will be able to give some explanation on these points before we give the Bill a Second Reading.
Mr. PYBUS: I only desire to intervene for a few moments in order to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is really satisfied with the composition of these committees? I have every reason to be profoundly dissatisfied with

1715
the make-up of them. There is no art in the world in which knowledge is more acquired by hard work and many years of experience as that of sea fishing. There is no livelihood which depends so much on local knowledge and real experience. So far as I can see, the makeup of the committees at the present time consists of far too little practical fishermen.
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that question arises on this Bill. The Bill merely refers to the payment of travelling expenses.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It refers to
"the payment of travelling expenses necessarily incurred by him."
These committees have certain duties. If we are to enable the local authority to collect this money, are we not entitled to point out that the duties of the committees involve a considerable amount of travelling or a small amount of travelling, which would justify the payment or the non-payment of the expenses?
Mr. SPEAKER: That may be a matter for committee, but not for the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. PYBUS: I am anxious to keep strictly in order. In Harwich we feel that the present committees are not worth the expenditure of carrying them back and forth to London. For that reason, I thought that the matter which I raised came in as a financial point. I hope that when we have passed the Bill—and I hope that it will be passed—arrangements will be made by which the committees will consist more of local fishermen, and that researches can be made into local conditions such as are not now made. Before the War there was a good, prosperous fishing industry in Harwich but to-day, after 15 years, there is practically no industry left. We desire that the local knowledge of the people in the district should be brought to the attention of the Government and that steps should be taken to investigate the causes of this unfortunate position.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I hope to elicit from the Minister of Agriculture the largest amount of information by putting down the Motion for
1716
the rejection of the Bill. I and other hon. Members were hopeful of extracting information from the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, but we found ourselves totally bereft of information, and I have been compelled to take what I conceive to be an extreme measure for the purpose of extracting it may be only one or two small crumbs of information from the Minister's very dry and arid mind. He was kind enough in his opening remarks to give an explanation why this Bill has been brought forward. He reminded us that it has something to do with Section 52 of the Local Government Act of last year, that by an accident under that Act, which was a very carefully considered Act, a slight error had arisen and that the county councils were not able to pay the travelling expenses of certain people who do work in connection with the county councils. He pointed out that the provision was all right so long as the area concerned was inclusive of the whole area of the county but if it was not quite inclusive of the whole area of the county but was minus, the county council could not under the Act of last year pay travelling expenses.
He gave us one or two examples. He mentioned that Devon so far as these fishery committees were concerned overflowed a little into Cornwall. That did not affect Devon so far as last year was concerned. It happens somewhere near the mouth of the river Tamar, which separates the two counties, that it is necessary to have one form of control so far as fishery matters in that river are concerned. The result of that arrangement is that Cornwall has been deprived of the administration of part of the Cornish area, and has been deprived of the right under the Act of last year to make payment—
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see what this has to do with the payment, of travelling expenses.
Mr. WILLIAMS: I was showing that Cornwall has been deprived under the Act of last year of the right to pay the travelling expenses of the members of these committees. I understood that the whole of the Bill dealt with that point.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is referring to the Act of last year. I am referring to the Bill of this year.
Mr. WILLIAMS: The Minister explained that the reason for this Bill was

1717
that certain counties were not entitled to pay these committees because the area covered was not inclusive of the whole area of the county. I was trying to point out, as clearly as I could, that so far as Cornwall was concerned they could not pay travelling expenses because a certain part of the county for fishery purposes was attached to Devon. Was I not entitled to point out that fact?
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member asks me, on a point of Order, what he will be in order in saying, I can tell him that it is in order to discuss the question of the payment of travelling expenses, and nothing else.
Mr. WILLIAMS: If we are only entitled to discuss the principle of the payment of travelling expenses, we are not entitled in any way to discuss the reason why this Bill has been brought forward. The Minister gave as the reason for the bringing forward of the Bill that there was a defect in the previous Act. However, I accept at once your Ruling. I am sorry that I have erred, but I have erred in company with the Minister, who dealt with the matter. There is a great deal to be said on the principle of the payment of travelling expenses. I have never necessarily approved of the general principle of the payment of travelling expenses but in these particular cases there is some justification for the payment of travelling expenses.
The hon. Member for North-East Cornwall (Mr. Foot) represents a very wide area in Cornwall. In a county like Cornwall the payment or the non-payment of travelling expenses may have an enormous effect upon the composition of one of these committees. When you have a committee drawn from members of an industry scattered over a wide area it is almost always extremely difficult for the members in that scattered area to attend the work of the committee, unless there is some form of travelling expenses.
It was laid down by the House in the Act of last year that travelling expenses should be paid, and we now find that, by a pure and simple accident, certain people are not being paid their expenses. In these circumstances the Minister could have made a very much stronger speech in support of the Bill. If he had been endowed with that capacity for illustra-
1718
tion which some people possess, he could have taken one of the counties which he mentioned, either Lindsey, Kent or Cornwall, and pointed out what might have been done in the payment of travelling expenses. In Cornwall certain members of the committee may live comparatively close to the place where the committee sit, while others would live a very long way off, but it is not merely a question where the Committee sits, because in Clause 1 (b) it is in respect of the discharge of the duties of the committee that travelling expenses can be paid. Those duties are exceedingly wide and are liable to lead members of the committee on rather extraordinary errands.
8.0 p.m.
It is possible that a member of a fishery committee who lives at Mousehole, in Cornwall, may be suddenly called upon to go to Port Isaac or Bude to inquire into a fishery matter, and give a report. If he goes by motor his travelling expenses for the return journey may run him into payment for a mileage of 120 to 150 miles. Even anyone as half-hearted as the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) would agree that for a poor fisherman to go all that distance it would be rather hard if he could not get some allowance for travelling expenses. I am not dealing with isolated expenses. The duties of these committees are very wide. They have to deal with every sort and conceivable question in connection with fishery matters, and they have to get their own information. This can only be fairly done, as it is fairly done generally, by picking up information on the spot. That involves an immense amount of travelling which it is perhaps difficult for hon. Members here to understand. They have to travel for the purpose of seeing whether the regulations in connection with lobsters are being carried out. They have to travel in connection with various matters arising out of the 1888 Fisheries Act. They have to travel extensively in connection with the 1887 Act, the Oysters and Crabs and Lobster Fisheries Act. Thus they have to move from one part of the county to another. They are also compelled to travel for other reasons. They have to look into such matters as the pollution of rivers in certain cases, and they have to go into matters in connection with the organisation of the commissioners for looking after fishing in-

1719
terests in rivers, as in the case of the county which I represent. All these matters compel them to wander over a great part of the county they represent, and it will be easy for hon. Members opposite to realise that it is not possible for a poor fisherman always to do this unless he is given some help in the form of expenses.
I should like to ask the Minister one further thing. I wished to know what expenses under this Bill were to be paid, but the Minister has not enlightened us. Is it merely a matter of travelling expenses, or does the expenditure cover any form of subsistence allowance for meals, etc., when the men are traveling? I would also ask if the money for these allowances will be collected by the county council or what local authority will collect them. Am I right in presuming that these committees have not the power in any way, so far as the county council is concerned, of levying a rate? I wish to put this further question: As there would be this increased cost to the local rates, will there be any increased contribution to these rates from any Parliamentary authority? We have the right to know this, for we are laying a burden on local authorities on this occasion. I do not know if any other Members of the House could explain it to me, but I should like to know if the sum of money we are imposing will bear directly on the county council, or will we get an increased grant?
The Minister paid a great tribute to the amazing work which these local committees have done in carrying out their arduous duties over a scattered area. That tribute, I would wish to endorse. My only regret in connection with this Bill, although I formally move its rejection in order to enable the Minister to answer me, is that the Minister has taken up our time by bringing in a Bill of this sort, and has failed to deal with the whole matter. It would have been simple and easy to have done so instead of having kept himself to the one point which we are discussing this evening. I see the Secretary of State for Scotland has come into the House and I would like to ask him if he is in any way concerned with this Bill. I do not think he is, because I believe they have a better system in
1720
Scotland than we have in England. I am asking him, however, because it will give him an opportunity of explaining the position—and it would be interesting to know—how he manages in Scotland. I have been trying to find out why Scotland has been left out of the Bill and I should also like to know, on behalf of some of my Irish friends, whether the Bill applies to Northern Ireland. It may be that, like Scotland, they are under some other system or deal with it themselves. I am sure that some of my friends would welcome an answer by the Minister on that point.
There is another point I would like to raise, if I may revert again to the question of travelling expenses. There are several Acts which are administered by different local authorities, it may be the board of conservators or committees such as are mentioned here. I refer to some of the Salmon Acts, which are complicated and varied. I do not suppose that the Minister will be able to tell me which local authorities will pay their expenses under this Act and which will not, but will it be possible for him, before the Committee stage of the Bill is reached, to indicate which of the various boards of conservators, if any, will be able to pay their expenses under the Bill as it now stands? I merely ask that question because there is a certain vagueness in connection with the Bill, and I have some interest in it, because of the fact that some of my constituents are interested and greatly concerned in these maters. They are handicapped to-day, because for some of these fishermen it is not easy to take part in the work in the county as they would like to do. They live some way from the place where the committee sits, and that means that travelling expenses are of enormous importance to them.
May I assure the Minister that it is in no hostility to the Bill that I now formally move the Amendment on the Second Reading. There may be matters on which we shall have to seek adjustment on another occasion, but, if he can answer my questions and give me some assurance, particularly in the last matter I raised, I will not unduly press this matter. I hope he will do everything in his power to give me an answer to the very short questions I have raised. I have particularly kept these questions

1721
short and avoided the longer matters which will be brought forward on the Committee stage. I appreciate the courtesy of hon. Gentlemen opposite in having listened to what I have had to say. After all, I am in a different position under a Bill of this kind than many people, for I have been brought into the closest contact with the people concerned in this Bill, though not so closely as some hon. Members, over a large period of my life. I say, therefore, that I am not hostile to the Minister, but I do want an answer to my questions.
Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I take a special interest in this matter as the representative of a part of the county mentioned by the Minister namely Lindsey, and also part of the large and important borough of Grimsby which is the premier fishing port of the world, and any subject concerning sea fishing or the work of committee of this kind, is of great importance in my constituency. I wish to get from the Minister more information than he has given us so far upon this matter. For instance, I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman can give the House any information as to the possible cost involved in the payment of these travelling allowances. We know that this cost is going to be put on the rates and, presumably, it will be a matter for the Lindsey County Council. In that area important fishery questions arise and a great many fishermen live there and it is quite possible that the committee there may be brought into some of the important discussions which take place in London and elsewhere involving matters of world-wide interest. I am not sure if this matter is limited to questions connected with sea fisheries. In my constituency we have very important sea fisheries but we have also some important inland fresh-water fisheries—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): I think the hon. and gallant Member was in the House when Mr. Speaker ruled that the question of travelling expenses was the only question which could be discussed on this Bill.
Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Perhaps I have been a little long about leading up to my point as to the travelling expenses in relation to those areas where there are
1722
both sea fisheries and fresh water fisheries and the question of whether expenses are to be allowed in such cases. In view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) mentioned the question of river pollution I thought I might raise this other question.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I did not hear the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) make such a reference. I may not have been paying attention at the moment, but certainly the question of river pollution does not arise on this Bill.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. May I say that I only raised the question of river pollution because these people in the course of their duties as laid down in the Act of 1888 have to travel from one part of the country to another to see if there is river pollution.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question of river pollution does not arise at all.
Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I was dealing with the principle of giving travelling expenses and I was merely raising the point that there would have to be joint meetings in cases of the kind to which I was referring. I wish to know if the principle of travelling allowances will apply to joint meetings. These committees, as has been said, deal with river pollution and there will doubtless be joint meetings with other bodies as, for instance, certain land drainage committees. In Lincolnshire there are important land drainage bodies and questions affecting those bodies arise in connection both with sea fishing at the mouths of the rivers and with the fishing higher up in the rivers. Indeed it is a burning question when the two interests conflict, because the fishing interest, on the one hand wants to keep the water in the rivers for fishing and on the other hand there is the interest which wants to get the water away for the purposes of drainage, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give facilities during the Committee stage for considering the question of these joint meetings. I think this Bill is required, although there is some apprehension as to the unlimited use which might be made of it in adding to the rates. I think that in Lindsey there is really very little fear but I should like the Minister to

1723
give an indication as to how much is likely to be put on the rates.
Mr. E. BROWN: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister said the Bill was necessary because it had been found that fishery committees which operated in areas not co-terminous with county boundaries, namely, Cornwall, Kent and Lindsey had no authority to allow travelling expenses. This being legislation by reference, it is impossible to tell on the face of the Bill how these matters are rectified by it. The Bill makes it lawful for a sea fisheries committee properly constituted under the original Act of 1888 to pay expenses—that is to say all such committees and not those committees minus three or plus three. I desire to know whether the Minister is satisfied that there is adequate legal authority in some other statute for all sea fishery committees to pay travelling expenses. I have looked up Section 10 of the Act of 1888. Incidentally may I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) need not be in any trouble about the position of Scotland or Ireland because Section 15 makes it plain that the Act does not apply to them. Under Section 10 the expenses as far as they are payable by a county council:
"shall, according as is provided by the order providing for the constitution of the local fisheries committee, be general or special expenses within the meaning of the Local Government Act of 1888."
Special expenses are to be charged in the manner directed by the order. The expenses of a Committee as far as payable by the council of a borough are to be paid out of the borough rate or the borough fund. The point is, did the Local Government Act of 1888 confer powers either on county councils or borough councils to pay travelling expenses to their fishery committees? If it did so my question is answered. The authority rests there and not in any Act which has anything to do with the Ministry of Agriculture. As I read Section 10, however, there is no mention of travelling expenses and I do not think that any authority of the kind is conferred under that Act. I desire to know if the Minister is sure that, in addition to the counties of Cornwall, Kent and Lindsey, every other county council in England and Wales will be entitled, when this
1724
Bill becomes law, to pay travelling expenses, regularly and legally.
I do not think there can be any doubt about the desire of the House that these expenses should be paid. If there is one thing more necessary than another in order to make these committees effective it is that there should be a number of practical fishermen on them. Travelling expenses ought to be allowed not only in the case of a place such as Newton Abbott in Devonshire, but to and from the centre to such a place as Salcombe on Start Bay—places which it has been found necessary to visit in order to settle some particular question. I believe that these sea fisheries committees were the very first to recognise the necessity for paying travelling expenses. I am not at all sure what legal authority they had for doing it. The Plymouth Borough Council were farsighted in this matter and did it, but whether or not they had legal power I am not sure. Is the Minister satisfied that this Bill gives him the power to give the real authority in the matter? I am thoroughly in sympathy with the intention, which has been the practice, of course, of a number of sea fishery committees in various county council areas in England and Wales.
Mr. N. BUXTON: It would undoubtedly be attractive if this Debate could be enlarged into a Debate upon the subject of fisheries in general, and if I had been at liberty to extend my remarks, they would have been less arid than when I presented them an hour ago, but, within the limits of order, I should like very much to give what information I can. The question was raised by the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward), and subsequently by other hon. Members, as to the purposes for which these expenses may be charged. The Bill applies to travelling expenses only, not to subsistence expenses. In regard to cars, a charge is made at the mileage rate, and allowance may be made for motor transport when it suits the case. The principles, of course, are already accepted in regard to the members of committees to which the Bill does not apply, under the Local Government Act, 1929. This Bill applies to sea fisheries committees alone.

1725
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) raised the question of the personnel of the committees and suggested that there should be a larger proportion of working men, but I am afraid you, Sir, would hardly allow me to follow out that line of thought. The hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) suggested that this legislation should have taken a different form. I must screen myself behind the authority of His Majesty's draftsman in proposing that the House should adopt the Measure in this form as that which, on the whole, meets the case best. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) asked whether powers are complete and clear in regard to the payment of expenses by committees in general. Under the Local Government Act, 1929, power is given to
"the council of any county to defray any expenses necessarily incurred by members of the council or of any committee thereof to which this section applies in travelling to and from meetings of the council or committee or in travelling by direction of the council or committee for the purpose of carrying out any inspection necessary for the discharge of the functions of the council or committee."
The powers are perfectly definite except in regard to these three cases, which were overlooked. I must confess to some surprise that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) should find fault with the Bill, because it is of particular interest to his neighbours in Cornwall. That county, in which he is specially interested, is perhaps the largest area affected by the anomaly which it is sought to remedy by the Bill. Perhaps when he put down his Amendment he did not realise that, if it were accepted, some of his constituents would be unable to receive benefits which clearly the late Government, the authors of the Local Government Act, intended that they should have, and it would be intolerable that there should be an anomaly, an exception, continuing a day longer than is necessary. It is the case that the whole position has arisen solely through the overlooking of the point of the division of counties into fishery areas, and I should have thought an attempt to put the matter right would have been specially welcome, among others locally interested, by the hon. Member for Torquay.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I said most carefully that I welcomed the readjustment of a grievance, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not continue, as he is doing now, to misrepresent me, because I said clearly that I put my Amendment down to enable him to give a full and proper explanation of the Bill.
Mr. E. BROWN: I am still not clear about the point that I raised. Do I understand that the reason these three counties are outside the others is that Cornwall, for instance, has two committees? Does it mean that because they have two committees they are not regularly constituted inside the Cornwall area? If so, my mind is clear; otherwise, I fail to see the position. The Devon sea fishery committee's area, to my knowledge, has a part of Cornwall in it. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that it is because there are two committees in each of these counties, and that that makes a technical reason for the Local Government Act not applying, I understand the point; otherwise, I am as much in the dark as before.
Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question, which was whether any joint meetings of other committees, such as river pollution and land drainage committees, would also be allowed expenses?
Mr. BUXTON: I am afraid that that is outside the purview of the Bill, which deals solely with the power of paying the expenses of members of certain committees, and the nature of their functions is not involved. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Leith was in the House when I read the Section which made it clear that at present it is only lawful to pay expenses in the case of committees which apply to the whole area of a county. Therefore, a section of the area of a county does not provide a field in which it is legal to pay these expenses. I think I have covered the points so far as they are in order, and I trust that the House will see fit now to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to where the finance is to come from?
Mr. BUXTON: The precepts are made on the counties by the fishery committees, and the expense, therefore, falls upon

1727
the rates. It is not assisted by any Government grant, but is raised in the normal way by precepts.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Barnes.]

MENTAL TREATMENT BILL [Lords].
As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Notice of reception, death and departure of voluntary patients, and provisions as to discharge of patients.)
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, to leave out the words "one month," and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-eight days."
The object of this small drafting Amendment is to use the expression "twenty-eight days" instead of "one month." It is considered by all concerned as a more satisfactory and accurate expression.
Amendment agreed to.
Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out the words "one month," and to insert instead thereof the words "twenty-eight days."
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I move my Amendment, in page 3, line 17, to leave out the words "one month," and to insert instead thereof the words "six months"?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker has not selected that Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next Amendment selected is that in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood).
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, to leave out from the word "himself" to the end of the Subsection.
I am very much obliged to you for selecting this Amendment. I understood that all the Amendments connected with the liberty of the subject had been left unselected, and I am glad to have the opportunity of moving this one. I will explain exactly what change this makes in the Bill. We are dealing here with voluntary patients. They are persons who, if they are over 16, ask for voluntary treatment in a mental hospital. They remain in the hospital just as long as they like to remain, but if they become at any time after they are in the asylum incapable of expressing themselves as willing or unwilling to continue to receive treatment, certain other things happen to them, and they are all put down in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2. In the first place, if they become unable to express themselves as willing or unwilling to stop, they may be discharged. In the second place, they may be discharged within a month of the date of becoming incapable or—and these are the words which I ask to be left out—
"or steps have been taken to deal with him either under the principal Act as a person of unsound mind or under Section five of this Act as a person who is likely to benefit by temporary treatment."
Therefore, these words bring up the whole question of Clause 5. I am told—though I cannot believe that it is correct—that we shall not be allowed to move a single Amendment to Clause 5; therefore, it is on this Amendment only that we can bring up the question of how Clause 5 affects the citizen. Under that Clause we are dealing with people who are not voluntarily in the asylum, but who are there because an application has been made by either a parent or husband or wife or an authorised officer, or for one other reason which is given in the words which I ask to leave out; that is to say, you can have a person temporarily in an asylum if the husband or wife or relation applies for him to be put in an asylum, and that application is signed by two medical officers, or you can have him temporarily in the asylum if he has been voluntarily in the asylum, and, under these words in Clause 2, having become incapable of volition, he is transferred from a voluntary patient under Clause 1 into a temporary patient under Clause 5.

1729
I ask the House to observe that when this Bill is law, it will be almost inevitable that everybody who goes into an asylum will be sent there under the new system and not under the old. Few doctors will be hard hearted enough to send a patient to an asylum without holding out the hope of recovery. Under Clause 5, doctors will have an opportunity of getting their patients into an asylum—I hope a modified asylum, but at any rate an asylum—without certification, without feeling that they are condemning their patients to long segregation. Therefore, doctors, being merely human beings, will naturally select the more humane way of doing it. They will select the method under Clause 5, and gradually we shall get more and more people into mental hospitals, not because they are certified in a way which may involve doctors in risks, but because they have got in first of all as voluntary patients, and then because they have got in as temporary patients. I think that that is inevitable, and I do not think that there is any harm in it, except that it may be that far more people who may now be out will be inside.
I want to prevent people who go in for voluntary treatment being liable, because they are in as voluntary patients, to be suddenly converted into temporary patients. The voluntary patient may be a woman who is going to have a baby, and thinks that she may go off her head, and so applies for temporary treatment. We want her to do so, but we do not want her to feel that if she applies for temporary treatment she may, without knowing anything about it, be converted into a temporary patient. That is what would happen under these words. What happens to such persons when they become persons likely to benefit by temporary treatment? The application in this case, I take it, will be made by the Board of Control. I am not sure about that, but it will be observed in Clause 3 (2), dealing with voluntary patients, that—
"if the Board of Control are of opinion that the mental state of any such voluntary patient is such as to render him unfit to remain as a voluntary patient, they may order the person in charge either to discharge the patient, or to take steps to deal with him either under the principal
1730
Act as a person of unsound mind or under Section five of this Act as a person who is likely to benefit by temporary treatment."
This is the transfer of a voluntary patient to the temporary class. The Board of Control have power to make that transfer by Sub-section (2) of Clause 3. The Board of Control make the application; it is no longer the husband or wife, or the officer of the local authority acting under instructions from the husband or wife.
Dr. VERNON DAVIES: No.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Well, who is it?
Dr. DAVIES: The Board of Control recognise that the patient has lost his voluntary status, and therefore draw the attention of the person in charge to the altered condition. The person in charge must then take this step, and not the Board of Control.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) is right. The Board of Control call the attention of the person in charge to the fact that this patient ought to be transferred from the voluntary to the temporary category and the person in charge makes the application. I want the House to understand that the application is no longer made by a relation, but made by the person who is temporarily in charge of the voluntary patient, so that one of the safeguards goes. It is out of the hands both of the patient, who is no longer capable of saying he is willing or unwilling, and of his relations, and is in the hands of the person in charge of the institution. The patient remains in the same institution under the same person in charge but ceases to be a voluntary patient and becomes a temporary patient. That is a very serious change in the status of the patient. Instead of being free to leave, instead of having unlocked doors, the patient becomes for six months—and it is possible to extend the six months—impotent to secure his release unless the Board of Control decides that he ought to be released. That is a serious change. There is no appeal to law. While the patient is unconscious, in a high fever or something of that sort, the change is made, and henceforth the patient, though not a certified lunatic, is a temporary patient and may be in the institution for one year.
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, under Sub-section (12) of Clause 5, if that person recovers his volition he can only be detained for 28 days?
Colonel WEDGWOOD: The difficulty there, again, is that, as it appears to me, it is left to the person in charge to decide whether he becomes capable of expressing himself. It must be done by the person in charge—not by a Magistrate but the person in charge of the asylum, who is the sole person who has the right of saying whether the patient shall be free or not. That is the danger which I wish to argue against. If we are not allowed to move any Amendments on Clause 5 we cannot do much, but if we carry this Amendment we prevent voluntary patients being compulsorily transferred to the temporary category.
I submit it is desirable to make the change proposed by my Amendment, and I give this one additional reason. We shall find a large addition to the number of voluntary patients. The attraction of the name alone will lead most people who are the relatives of mentally affected people to press those afflicted persons to apply for voluntary treatment. The arguments in favour of it to persons on the border-line are enormous. They will accept voluntary treatment to avoid being put in an asylum, either as certificated or as temporary patients. Therefore, the natural thing will be for everybody to select voluntary treatment first, if possible. I think those people ought to be protected from the danger of the change from one class to another taking place while they are unconscious in the institution. Is there any really great difficulty in the way? If those people ought to be detained compulsorily and temporarily, it is perfectly possible for that to be done and for Clause 5 to stand exactly as it is to-day.
Under Clause 5 a relation of a voluntary patient—the parents, or husband or wife, or the officer of the local authority authorised by the husband or wife—can make the application, which then has to be countersigned by two medical officers, one the medical officer of the patient and the other the medical officer selected by the Board of Control. Those two officers sign the application and the patient can then be transferred from the voluntary
1732
to the temporary class; but that is open and above board and the relatives have a say in it. If the words in my Amendment are deleted that process could still take place under Clause 5; the purpose of the Bill would not have been seriously affected. I submit that it is unfair that a person who has gone in for voluntary treatment should, without his relations having anything to do with it, be transferred to the compulsory category, and if the Govenment really have the interests of patients at heart they should accept this Amendment and let us have the satisfaction of knowing that the voluntary patient himself and his relations have a second chance of securing his liberty.
Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I agree with the Mover that this is probably the only occasion on which we shall be able to discuss the vital alterations which are suggested by Clause 5 of the Bill. If the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) needed anything to fortify his argument I think he would find it in the speech of the Noble Lord who introduced this Measure in another place. On the Second Reading of the Bill the Noble Lord described the process, which the hon. and gallant Member regards as a very dangerous process, for dealing with the voluntary boarder. I ask the House to bear with me while I read what was said in another place by Earl Russell:
"I should call your special attention to Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, by which you will notice that a person who is received as a voluntary boarder, although he has entered voluntarily, is not allowed to leave at a moment's notice. He must give 72 hours' notice. In a sense you may say that you are imposing on the voluntary person imprisonment; in a purely legal and technical sense. That is, of course, absolutely correct; but it is quite plain that it would not be safe, and it would not be in the interest of the patient, to allow him to leave at a moment's notice, since the very occasion when he would be insisting on leaving, and requiring to leave, would probably be just that occasion when he had become so mentally unbalanced as not to be able to look after himself or give himself proper care. This period of delay of 72 hours therefore, which is by no means necessarily imposed in every case, but only where the medical officer thinks it necessary gives the opportunity either for the patient, as very often happens, to come back to a better mind before the 72 hours are up and to say 'I

1733
will withdraw my notice and stop' or if it has unfortunately become necessary to proceed to the extreme measure of certification."
One would imagine that there were three alternatives. The first alternative is "I want to go out." If he says that, 72 hours is to elapse so that pressure may be brought upon him to alter his mind. The doctor may say, "You are not fit to go out, and I must proceed to certify you." The Noble Lord in another place never suggested the other alternative that the man would be allowed to go out. Consequently, there is the risk that a man may go into a mental hospital voluntarily and may, under this Bill, unless we take proper precautions by moving Amendments, find himself, willy-nilly, transferred from one class to the other, and he may lose all his voluntary rights. On that ground I support this Amendment.
Mr. W. J. BROWN: I would like to give an instance in the nature of a personal experience of what this Bill would have meant if it had been in operation at that time. Some five years ago I had a sister who was dependent upon me, and she was about 22 years of age. She became seriously ill. She developed a fear that her food was poisoning her, and for days at a stretch she refused to eat. I was responsible for my sister at the time, and I took care to get the opinion of a good, reliable doctor. That doctor urged that I should take steps to put my sister in a hospital for nervous diseases, which would be certain to receive a certificate from the Board of Control under this Bill.
9.0 p.m.
I acted upon the doctor's advice and took my sister to that institution, and she voluntarily agreed to go there. Within 24 hours of her entry into that institution, I received the most heart-breaking letter from her imploring me, at all costs, to get her out on two main grounds. One ground was that she said that she had been threatened that, unless she took her food voluntarily, she would be forcibly fed. Her second ground was that she had been placed in the society of people who were completely off their head, and she stated that, if she stayed there for another 24 hours, she also would go off her head. I went to that institution and secured the release of the girl, and I brought her back to my home. I then sent for a
1734
Harley Street specialist, who come to my House, examined my sister, and gave it as his considered verdict that she was suffering from dementia precox, and that her death was only a matter of time. The next think that happened was that an old aunt of mine, who used to keep a fried fish shop, took the girl off my hands. She was given no medical treatment except a little Epsom salts in her morning cup of tea. My aunt did not attempt to persuade the girl to eat against her will, and she allowed her to roam about exactly where she wanted to go. Within two months that girl had put on something like 14 pounds in weight. She had become completely normal, and quite settled down, and she is now, physically, in a perfect condition.
If this Bill had been in operation at that time, what would have happened? In the first place, when the girl desired to leave that institution, which she had entered as a voluntary patient, she would have been compelled to wait for 72 hours, that is to say, for three days and three nights, before being able to leave, and I think that in all human probability, if she had been compelled to wait for 72 hours, she would have been, at the end of that time, in a condition which would have necessitated certification. I hold that, if a person desires to leave an institution of that kind, while there must be some short period of notice during which the relatives can be informed and can make arrangements to take the patient away—I do not think that anyone would object to that—such a period of notice of a few hours is one thing, but it is another and a very different thing to compel the patient to wait for 72 hours before being able to get out. Association and confinement with people of a more unbalanced state than the patient is liable to aggravate the trouble from which the patient is suffering, and I can conceive of a great many cases in which insistence upon this period of 72 hours' notice would probably result in the patient not being able to leave at all.
Beyond that, I agree with the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment that it ought not to be possible in England to translate a person who is not necessarily insane, but who is temporarily off complete balance and who voluntarily seeks treatment—it ought not to be possible to translate that individual into a patient

1735
compulsorily detained for a minimum period of six months, with possible extensions to nine months or 12 months, without the consent of the individual or of his friends or relatives, or of the local authority acting on behalf of the friends or relatives. In these circumstances, in the light of that peculiarly painful experience in my own family, I beg our Front Bench to accept this Amendment, and prevent the consequences that may ensue if the Clause goes through in its present form.
Miss LAWRENCE: I think there is some misunderstanding. Both the Seconder of the Amendment and the last speaker were speaking on Clause 1, which deals, in Sub-section (5), with the period of 72 hours—
Mr. McSHANE: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I can explain the matter in a sentence. The Mover of the Amendment has been speaking on Clause 2, Subsection (1) of which says:
"Where a person is received as a voluntary patient under the foregoing section of this Act or under the provisions of any local Act, notice of his reception shall before the expiration of the second day after the day on which he was so received be sent to the Board of Control."
There may be no difficulty in an officer of the Board of Control coming down, on receipt of that notice, and by his action taking steps under the principal Act to prevent the person from coming out.
Miss LAWRENCE: I did not raise a point of Order in the course of the last speech, because the hon. Member was speaking with so much feeling on a personal case, but, if he had not been relating an exceedingly painful personal experience I should have asked you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to rule him out of order.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. The case referred to by the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) was exactly on this Amendment, and I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that in that case the patient could, under the words which I am seeking to leave out, have been transferred from the position of a voluntary boarder to a hospital.
Miss LAWRENCE: On that point of Order. The hon. Member was speaking of the application—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was not satisfied, when the hon. Member was speaking, that it was necessary to call him to order. No point of Order arises now. Objection should have been taken when the hon. Member was speaking.
Miss LAWRENCE: My point is that I desire to speak to the Amendment, and the Amendment has nothing whatever to do with the period of 72 hours' notice, which comes under Clause 1. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment made a great point of the fact that, if a person entered as a voluntary boarder, and then, if I may so put it, went over the border-line between sanity and insanity, he would be either certified or given treatment under Clause 5 of the Bill on the application of the person in charge. That is a pure, complete, and entire misunderstanding. The person in charge will have no more to do with the application in this case than in any other case.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Who will?
Miss LAWRENCE: We are contemplating the case in which a man thinks he is going off his head, and then, very unfortunately, his fears are realised. He becomes either incapable of expressing himself or he becomes insane. That is a case which not improbably may arise. Very often persons who are subject to lunacy know quite well that they are in danger, and a man who feels that he is in that condition, but that voluntary treatment may avert the attack, goes in as a voluntary patient, hoping that the care of the doctor may avert an attack of insanity. His hopes are not realised; he becomes either incapable of expressing himself or insane, but with volition, though of a misguided nature. Such a person cannot remain as a voluntary patient, for the whole essence of the Bill is that voluntary treatment shall only be given to those who express a wish for it. Something must be done for that man. In his own interests and in the interests of the community, he must have care appropriate to his condition. The person in charge is directed, in that case, to take steps so that he may be dealt with under Clause 5; that is to say, he must take steps to put all the machinery of Clause 5 into operation. The person in charge is not recognised under Clause

1737
5. Under Sub-section (2) of Clause 5, the application must be made by a relative of the person to whom it relates, or on the request of the husband or wife of a relative, or by a duly authorised officer of the local authority; or, if any other person makes such an application, it has to be for special reasons.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do not these words come in?
Miss LAWRENCE: They cover only the case of the absolutely friendless person, in whose case it is not possible to warn or inform the local officer. The steps that are taken are the steps of writing letters to the person concerned, who signs the application. [Interruption.] If there is no application, the person cannot go as a Clause 5 patient. The people who come under Clause 5 are people who have no volition, people so sunk, if I may say so, in depression that they cannot answer "Yes" or "No." The person in charge is the only person who knows the state of affairs, and he has got to take steps to start either the machinery of Clause 5 or the machinery of certification. If certified, the person will have the usual safeguards of the Lunacy Act, the two doctors and the magistrate, while, if he comes under Clause 5, the opinions of two doctors are necessary, the relatives have to be informed, and there will be all the safeguards provided in Clause 5 in the case where a person becomes incapable of volition while a voluntary patient. The two doctors will be necessary, the patient's doctor and an independent doctor certified by the Board of Control. Every safeguard which applies under Clause 5 will apply in the case of a person who becomes incapable of volition or a lunatic within the meaning of the Lunacy Act while he is a, voluntary patient. This Amendment is based upon a complete misunderstanding of the Act.
Dr. DAVIES: I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend who moved this Amendment has misunderstood the position. The Parliamentary Secretary has put the case, on the whole, very fairly. There are two specific points which my right hon. Friend should definitely understand. In the first place, the representatives of the Board of Control have no power to certify.
1738
Neither has the person in charge. What really happens is that the Board of Control, when they visit, can be shown such and such a patient as a voluntary patient. They say in their opinion the patient is not of voluntary status, and they draw the attention of the person in charge to that fact. They say, "You cannot legally keep this patient as a voluntary patient. You must take steps to have him dealt with under Clause 5 or under the principal Act." What happens is that a doctor notifies the relatives that the patient has lost the voluntary status and the relatives, being afraid to have him certified, often remove him to another place altogether. If, on the other hand, they are told that something must be done, they take steps, as outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary, to bring the patient under Clause 5, when the person in charge has nothing to do with certification or recommendation, and if, unfortunately, it means that the patient has to be certified, the ordinary procedure under the principal Act is brought into force by two independent doctors and a magistrate.
Therefore, the Board of Control in this case is acting as a safeguard to the patient by pointing out to the person in charge that he is being illegally detained under the voluntary status. In the majority of cases, they are taken away by the relatives, so that there is no possibility of the patient being illegally detained beyond a day or two. The right hon. Gentleman's conception of the Clause is, I think, totally wrong, and, under the circumstances, I do not think the Amendment is at all necessary. In fact it is exceedingly dangerous, and I am certain that the Minister will not accept it.
Mr. McSHANE: The matter is not quite so simple as the hon. Member would like to make out. He drew the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that, when a person is admitted as a voluntary boarder, a commissioner from the Board of Control may visit and make a report, and this is the best answer to the hon. Member who says the Board has no power. Clause 3 (2) states explicitly that, "if the Board of Control are of opinion that the mental state of any such voluntary patient is such as to render him unfit to remain as a voluntary patient, they may order the person in

1739
charge either to discharge the patient or to take steps to deal with him." The voluntary boarders will be voluntary boarders only on paper. I know that the encouragement that will be given to these people to enter will be such as to get them in. Once they are in, I do not think there will be much doubt that they will be kept there. The question arises who is to determine that the patient is incapable of volition.
Dr. DAVIES: Two other doctors.
Mr. McSHANE: Yes, and the representative of the Board of Control may be there to make a report, and it may be that the patient will be asked to remain for another six months, because in their opinion he or she may improve in that time. At the end of that time, steps will be taken, if he is not decidedly better, to certify him under the principal Act. I plead with hon. Members who have not given much thought to the Bill to look at it from our point of view. We are as anxious as anyone to ensure that people who are in such a state of health that they may have to be dealt with in this fashion shall have every opportunity of recovering. It would, indeed, be a tragedy if we did not make it quite clear that we are as sympathetic as anyone with the people for whom we plead, but we want adequate safeguards. There is not an adequate safeguard in this Bill for a person who, having voluntarily entered, whether entirely voluntarily or through pressure of other people, may not very easily be allowed out again. These are not fanciful cases that we put up. They are not put up with any idea of obstruction. They are put up in the best interests of those who are going to be deal with. We are beginning a new method of treatment. For the sake of the success of that new method I plead that it shall be made perfectly foolproof, giving adequate security to those who may have to accept treatment under the Bill.
Mr. ATKINSON: I entirely agree with the hon. Member's criticism. After all it does not matter very much what the framers of the Bill intended. One has to construe the words that appear here. The first thing that is quite clear is that, under Clause 5, there is no judicial intervention at all between being free and becoming a temporary patient with-
1740
out certification. You may become such a patient on the application of some relative accompanied by the certificate of a couple of doctors. This next thing is also clear, that Sub-section (3) can be put into operation without any interference from the Board of Control. The Board of Control may form an opinion and require it to be put into operation, but certainly that is not necessary. Supposing the person in charge thinks the patient is getting on the border-line, he has to make up his mind because, from the moment a patient becomes incapable, a period of a month begins to run, and you have to have some definite date. The person in charge quietly communicates with one of the relatives and expresses his fears and the relative thereupon applies to the person in charge, accompanied by a certificate of two doctors, and the patient may be turned into a compulsory patient without ever knowing it. That is my objection to this Sub-section.
If, under Clause 5, the patient had got the protection of the magistrate, he could not be turned into a compulsory patient without knowing it. It does not matter in cases where people have really gone mad, but it does matter in borderline cases, which are generally cases where there is a difference of opinion, and where the man in charge may form his own opinion. He may think that the position is getting rather dangerous for him, because if the patient is really incapable of expressing willingness or unwillingness, the period of one month has begun to run. He, therefore, communicates with the relative, and expresses his fears, and the relative gets doctors to see the patient and they give some certificate. There is no provision for the patient ever seeing the certificate. The moment the man in charge gets this request, accompanied by two certificates, that patient becomes a compulsory patient without knowing anything about it.
We know that the whole of the Amendments are not going to be called, but had there been an opportunity of raising the subject on Clause 5 in regard to the necessity of an order from a magistrate, my objection would never have existed. It is because of the final form which Clause 5 is, apparently, going to take, that I think there is very serious objection to this be-

1741
ing incorporated in this Sub-section of the Bill. I do not think it is right that a patient can be turned into a compulsory patient without his knowing it. We have all known within our experience of these border-line cases where some think a man is insane and others do not. At any rate, he is quite in a position to understand what is said against him and what is going on, and very often quite capable, perhaps, of defending himself, but here he gets no chance of calling another medical opinion or asking, perhaps, for some other relative to take up the case, because he does not know what is going on. He is visited by a couple of doctors, but does not know for what they are there. It would seem rather unwise for them to say to him, "It is said that you are quite mad and we have come to see if you are." They do not tell him that, but he does not know what they are saying and so without a single opportunity of getting independent advice or protection, he is turned into a compulsory patient. That is all wrong. Therefore, I support this Amendment, which will make that impossible.
Dr. MORRIS-JONES: The House will agree, I think, that the whole Clause is very technical. As far as I understand it, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Wedgwood) is under a misapprehension. He pointed out the situation of a person coming into a state of mind, not knowing exactly where he was. In other words, such a person was incapable of volition. He said that when that position arose, such a patient might be kept in an institution against his will. That is exactly what happens under Clause 5. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that a patient who has got to that state should be left to his own resources and may become a danger to himself. What is his objection? There is only one thing that can be done with the patient. You must do what, to the best of your knowledge and belief, is best for the individual himself, and the only thing is to keep him in the institution for his own good. We have exactly the safeguards which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down mentioned in Clause 5. We are not allowed to discuss whether these safeguards are sufficient, as the Amendments have been ruled out.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not ruled out, but not selected.
Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I understand that Mr. Speaker is not calling them, and we are not allowed to discuss them. I think that several hon. Members on the other side are unduly afraid of this Clause with regard to voluntary patients. I would remind them that in Scotland, where mental diseases are treated without dissension, you never hear of a case of illegal detention in a mental hospital. We have not heard of such a case in a period of 70 years. Two-thirds of the patients are voluntary patients without any judicial intervention of any sort. That, in itself, is an argument which shows that there is no serious hardship or injustice to patients under this Clause.
Mr. ATKINSON: May I ask whether in Scotland you can get involuntary patients without a magistrate's order?
Dr. MORRIS-JONES: In Scotland, in the case of certification, no magistrate sees the patient at all. What happens is that there are two independent medical examinations, and the case is taken before the sheriff, who reads the certificates, and then signs the reception order without seeing the patient at all. I believe that happens in the Irish Free State to-day. The whole record is very clear. Both the Royal Commission which reported in 1926 and the Select Committee in 1887 gave it as their opinion that not one case of unjustifiable detention had taken place in mental institutions in Scotland. The Royal Commission went very thoroughly into the matter. Some of the right hon. Gentleman's own colleagues, including the Attorney-General, were members of that Commission. We have never had in this country a Commission which has gone more thoroughly into any question. I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite are unduly alarmed about this particular Clause. The investigations which have taken place have proved that there have been no illegal detentions. There are safeguards provided, and there is no other alternative but to adopt the position which will arise if this Clause is passed.
Mr. GOULD: The whole purpose of the Bill on its Second Reading was to afford a very definitely new hope for borderline cases and incipient cases. All of us who have had any experience know how difficult it is to get cases nearing a mental breakdown to receive or submit

1743
themselves for any treatment at all. Generally, by the very nature of their illness, they remain in their homes in loneliness until the break comes. The purpose of the Bill was to try to meet that case, and some of us hoped for great things. I want to say very definitely that I am disappointed, not with the spirit and intention of the Bill, but with the pitfalls and definite snags lying in the Bill. It appears to those of us who desire the abolition of this Subsection that the Amendment is the only opportunity we shall have of strengthening the Bill along the lines we desire. It may not meet the point that arises out of Clause 5, but it does at least give us this security. I could then go to one of these cases and say, "Why do you not submit yourself to treatment? We believe that if you went for rest and health and healing, there would be a chance for you to get right away from this depression or possible breakdown." The first thing that the man or woman would say to me would be, "Shall I be detained? Shall I eventually be locked up and certified?"
That has arisen in nearly every case I have visited, and, as a magistrate, it has been my unfortunate experience to visit many cases. There are many hon. Members here, no doubt, who have done likewise. If we could get this definite assurance, and all of us who are interested in such cases could go to these people and say to them, "At least for a month you are not to be certified, and you are not to be detained beyond that month, and we shall have, as parent or relative or friend, the same right to come to fetch you out as we have in asking you to go in," I believe that that would give tremendous consolation to a mind that is unhinged. I do not know of anything which could be more helpful than for a person to have rest of mind and the consciousness that he is holding his freedom even though he is in a certified hospital or mental asylum which comes under the Board of Control. I hope that the Minister will not turn a deaf ear to this Amendment, but that he will reconsider the matter, as this is our last hope of getting this new outlook and new opportunity for all these cases. There is a likelihood that more and more cases will be dealt with in this manner, and I believe that in this spirit a great break
1744
from the past will be afforded and a very definite new principle introduced for future treatment which will save many a border-line case from being certified and detained for many a year.
Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: It is clear from the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and also from that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson), that the real substance of the Amendment is an objection to the principle of treatment without certification. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham will agree in substance that the objections which have been put are objections which would well apply to a person who was being subjected to the procedure under Clause 5 who was outside an institution as well as to one who was there already.
Mr. ATKINSON: I should put it more accurately in this way: I agree that the objections which I urged all apply to Clause 5. I say that they apply doubly in the case where a man is already, shall I say, in custody voluntarily and can be turned into a compulsory patient. In that case judicial sanction is doubly necessary. It is doubly objectionable if he is already a patient, and does not get protection.
Sir B. MERRIMAN: I think that we both mean the same thing. I was pointing out that all that applies to the man who is being subjected to the procedure of Clause 5. He may not know, and may not be in a position to know, what is being done with him, just as the man who is just capable of submitting himself for voluntary treatment has become incapable of knowing what is being done with him. As far as this Amendment is concerned, we are either agreed or we are not, agreed on the main question of principle on which this Bill is founded. I am not going to discuss the merits of that now. I should like to point out that the fears with regard to these words remaining in are really unfounded. At the same time, I should like to suggest that the hon. Lady was wrong in saying that it was impossible for the procedure under Clause 5 in the case of a person who was already a voluntary patient to be taken by the person in charge of that

1745
patient. It is quite possible, in a proper case, for a person in charge of a voluntary patient who has become incapable of expressing himself as willing to remain under treatment, to take steps to have that person confined under Clause 5, not in his own institution, but in some other institution.
Sub-section (2), of Clause 5, says that, primarily, application has to be made by the relative. It must be made to the person in charge of the institution, that is, the institution into which the person is to go. Therefore, presumably, it cannot be made to the person who has the patient already in custody. If there are reasons why the application cannot be made by the relatives, then the application may be made by someone else. I cannot see on the face of the Clause, why application should not be made by the person who has already the custody of the patient, provided good and valid reasons are stated for the fact that the application is not made by the relative on the basis of the form which appears in Schedule 1. I suggest that the hon. Lady put the matter too high when she said that in no circumstances should the application be made in that way.
However that may be, it does not frighten me at all. I should have thought that it was perfectly logical that when you have a person who, submitting himself as a voluntary patient, has become mad in one form or another, he must not be detained indefinitely as a voluntary patient—with that, I think, everybody will agree—and in his own interest it is right that it should be possible to take one of the other two courses instead of merely turning him out into the street, where it may be dangerous for him to be. In the proper case it may be right that the person who has actual charge of the patient, if there is no other proper person to do so, or if other people refuse to do it, should take the necessary steps and see that he gets treatment under Clause 5, or certification, or whatever may happen to be the proper treatment. Otherwise, if you cut out these words the moment a person becomes incapable of voluntarily submitting himself for treatment you have to cast him out on to the street and begin all over again. I cannot imagine that hon. Members really mean that.
Mr. McSHANE: Who is to determine when he ceases to be voluntarily incapable of expressing himself?
Sir B. MERRIMAN: That is determined, in the case of a person who has become a voluntary patient, in precisely the same way as if he is a person at large. There is no distinction between the two cases. We come back to where we started. What we are really discussing is the propriety of the procedure under Clause 5, because there is no real difference in the responsibility for deciding the question as to the passing of volition when the person is already under treatment as a voluntary person and when he is in his own house. There is no distinction between the two, and we are now really discussing the whole principle of Clause 5, which is the essential Clause in the Bill. I join with the Parliamentary Secretary in suggesting that the House should reject this Amendment.
Mr. BECKETT: The gist of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) is that we are discussing the procedure under Clause 5, and I hope, when we reach that Clause later to-night and press our reasons for considering it as a great importance, that all these arguments will be repeated. Obviously, the question can be better discussed directly on that Clause than in the indirect way in which we are discussing it at the moment. At the same time, I think this discussion has found the House at its very best. No question of party policy is involved, and there is a genuine desire on the part of hon. Members to find out whether the proposals sponsored by one Front Bench and adopted by another Front Bench, supported by some back benchers and opposed by others, supported by some members of the medical profession and opposed by others—
Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Will the hon. Member give us the name of the medical man in this House who opposes the Bill?
Mr. BECKETT: My hon. Friend who sits for one of the Lanarkshire divisions voted against the Bill on the Second Reading, and informed me to-day that he had not altered his opinion. In the closest trade union of all there is a certain amount of diversity of opinion on this point, and it is encouraging to find distinguished members of the only other

1747
union which can rival this one supporting us in this matter. We are dealing here with a class of unfortunate people who have no means whatever of defending themselves, and I appeal to the Minister, on an Amendment of this description, on a Bill of this description, which he admitted is a non-party Measure, to leave the question to a free Vote of the House. It would be nothing short of a public scandal if, on an issue of this great importance, where no question of party policy is involved, on which the safety of the Government and the efficiency of the right hon. Gentleman in the administration of his Department does not arise, that the Government Whips should be put on to lead members of this party who have not heard the Debate into the Lobby to defeat the Amendment. It would be unworthy of the reputation which the right hon. Gentleman enjoys in this House and in the movement outside if he did not allow this matter to be decided by a free Vote of the House. This is no Left Wing revolt against the Government; it is no desperate and fanatical plea for Socialism in our time—
Mr. LEIF JONES: No, this is individualism carried to the extreme.
Mr. BECKETT: This is not a question which involves the administrative efficiency of the Department. I want to give reasons why the Amendment is in my opinion necessary for the safety of the subject. Speaker after speaker who has supported the Bill, the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) and the hon. Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-Jones) have repeatedly made the point that there is a stage when a voluntary patient is alleged to be in a state where he is not capable of continuing as a voluntary patient and a decision has to be taken as to whether he should be certified. The question in my mind is, who is going to make this decision between the lunatic and the sane man? I do not trust the medical profession on this point. If I had lost an arm I should be quite happy in going to any of my medical colleagues in this House and asking them whether I had lost an arm. I could rely upon their opinion. If it were a question of carpentry, I should, with such qualms as are only natural to weak human flesh, submit myself to their skill with the saw and the knife, but when it comes to more
1748
intricate matters of the human frame and human psychology I have yet to have it proved to me that there are many, if any, members of the medical profession any more capable to decide on the question of sanity than any ordinary Member of this House. I think the honest doctor will admit that the realms of mental balance and sanity are almost a closed book, and to the fields of medicine this is a most inexact science. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) started out to prove, in a most amazing way, that this provision was really a safeguard to the person because it would prevent a person from being illegally detained; a very interesting warning to the House of the state of the average, not-too-well-informed-on-this-subject, medical mind. His one great theme was: "For goodness sake, let us prevent him being illegally detained"—there are very grave fears that that has happened in the past—"and, therefore, let us have the power to certify him quickly."
Dr. DAVIES: I never said that.
Mr. BECKETT: The whole question is that of the 72 hours. If there is anyone whose nervous system is sufficiently tense or sufficiently unbalanced that they feel that they would be better under medical treatment to go as a voluntary patient, then this period of 72 hours in the kind of places that are sanctioned by the Board of Control would be enough to swing over that delicate piece of mechanism and throw such person on to the insane side. It gives time for the Board of Control inspector to be sent for and to come and, although he has not the power to certify, he has the power to get the person certified in double quick time if the advisers think fit for him to do so. In Clause 5 (12) the period of 72 hours is extended to 28 days for different types of people. There are so many dangers and pitfalls into which this Clause may lead us that I will not weary the House by describing them, but I would ask hon. Members, regardless of party, to read the Amendment and then to read Clause 5, which will be put into full effect if we do not carry the Amendment, and I think they will then realise that without the Amendment they are sanctioning one of the most terrific engines of oppression and injustice. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be content to leave this ques-

1749
tion of administrative efficiency to the good sense and judgment of the House, and take the Whips off and let us have a free vote.
10.0 p.m.
Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I support the Amendment. I had not the opportunity of being a member of the Committee and of hearing the argument in Committee, but I have read the Bill very carefully add I have listened to the speeches this evening, and I am not competent to say that a voluntary patient should be kept longer that he voluntarily desires to be kept. If I am not competent, how is it possible for me to impart confidence to that individual who I am hoping would go to an institution for the benefit of the treatment to be received. I would appeal to the Minister on this point. Would it not be very much better for him to err perhaps on the lenient side and try, if possible, to put this Bill into operation in the form which we are now suggesting by the Amendment, rather than to allow it to go from the House with this feeling of uncertainty which, undoubtedly, is going to militate against the Bill and against the good which we hope the Bill will do. If the patients have the slightest doubt that they are going to an institution from which they have not as free an opportunity to go out as they had to go in, the object of the Bill will be defeated.
Mr. KINLEY: In supporting the Amendment I suggest that to defeat the Amendment will mean virtually the ruin of the high hope with which the Bill was introduced. When the Bill was first brought before us it was stated by the Minister, confidently and on reliable information, that if only the necessary service could be provided people who at the present time are becoming certified patients would in a very large proportion of cases never reach the certifiable stage. In order that that might be ensured it was proposed that a new service should be set up. This is part of the new service. In order that those who are suffering from mental trouble may be encouraged to come along and take advantage of the new service the existing order was extended and two new categories were laid down—the voluntary patient on the one hand and the temporary treatment patient on the other.
1750
The voluntary patient is the individual, who is still in full control of his faculties. He is the one who, in the stress of his every day circumstances, from one cause or another, feels that the strain under which he is still living is likely, sooner or later, to lead to his becoming unbalanced unless he can get skilfully treated at an ealy date. Therefore, the Bill offers to him the hope that that treatment will be provided and made available for him. The Bill extends to him the invitation: "Come along at your own free will, while you are still in full possession of your faculties, the earlier the better, and take advantage of our treatment, relying on our promise that this treatment is provided for the specific purpose of guaranteeing that you shall never be a certified patient." We are setting out with the idea of preventing certification. If we are not preventing certification, why are we wasting our time with this Bill? In this Amendment we are seizing one of the few remaining opportunities that we have of trying to preserve the spirit of freedom for the individual, which every hon. Member ought to strive to preserve.
We want to have it definite throughout the country that with the passing of this Bill when an individual decides to take advantage of its provision as a voluntary patient he shall have the guarantee of this House that, so far as we are concerned, he shall never cease to be other than a voluntary patient, and that we are not extending to him a trap that is going to lead him from his voluntary status to that of a certified patient. Directly he reaches the border line, when no medical man is capable of deciding definitely on his case, he is in danger every moment of finding himself certified as a lunatic without being consulted and without his friends being effectively consulted. He who walks in voluntarily, hoping to take advantage of a new service, hoping to stave off a possibility of certification, eventually finds he has been certified in spite of all his hopes. It is because that guarantee, the one guarantee that may, and should, lead to an extension of the services at present existing to a large number of people, thus giving them an early opportunity of receiving the treatment we are now providing, is needed, that I hope the House will agree to the passing of this Amendment. It has been said, I think, by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Dr. Morris-

1751
Jones) that the Royal Commission did not find any cases of wrongful certification. I agree.
Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I said that the Select Committee had not been able to find any cases of wrongful detention.
Mr. KINLEY: What is the difference in the asylum between detention and certification? So far as the individual in the asylum is concerned, it does not matter whether he is detained or certified. The point, however, I wanted to make was, that whatever there may have been in the mind of the Royal Commission as to whether there may have been wrongful detention or wrongful certification, they were equally emphatic that, provided the necessary service could be given, there were at present a large number of persons in the asylum who never need have been there; and it is because of that that we want patients to be given this guarantee. We want the public to know that they can take advantage of this service, resting assured that nothing can happen to them inside the building, and that if the worst comes to the worst they will come out to their friends before anything further shall happen to them.
Mr. LEIF JONES: The hon. Member who has just spoken has been asking for more than can be granted, because he asks that before anyone goes into a voluntary home he should have the assurance that in no circumstances would he be certified. That is an assurance we cannot have, and it seems to me, in supporting the Amendment, that he is going further than he can ask the House to go. I find myself in difficulties, along with many hon. Members. We were not on the Committee upstairs, but I have listened to the Debate here, and have appreciated the point of the Amendment, and I find differences of interpretation given by learned Members and others. The Minister assures us—and this is the point upon which we are all agreed—that the person who goes into a voluntary home shall not be in any worse position as to certification if his state of mind changes, and will not be in any more danger of detention than if he were at large. The Minister assured us that such a person was in the same position as if he had remained in his own home, that he was in no greater danger and
1752
was subject only to the same possibilities of certification or treatment as if he were at home.
Mr. McSHANE: I am sorry to intervene, but this matter is of importance. The purpose of this Bill is to deal with people before the break has come, and unless they are assured that there is some safety in this respect, that, at any rate, they may go back to their friends, they will not go in.
Mr. JONES: I understand from the Minister that that is the position, that in the event of their growing worse while in a voluntary home, the relatives will have the same power in regard to them that they would have had if they were outside. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend opposite has doubts about it, and I am bound to say, after having heard the speeches that have been made to-night, that there is some possibility that persons who go into a voluntary home will not have the same opportunities as they would have had had they remained in their own homes. This Clause is meant to get people to go into voluntary homes, and it is the fear of action taken behind their backs that will keep people out of the homes and defeat the purposes of the Bill. On this point the House wants fuller information and assurances from the Government. If the hon. Lady is right in her interpretation, then I am satisfied, but I think there will be great difficulty in passing the words as they stand unless the House is given that assurance. I desire to support the Bill, and I am anxious that these voluntary homes should be used by the border-line cases, but there is this fear of certification, and we must be clear on this point.
Miss LAWRENCE: With regard to a person under this Clause, precisely the same steps can be taken which would be taken under Clause 5, under which the relatives must make the application. If there are no ascertainable relatives it is possible in that case, if the reasons are set out for persons other than relatives, to make the application; but the relatives come first. If for any reason these persons should have no relatives, the doctor in charge, or the hon. Member, or myself, or any Member of the House, might make the application in that exceptional case. In no case can persons be received as tem-

1753
porary patients without the recommendation of two doctors. The procedure in the home is precisely the same as the procedure for those who are at large. It is conceivable that the doctor in charge is the only person who can make the application, but that is a wholly exceptional case.
Mr. J. WILSON: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, and I would not have done so had it not been for a few sentences which fell from the lips of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Beckett). He made an appeal to the Minister to allow this Amendment to go to a free vote of the House, on the ground that it would be unfair to whip Members into the Lobby on a question of this kind when they had not heard the Debate. He knows as well as I do that it is physically impossible for Members to remain throughout the whole of an eight hours sitting, and I make a protest against my hon. Friend's suggestion which I am sure will be reechoed by a large number of my Friends on this side of the House. I say that the attendance at this moment shows the real interest which Members are taking in this question.
Mr. BECKETT: If I said anything which seemed to convey that the Members of this House were not doing their duty in the matter of attending Debates, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having pointed it out, and I beg at once to withdraw any such suggestion, but I was not aware of having given that impression.
Mr. WILSON: I am very glad I have been able to give my hon. Friend the opportunity of making it clear that he had no intention of conveying such an impression. The same hon. Member said that he had no confidence whatever in doctors.
Mr. BECKETT: On this question.
Mr. WILSON: He said he had no confidence in doctors on the question of certification. I desire to join issue with my hon. Friend on that point. It has been my privilege, or otherwise, for 20 years as a magistrate, to examine cases both for admission to and release from mental institutions. To the credit of the doctors let me say that I have always found them very careful about certification and always anxious to use what
1754
influence they could—having due regard to the safety of the individual—to encourage magistrates to sign orders for release. The Royal Commission has gone very fully into the whole question, and after very exhaustive inquiry their conclusion is that there is no ground for believing that there is any ulterior motive for retaining people in these institutions who are fit to be at liberty and who aught to be at liberty.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. Are we not discussing an Amendment dealing with a particular question?
Mr. SPEAKER: On each Amendment there seems to be an inclination to discuss the whole Bill, and it is therefore difficult to keep Members to the point.
Mr. WILSON: I do not think I have been going beyond the points which have been raised in previous speeches, but if I have done so, I am sorry. I was certainly alarmed when I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). He tried to convey that if some person went as a voluntary patient into an institution, that then, without let, or hindrance, someone who was managing the institution was going to take that person by the scruff of the neck and, willy nilly, take steps to certify him as being unfitted to exercise his judgment. I think the speeches to which we have listened from the hon. Lady and other hon. Members who were privileged to serve on the Committee have blown sky high that theory advanced by the right hon. and gallant Member. I was going to draw another analogous case to that advanced by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Mr. W. J. Brown), when he pointed out the case of a relative of his who, under this Bill, would probably have been confined as a lunatic. I had another experience, that leads me to the conclusion that it is rather dangerous for people who are not able to exercise medical judgment, and who have not had some experience of cases of this kind, to interfere too freely. In former times, when I was a Member of this House, I used all my influence in order to get liberated from an institution a certain person who was certified to be insane. I went to see the person—
Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment deals only with those who are voluntary patients.
Mr. WILSON: I went to see this person myself, in a voluntary institution, and I used all the influence I could, and succeeded in securing her release, but evidently a mistake was made, and better would it have been to take the advice of the doctor rather than the advice of a politician, because within a few days of
being released, this unfortunate person herself committed suicide.
Several HON. MEMBERS Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood)The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 105.

Division No. 290.]

AYES.

[10.24 p.m.

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

Gibbins, Joseph

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

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

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

McElwee, A.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.

Gill, T. H.

McEntee, V. L.

Alpass, J. H.

Gillett, George M.

McKinlay, A.

Amman, Charles George

Glassey, A. E.

MacLaren, Andrew

Arnott, John

Gossling, A. G.

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Aske, Sir Robert

Gould, F.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Ayles, Walter

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

McShane, John James

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Gray, Milner

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

Barnes, Alfred John

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Barr, James

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Mansfield, W.

Batey, Joseph

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

March, S.

Bellamy, Albert

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Markham, S. F.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Groves, Thomas E.

Marley, J.

Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Marshall, Fred

Benson, G.

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Mathers, George

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Matters, L. W.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Messer, Fred

Birkett, W. Norman

Hardie, George D.

Middleton, G.

Blindell, James

Harris, Percy A.

Millar, J. D.

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Hartington, Marquess of

Milner, Major J.

Bowen, J. W.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Montague, Frederick

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Haycock, A. W.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Hayday, Arthur

Morley, Ralph

Bromfield, William

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Bromley, J.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Brothers, M.

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Mort, D. L.

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)

Herriotts, J.

Moses, J. J. H.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Burgess, F. G.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Hoffman, P. C.

Muff, G.

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

Hopkin, Daniel

Muggeridge, H. T.

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Horrabin, J. F.

Nathan, Major H. L.

Calne, Derwent Hall-

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

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

Cameron, A. G.

Isaacs, George

Oldfield, J. R.

Cape, Thomas

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Charleton, H. C.

Johnston, Thomas

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Church, Major A. G.

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Palin, John Henry

Clarke, J. S.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Cluse, W. S.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Perry, S. F.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour-

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Daggar, George

Kennedy, Thomas

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Dallas, George

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Pole, Major D. G.

Dalton, Hugh

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Potts, John S.

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Lathan, G.

Price, M. P.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Pybus, Percy John

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Dickson, T.

Lawrence, Susan

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Dukes, C.

Lawson, John James

Rathbone, Eleanor

Duncan, Charles

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Raynes, W. R.

Ede, James Chuter

Leach, W.

Richards, R.

Edge, Sir William

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Edmunds, J. E.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lees, J.

Ritson, J.

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

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

Elmley, Viscount

Lindley, Fred W.

Romeril, H. G.

Foot, Isaac

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Logan, David Gilbert

Rowson, Guy

Freeman, Peter

Longbottom, A. W.

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Framantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Longden, F.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Sanders, W. S.

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Lowth, Thomas

Sandham, E.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Lunn, William

Sawyer, G. F.

Scrymgeour, E.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Watkins, F. C.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Sorensen R.

Wellock, Wilfred

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Stamford, Thomas W.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Sherwood, G. H.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Shield, George William

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

West, F. R.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Strauss, G. R.

White, H. G.

Shillaker, J. F.

Sullivan, J.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Shinwell, E.

Sutton, J. E.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Simmons, C. J.

Taylor W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Sinkinson, George

Tinker, John Joseph

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Tout, W. J.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Townend, A. E.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Vaughan, D. J.

Wise, E. F.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Viant, S. P.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Walkden, A. G.

Snell, Harry

Walker, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Wallace, H. W.

Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Everard, W. Lindsay

Remer, John R.

Atkinson, C.

Ford, Sir P. J.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Balniel, Lord

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Beaumont, M. W.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Rothschild, J. de

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bird, Ernest Roy

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

Salmon, Major I.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Haslam, Henry C.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Brass, Captain Sir William

Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Simms, Major-General J.

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

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

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

Carver, Major W. H.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Hurd, Percy A.

Smithers, Waldron

Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

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

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Chapman, Sir S.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Colfox, Major William Philip

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Colman, N. C. D.

King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Colville, Major D. J.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Thomson, Sir F.

Cranborne, Viscount

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Tinne, J. A.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

Train, J.

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Meller, R. J.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

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

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Duckworth, G. A. V.

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

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Penny, Sir George

Womersley, W. J.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

England, Colonel A.

Ramsbotham, H.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Sir Basil Peto and Mr. Albery.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 106.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provision for temporary treatment without certification of certain persons.)
Mr. E. WINTERTON: I beg to move, in page 7, line 37, at the end, to insert the words:
"Provided that—

(a) section six of the Lunacy Act, 1890, shall apply to all pauper patients;

(b) any person appointed by the patient to be present at the consideration of the petition under sub-section (3) of section six of the Lunacy Act, 1890, shall have the right to make representations on behalf of the patient."

This Amendment will, I think, command the sympathy of Members on all sides. I notice that when the Bill was introduced in another place it was stated by the Noble Lord who moved it that some useful Amendments might be suggested, and that, if that were so, he need hardly say that they would welcome them. I suggest that this is one of the Amendments which should be accepted by the Front Bench. Its purpose is really a very simple one, to give to any rate-aided patient exactly the same privileges as are at present enjoyed by any private patient; in other words, it is an Amendment to secure the emancipation of the poor in the sense that they are given privileges which are at present enjoyed principally by the rich. The first words of the principal Act are:
"Subject to the exceptions in this Act mentioned, a person, not being a pauper or a lunatic, shall,"
etc., and a pauper or a lunatic is expressly exempted from the provisions of Section 6 of that Act. Those provisions are designed to safeguard the interests of the patient. The judicial authority, for example, shall consider whether the statement or allegation in the petition calls for his personal investigation, and he can, if he thinks fit, give to the petitioner notice of the time and the place for the consideration of the petition. It also enables him to visit, if he so desires, the alleged lunatic in order to discover for himself the state of mind of the patient, and it provides that any person, other than the doctor, who might be called the patient's "friend" can be present at the consideration of the petition. Obviously, these provisions were inserted in the principal Act to safeguard the liberties of people whom it might be designed to place in lunatic asylums for ulterior motives, and sometimes for
1772
financial gain. It has been argued against this suggestion that if there be no financial element at stake and no ulterior object to be served in the case of rate-aided patients, as may be the case with private patients detained in such institutions, there is no need to extend this provision.
I profoundly disagree. I can imagine circumstances in which a rate-aided patient may, for reasons of selfishness on the part of his relatives and friends, have steps taken against him for his incarceration in a mental hospital. There might be some financial advantage to them in obtaining the removal of a weak-willed person, and in common justice the privileges which are enjoyed by the well-to-do should be enjoyed by the poor.
It will be argued that this may be outside the scope of the Bill. It is not likely, however, that in this House for many years we shall have such an opportunity of dealing with this question, and if there be any rights which we can confer upon poor persons without injuring the general framework of the Bill, and without disturbing the equanimity of people who seem to take the attitude we must have the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill, we should confer them. Frankly, I cannot congratulate those who have been responsible for this Bill on their tenderness of heart in making concessions, and in view of the concern of Members on all sides that this Bill shall confer as much protection as possible upon the people who are likely to come under it, I have confidence in asking the House to support the Amendment, and in asking the Minister to accept it.
The second part of the Amendment says that the patient's "friends" shall have the right to make representation on behalf of the patient. That is the only safeguard that we are able to get in this Bill at all. We are asking a small thing, but it is not so small but that it might possibly be refused. If we asked for a bigger thing, we might get something conceded to us. This is an attempt to use the opportunity now before the House to confer upon the poor the privileges enjoyed by the well-to-do. I trust that no Members of a Labour Government will resist this, whatever may be the attitude of Members in other parts of the

1773
House. I urge on the Front Bench that this simple request should be conceded.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for the sake of common fairness. Some hon. Members opposite have been so grossly maltreated by the Minister that it is right that on this occasion their point of view should be adequately and properly represented. I do not mean to say that the hon Member has not moved the Amendment adequately. I mean that we were singularly unfortunate in the fact that on the Committee we had only one hon. Member opposite who played a gallant part, and that many of them were unable to take a part in this fight for the liberty of the subject. The Amendment deals in the main with the poorest section of the community, and we ought to do everything we can to give those people a chance to get out of these places if they recover their health. A second point I would like to make is that all through this Bill we have been in the unfortunate position of having to deal with a main Act some 40 years of age. If the Minister would realise the position in regard to this Amendment, and would do what the Mover of it asked him to do, that is, look at the position from the human point point of view, he would see that it is one which could be easily accepted and would confer a benefit on the section of the people least able to look after themselves.
Mr. GREENWOOD: During the discussions on the Second Reading of the Bill I said that had it been possible I should have been very glad to do what is asked in this Amendment, because it is a complete assimilation of procedure in all its forms covering the lunacy laws of the various classes of mental patients; but I explained that it was not possible to do so because I wanted to achieve the maximum of accomplishment with the minimum of controversy. If this is the minimum of controversy, I tremble to think what I should have had to face if I had done otherwise. In this Bill we have put together all the least controversial matters and left out the things which would have meant controversy and a Bill of undue length and perplexity. It is because it would have raised opposition such as we have never seen in the course of this Bill that we left it
1774
out and concentrated on some of the major questions of assimilation. What have we done for the kind of persons my hon. Friend has in mind? We have succeeded in getting rid of the pauper stigma. Is that nothing? That is one of the big things this Bill has done. The next big thing is to make it possible for people who have hitherto had no other form of treatment than that which followed certification to get the same treatment as the well-to-do are receiving. Is it not something to have done that? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not go further?]" I am trying to explain why. The reason we cannot go further is because this kind of simple Amendment would not meet the situation. The Bill would not be this length but three times this length, or even longer, and it would be dealing with a large number of things upon which public opinion is not in agreement to the extent that it is on the matters now dealt with in the Bill. I am not opposed to this Amendment but my objection to it is that if it were adopted with all the necessary consequential Amendments which would flow from it this Bill would never emerge from this House on its Third Reading. It is for the House to decide whether it proposes to kill the Bill by these Amendments or whether we should acept the most we can get and allow the Bill to go through all its stages.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: The speech of the Minister of Health has left us in a, state of confusion. I want to know who is against this particular Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman said that if he accepted this Amendment the Bill would be more controversial than it is at the present time but I do not believe that that is possible. In any case there must be somebody in the House who can give reasons against this Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman honestly thinks that these Amendments would help these people and that there is a strong feeling in this House against them I think he is right in the first assumption and mistaken in the second. What is the difficulty in the way of accepting this Amendment and allowing Section 6 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, to apply to all pauper patients? The right hon. Gentleman said this Amendment would arouse opposition but my opinion is that the only opposition which it would arouse would be in

1775
the Board of Control and not in this House. Take paragraph (b) of the Amendment which provides that
"any person appointed by the patient to be present at the consideration of the petition under sub-section (3) of section six of the Lunacy Act, 1890, shall have the right to make representations on behalf of the patient."
Just look at what this Bill does. Clause 5 provides for temporary treatment without certification. Therefore the ternporary patient has inadequate safeguards. Under Sub-section (14) of Clause 5 the Board of Control may at any time order
"that steps shall be taken to deal with him under the principal Act as a person of unsound mind."
That means that the Board of Control may have a temporary patient certified at any time. Surely we are right in saying that a person who is certified by the Board of Control with a certain amount of official backing should have the same right as an ordinary certified patient and should have someone to represent him. I cannot see why the patient should not have that right. The patient may originally be a voluntary patient and he may become a temporary patient, and all this time there is no legal right to prevent the action of the doctors. Surely under those circumstances we ought to give the Minister some control. I believe the right hon. Gentleman wants to have those powers and I believe that everybody in the House desires him to have those powers. I understand that the only objection which has been raised is that some persons, some vested interest is against that course but I do not think that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman on the point is complete and he ought to tell us not only who are the persons who are against these Amendments, but also the reasons why they are against them.
Mr. BECKETT: After the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I hope the House will take him at his word and bestow this measure of kindness upon the Bill, because, if there is such a great deal in the matter of safeguarding the rights of these people, I feel that it is the duty of the Minister and of this House to drag that dark and obscure body of people who want to deny these people their rights into the limelight and expose them in this House. After the Minister's very
1776
able explanation, if the House does agree to this Amendment, I take it that there are no Members in any part of the House who would be capable, after voting for the Amendment, of opposing any alterations consequential on the carrying of the Amendment that were found to be necessary for its working. I know that, in cases where there is hot party feeling, all kinds of measures are taken to kill Bills, but I cannot believe that any group of Members would take that attitude on this Bill. I do not think that even the high medical authorities who corrected me on the last Amendment would descend to that kind of opposition. The position is that as the Bill stands, in order to obtain the undoubted advantages which my right hon. Friend has said are given by the Bill, and for which ample credit is due to him and all who have taken part in drafting it, it is necessary to observe a set of conditions which are, in the opinion of many of us, worse than the existing law on the subject. The stigma of being called a pauper is removed, but the fact of being made a prisoner will remain.
I do not think it is of any use putting forward the argument that advantages of this kind are of no use to people because they cannot get the benefit of them. I have here a copy of the evidence given before the Royal Commission by a very distinguished medical officer, who said:
"I do not think it is true of the insane that they have no sense. It is very rare to find that there is not one of them who will make it his business to investigate how the home is run."
Further, after giving instances of the sense of these patients, he went on to say:
"That is the curious thing about these cases, that you cannot tell what will get them well in the way you can with the others, and that is why you want freedom for them more than for sane people."
That, I think, expresses in very well chosen language what would, perhaps, be the medical interpretation of the uneasy feeling that has been obvious in this Debate among the lay members of the House and therefore I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow us to vote freely upon this Amendment, with the knowledge that, if Members vote for it, they will certainly be prepared to support him in any difficulties which he may find in later stages of the Bill.
Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I wish to ask the Government a question, namely, how far they intend to go on this Bill to-night? It is now approaching midnight, and we are engaged on a very highly complicated and technical piece of legislation. Nobody wants to kill the Bill, but I do not think it is fair to the House of Commons to ask the House, at this time of night, to legislate on this very complicated Measure: and it is far more unfair to those unfortunate people for whom we are trying to legislate.
Another reason is that we have not the advantage of the presence of either of the Law Officers. I am not making any great complaint about that, because I know that these gentlemen are extremely busy, but the discussion on this Amendment does show that the House needs here the assistance of a Law Officer. For these reasons I would beg the Leader of the House to assent to the Motion.
Mr. GREENWOOD: The Prime Minister announced earlier that it was his intention to take the first four Orders. This is the third. I hope the House will complete the Bill before we rise. There was not a voice raised against the Second Reading. It was regarded as in principle a Bill on which all parties could agree. It took us unfortunately 11 days to get it through Committee. We had one day on Report, when we did not complete one Clause. It is obvious that at this leisurely progress the Bill, which was warmly welcomed in all quarters of the House on Second Reading, is not going to be put on the Statute Book this Session. We have already reached a time when we must go forward, having gone so far, and do our best to complete the remaining stages.
Dr. MORRIS-JONES: The Bill had long consideration in another place before it came here. It was read a Second time in this House without a Division. We spent a very considerable time upon it upstairs, very much longer than the Government thought would have been taken over it. There is a general feeling that we have to shape it in conformity with the wishes and desires of the House. Many of the Amendments that have been
1778
moved to-night have been due to misapprehensions in regard to some of the Clauses. I think the right hon. Gentleman might have saved a little time if he had accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway earlier. We feel that the Bill ought to be given facilities to be made an Act of Parliament as soon as possible.
Mr. McSHANE: I should like to make it clear that I spoke against the Bill on Second Reading, but I do not want anyone to think I am not trying to make something of it which will be of benefit to those for whom we are legislating. I want to dissociate myself from anything like obstructionist tactics. On no occasion have I been so impressed with the general absence of anything like party feeling or anger. It is in that sense that I rise to say that, if the Minister wishes to go on, I am prepared to go on on the understanding that he will try to accommodate us in our sincere desire to improve the Bill.
Dr. DAVIES: I should like to re-echo the remarks of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, because there has been a sincere desire in all parts of the House to make the best of this Bill. The Minister referred to the length of time taken upstairs in Committee, but the one idea was to make the Bill a good one. It is a very difficult and controversial Bill—not from the party point of view. It seems to me unfortunate that at this hour of the night we should be asked to carry on with a measure which so vitally concerns so many people. This is a Bill which requires a calm and deliberate consideration, and it is greatly to be regretted that the Minister has thought fit earlier on to apply the Closure to other Amendments upon which many Members on the other side were really seriously concerned. Instead of continuing the discussion in a calm, dispassionate atmosphere, he put on the party whips and herded them into the Division Lobby. If on so vitally important a Bill, Members are to be dragooned from Division to Division, it is not a course which is for the benefit of the people or of this House. I strongly support the Motion for the Adjournment, because I am sure it will be in the interests of the Bill itself.
Captain GUNSTON: With regard to the length of time taken in Committee,

1779
there has been no delay on the part of anybody who is anxious to improve the Bill. Hon. Members opposite did not take the opportunity of moving many of these Amendments in Committee, and therefore we are now discussing many new points which were not brought out in Committee. I dissociate myself from the remarks made by the hon. Member below me (Dr. Morris-Jones). The fact that these points were not discussed in Committee is all the more argument for continuing the discussion on another day.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I desire to support this Motion and to ask the Government whether in the interests of the Bill itself it would not be much better to adjourn the Debate. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is here, although the presence of one of the Law Officers was so fleeting. It has been pointed out that many of these points were not discussed in Committee at all. We have just now found an entirely new point which involves an important new element, and on which an Amendment was moved by an hon. Member opposite. For the sake of getting it discussed, I willingly seconded the Amendment. That is a position which shows there is a vast amount of goodwill in every quarter of the House in favour of the Bill as a whole. No one wants to see the Bill destroyed, but we all want to see certain things put into it. There is a genuine feeling among the rank and file in all quarters that certain things should be put in which are not in the Bill. Only just now the Minister himself referred to somebody who was opposed to the Bill, but it was not apparently anyone in the House itself. I have tried to be patient throughout the whole Debate and have listened to some personal abuse from the Minister and other people, but all through I have worked systematically to endeavour to make the Bill a better one. Many of those on this side and on the other side of the House, in their heart of hearts, agree with what I say.
The Leader of the right hon. Gentleman has said over and over again, that it is impossible at this hour of the night to make really good legislation, and surely under these circumstances, for the sake of the honour of his own Leader, the right hon. Gentleman ought to give way in order to enable us to take
1780
this Bill earlier in the day. It would be to the advantage of the right hon. Gentleman to allow us to have the adjournment now. He has not had a very long Parliamentary experience. I have rather a longer experience, and I would respectfully say to the Minister, who is a junior as far as his experience of this House is concerned, that if he forces the House to sit late into the night on a Bill, against certain of the provisions of which some of his supporters have very strong feelings, he will, sooner or later, bitterly regret his hard-hearted attitude.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think that our views on the question of the Adjournment would be much clearer if we could settle one little point which arose after Question time to-day. When the Prime Minister moved the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule he said, in reply to questions from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that some agreement had been come to on this Bill. Nearly all the Amendments which are to come on later in the Bill have been put down by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. I should like to know whether the Prime Minister meant that an agreement had been reached on the doctors' Amendments which are to come, or whether he is under a misapprehension that the right hon. Gentleman had come to an agreement with us on this side? I do not gather that we have obtained any concessions at all. If there is agreement with the doctors, we need not adjourn and can go on with the Debate, but if there is not an agreement, we have a very long night before us.
Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to call the attention of the Minister to the similarity between the present situation and the situation which obtained on the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Bill. I should have thought that the experience both of the Minister and of the Parliamentary Secretary on that occasion would have been sufficient to have enabled the Government to meet us on this point. The whole of this evening has been occupied mostly by Amendments moved from the opposite side of the House, and it appears to be the intention of the Government that our Amendments should be taken at a very late hour. Therefore we feel that an in-

1781
justice is being done to the Opposition. We have been very patient indeed while hon. Members opposite, some of whom were not on the Standing Committee upstairs, where many of us sat silently, have been bringing forward their Amendments, and we feel that we shall not receive justice if our Amendments are taken at this late hour.
12 m.
I hope the Minister of Health is going to give us some indication of his intentions with regard to the Bill, especially in view of the appeal made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). If he does not intend to do so, I can assure him that Member after Member will rise to continue the Debate; and he knows, he has had plenty of experience, what we can do on this side in the way of opposition. If he meets the House in a proper spirit, in a pleasant and suave manner, not in a contentious and overbearing manner, we shall get on, but if the Parliamentary Secretary gets up in her schoolmistress way and says that we are to do exactly what the Government intends, I can promise her a rough passage. The Government is bringing this upon themselves. The hon. Lady has much more experience in these matters than I have, and I think it is up to her to set an example and present a ladylike spirit and that pleasant touch which is so necessary in the House of Commons. As one of the opposite sex I appeal to her—it is no use appealing to the Minister of Health—to show a nice ladylike manner and a desire to meet us in a proper spirit.
Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I do not know whether the Liberal party is in favour of the Motion for adjourning the Debate, but I should like to support it. The Prime Minister, when referring to the business, said that the first two Orders would take little time. As a matter of fact they were not completed until after eight o'clock and we are asked to take this stage of this important Bill at this late hour of the evening. On a former occasion the Prime Minister suggested that the House of Commons should act as a Council of State. On this Bill Amendments have
1782
been moved from both sides of the House and supported on both sides. No one has suggested that there has been any obstruction and I appeal to the Minister to accept the Motion for the Adjournment.
Several HON. MEMBERS Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
Mr. GREENWOOD Mr. GREENWOOD rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put", but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Mr. HASLAM: This is a very special Bill which deals with a class of persons who are the least able to look after themselves. In view of that fact it is advisable that the House should be in a judicial, calm and non-party frame of mind to deal with the Bill. Since the last Division two Amendments have been before the House; the Minister accepted one and he showed considerable sympathy with the other. Therefore, our efforts have not been useless or destructive, but designed to improve the Bill. By our decision to-night we may be inflicting very great hardship and injustice on persons who are helpless and unable to look after themselves. In view of these considerations, I support the Motion.
Sir B. MERRIMAN: The attitude of the Minister of Health is putting the House in some difficulty. If the Prime Minister's pronouncement was made on the assumption that the first two Orders would take a very short time, that assumption was wrong. If his announcement was made on the assumption that there was any agreement between Members on this side of the House and the Government that assumption was wrong. The position at the present time is that there are some important Amendments yet to be moved, which will be pressed from this side, and when the present stage of the Bill is completed if the Minister seeks to go beyond, we shall have the Third Reading, on which the whole principle of the Bill can be debated. I suggest that it is not right at this time of night that the Government should force the Bill through in this way. I press for an announcement, from whoever is leading the House, whether it is intended to sit through the night.
Mr. GREENWOOD: It may be true that I am putting certain people in the

1783
House in a difficulty, but certain people have put me in a difficulty, and a large number of other Members will have to share the difficulty with me. I must press again the point that I made, that on the Second Reading it went through virtually as an agreed Bill, with a general chorus of praise, and it has had a substantial Committee stage. It is not true to say that many new points have been raised. There have been new Amendments but they relate to the old points that were thrashed to death in Committee. I must ask the House to consider the position in which we are placed. We are in the middle of May and we are dealing with a Bill which is substantially non-controversial, and which ought to have been through all its stages by now. I have no guarantee that if we were to give way to-night we should be in any different position later. I understand that the Prime Minister was quite clear about the four Orders, and in these circumstances I am prepared to sit through the night.
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I want to make one point. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that we have not yet taken a single Amendment from this side of the House. Each of the three Amendments which we have hitherto taken have been from the other side of the House, therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman proposes doing is to start the case of the Opposition at some time after ten minutes past twelve o'clock. We from this side have tried throughout the Committee stage to help the Bill through, because it was founded in the time of his predecessor, and we have met him on the Committee stage, but we have got certain points which we are still bound to make on the Report stage, and it is inconceivable that any Government should try to press through on the same night the Report stage and Third Reading when we only began the Opposition point of view at 12.30. I think that is a fresh consideration, and if the right hon. Gentleman and those who think with him will take that into account, they will see that it is a reasonable request to ask for an adjournment.
Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I regard this as a non-party Measure. Members on this side have supported it as whole-
1784
heartedly as any Member on the other side, so we are entitled to say that. It is on this ground that we claim to turn out the best possible Bill that can be turned out, and, for this reason, we support the Motion for the Adjournment. The Minister has said that the Bill occupied eleven days in Committee, and now he is trying to force it through the House in a few minutes. When we also remember that the Parliamentary Secretary has opposed an Amendment which the Minister, a few minutes later, accepted, we claim that we are making a reasonable request in asking for an adjournment, in order that we may be able to turn out a Measure that will be useful and lasting.
Mr. SMITHERS: The Minister, when he spoke just now, referred to the Prime Minister's announcement after Questions to-day that he wanted the first four Orders on the Paper. As we are on the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate I presume that I shall be in order if I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to tell me, assuming that this Motion is lost, if he intends to proceed with the Overseas Trade Bill as well? The Prime Minister, at the end of Questions, said that the Overseas Trade Bill had no Amendment down to it, but since then I have had brought to my notice a point to cover which I shall have to put down an Amendment. I hope, if I hand it in, and give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury a copy of it, he will tell me which Minister is in charge so as to allow me to send it to him. I have been in the House for six years and have tried to take an interest in its proceedings. I am jealous for the dignity of the House, and when a Motion for the Adjournment is moved by the chief Opposition Whip, at least some more responsible Minister should be here to take charge of the Debate.
Several HON. MEMBERS Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
Mr. GREENWOOD Mr. GREENWOOD rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 73.

Division No. 291.]

AYES.

[10.33 p.m.

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

Bowen, J. W.

Colfox, Major William Philip

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

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Daggar, George

Alpass, J. H.

Bromfield, William

Dallas, George

Ammon, Charles George

Bromley, J.

Dalton, Hugh

Arnott, John

Brothers, M.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Attlee, Clement Richard

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Ayles, Walter

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Burgess, F. G.

Dickson, T.

Barnes, Alfred John

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Dukes, C.

Barr, James

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

Duncan, Charles

Batey, Joseph

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)

Ede, James Chuter

Bellamy, Albert

Cameron, A. G.

Edge, Sir William

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wodgwood

Cape, Thomas

Edmunds, J. E.

Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Benson, G.

Charleton, H. C.

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Church, Major A. G.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Clarke, J. S.

Elmley, Viscount

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Cluse, W. S.

Foot, Isaac

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Lindley, Fred W.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Freeman, Peter

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Rowson, Guy

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Logan, David Gilbert

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Longbottom, A. W.

Sanders, W. S.

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Lowth, Thomas

Sawyer, G. F.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Lunn, William

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Gibbins, Joseph

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

McElwee, A.

Sherwood, G. H.

Gill, T. H.

McEntee, V. L.

Shield, George William

Gillett, George M.

McKinlay, A.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Glassey, A. E.

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Shillaker, J. F.

Gossling, A. G.

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Shinwell, E.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

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

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

Simmons, C. J.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).

Mansfield, W.

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

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

March, S.

Sinkinson, George

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Markham, S. F.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Marley, J.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Groves, Thomas E.

Marshall, Fred

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Mathers, George

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Matters, L. W.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

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

Messer, Fred

Snell, Harry

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Middleton, G.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Millar, J. D.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Mills, J. E.

Sorensen, R.

Hardie, George D.

Milner, Major J.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

Montague, Frederick

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Haycock, A. W.

Morley, Ralph

Strauss, G. R.

Hayday, Arthur

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Sullivan, J.

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Sutton, J. E.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Mort, D. L.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Moses, J. J. H.

Thomson, Sir F.

Herriotts, J.

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Tinker, John Joseph

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Tout, W. J.

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Muff, G.

Townend, A. E.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Muggeridge, H. T.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Hoffman, P. C.

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

Vaughan, D. J.

Hopkin, Daniel

Oldfield, J. R.

Viant, S. P.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Walkden, A. G.

Isaacs, George

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Walker, J.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Palin, John Henry

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Wallace, H. W.

Johnston, Thomas

Penny, Sir George

Watkins, F. C.

Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Wellock, Wilfred

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Perry, S. F.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

West, F. R.

Kennedy, Thomas

Pole, Major D. G.

White. H. G.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Potts, John S.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Price, M. P.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Lathan, G.

Pybus, Percy John

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Raynes, W. R.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Lawrence, Susan

Richards, R.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Lawson, John James

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

Leach, W.

Ritson, J.

Womersley, W. J.

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

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

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Lees, J.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Romeril, H. G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Forgan, Dr. Robert

Albery, Irving James

Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Aske, Sir Robert

Chapman, Sir S.

Gould, F.

Atkinson, C.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Colman, N. C. D.

Gray, Milner

Balniel, Lord

Colville, Major D. J.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Beaumont, M. W.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Cranborne, Viscount

Harris, Percy A.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

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

Bird, Ernest Roy

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Haslam, Henry C.

Birkett, W. Norman

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)

Blindell, James

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Hurd, Percy A.

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

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

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

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

England, Colonel A.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

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

Kinley, J.

Carver, Major W. H.

Everard, W. Lindsay

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

1760

1761

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Longden, F.

Ramsbotham, H.

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Tinne, J. A.

Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

Remer, John R.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

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

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.

Rothschild, J. de

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

McShane, John James

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

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Meller, R. J.

Salmon, Major I.

Wise, E. F.

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Muirhead, A. J.

Scrymgeour, E.

Colonel Wedgwood and Mr. Ernest Winterton.

Nathan, Major H. L.

Simms, Major-General J.

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

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Division No. 292.]

AYES.

[12.18 a.m.

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

Hayday, Arthur

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

Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Hayes, John Henry

Oldfield, J. R.

Alpass, J. H.

Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Ammon, Charles George

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Arnott, John

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Aske, Sir Robert

Herriotts, J.

Paling, Wilfrid

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Perry, S. F.

Barnes, Alfred John

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Barr, James

Hoffman, P. C.

Potts, John S.

Batey, Joseph

Hollins, A.

Price, M. P.

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Hopkin, Daniel

Pybus, Percy John

Bellamy, Albert

Horrabin, J. F.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Benson, G.

Isaacs, George

Rathbone, Eleanor

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Raynes, W. R.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Birkett, W. Norman

Johnston, Thomas

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

Blindell, James

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Romeril, H. G.

Bowen, J. W.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Rothschild, J. de

Bromfield, William

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Rowson, Guy

Bromley, J.

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Brothers, M.

Kennedy, Thomas

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Kinley, J.

Sanders, W. S.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Sandham, E.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Sawyer, G. F.

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Lathan, G.

Scrymgeour, E.

Burgess, F. G.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Cameron, A. G.

Lawrence, Susan

Sherwood, G. H.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Lawson, John James

Shield, George William

Charleton, H. C.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Shillaker, J. F.

Church, Major A. G.

Leach, W.

Simmons, C. J.

Clarke, J. S.

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Sinkinson, George

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Daggar, George

Lees, J.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Dallas, George

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Dalton, Hugh

Lindley, Fred W.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Logan, David Gilbert

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Dickson, T.

Longbottom A. W.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Dukes, C.

Longden, F.

Sorensen, R.

Duncan, Charles

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Ede, James Chuter

Lunn, William

Strauss, G. R.

Edmunds, J. E.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Sullivan, J.

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

McElwee, A.

Sutton, J. E.

Elmley, Viscount

McEntee, V. L.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Foot, Isaac

McKinlay, A.

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

McShane, John James

Tinker, John Joseph

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

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

Tout, W. J.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mansfield, W.

Townend, A. E.

Gibbins, Joseph

Markham, S. F.

Vaughan, D. J.

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

Marley, J.

Viant, S. P.

Gill, T. H.

Marshall, Fred

Wallace, H. W.

Gillett, George M.

Mathers, George

Wellock, Wilfred

Glassey, A. E.

Matters, L. W.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Gossling, A. G.

Messer, Fred

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Gould, F.

Middleton, G.

White, H. G.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Mills, J. E.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Gray, Milner

Milner, Major J.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Groves, Thomas E.

Mort, D. L.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Moses, J. J. H.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Muff, G.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Nathan, Major H. L.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Haycock, A. W.

Naylor, T. E.

Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

Bracken, B.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Albery, Irving James

Brass, Captain Sir William

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Balniel, Lord

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

Cranborne, Viscount

Beaumont, M. W.

Carver, Major W. H.

Crockshank, Capt. H. C.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Bird, Ernest Roy

Colman, N. C. D.

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Colville, Major D. J.

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

1786

1787

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Dawson, Sir Philip

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Lymington, Viscount

Smithers, Waldron

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Ferguson, Sir John

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Ford, Sir P. J.

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

Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

Thomson, Sir F.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Muirhead, A. J.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

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

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Gower, Sir Robert

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Ramsbotham, H.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Womersley, W. J.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

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

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Salmon, Major I.

Sir George Penny and Captain

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Euan Wallace.

Haslam, Henry C.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Question put accordingly, "That the Debate be adjourned."
The House divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 208.

Division No. 293.]

AYES.

[12.26 a.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Albery, Irving James

Ferguson, Sir John

Ramsbotham, H.

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Ford, Sir P. J.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Balniel, Lord

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Beaumont, M. W.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Salmon, Major I.

Bird, Ernest Roy

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Gower, Sir Robert

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Bracken, B.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Brass, Captain Sir William

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

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

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Carver, Major W. H.

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

Smithers, Waldron

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Colman, N. C. D.

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

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Colville, Major D. J.

Haslam, Henry C.

Thomson, Sir F.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Cranborne, Viscount

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Lymington, Viscount

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Marjoribanks, E. C.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Womersley, W. J.

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

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

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Sir George Penny and Captain

Dawson, Sir Philip

Muirhead, A. J.

Euan Wallace.

Duckworth, G. A. V.

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

NOES.

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

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Gray, Milner

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Charleton, H. C.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Alpass, J. H.

Church, Major A. G.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Ammon, Charles George

Clarke, J. S.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Arnott, John

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Aske, Sir Robert

Daggar, George

Groves, Thomas E.

Barnes, Alfred John

Dallas, George

Grundy, Thomas W.

Barr, James

Dalton, Hugh

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Batey, Joseph

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Bellamy, Albert

Dickson, T.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Dukes, C.

Haycock, A. W.

Benson, G.

Duncan, Charles

Hayday, Arthur

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Ede, James Chuter

Hayes, John Henry

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Edmunds, J. E.

Henderson, Arthur, Junr, (Cardiff, S.)

Birkett, W. Norman

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Blindell, James

Elmley, Viscount

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Bowen, J. W.

Foot, Isaac,

Herriotts, J.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Bromfield, William

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Bromley, J.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Hoffman, P. C.

Brothers, M.

Gibbins, Joseph

Hollins, A.

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Hopkin, Daniel

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Gill, T. H.

Horrabin, J. F.

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Gillett, George M.

Hunter, Dr. Joseph

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Glassey, A. E.

Isaacs, George

Burgess, F. G.

Gossling, A. G.

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Gould, F.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Cameron, A. G.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Johnston, Thomas

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Shield, George William

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Shillaker, J. F.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

Simmons, C. J.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Sinkinson, George

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Mort, D. L.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Kennedy, Thomas

Moses, J. J. H.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Kinley, J.

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)

Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Muff, G.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Lathan, G.

Nathan, Major H. L.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Naylor, T. E.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Law, A. (Rosendale)

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

Sorensen, R.

Lawrence, Susan

Oldfield, J. R.

Strachey, E. J. St. Loe

Lawson, John James

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Strauss, G. R.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Sullivan, J.

Leach, W.

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Sutton, J. E.

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Paling, Wilfrid

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Lees, J.

Perry, S. F.

Tinker, John Joseph

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Tout, W. J.

Lindley, Fred W.

Potts, John S.

Townend, A. E.

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Price, M. P.

Vaughan, D. J.

Logan, David Gilbert

Pybus, Percy John

Viant, S. P.

Longbottom, A. W.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Wallace, H. W.

Longden, F.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Wellock, Wilfred

Lunn, William

Rathbone, Eleanor

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Raynes, W. R.

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

McElwee, A.

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

White, H. G.

McEntee, V. L.

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

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

McKinlay, A.

Romeril, H. G.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

McShane, John James

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

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

Rothschild, J. de

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Mansfield, W.

Rowson, Guy

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Markham, S. F.

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Marley, J.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

Marshall, Fred

Sanders, W. S.

Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Mathers, George

Sandham, E.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Matters, L. W.

Sawyer, G. F.

Messer, Fred

Scrymgeour, E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Middleton, G.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Mills, J. E.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

William Whiteley.

Milner, Major J.

Sherwood, G. H.

Question again proposed, "That these words be there inserted in the Bill."
The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): I submit that it is quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment, and I should like to tell the House what it would involve. So far as the substance of the Amendment is concerned, I, personally, feel that there is a great deal in it. I was a member of the Royal Commission on Lunacy, and from what I learned at that Commission, I certainly drew the conclusion that the present differentiation between these lunatics who are called by the somewhat offensive word "pauper" and those who are not paupers was a provision which it would be quite indefensible to think of in modern legislation. On the other hand, I must point out to the House that if you are going in this Bill to try to set right that wrong, instead of having a Bill of 23 clauses, you are going to add at least another 23 clauses and probably many more, and I am asked why. Because throughout the Lunacy Act, 1890, you will find that there are running side
1790
by side two completely different schemes—the scheme under which the ordinary paupers are dealt with and the scheme under which the non-paupers are dealt with. The very inception of the thing is altogether different. In the case of the non-pauper lunatic, the procedure starts by what is called a petition, whereas in the case of the pauper there is no petition. The section of the Lunacy Act, 1890, here referred to is the machinery Section, which sets out what the petition which applies only to the non-pauper lunatic has to contain, and you are assimilating by this Amendment the procedure all the way through.
I can tell the House this. I will not say that the draft of the other Bill has been prepared, because that would not be accurate, but departmental steps have been taken to get the thing into shape, and I am told that that which has been worked out roughly is between 20 and 30 clauses, and anyone who takes the trouble to examine the Lunacy Act, 1890, will see that section after section will have to be amended. I would suggest that this Bill, although it does not carry out all the recommendations of

1791
the Commission, and although there are still a good many other reforms of the Lunacy Law which may be usefully introduced, still at any rate does do something, and, if we are going now at this stage when the Bill has passed through another place and has reached the Report stage here to accept this Amendment which would involve the re-committal of the Bill and an addition of something quite as long and as comprehensive as the Measure is as it stands, it really means that the chance of the Bill has gone altogether. I suggest that it is much better to take the Bill as it is with the Amendments that we have been able to make. Although, as a member of the Royal Commission, I resent the distinction as one which could not be justified, at the same time I would urge the House to take what we can here and let us have this Bill substantially as it is and leave that topic for another occasion.
Mr. E. WINTERTON: In view of the statement of the Attorney-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and to thank him for the explanation and express the hope that we shall have an early opportunity of putting this matter right.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 4.—(Power to lodge relatives and friends of patients.)
Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, at the end, to insert the words:
"unless he is lodged in a part of the hospital or house not permitted to be used for the accommodation of patients."
Under the Clause as it stands, patients in a registered hospital or licensed house can be visited by relatives or friends who may reside there as long as the patient is there, but, in order to prevent the possibility of over-crowding, it is provided that such relatives or friends shall be reckoned as patients in determining the accommodation of such hospitals or houses. In Committee it was contended that it might be possible for relatives or friends to stay in some other part of the house which was not a part of the hospital accommodation, and, to meet that view expressed in Committee, I have put down this Amendment.
Captain GUNSTON: I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if she can give us an assurance that while the Amendment will meet the views expressed by my hon. Friends, at the same time there is no danger of the apprehensions she expressed in Committee coming to pass. She said:
"You have got to be quite strict on these matters. You do not want boarders taken into an institution beyond the number for which the house is certified for boarders and patients together. You might have a villa in which you could put up other people, but to keep the house limited to the number of paying persons in dealing with a licensed house for which the patients are limited, is necessary, and I hope that the hon. Member will not insist upon disturbing the present arrangement, which has gone on for a great number of years."
"If the superintendent lived in a house near by, he could crowd it from attic to
1762
cellar with boarders. Take a big rambling house; the licence covers the whole of the establishment from hen house to the best bedroom, but it prescribes the number of beds for patients. These beds for patients may be diverted to boarders, as long as the total number is not exceeded, but if you have a separate wing or a separate house or a separate block, as you often have in a country house, you could use that for the purpose of this sort of private hotel, but you must be extremely strict that the part used for patients is kept for patients, and that you do not clutter up the house with too many beds. I think the Committee had better leave the Clause as it is."
"You can regulate the number of persons very much more easily than you can say that such and such establishment may be used for 50 lunatics and 75 boarders. It would be much more difficult to administer, and we do not want to increase the privileges of licensed houses at the present time. We desire to keep them as they were. There is a strong demand for the abolition of licensed houses, and public opinion is almost equally divided between their abolition and their retention."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 11th March, 1930; col. 169.]
She goes on to say—
Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have the whole speech read.
Captain GUNSTON: I only wanted to clear up the difficulty we are in. We are grateful to the hon. Lady for putting the Amendment down but we should like her to reassure us that the fears she expressed in Committee will not be realised in practice.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions for temporary treatment without certification of certain persons.)
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:

1763
"The Board of Control shall upon the signed request of any person who considers himself to be unjustly detained under such application, recommendation, or order, furnish to him or to his authorised representative free of cost a copy of such application, recommendation, or order."
I am very glad that our Amendment to this Clause is to be taken, because it is the kernel of the Bill. It is rather useful to have the Amendment discussed on the Floor of the House as well as in Oommittee. The Amendment is some sort of a safeguard, at any rate. I would like the House to understand what happens under Clause 5. If a relative of a person on the border-line makes an application and that application is signed by two doctors, one the medical practitioner of the family and the other a doctor appointed by the Board of Control, then the patient becomes a temporary patient for six months or for an extendable period. The important thing to notice under certification at the present time is that anybody who is certified has a chance of going before somebody outside these two categories, the relations and the doctors. They go before the magistrates, there is an appeal to law, and actual certification is done by the law and not by the doctors. Here you are getting a new principle, that, without going before a magistrate or before anybody except the medical practitioner and the relatives, you can have a person segregated for six months, which is extendable. In the same Clause, Subsection (14), there is a provision made for the Board of Control dealing with people who are temporary patients and having them certified.
The important thing is that there would be some protection for these people who go in for this temporary treatment. The Government may say that the control exercised by the magistrate, being outside, is useless, that the magistrates do it automatically, and that it does not provide effective safeguards even for certified patients. Although I think that is better than nothing, yet in this Amendment there is something provided whereby the incarcerated person may have a chance. Under the Amendment the Board of Control is to supply to the person who is locked up and who thinks he ought not to be locked up, a copy of the application that is made by the husband, wife, or officer of the local
1764
authority, or other person, and the names of the two doctors on the application, so that they will not be in complete ignorance. I submit that is some safeguard. It is only if the person is intelligent enough to demand it that he can get a certificate at all. I do not see why within the four corners of the Bill it should not be possible to give this small safeguard to them, and I am not without hopes that the Government may be able to accept the Amendment.
My real difficulty is that the right hon. Gentleman and myself read this Bill in rather different ways. I do think, when we are dealing with questions where the liberty of the subject comes in, we might have the presence of a Law Officer on the Front Bench. The presence of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office is an indication that a lawyer is wanted, and, in any case, how are we laymen effectively to discuss this question, which involves the liberty of the subject and deals with the law and the rights of the British citizen, in the absence, not only here but in the Committee upstairs, of the Law Officers of the Crown. I am not complaining that the Attorney-General is not here, because I know that he is a busy enough man, but I do think that we might have the Solicitor-General sometimes during the Debates.
The main point about the Amendment is clear. It is some slight security for the person who is not voluntarily detained but compulsory detained for a limited period if he can apply for a copy of the application and certificate under which he has been detained. I hope the Government may grant this very small concession.
Miss LAWRENCE: Most persons will agree that it is proper that the substance of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said should be secured to the patient but the Government have not overlooked that ground. Clause 15 of the Bill provides that the Board of Control shall make rules for any of the purposes specified in the Third Schedule to the Bill. The Third Schedule of the Bill, paragraph 6, provides among the objects for which the Board of Control shall make rules
"modifying and adapting in relation to persons received as temporary patients the provisions of Sections"

1765
so-and-so, including Section 82 of the principal Act. Section 82 of the principal Act states that
"the secretary to the commisisoners"—
which now means the Board of Control—
"shall upon the discharge of a person furnish to him upon his request free of expense, a copy of the reception order and certificate or certificates upon which he was confined."
Dr. MORRIS-JONES: On a point of Order, or shall I say a point of interrogation?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may ask the hon. Lady a question, but it is not a point of Order.
Dr. MORRIS-JONES: The hon. Lady has read out an order which refers to the discharge of patients, but I understand that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment is not dealing with discharge, but with admission.
Miss LAWRENCE: This is a section which is applicable to a person's discharge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Detained!"] May I finish my sentences? Section 82 of the principal Act provides that he shall be furnished free of expense with a copy of the reception order and certificate or certificates.
Sir BASIL PETO: The hon. Lady has read to us an extract from the principal Act dealing with giving the patient a copy of an order of discharge. Under Clause 5 of this Bill there is no reception order, because it says specifically that a patient may be received into an institution without a reception order.
Miss LAWRENCE: Such a person is incapable of volition. The Board of Control has to take all the circumstances into consideration relating to the detention of lunatics. I am not quite clear to what section the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme referred.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: I did not refer to any section. I said that it is specifically stated in the Bill that anyone temporarily detained under Clause 5 should have power to get from the man in charge this particular application form.
11.0 p.m.
Miss LAWRENCE: These men have every opportunity afforded them by the rules made by the Board of Control.
1766
Take the person of unsound mind who is unable to say yes or no. It is nonsense really to say that he should be able to demand the certificate. If he is a person incapable of volition but recovers himself so far as to be able to make a coherent demand by that action he ceases to be a person incapable of volition under Clause 5. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] A person under Clause 5 is a person incapable of volition—
Mr. LEIF JONES: Incapable of deciding whether or not he shall be treated.
Miss LAWRENCE: He is a person unable to say whether or not he desires treatment; he is a person who to the lay mind is plunged into the depths of madness—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] A man who is incapable of saying yes or no to the question "Do you desire treatment" is a person who to the lay mind is plunged into the depths of madness. [HON. MEMBERS: "We must have the Law Officers present."] Under Clause 5 he is one who has sunk into hopeless depression. [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] So that he cannot give a plain answer to a plain question.
HON. MEMBERS: No, No!
Mr. E. BROWN: We shall all be certified.
Miss LAWRENCE: When the question as to whether he desires treatment or not is put to him he is unable to give a coherent answer and may be certified as a lunatic. I ask the House to consider the mental condition of a person who cannot give an answer to that simple question. He is a person utterly incapable of giving an answer to any question. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Certainly he is. If a doctor says to him "do you want treatment" and he cannot say "yes" or "no" then he is a man whose judgment is under a cloud and cannot decide for himself. There are people in that position. Very often a woman will sink into such a hopeless state of depression in which she will answer no question at all, in which she sits perfectly helpless and to the layman that person would seem hopelessly insane, but to the trained eye of the doctor there is a chance of recovery. It is mockery to say that a person in that condition could perform

1767
the rational act of saying: "On what grounds am I here?" But if and when that person is discharged or becomes well enough, having recovered his mentality sufficiently to be able to manage his own affairs, he can ask for the statement required. [HON. MEMBERS: "What statement?"] The statement which I have already read, namely:
"The Board of Control on the discharge of a person shall furnish to him, upon his request, free of expense, a copy of the reception order and certificate upon which he was confined, etc."
Section 82 of the original Act is to be altered to meet the new situation, and it is to be adapted by the Board of Control. They have to change the nomenclature to suit those persons who are not technically lunatics, and they will do that by making the alterations necessary to adapt Section 82. To say that a person who cannot manage his own affairs—that is the person meant by Clause 5—shall call for a certificate, you are saying something which is not feasible, but if and when that person recovers his mind and can manage his own affairs, he has the same privileges that attach to the certified lunatics, and the Board of Control will be able to make the Section applicable to the new set of persons. Therefore, the Bill gives every reasonable protection.
Mr. ATKINSON: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that under Subsection (12) the patient who has become capable of expressing himself as being willing or unwilling to receive treatment may be detained against his will for another 28 days? During that 28 days the patient ought to be entitled to see the documents on which he has been detained. I do not know whether the Amendment dealing with Sub-section (12) is going to be dealt with, but as the Subsection stands it means, beyond all question, that even when a voluntary patient has become capable of expressing himself he can still be detained a prisoner for 28 days, although ex hypothesi of sane mind and able to say whether he is willing or not to receive treatment.
Mr. MILLS: Does this relate to the Amendment under discussion?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is in order on the Amendment.
Mr. ATKINSON: The argument of the Parliamentary Secretary does not apply to that period of 28 days and therefore during that time this Amendment could apply, and justly apply. I can see no reason why the amendment should not be accepted. If a patient is incapable of volition he cannot make the demand, but as soon as he becomes capable of volition, and Sub-section (12) presupposes that, there is a whole month during which he can be getting to know how he came to be where he finds himself.
Mr. W. J. BROWN: In addition to the point made by the hon. Member opposite, I would call attention to two other points. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the temporary patient will have whatever privilege attaches to the certified lunatic. I have looked up the Lunacy Act of 1890 and I can find nothing in that Act which bears upon the specific point raised by the Amendment. The nearest approach to it is in Section 82 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, which runs as follows:
"That the secretary of the commissioners shall, upon the discharge of a person who considers himself to be unjustly confined as a lunatic, furnish to him, upon his request, free of expense, a copy of the reception petition and certificate or certificates, and if the order was made on the petition, also a copy of the petition upon which the reception order was made."
It will be observed that that Section operates only after a man has left an asylum. There is nothing in the Act of 1890 which deals with this particular point while he is in the asylum, and it is precisely that point to which the Amendment is directed. That is the first point. The second point is this: The Bill itself, in Clause 22, defines the expression "institution" in which these people are confined, and it defines the expression "institution" as meaning
"A mental hospital and other premises maintained by a local authority for the purposes of this Act, a registered hospital or licensed house."
When one is dealing with a hospital or other premises maintained by a local authority, one may reasonably assume that the circumstances in which the local authority would desire to retain a person who had recovered his sanity would be

1769
difficult to conceive. But there are other premises, "a registered hospital" or "licensed house." There are a large number of licensed houses in this country which take patients for profit. I, myself, have had to visit some of these places, and wherever the element of profit enters into the handling of insane persons, there is an economic tendency to retain the people after they are well—an economic temptation against which the Bill as it stands at present provides no protection whatever. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are all under inspection!"] Yes, I know. As to some of the cases that have been in these places where they are under inspection, if it were in order, I could give information which would not lead to that complete trust in the Board of Control on which the Bill is based, but if there is one element which underlies the case of the Parliamentary Secretary of Health, it is the assumption that the Board of Control can do no wrong, and, secondly, that the hospital authorities can do no wrong. Without any disrespect to many who are doing their best on a difficult job, I cannot accept the assumption that the Board of Control can do no wrong, nor that the medical authorities do not make mistakes. If a person is sufficiently sane—
Dr. DAVIES: Look at Sub-section (9) of Clause 5, and the hon. Member will see that there are visiting committees which are additional safeguards.
Mr. BROWN: I know, but we want something more than a visiting committee; we want a residential committee. If the individual is fit enough to consider himself as unjustly detained, and is capable of making a signed request to the hospital authorities, it seems to me that there can be no possible objection on the part of the Ministry to the acceptance of the Amendment. To summarise what I have tried to say, I think that there are loopholes which are not covered by the Bill; I think that there is the possibility of the kind of case envisaged by the Committee; I think that where such a case arises, it is reasonable for the individual to make the request postulated, and I think that if the request is made it should be complied with in the interests of the individual.
Mr. HASLAM: I must confess that the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary has caused me considerable apprehension. We understood that this Bill was mainly concerned with people on the border-line, and was not partly concerned with people so bereft of their senses that they could be described as sunk in lunacy; but, according to the hon. Lady, the patients in the institutions to which she referred were so bereft of their senses that once they were in, according to her assumption, there they had to stay, and there seemed to be no hope at all for them. The hon. Lady, in defence of the Government, explained that the Government had made provision for the power which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) claims. She said that the patient could get this document on discharge, but that hardly meets the case. As I understand the point of the Amendment, its object is to enable a person who thinks he is unjustly detained to make such an application with a view to discharge and to be told that he will be able to obtain the document after discharge seems a mere mockery. This Amendment raises a very serious question concerning the liberty of the subject on which we ought to have the advice of the Law Officers. To make laws upon this very difficult subject and to deal with the question of whether people are to be regarded as lunatics or not, is a task which calls for careful definition and research. The House before coming to a decision on this point, and before parting with Clause 5 ought to hear the opinion of the Law Officers.
Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the House generally will agree that we ought, as far as we can, to insert safeguards for people who are in institutions of this kind, but I would ask the House to remember the category of persons with whom we are now dealing. For the most part, apart from the cases to which the hon. and learned Member referred, they are people who would be in a position to sign the requests. If the House press this Amendment upon me, I am prepared to accept it, but I want the House to understand that perhaps they are not getting quite as much as some hon. Members think the Amendment means.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Powers and Duties of local authorities.)
Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 31, after the word "under" to insert the words "Section one of."
This is one of three purely drafting Amendments.
Dr. DAVIES: I submit that this mention of Section one is quite unnecessary. It is the only part of the Bill which empowers a local authority to receive a voluntary boarder.
Miss LAWRENCE: Section one already occurs in the Clause, and this makes it more harmonious.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 8, line 36, after the word "of," insert the word "such."
In line 36, leave out the words "under Section one of this Act."—[Miss Lawrence.]
Mr. KINLEY: I beg to move, in page 9, line 37, at the end, to insert the words:
"Provided that the expenditure incurred shall not exceed the product of a penny rate in any one year."
This Amendment is one that will have to be carefully considered, and I want to ask that, in giving consideration to it, the House will first assure itself of what Clause 6, as it stands, is going to impose on local authorities. Those who have made themselves familiar with the Bill will agree, first, that it is proposed to make a change in the classification of those who at present are proceeding normally to the stage of certification. It is proposed to divide them so effectively that a fair proportion of them, by receiving treatment at the proper stage, will be prevented you ever reaching the point of certification. The question arises whether the treatment that is to be provided for these people is to be provided in existing institutions, that is lunatic asylums, or whether entirely new institutions are to be provided. I hope the House will agree that, if it be at all possible—it certainly is desirable, if not necessary if the new provision is to be effective as we all hope,—the provision to be made by the local authorities should not mean provision in existing institutions, but that the new treatment should be provided entirely outside the present area of the asylums, that the people who are going to be treated should be treated in entirely different buildings and in an entirely different atmosphere. If one looks at it from that point of view, the first question that arises: is what is the cost going to be? As against the suggestion that new buildings would have to be provided, there has been made the suggestion that buildings hitherto used for Poor Law purposes, now freed under the operation of the De-rating Act, can be made available and can be used for the new services, and, where available, can be used as an entirely new hospital and take in an entirely new set of patients. Assuming that to be done, the first thing that will happen will be that the building will have to be altered and equipped. Its general surroundings will also entail on the local authority a very large expenditure of money.
I suggest, if we take this matter a little further and investigate the position of the local authorities from that point of

1793
view, we shall find that in some parts of the country there is already a shortage of suitable accommodation for the Act in operation, and that, whatever additional provision be made, will have to be made in an entirely separate building. The Minister himself, in reply to questions, recently proved that, whereas there are certain local authorities whose existing accommodation is in excess of their own requirements, that excess of accommodation is taken up by the surplus patients who are being transferred to them by other local authorities under arrangements. There was a recent conference convened by the Lancashire Asylums Board, reported in the "Manchester Guardian," of 8th April, held at the County Hall, Preston, and the vital position I want to quote to the House is the statement of the chairman of the Lancashire Asylums Board, who pointed out that, from the financial point of view alone, it was extremely important that each of the local authorities should leave no stone unturned to arrange as far as possible for accommodation to be provided in their respective institutions. The result of their efforts in this direction would largely determine the question a whether or not another mental hospital should be erected in Lancashire which would involve an expenditure of at least £1,000,000, and the cost of maintenance of which would fall upon the county and the county boroughs unless some additional accommodation could be found or arranged for in existing institutions. He saw no way out of embarking on the erection of such institutions, but he was extremely anxious, as chairman of the Board, to avoid it if possible. The point I wish to make is that that additional expenditure of £1,000,000 which the Lancashire County Council is now facing is due, not to anything that they may have to provide under this Bill, but to their existing needs and immediately prospective needs under the Mental Deficiency Acts, so that whatever accommodation has been thrown free will be taken up under Acts already existing before this Bill is passed.
For these reasons, and also for reasons which are given in the report of the Lunacy Commission to the effect that, while casting no reflections whatever upon existing buildings or upon their
1794
lay-out or equipment, none the less they were firmly of opinion that the successful treatment of the patients in the existing asylums demands that there shall be a radical change in the type of building and equipment and in everything generally that means the expenditure of money, and because that of itself is going to throw a very heavy additional expenditure on the local authorities, I press this Amendment. There is the proved fact that the staff—the medical staff—of practically the whole of the public institutions is below what it ought to be. In very many cases, it is far below what it ought to be, not only in numbers, but even so far as quality is concerned. There is an overwhelming proportion of those doctors who have gone to their present positions from their ordinary general practice or with ordinary general qualifications and who have had no time during their qualifying period to make the special studies of mental diseases. Further, it has been laid down before the Commission that the medical men who were qualified during one particular period of 1921 to 1924 had no questions whatever to answer upon this very disease. While, in order to compensate for those things, many of the local authorities are encouraging the directors of their institutions to afford as many of their medical assistant officers as possible facilities for taking up those courses—
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is getting rather far from the Amendment.
Mr. KINLEY: With respect, I am proving that there is need—[Interruption]. I am proving from the evidence of the Royal Commission that there is need in our existing institutions for a larger number of higher qualified, and therefore higher paid, medical men.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The only way that I can follow the hon Member is that there is a very large amount of expenditure needed that he does not want incurred.
Mr. KINLEY: No. I do not want this House to throw on the local authorities a burden which they will not be able to shoulder effectively; that is, effectively in the way in which the proper administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act will demand. I want to impress on

1795
the House that the local authorities are already in great difficulties. No one will suggest that, if it had been an easy thing for the local authorities, these things would be in existence and that the local authorities would be equipped with unsuitable buildings and not provided with the medical staffs of the size that is required. The medical staff, according to this very evidence, is in many places so small that while the superintendent, himself and the local authority are quite anxious that the assistants shall be allowed to go away for leave to study the treatment of mental diseases, they cannot, and dare not, give them the required leave. All this does prove conclusively that local authorities are doing what they can do and are greatly handicapped at the present time, and that we ought not to throw on them an additional burden that will be overwhelming. It is not merely what will be thrown on them under this Bill. Some local authorities are shouldering every day heavier burdens. In 1914 the total debt of the local authorities of Great Britain was only £362,000,000. Last year it had grown to £900,000,000.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Again, I think this is a very roundabout way of getting to the Amendment. The Amendment is that the local authorities shall not spend more than a 1d. rate.
Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is not the idea of the hon. Member that we want to try and prevent local authorities spending more than a 1d. rate, while, on the other hand, he urges that they should spend more? Is not, therefore, the whole Amendment out of Order?
Mr. KINLEY: I want to submit that the passing of the Amendment, without any other alterations of this Bill at all, will do this—that the same duties that are herein imposed would be imposed on local authorities, but that the expenditure thereby involved would be limited to the extent of a penny rate as far as local authorities are concerned, and that therefore the additional money must come from some other source.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The point is not, that additional money should not come from somewhere else, but that it should only be a 1d. rate.
Mr. BECKETT: Might I very respectfully suggest that if, in moving this Amendment, which is to restrict the amount of expenditure of the local authorities to a 1d. rate, we are prevented from explaining how the money is to be spent and what are the sources from which it will come, we shall not be able to discuss the question properly?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that that point arises. The question here is that there shall be only a 1d. charge on the rates.
1.0 a.m.
Mr. KINLEY: I want to appeal to the House to carry two pictures in its mind. One is the work necessary by passing this Bill, and the other is the areas which that work will be rendered necessary. Take the local authorities in the industrial areas who are at the present time unable to carry the burdens already imposed on them by existing Acts. To what extent do we, through the burdens of this Measure, inflict on them an additional burden? Are we not justified in asking that whatever this Bill may inflict upon them, whatever duties may be imposed upon them, additional to their existing duties, that, so far as this House is concerned, we are not going to add to the difficulties of local authorities in industrial areas. Some of them in such areas have even got to the point that they are virtually unable to carry on their existing duties. This House and the Lord Privy Seal have tried to secure means to carry on their independent existence. In these circumstances, the House ought not to agree that an unlimited burden should be placed on local authorities. While we want every bit of good which can be got out of this Bill, we are not prepared to add to the difficulties of local authorities. I ask the House to agree that, so far as local authorities are concerned, their expenditure shall be limited to a penny rate for one year.
Mr. McSHANE: I beg to second the Amendment. In the main section of Clause 6 it is stated that it shall be the duty of every local authority to investigate the needs of their area and to take such steps as they consider necessary for the maintenance of institutions for the reception of patients. It is obvious that, if that is to be done adequately, in the

1797
way which would meet the needs of these new voluntary and temporary patients, there must be an enormous burden upon the local authorities. I ask Members of this House to picture how far such developments could take place in distressed areas. How far could they begin to develop such treatment? I think my hon. Friend has done well to call attention to the difficulties that these areas would have.
Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I am at a loss to understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman means. So far as we can tell, he proposes by his Amendment to limit expenditure to the product of a penny rate in one year. If he takes the ordinary county council, that might mean £10,000 a year, but his proposal went into large figures—millions. He also mentioned a very large staff, and he said it would not be less than 1s. on the rates. I have had experience of the proceedings upstairs in Committee. If I remember rightly, he was clearly out of order in what he said about the Amendment. The principle of his Amendment is not a bad one and therefore I have great pleasure in supporting him, while I do not agree with the words which he has used. The Amendment is to limit the expenditure when a Socialist Government has promoted a Bill. I rather gather that it is very unusual to limit expenditure of any kind in this form of Bill, although I believe there are one or two cases in the Housing Act.
Perhaps the House would like at this moment to take thought whether this is not a good opportunity to establish a precedent, having in view the fact that we may be unfortunate enough to have a socialist Government in a future period. Here we have actually an Amendment moved by a Socialist Member to limit expenditure. I am not sure whether this idea should not be encouraged. It is very rare to limit expenditure of any kind. Their topsy-turvey way of advocating it may not commend itself to those of a logical or classical turn of mind who are sitting on the benches opposite. We should rather like to hear the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary upon it. We know she is capable of turning it into pounds and shillings. She is an authority on the higher mathematics. For recreation she probably goes into the binomial
1798
theorem. Equations in the late Housing Bill offered no difficulty to her. Does she stand for the principle of limited expenditure? I hope very much she will support this Amendment. I would suggest that we support it. There may be more behind it than the hon. Member suggests. He sits in a corner of the House where limiting expenditure is not encouraged. They have moved Amendments even in relation to the proposals of the guardians of our public purse. I wait to announce my decision until I have heard what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: With the principle underlying this Amendment no doubt many Members will be in agreement—that is relieving the shoulders of the local authorities of the burden of carrying out the provisions of this Bill. I take it that the Amendment has been moved in this form so that it could be described as in order. In Committee stress was laid upon the undoubted burden which would be placed on the shoulders of local authorities. The Municipal Association requested Members to bear this in mind when dealing with this in Committee and I put forward on their behalf Amendments to do something to help the authorities in this matter. It would be out of order to say that the Government ought to assume financial responsibility for this Bill. That would mean more expenditure for the Exchequer. I would ask hon. Members if it is to do any good if this Amendment is accepted. We all want to see this Bill placed upon the Statute Book. We want to see it working smoothly. We all realise that under the present system, the block grant system, there will be no increased grant given from the National Exchequer to assist local authorities. What is the position of local authorities to be in this matter? As it is a new service it should receive a grant. The Minister says he does not regard it in that light. In many local authorities the project, if tried, will be on a very small scale indeed. The cases of some of the smaller county boroughs have been quoted. What they could raise would not be sufficient to touch the fringe of this vast sum. Once we have to tackle this question we should tackle it in an efficient manner. We should provide proper institutions for these

1799
people to be treated under proper medical supervision. Take the former Act of Parliament dealing with mental treatment. Why is it that has not been universally adopted throughout the country? Simply because of the vast expenditure entailed in providing the medical supervision and so on for the patients. Even if it is accepted by the House and placed upon the Statute Book, it is not the end of it, unless you have the local authorities to administer it, it will have been in vain.
Dr. DAVIES: I am actually opposed to any Amendment which seeks to limit the power of local authorities and which deals with this voluntary treatment. There is a great difference between the rateable value of county boroughs, particularly at the present time, and it will be very unfortunate if in a certain district of a local area they are handicapped in any way. This Bill will be regarded as one of the health services available for the block grant, and it simply means that, when the next grant comes up, they will become eligible for a larger grant. Any Amendment which is designed to hamper in any shape or form is to be deprecated and I hope the Minister will not be able to accept it.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I see we have the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with us this evening. Does he consider that a penny rate would be likely to cover the needs of the Bill? I presume the Minister would be able to collect the facts from his Department as to whether a penny rate as far as the larger areas are concerned would in any way be an adequate amount. Many of us think that a penny rate would possibly not be an adequate amount. If I may have the attention for a minute of the right hon. Member, could he answer that question as to whether it would be likely to meet the case? Personally, I do not wish to disagree in any way with the hon. Gentleman opposite who moved the Amendment, but it is important to consider whether local authorities are in the least likely to have the necessary funds at their disposal to meet the needs under the Bill. In the very long and interesting discussion upstairs, there was a state of indecision as to the whole position as regards the Bill and its
1800
finances. I do not want to have to read the Minister's speech. At any rate, the indecision is marked there very clearly. Can he, for the sake of many of us in this House who have been well wishers of the Bill from the beginning, give us a short statement in connection with this particular matter? It is one on which there is a considerable amount of anxiety, not only in the House but outside. It is no good laying down general measures of this kind unless you have some definite knowledge of how it is going to be carried out. That definite knowledge the mover of the Amendment has tried to obtain. He is making a real effort to put the Bill on a sound financial basis. I have very great sympathy with the mover, and I hope, at any rate, that we shall have an answer from the Government which will help us.
Miss LAWRENCE: A similar Amendment was moved by the same hon. Member in Committee. He then moved that the expenses of the local authority should be confined to a half-penny rate. After a tolerably short discussion, the Amendment was negatived. The discussion on the Amendment has provided interesting speeches, but it has found very few friends. The speech of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) dispenses me from the duty of making a reply.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give some indication whether the Government are prepared to render some assistance to the local authorities.
Miss LAWRENCE: No, no. Not all the kindness of the hon. Gentleman will lure me into a talk which would properly take place on a financial resolution. I think it would be utterly disorderly, and you, Mr. Speaker, would stop it if on the Report stage of the Bill we discussed proposals for Government grants. Will the House just look at what these local authorities have got to do under Section 6? Section 6 relates to their responsibilities with regard to temporary patients. The first Sub-section of Section 6 says that it shall be the duty to make accommodation for temporary patients. Where are these temporary patients at the present time? They are nearly all of them under the care of the local authorities and are actually in asylums. There are a large number of certified

1801
lunatics in asylums—people who might come under Clause 5—who are actually at the present time under the charge of the local authorities. They will be treated differently, they will not be certified, and I certainly hope that they will be put in some segregated institution. That will depend on the local authorities, so that it is exceedingly difficult to know, having regard to the new accommodation available, and regard to the fact that these classes of patients are very largely under the care of the local authorities, paid for by the rates, whether the patients under Clause 5 will cost the local authorities anything at all. It may be that it will cost them something, but not an appreciable sum.
The voluntary patients are a new class of patients. Under Clause 2 it is laid down that the local authorities shall provide this accommodation. I should not be in the least surprised from all our experts tell us that early treatment at this stage might prevent the local authorities from looking after real and hopeless lunatics. People ask how much this will cost. It is exceedingly doubtful, but, if the expectations of our experts are realised, there may, and I hope there will, be a decrease. With regard to the other matters detailed under Section 6, the local authorities are left to do as they please in the matter. These are the reasons why it is impossible to give any estimates of the cost. If we really succeed, I hope there will be a saving for the local authorities. I do not believe that anybody in the world would have moved such an Amendment if they had not desired to make some remarks with regard to the necessity of further Exchequer assistance. I have done my best to answer the question that hon. Members have put to me. I think I have shown the Amendment is not one supported by Members.
Mr. KINLEY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 11.—(Reorganisation of Board of Control.)
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 2, at the end, to insert the words:
"and of two unpaid commissioners, of whom one shall be a layman and the other a laywoman."
1802
I hope the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will support me in this Amendment. The first two Amendments that I have on the paper are not being moved, because they would, for technical reasons, increase the charge, but I can give the same effect to the three Amendments by moving my Amendment in this form. The Clause, as a whole, will read as follows:
"The Board of Control shall consist of the Chairman (who shall be a paid commissioner), and not more than four other commissioners, all of whom shall be paid commissioners, and two unpaid commissioners, of whom one shall be a layman and the other a laywoman."
The matter was debated in Committee upstairs, and I do not propose to argue it at great length. Here the Board of Control is being radically changed. Whereas under the Mental Deficiency Acts which constituted it there were to be 15 members, and there are now I think 11 members, the Royal Commission reported that they thought it necessary to have the Board of Control, which had done admirable work, and whose functions were so great, reduced and to divide its functions between the visiting Commissioners on the one hand and the administrative board on the other. For that purpose, the administrative board should consist of quite a small number. They actually suggested four, and possibly five. This Bill proposed a Board of Control of one chairman and four Commissioners, and suggests a staff of 15 visiting Commissioners. The remuneration suggested—a point which cannot be referred to now—is also lamentably behind the report of the Royal Commission. Evidently, this Bill suggests that all the five members of the new Board of Control shall be paid members. That cuts out the unpaid Commissioners who have done such good work hitherto at the Board of Control, and to make assurance doubly sure, there is a definite Clause later in the Bill which says that there shall be no unpaid Commissioners. There is nothing to that effect in the report of the Royal Commission. The report of the Royal Commission has been referred to again and again as being the substance and the reason for the scope of the new Bill, and clearly one has to look further afield for the reason for cutting out the unpaid Commissioners.
As a matter of fact, the unpaid Commissioners at the present moment are

1803
reckoned to be doing good work. The actual number has come down to two. One of them is my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Sir C. Forestier-Walker), who has done such admirable work in local Government, in Forestry and Ecclesiastical matters in the House, and is universally popular as representing the typical Member of Parliament who serves his constituency, understands people of all classes, and always makes himself extremely pleasant. The other is a lady who, besides having the treasured name of Darwin, has done some admirable work. Another who was unpaid is now a paid Commissioner. All these have been doing admirable work. It is said that in future this is to be done by the paid Commissioners, that the paid Commissioners are to be civil servants, and that the work is to be systematised and brought under control. It is for that reason that we propose in this Amendment that there is to be one unpaid lay man and one unpaid lay woman to bring in the unofficial element. The gist of our proposal is that there shall be an unpaid unofficial element to bring the point of view of the ordinary man and woman into the working of the Control Board.
The lengthy proceedings upstairs in Committee and in this House this evening show the real reason for this. The fact is that it has been clearly shown that there is a great suspicion and distrust of the official element in dealing with this question of mental disorder, and quite naturally and rightly so. You are touching the very basis of human life, and there are innumerable opportunities for things to go wrong. You want to establish public confidence and show that there is not going to be the iron grip of officialdom upon the unfortunates who are being dealt with by this system of mental supervision and treatment. It is the greater regularisation and systematisation of the machine in this Bill that inevitably shocks public confidence in administration. It is by bringing in the human factor of the unpaid man and woman into the vital part of the machine, the Control Board, that will give confidence to the public that the Board of Control is still human, in spite of the fact that it is official. It is no insult to or reflection upon the officialdom of the Government service to say that it still
1804
requires this element. Ordinarily boards do not require it in the same kind of way. We on this side have special reasons for believing in the value of unpaid officials in charitable agencies. In this case, they are especially necessary. The difficulties are very great and you must have public confidence which is far more likely to be given if there are unpaid members than if there is simply a paid body of officials.
The proposal in the Bill without the unpaid element creates this greater difficulty that you are dividing the functions. The Board of Control is to sit in Whitehall while the Commissioners are to do the visiting. It is only for very special purposes that the Board of Control will be expected to spare time to visit. Therefore, you will have a separation of functions between the administration by the Commissioners in Whitehall and the visiting staff. The unpaid man and woman would be able to do a good deal of the visiting and introduce the needs that are required. Those who have seen the unpaid visiting committees of county councils or people like the Commissioners at work in the mental hospitals can realise the value of their work. Simply because they are unofficial and unpaid, they can often get into closer touch with the patients and with the staff in a way that the officials are not able to do. I think the unpaid element is one of very great value for all purposes for the Board of Control, and, above all, I think it is required in order to give public confidence that there is a detached point of view being brought in this machine which will save it from being stereotyped on hard and fast lines. I can see no reason for these unpaid members being removed unless it be for a definite political prejudice against unpaid charitable work which is unjust and unsound. I hope I am not right in suggesting that, but I cannot see any other possible reason for depriving the country of the excellent services that the unpaid members have rendered, and I hope the Minister will see fit to accept this Amendment.
Mr. McSHANE: On a point of Order. I did not quite get the Amendment suggested by the hon. and gallant Member, but certainly the Amendment standing on the Paper is unsatisfactory in relation to the Clause.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment has not been seconded. Dr. Davies.
Dr. DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am not quite certain whether I agree whole-heartedly my hon. and gallant Friend, because the impression he gave me was that he did not place as much importance on this Amendment as I do. I think this is one of the vital Amendments to the Bill, because it deals with the constitution of the Board of Control. The Bill is making vital and radical changes in the constitution of this body, which was formed I think in 1845 of men and women appointed directly by His Majesty the King, men and women who through a long course of years have carried out functions connected with lunacy. We cannot forget that during the early years there was a certain amount of public suspicion of the Board of Control, a suspicion which perhaps in the early years may have been justified, but there is no doubt that for some years now the Board of Control have been gaining more and more the confidence of the public. They occupy a very special and peculiar position. They are the only safeguard that mental patients in this country have against improper or illegal detention. I venture to think that the increasing status of the Board of Control has given a measure of confidence to the people that our lunacy laws are being administered in a fair, reasonable and legal manner. I can imagine nothing which would give the people more satisfaction than the knowledge that on this Board of Control were two lay persons, a man and a woman, unpaid, there to look after the interests of the patients.
Mr. SHERWOOD: How much would that cost?
Dr. DAVIES: Absolutely nothing. These lay Commissioners were absolutely unpaid. That is a very important point. It shows that they have been absolutely unprejudiced, and under no Departmental control or influence. The duties of the Board of Control are very valuable and varied. They include scrutiny of the receiving documents under which patients are received in care, and the continuation reports, which warrant the continued detention, the visitation of places where patients are detained, supervision of the
1806
arrangements for the care and treatment of patients, the licensing of licensed houses in the Metropolis, and the examination of records and preparation of statistics. The Board of Control have very intimate and careful associations with all the mental patients of this country, to see that none are admitted and none kept under treatment unless the certificates are in order. I have a great regard for the Civil Servants of this country. There is not the slightest doubt that they are the most magnificent in the world, but still they are Departments of State, and it is a matter of common experience in this House that, if we ask questions which a Department does not wish to answer, we do not get the answer. Under this Bill, the Board of Control is simply going to become a Department of State.—[Interruption.]—All the members of the Board will be in a way Departmental officials.
I believe it is the idea of the Minister and the Department that it should become a Department of the Ministry of Health. In discussing this point upstairs in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary acknowledged that fact. She wished them to be civil servants of the same status as others. One of the objections made, when we brought forward the Amendment, was that it was altogether a new idea in any Civil Service Department to have gifted amateurs receiving no pay, and therefore not subject to strict control. There you have the whole gist of the thing. That is the reason why this House should not refuse this Amendment, because these unpaid Commissioners are, I suggest, a very strong safeguard that the Board of Control does not get so departmentalised, that the people of the country cannot get to know what is really happening. The Royal Commission did not recommend this method at all, and I admire the ingenuity of the Minister, because when he brings any point forward which is in the Royal Commission's report, then he cites it in favour, but when he brings anything forward not in the report, then he tactfully does not refer to it. The Royal Commission states
"It would be in our view undesirable that the Board of Control should lose its identity by being merged in the Ministry of Health. We consider it essential that they should be a separate organisation responsible for the administration of the Lunacy and Mental Deficiency Acts."

1807
This Bill simply brings the whole Board of Control under the control of the Ministry of Health, and we venture to say that is against the interests both of the Board of Control—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Sherwood) has anything on which he wishes to inform the House or criticise, I shall be very pleased to give way, but not to these irrelevant And meaningless interjections. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman either goes to sleep or leaves the Chamber. This is a very important Amendment, and I regard it as vital to the future status of the Board of Control. The question of status was raised upstairs and has been raised again, because, without giving any offence, I suggest that the constitution of the Board of Control as foreshadowed in the Bill is a definite lowering of the status of that body. Up to the present, as I pointed out before, members of the Board of Control have been directly appointed by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, but under this Bill they are to be appointed by the Minister of Health and His Majesty's consent is not required. That is a definite lowering of their status.
Another lowering of status is that the Commissioners may conceivably have to interview some of the highest medical men and medical psychologists dealing with lunacy in the country, and, when they are meeting such men, it is only natural that they should give advice and receive it from people with a status comparable to their own. You will probably not get the same smooth working as you have had in the past.
This Amendment deals specifically with the fact that we should continue a lay man and a lay woman on the Board of Control, as a safeguard in a way, and also in order to increase the confidence of the public in the work that the Board of Control is doing. It is a very definite difficulty and danger that we shall have to face. The very fact that we are allowing voluntary patients to submit themselves for treatment will make people in this country more and more suspicious and anxious that in no possible circumstances shall they get under the control of a Department and all trace of them be lost. Once people know that ladies or gentlemen, from very love of
1808
service to their country, are prepared to serve on that Board for no remuneration but simply to look after the interests of the patients, it will be of great benefit to the country, and it will be easier to get these patients in the earliest stages. I know that the Minister is definitely opposed to this proposal. In Committee, he was very adamant and would not listen to our demands. Therefore, I feel that I must appeal beyond the Minister to this House. The Minister holds his position through the votes of this House, and, therefore, I appeal to this House to show that it does not agree with the Minister in his attitude, and that it is determined, in spite of him, that the views and the votes of the House of Commons shall control this question.
Mr. GREENWOOD: This is an Amendment of substance, and, as the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) has said, it is of vital interest. It is one, however, which I cannot accept. It is not true that I did not listen to the hon. Member's arguments in Committee. I did listen to them, and I found them wanting. I am still of the same opinion as I was then, that this principle of accepting lay commissioners really introduces an element that is foreign to the spirit of the Royal Commission from whose Report the hon. Member has quoted. What did the Royal Commission anticipate? A small body of full-time people running an administrative machine. The hon. Members opposite want a commission larger than what was recommended by the Royal Commission, with two unpaid people in it for no other purpose than to make it a body less responsive to the Minister than the Royal Commission ever had in mind. In the early stages of the Bill, a strong view was expressed, not that this body was subservient to the Minister, but that it was far too independent of the Minister. The case that I have made time after time is that in these proposals it would be possible to get a closer contact between the Minister and the administrative machinery than is possible in cases where you have unpaid people. The Royal Commission never wanted a body that was more independent. It wanted a more effective administrative machine. No one will ever persuade me that you will have a machine that is effective if you have it established partly of volunteers.
HON. MEMBERS: Oh!
Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes.
An HON. MEMBER: What about the local authorities?
Mr. GREENWOOD: I have yet to learn of an effective body of volunteers.
An HON. MEMBER: What about magistrates and justices of the peace?
Mr. GREENWOOD: Hon. Members are mistaking the use of words. We are talking about officers who are administering as officers and whose responsibility ultimately is to Parliament. We are not talking about local authorities. I am quite sure that the local authorities of whom hon. Members speak would never dream of appointing honorary officers.
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: My Amendment does not ask for officers, but for members of the Board of Control.
Mr. GREENWOOD: What is wanted, quite clearly, by hon. Members opposite is a semi-independent body over whom no one is going to have control.
An HON. MEMBER: The Minister will have control.
2.0 a.m.
Mr. GREENWOOD: Oh, no. We have had this argument before. The argument that has been levelled repeatedly against the Minister and the Board of Control is that this body, as constituted to-day, is utterly out of touch with the public and has lost public confidence. To-day, it contains people who are unpaid commissioners. I see no reason to believe that, if public confidence has been forfeited, it is going to be restored by people who are there to-day. The procedure suggested by the Royal Commission has, I submit, been adopted in the Bill. There is no other Department of State to-day which places heavy executive and administrative responsibilities on an honorary staff. The Board of Education is not expected to have among its inspectorial staff a number of unpaid people in order to bring confidence on the part of the public to the Board of Education. The Ministry of Agriculture is not required to have that, either. Why should we have it in the Board of Control? There is no reason at all. The fact that you have two people, a man and a woman, from whom you cannot make demands but to whom you can make re-
1810
quests—is that going to make a difference to the spirit of the Board of Control? It is not. Hon. Members opposite are pressing this Amendment, not because they want more direct public control over the Board, but because, apparently, they want less. If the House is inclined to follow the report of the Royal Commission, it must stand by this view. There is a subsequent Amendment for which there may be some thing to be said. This particular Amendment, I believe, would be injurious to the interests of mental treatment, and I hope that the House will reject it.
Mr. E. BROWN: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman is rather alarming in its tone and temper, and it certainly does not appear to be in line with the tenor of the report. I understand that there was no objection in the Committee to the zeal or capability of the unpaid members of the Board of Control. If hon. Members will turn to the Royal Commission's report and summary, they will find the Minister's point is not shared by the Commission. On page 175, the Commission says:
"We are satisfied that the criticisms to which this Department has been subjected are to a large extent ill-informed, and that where criticism is justified the cause is to be found rather in the defects of the existing system than want of zeal in the members of the Board."
So that the Minister's view does not seem to be borne out.
Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Gentleman turns over to page 176, he will find the kind of Board the Royal Commission did suggest should be brought into existence. There is no suggestion of unpaid members.
Mr. BROWN: I was not dealing with that point. What the Royal Commission said was that with regard to voluntary effort they wanted the finest.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have in this country in many departments of administration men and women with knowledge and that kind of British independent judgment which we want to bring to bear upon difficult and technical problems. No Minister of State should know that better than the Minister who presides over the great Department of the Ministry of Health. I must say that the tenor of his speech really drives me in favour of the Amendment, for, if that

1811
is the outlook of the Minister of Health and his Department, then the sooner this House takes note of it the better. It does appear that if there is a number of independent people not under the control of the Department the better it will be for the unfortunate people who come under the administration of this Board. They will bring their independent judgment to bear. I quite agree that the Commission recommended that
"the Board should consist of a lay chairman, a legal commissioner, a medical commissioner, and a woman commissioner who might be non-technical. It might, however, be found desirable to appoint two medical commissioners, one having experience of institutional administration, and the other possessing special scientific qualifications … In our view, there is no justification for continuing the salaries of the commissioners at £1,500."
That does not seem to rule out the idea that we may have, in addition, two extra who may be a man and woman of great experience in this matter. That might lead to great advantage to all those who come under the control of this Board. In one part of the report, it is pointed out that they do not wish the identity of the Board of Control to be merged in the Ministry of Health. The whole view is against that and I object to the tenor of the Minister's speech. He seems to give the idea that his view is that the Board of Control should be a paid body of persons, and that, because they are salaried and not volunteers, they are not merely to be supervised by him, but that he should have the actual control of things in that way. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has done his case any good by making that speech. Members would be lacking in their duty if they did not take the earliest possible opportunity to protest against his ultra-bureaucratic view, especially in matters of this kind, where the liberty of the subject is the vital thing at stake.
Miss RATHBONE: I listened with dismay to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. I came to this subject quite fresh, not having served on the Committee upstairs. I find the right hon. Gentleman's speech singularly unconvincing. He made, I think, in the main two points against the appointment of unpaid commissioners. One was that there was no precedent in other offices of State. Surely, the analogy is rather to that of a deliberative body than to a purely
1812
executive body. Beyond that, there are two reasons which apply to this particular Board. There is already a precedent for unpaid service. Our experience of unpaid service in such an onerous kind of office to some extent inclines one to preserve it. There is the strongest reason which differentiates this particular Board from other forms of service—the very difficult and delicate nature of the work of dealing with insanity. A very real feeling exists in wide circles outside that, in the treatment of insanity, we are on particularly difficult and delicate ground. While there is need for improved methods of treatment which will enable us to deal with these difficult border-line cases, for which this Bill has been specially brought forward, the necessity in itself constitutes a danger. Everything that can be done should be done to reassure the public. The fact that the Minister laid so much stress upon the Board of Control being an entirely paid Board in order that it should be directly responsible to the Minister is precisely what the public does not want. People occasionally got bees in their bonnets, and one has heard of Departments which become rather dominated by individuals obsessed by particular ideas on educational, medical or psychological matters which may not commend themselves to the general public.
What harm can be done when we have the precedent of two unpaid commissioners? I do think it was rather ungracious of the Minister to go out of his way to allude to these unpaid commissioners and say that the Board had lost the confidence of the public. It seems clear that this is exactly a case where the introduction of the unpaid element of experienced men and women might help the public to have confidence. They would feel that here they had an impartial element—two people who were not looking for their future, or their rise in the hierarchy of official service, to the favour of the Minister, and would, therefore, speak up if there was reason to, think that there was something wrong. They would act as liaison officers between the public outside and the Ministry. The Minister might reconsider his attitude in this matter. He does suffer rather too much from the narrow-minded, bureaucratic distrust of the breath of outside criticism.
Sir B. MERRIMAN: It is not our fault that the first Amendment of substance from the Conservative opposition and of particular interest should be begun to be discussed at half-past two in the morning. I can assure the Minister goat the speech he has made will do very little to allay the feelings of some of those who are not quite comfortable about some of the provisions of the Bill. It is no argument to say that the presence of voluntary members on the Board is going to destroy the effectiveness of the machine. As it is, and as it will be, even if this Bill is accepted, you have got a permanent nucleus of official and professional people, and how it can destroy the administrative part of the machine passes my comprehension. [Interruption.] On the other hand, I make bold to say that the presence of these representatives of the man in the street, so to speak, will do a great deal to allay anxiety.
Mr. BECKETT: The first argument against the Amendment was that when you want unpaid commissioners they cannot be the type of people who can give the amount of time and service that will gain the public confidence as some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to expect.
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is the hon. Member referring to the unpaid commissioners?
Mr. BECKETT: I do not want to follow the argument to which the hon. Member has alluded.
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Then, is not the hon. Gentleman talking rather out of the back of his neck?
Mr. BECKETT: The hon. and gallant Member probably knows that one of the chief causes of insanity is insobriety. I will leave it at that. [Interruption.]
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I ask the hon. Member to withdraw that remark if he was referring to me.
Mr. BECKETT: I was alluding to insobriety in the ungentlemanly use of language in this House.
HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
Mr. SPEAKER: I think an expression of that kind which is capable of misinterpretation should be withdrawn.
Mr. BECKETT: I had no intention at all to dispute your ruling, but did you, Mr. Speaker, hear the remark the hon. and gallant Member made before?
Mr. SPEAKER: It was rather a different type of remark.
Mr. BECKETT: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman feels that my remark was calculated to suggest that his very vulgar remark to me was owing to his having too much drink, I shall be glad to withdraw it and to suggest that it was due to an absence of material inside and not to too much. The answer I was going to make was this. With regard to the question as to whether I was satisfied with the Board of Control, I do not want to-follow the example and continually to, repeat the observations I had made-previously.
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I point out and say that he was referring to the Board of Control and saying that unpaid commissioners could not have the knowledge as the existing commissioners—
Mr. BECKETT: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I expected to have a courteous apology to which hon. Members are accustomed. If I had known he, was going to misbehave like a cad, I should not have given way.
Mr. SPEAKER: I must insist on that expression being withdrawn at once.
Mr. BECKETT: I have much pleasure in accepting your Ruling in this matter.
HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
Mr. BECKETT: I have said I have accepted that Ruling.
HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is going to withdraw.
HON. MEMBERS: He is not withdrawing.
Mr. W. J. BROWN: If one Member is to be compelled to withdraw this noun, if he has to withdraw that which he has applied to another Member who has used language, which certainly ought not to have been used, may I submit to you that the withdrawal ought to be mutual, and, since the offensive observation which I myself heard preceded the use

1815
of the word "cad," the hon. Gentleman might have cleared up the whole thing by withdrawing his phrase.
Mr. BECKETT: I would rather end this controversy by withdrawing at once. I would have done so before, if I had been allowed. Now I will proceed to the second part of this Amendment. The first objection I have is the very restricted choice of the commissioners owing to the necessity for a considerable private income. The second is that directly you put unpaid commissioners on this Board you lose Ministerial and Departmental control. The hon. Lady who preceded me seemed to consider that was a desirable thing to happen, but I most strongly dissent from that. I have had a good deal of experience since I have been in this House of trying to deal with the Board of Control. I invariably found from the Ministers concerned in the last Government that they were practically powerless to handle the Board of Control effectively in the cases that I brought to their notice, and, while you have unpaid commissioners selected from a restricted class of wealthy people, not responsible to any particular section, you are in the first place finding, as a good Minister finds, that his difficulties are increased in dealing with them, and that a reactionary Minister has ample shelter behind which to run when he is attacked on account of his policy. For all these reasons, it seems to me that it would be utterly undemocratic to support this Amendment, and I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will resist it and that the House will support his decision with a good majority.
Captain CROOKSHANK: I now realise why it is that this House has sat so late. The Minister of Health would never have dared to make the speech that he has just made in the light of day. If there is one Department above any other which has earned the suspicion of the great mass of the people, it is the bureaucracy of the Department over which he presides. Many hon. Members on this side, including myself, have in previous times inveighed against the powers that the Department tried to take upon itself, and we succeeded in the last Parliament in getting the late Minister of Health to whittle down some
1816
of the demands of the Department. The present Minister has made an unwarranted attack on voluntary service—a most ungracious thing for a Labour Minister to do—because, if there is anyone who is dependent upon voluntary service, it is the present Government. The Lord Privy Seal depends on unpaid committees, and the Royal Commission itself, whose report we are considering, were voluntary workers. It is perfectly intolerable that the Minister should make a speech and then run away and not listen to any criticism.
It was said that this Amendment would clog the machinery. Anyone who heard the hon. Lady's speech would draw the opposite conclusion. It would enable fresh air to come in from outside. The Government should remember, when they are taking this attitude, that they are attacking every form of voluntary service. Does not the Minister go about praising the devoted services given by all sorts of voluntary workers? Where would the Ministry of Pensions be without the advisory committees up and down the country? It was monstrous for him to come down and make this kind of speech. I have always understood that the Labour party prided itself on the great amount of voluntary work carried out in its organisations. I see the hon. Gentleman opposite with his barrier of friends. He has threatened that he might not be able to find himself in the House in future. Perhaps he will be able to serve on this Board and bring his experience to bear on the problems with which he will have to deal. It is no good just saying, because people are not paid, that they have not the confidence of the country. It simply is not true, and the hon. Gentleman knows that it is not true. You can perfectly well get people of any kind, of any section of the community, who will be willing to serve, because there is great readiness in every section in this country to give voluntary service in every kind of way. I am perfectly certain, if the Government accept this Amendment, that they will find no difficulty at all in getting people in whom everybody has confidence. Now, as the Minister has come back, I will repeat again what I said just now. He knows perfectly well that, when he goes out of his way to attack voluntary service given by every section of the community to every Department of State,

1817
he will bring upon himself the wrath and indignation which, even though it is 2.30 in the morning, he will find in due course will rebound upon his head. In order to alleviate the position, I hope he will whisper in the ear of the hon. Lady that when she gets up she will do what she did before and accept an Amendment after he has refused it.
Miss LAWRENCE: I must protest against what the hon. Member has suggested. What took place was exactly the reverse. After the Parliamentary Secretary had clung to the original form of the Measure, the Minister, having listened to the arguments, gave way. I want, first of all, to point out that the Royal Commission, having paid a tribute to the work of the unpaid members, recommended that the new Board should be constituted of a small number of paid members. There is no mistake about what the Royal Commission says, and I ask the House to remember that the Royal Commission, after having inquired into the whole procedure of the Board of Control, unanimously suggested that there should be a small body of paid persons. The small number of paid persons they suggested is in the Bill. Consequently, the view I am going to express is founded on the authority of the Royal Commission. Having said that, and that is a matter of importance, I want to ask the House: What is the object of the Royal Commission and what is the true sphere of influence where voluntary help is desired? Under the machinery of the Lunacy Act every patient will be visited by visiting committees of unpaid persons, one of whose duties it is to inspire the confidence of the public. What was the object of the Royal Commission? It was just this. The Board of Control had existed as a kind of separate entity, not vitally connected with the work of the Ministry of Health. The net result of the change will be to place the Chairman in almost exactly the same position as a first-class civil servant in every Department, just as the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health. This body will be made an integral part of the Ministry. There is not a single point in this Bill which is not contained in the Report of the Royal Commission.
Dr. DAVIES: The salaries.
Miss LAWRENCE: The salaries are specifically put down.
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Not the Royal Commission salaries.
Miss LAWRENCE: The salaries are recommended in the Bill.
Dr. DAVIES: The Royal Commission mention a figure.
Miss LAWRENCE: These interruptions are unfortunate. Are these cases more important than other branches of public health which are under the control Of the Ministry? Are they more important than child welfare or the care of the tubercular? I think not, and in every one of these cases the service is administered by the civil servants of the type familiar in Government offices. The Minister of Health will be responsible for the members of the Board of Control exactly as fully and as completely, as he is responsible for Sir George Newman, the Chief Medical Officer, and every officer in his Department. Voluntary help would not be bound by the instructions of the Minister and would not be fully responsible to the Minister. The Minister will be responsible to Parliament for the acts of the Board of Control exactly as he is responsible for the care of maternity or child welfare. If you introduce this voluntary irresponsible element—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—what becomes of the power of this House? If the Minister has an official, for whom he is not responsible, what becomes of the control of the House of Commons? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have full control over the Minister if the Minister has not full control over the officials.
Dr. MORRIS-JONES: The Minister has the right of appointment, and he can dismiss the members if he likes.
Miss LAWRENCE: Appointment and dismissal are one thing, but, with the element of irresponsibility introduced, the Minister cannot be responsible to Parliament for his servants.
Mr. E. BROWN: Did not the Royal Commission lay it down that it was not desirable to make this Board an integral part of the Ministry?
Miss LAWRENCE: The Royal Commission recommended that there should

1819
be a body of commissioners. They suggested this, which is extremely important, that the chairman should not be the head of the Board, and that the Board should not be a deliberative machine, but that the chairman should be an executive officer. I do press Members to consider this point: Do they or do they not desire that every action of the Board of Control should be subject to Parliament? If the Minister is to be responsible for every action of the Board of Control the irresponsible element should be eliminated, and I believe the Royal Commission, having considered the defects of the Board of Control, unanimously recommended a small Board. There have been many complaints with regard to the Board of Control. I am not saying one word here against commissioners; I am speaking against the administrative machinery. It is common knowledge that the defects of the administrative machine has to a large extent lost the confidence of the public. If it is said that the lay element should be introduced, then this House is the lay element. That is the function, among other things, of private Members of Parliament. I press the House, having regard to the authority of the Royal Commission, to reject this Amendment and to allow us to go on to finish the Bill.
Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I have never heard a more disappointing speech from the hon. Lady than the one she has just delivered. It seems to me she is advocating in one way that the House of Commons should be the decisive factor, which I thought always was the prerogative of this House. It is the first time I have heard, because a Royal Commission has sat, that we are bound to accept every proposal laid down by the Royal Commission. I am one of those who pay the greatest tribute to voluntary workers, and I have yet to learn that because they happen to be voluntary they are necessarily to be classified as irresponsible. Is it to be stated that anyone who gives his services is in future to be considered irresponsible? This is a new doctrine laid down by a Socialist Government. I thought the Government recognised and appreciated voluntary work heretofore, but, after the speech of the Minister of
1820
Health, it must be accepted, I suppose, as the decision of a Labour Government that in future all assistance given, unless it is paid for, if it is given without any hope of reward, is not to be recognised. That is a suggestion that certainly has come from the Minister, and it is one which I hope will not be accepted generally by Members of this House, wherever they may sit. We have a vast number of not wealthy but poor people who are only too happy to give their help and guidance on these various bodies.
I am sorry to say that there have been too many recriminations during the discussion. Our sympathies go forth to those in whose interests this Bill is brought forward, and I am rather surprised that there should have been so much jesting and amusement among Members who sit on the Labour benches. We want to make this Measure in every way as successful as we possibly can. No statement that has been made by the Minister of Health deters me from saying that I think it would have been a great deal better if he had seen his way to accept the Amendment, and say that, as far as the Labour Government is concerned, they appreciate the help and assistance that has always been rendered by voluntary workers, and look forward to its continuance in the future. With such an unfortunate Measure that we have to discuss, it would have been a great deal better if we had been able to get the Government to accept the Amendment that has been moved and utilise the services of at least one layman and one laywoman.
Major NATHAN: I feel that the Minister has done himself and his party less than justice in the attitude that he has adopted towards this Amendment. I am alarmed at his attitude towards this suggestion and the view that he apparently holds that it is the duty of the Board of Control such as is contemplated, whether it consists of professional or unpaid members, to be, to use his own words, responsive to the Minister. I cannot help feeling that by an oversight both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have confused the recommendations of the Royal Commission as to the composition of the Board of Control with the recommendations of the Royal Com-

1821
mission as to the relations of the Board of Control to the Ministry of Health. It is perfectly true that there is no mention in the recommendations of the Royal Commission of any commissioners except paid commissioners, but unpaid commissioners are certainly not in terms excluded. I would, in reference to the relations of the Board of Control to the Minister of Health, and to the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary, direct the attention of the House to the statements made by the Royal Commission in paragraph 258 of their report. If the Minister will do me the courtesy of following the argument I am addressing to him—[Interruption]—an argument which I do not frame myself, but which is framed by the Royal Commission in their report, he will find this statement. It is not a question of the composition of the Board. Not at all. That is subordinated to a later and less important passage in the report. The Royal Commission define the issue thus:
"The most important issue that arises is whether the Board of Control should become an integral Department of the Ministry of Health or should remain a separate organisation related to the Ministry of Health in manner now provided by the Lunacy Act,"
and so on. That is the most important issue: What are the relations to be between the Ministry of Health and the Board of Control? One would have thought, from the arguments presented to the House by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, that the answer to that question was that the Board of Control should be subservient to the Minister of Health and responsive to the Minister of Health. But the answer is very different. The answer of the Royal Commission to the question which they raised on what they defined as the most important issue is this:
"It would, in our view, be undesirable that the Board of Control should lose its identity by being merged in the Ministry of Health."
There is nothing there about being responsive to the Minister, nothing there about being under the control of the Minister, and nothing there about being obedient to the instructions of the Minister. Not at all. They go further:
"We consider it essential that there should be a separate organisation responsible for the administration of the Lunacy and Mental Deficiency Acts."
1822
Then they go on to say, in a very minor key, that, as this deals with health problems, the Minister of Health should be answerable to Parliament. That is the whole sum and total of his duties recommended by the Royal Commission. They proceed to review, briefly, the relations between the Minister of Health and the Board of Control and how they are to be exercised. First, they say that there should be a, different body not subject to the control of the Minister of Health; then they say that it must have relations with the Minister of Health; and now they go on to say what those relations shall be. They say:
"It is necessary to have a general control over its policy."
There is nothing there about being responsive to the Minister and nothing about being obedient to his instructions, but a general control. They even say how it shall be exercised:
"This control is effectively exercised through the submission to the Minister of the draft estimate of the Board for which the Minister is responsible to Parliament."
That is in line with the constitutional practice. They do, it is true, say that in practice the Minister s views are consulted from time to time on important questions of policy that arise. That is nothing new, nor does it, require modified or strengthened procedure. Then the report refers to matters not really material to my argument, but I do not want it to be suggested that I have in any way misled the House. It suggests that certain statutory powers of control and matters in which the Minister's approval is required be retained; but throughout the report, from beginning to end, there is no suggestion of a day-to-day control by the Minister to be exercised over the Board. There is no suggestion of their being responsive to the Minister, and there is no suggestion of their being subservient to his instructions. The whole object and aim of the Royal Commission, in defining the relations between the Minister of Health and the Board of Control, is to establish how the Minister's responsibility to Parliament is to be ensured. That is the sum total of it all.
As regards, not the relations between these bodies, but the composition of the Board of Control, can the Minister have forgotten that only two or three days

1823
ago the President of the Board of Trade expressed to the House and, through this House, to the country the appreciation of the Labour Government—and not only of the Labour Government but of this House as a whole—to the Food Council, which had been acting in an honorary capacity? Does the Minister forget that the same colleague of his, in relation to the Consumers' Council, in defining the suggested composition of that council, pointed out that it was hoped to secure voluntary effort, and that he laid stress on the importance he attached to membership of those who were unpaid on that body? I ask the Minister to reconsider a view with which he has startled us and rather alarmed us by putting forward to-day. Let him not forget—and I now direct myself to
the argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary—that it is not a question of a group of paid members and a group of unpaid members, some of whom may be willing and others not willing to abide by certain lines of policy. The Board of Control is one and indivisible. I only wish, in conclusion, to say that I am alarmed at the attitude adopted by the Minister. I express the strong feeling with which this Amendment is regarded by this House.
Mr. GREENWOOD Mr. GREENWOOD rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided; Ayes, 182; Noes, 44.

Division No. 294.]

AYES.

[3.0 a.m.

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

Gill, T. H.

Longden, F.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Gillett, George M.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Alpass, J. H.

Glassey, A. E.

McElwee, A.

Ammon, Charles George

Gossling, A. G.

McEntee, V. L.

Arnott, John

Gould, F.

McKinlay, A.

Aske, Sir Robert

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

McShane, John James

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Gray, Milner

Mansfield, W.

Barnes, Alfred John

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Marley, J.

Barr, James

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Marshall, Fred

Batey, Joseph

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Mathers, George

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Groves, Thomas E.

Messer, Fred

Bellamy, Albert

Grundy, Thomas W.

Milner, Major J.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Benson, G.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Mort, D. L.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Moses, J. J. H.

Blindell, James

Haycock, A. W.

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Bowen, J. W.

Hayes, John Henry

Muff, G.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Nathan, Major H. L.

Bromfield, William

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

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

Bromley, J.

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Oldfield, J. R.

Brothers, M.

Herriotts, J.

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Hoffman, P. C.

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Hollins, A.

Potts, John S.

Burgess, F. G.

Hopkin, Daniel

Price, M. P.

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Horrabin, J. F.

Pybus, Percy John

Cameron, A. G.

Isaacs, George

Quibell, D. J. K.

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Charleton, H. C.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Church, Major A. G.

Johnston, Thomas

Raynes, W. R.

Clarke, J. S.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Romeril, H. G.

Daggar, George

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Dallas, George

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Rowson, Guy

Dalton, Hugh

Kennedy, Thomas

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Kinley, J.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Lathan, G.

Sanders, W. S.

Dickson, T.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Sandham, E.

Duncan, Charles

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Sawyer, G. F.

Ede, James Chuter

Lawrence, Susan

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Edmunds, J. E.

Lawson, John James

Sherwood, G. H.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Shield, George William

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Leach, W.

Shillaker, J. F.

Elmley, Viscount

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Simmons, C. J.

Foot, Isaac

Lees, J.

Sinkinson, George

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Lindley, Fred W.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Gibbins, Joseph

Logan, David Gilbert

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Longbottom, A. W.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Viant, S. P.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Sorensen, R.

Wallace, H. W.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Sullivan, J.

Wellock, Wilfred

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Sutton, J. E.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

White, H. G.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Tinker, John Joseph

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Tout, W. J.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Townend, A. E.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Mr. Wilfrid Paling and Mr. Ben-Jamin Smith.

Vaughan, D. J.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Penny, Sir George

Balniel, Lord

Ford, Sir P. J.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Beaumont, M. W.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Bird, Ernest Roy

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Bracken, B.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Briscoe, Richard George

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

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

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

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

Smithers, Waldron

Colville, Major D. J.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Cranborne, Viscount

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

Womersley, W. J.

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

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

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Muirhead, A. J.

Euan Wallace.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House divided: Ayes, 63; Noes, 163.

Division No. 295.]

AYES.

[3.9 a.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Elmley, Viscount

Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

Aske, Sir Robert

Foot, Isaac

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

Balniel, Lord

Ford, Sir P. J.

Pybus, Percy John

Beaumont, M. W.

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Bird, Ernest Roy

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Blindell, James

Glassey, A. E.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Gray, Milner

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Bracken, B.

Greene, W. P. Crawford

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Briscoe, Richard George

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

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

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Colville, Major D. J.

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

Smithers, Waldron

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Cranborne, Viscount

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

White, H. G.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

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

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

Womersley, W. J.

Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Muirhead, A. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Nathan, Major H. L.

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

NOES.

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

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Gill, T. H.

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.

Burgess, F. G.

Gillett, George M.

Alpass, J. H.

Cameron, A. G.

Gossling, A. G.

Ammon, Charles George

Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Gould, F.

Arnott, John

Charleton, H. C.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Church, Major A. G.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Barnes, Alfred John

Clarke, J. S.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Barr, James

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Groves, Thomas E.

Batey, Joseph

Daggar, George

Grundy, Thomas W.

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

Dallas, George

Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)

Bellamy, Albert

Dalton, Hugh

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)

Benson, G.

Dickson, T.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Bentham, Dr. Ethel

Duncan, Charles

Haycock, A. W.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Ede, James Chuter

Hayes, John Henry

Bowen, J. W.

Edmunds, J. E.

Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)

Broad, Francis Alfred

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Bromfield, William

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)

Bromley, J.

Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

Herriotts, J.

Brothers, M.

Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)

Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)

Gibbins, Joseph

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Hoffman, P. C.

Hollins, A.

McShane, John James

Sinkinson, George

Hopkin, Daniel

Mansfield, W.

Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)

Horrabin, J. F.

Marley, J.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Isaacs, George

Marshall, Fred

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

Mathers, George

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Messer, Fred

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Johnston, Thomas

Milner, Major J.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Sorensen, R.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Mort, D. L.

Sullivan, J.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Moses, J. J. H.

Sutton, J. E.

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.

Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Kennedy, Thomas

Muff, G.

Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Kinley, J.

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

Tinker, John Joseph

Lathan, G.

Oldfield, J. R.

Tout, W. J.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Townend, A. E.

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Vaughan, D. J.

Lawrence, Susan

Potts, John S.

Viant, S. P.

Lawson, John James

Price, M. P.

Wallace, H. W.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Wellock, Wilfred

Leach, W.

Raynes, W. R.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Lees, J.

Romeril, H. G.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Lindley, Fred W.

Rowson, Guy

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Logan, David Gilbert

Sanders, W. S.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Longbottom, A. W.

Sandham, E.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Longden, F.

Sawyer, G. F.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Lunn, William

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Sherwood, G. H.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

McElwee, A.

Shield, George William

McEntee, V. L.

Shillaker, J. F.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

McKinlay, A.

Simmons, C. J.

Mr. Wilfrid Paling and Mr. Benjamin Smith.

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

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 6, to leave out the words "one at least shall be a medical commissioner" and to insert instead thereof the words "two shall be medical commissioners."
The object of this Amendment is to carry out a further proposal in the Report of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission Report has been referred to us freely as being the best—
Major HARVEY: On a point of Order. I want to be clear on this matter. Line six reads:
"one at least shall be a medical commissioner."
I do not know whether there has been a misprint or whether there has been a misunderstanding.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member has not read the Bill, otherwise he would have seen that the sentence begins with the word "one" in line 6.
Major HARVEY: Is it not possible for you to say—[Interruption.]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The word "one" starts on line 6.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS: On that point of Order, I am afraid that there are two "one's" in this Bill.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not a point of Order. It is the usual and correct way to start from the line where the Proposed Amendment begins.
Mr. WILLIAMS: Should we also see Section I?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Member has made a mistake, he will tell me so. Colonel Fremantle.
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I take it your Ruling is that the Amendment is clear as it stands, and, consequently, I think we can get to the substance of it. The proposal is that the Board of Control shall consist of one chairman and four other commissioners, and it is arranged already in the Bill that one shall be a lawyer, one shall be of the medical profession, and one shall be a woman. Looking at the work of the Board, it is quite clear, as you read the Report of the Royal Commission, that the work is mainly legal and medical. It is so much so that the Royal Commission said it might even be desirable to appoint two medical commissioners, one having experience of institutional administration and the other possessing special scientific qualification. I think it will be recognised that the work is really on two different planes. You cannot, as a rule, get one man who will fulfil both these qualifications. He either is an administrator of a mental institution and comes

1829
with that experience and knowledge and has done very little research, or, on the other hand, he is devoted to research work and has done very little administration. Therefore, as the Bill stands, you have to have either one or the other, whereas for the work of the Board of Control you really want to have both. I suggest, in accordance with the proposal of the Royal Commission, that you should have both on the Board.
Dr. DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. GREENWOOD: In view of the fact that the hon. and gallant Member may feel there was something to be said for two medical commissioners, and as it was intended no doubt that there should be two medical commissioners, I shall accept this Amendment.
Mr. C. WILLIAMS Mr. C. WILLIAMS rose—
Mr. GREENWOOD: May I ask the hon. Gentleman not to put up unnecessary obstruction?
Mr. WILLIAMS: I rise—[Interruption.]
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEKER: I ask hon. Members to allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed.
Mr. McSHANE: May I ask hon. Members not to forget the purpose of this Bill and not to forget the people for whom we are legislating.
Mr. WILLIAMS: That is precisely why I object to the acceptance of this Amendment. I am convinced that in a body of this kind is essential that we should have one lay member and not have a body composed entirely of professional people. If the hon. Lady wishes to interrupt me, I will give way. If she does not wish to do so, then perhaps she will permit me to continue my remarks. If this Amendment be accepted, you will have a lawyer who is a professional person, you will have two doctors, both of them professional, and you will have one woman member, who may be a professional. This is a most important point. I express great regret that this Amendment has been accepted. I have nothing in the world to say against the medical profession, but I would like to emphasise that on a body of this sort you should have some outside person
1830
whose judgment would be wider from a different knowledge of ordinary everyday affairs.
Mr. SMITHERS: I am very sorry to disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend who moved this Amendment, but I am bound to say after listening to his observations, that I agree with my hon. Friend who spoke last. I do not with to detain the House, but I do not see my way to vote for this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 13, line 10, to leave out the word "regards," and to insert instead thereof the word "respects."
This and the next are purely drafting Amendments.
Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I suggest that this change of words is not altogether a happy one. For greater accuracy, I have obtained a dictionary, and, if the House will allow me, I will read out the meaning given to the two words. It says that the word "regard" means to have respect for, to give heed or attention to one speaking or something said. I think the Minister should leave a word of that kind in. It also means to show consideration for a thing or person. When I turn to the word the Minister proposes to insert, I am not at all sure that the choice is a happy one. One of the meanings of the word "respect" is to consider, to look upon as being of a certain kind.
Mr. HAYCOCK: On a point of Order. Will the hon. Gentleman give the meaning of the word psittacosis?
Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I suggest that if the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary had more regard for the rights of the Opposition, and respect for the Opposition, they would have had a much easier passage for the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In line 12, leave out the words "on the recommendation."—[Miss Lawrence.]
Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move, in page 14, line 5, after the word "appointed," to insert the words:
"by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Board of Control."
This raises the question of the appointment of the Commissioners other than

1831
the Board of Control. It will be seen that there is a distinction which seems a very curious one to most of us who sit on this side, between the appointment of the senior five Commissioners and the other Commissioners, who are simply inspecting Commissioners. Clause 11, Sub-section (4), says;
"The senior Commissioners shall be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation, as regards the legal Commissioners, of the Lord Chancellor, and as respects the other Commissioners, on the recommendation of the Minister of Health, and shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure."
But in Sub-section (7) it is laid down that
"the paid Commissioners, other than the senior Commissioners, shall be appointed, subject to the approval of the Minister, by the Board of Control."
Why is there this difference between the two? If the Board of Control are to be appointed by the Minister of Health, why should it be said that they are to be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of Health? The distinction is because, owing to tradition and custom, the status of direct appointment by His Majesty, on the recommendation of a Minister, is greater than appointment by one of His Majesty's Ministers. That is why in this Bill a greater status is given to the Board of Control. This is the form of appointment which hither-to has been the custom for the larger Board of Control which is now being broken into two. It was the custom in the case of the old Lunacy Commission, and the same direct appointment by His Majesty was the custom of any Commissioners in the service. Obviously, there is just a slight difference in status between officers so appointed and officers appointed by the Minister without appointment from His Majesty. It is a matter of only minor importance, but, if it is a difference of status, is it right that we should give this inferior status to those who are going to represent the Board of Control in inspecting institutions? The work of the Board of Control Commissioners who visit the institutions is to be the sizing up of the institutions and reporting, bringing them up to the mark, making suggestions and advising the superintendents. They are dealing with men of the highest position in the profession, men of high status
1832
and high salary, who are the heads of these institutions, and it makes all the difference in the world that the Commissioners visiting these people should have the highest, possible status. The Commissioners themselves will tell you—I have talked with some of them—of instances in which a superintendent has said that he looks upon them in one capacity, because they hold a direct commission from His Majesty the King. Another man who has not that commission they look upon as "hail-fellow-well-met" and not with the same reverence and respect. You must have authority and respect for the representatives of the Board of Control visiting these institutions—[Interruption.] I am afraid the general effect of this inferior Board of Control will make difficulties in that they will not have the same weight with the mental institutions that they have had hitherto and that they should have. I think I am asking very little in this Amendment that they should be given the same status of direct commission from His Majesty and I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
There is one point I would like to raise, an important one to my mind. In Clause 11 (7, ii) it states:
"the paid Commissioners, other than senior Commissioners, shall be appointed subject to the approval of the Minister, by the Board of Control."
It seems there as if the Minister was assuming some responsibility. We have been told the Minister will be responsible for the Board of Control and responsible to Parliament. When we discussed these matters in Committee and an Amendment was moved to make it possible for an appeal to be made beyond the Board of Control to the Minister himself, he refused to accept any such Amendment, thereby indicating in his opinion that the Board of Control should have full charge. Inserting the words "subject to the approval of the Minister" does not mean anything at all, and I think it far better that the matter should not be in the hands of the Minister.
Miss LAWRENCE: I want to say, first, a word with regard to the form of this Amendment, which is rather curious. The Sub-section would read:

1833
"shall be appointed by His Majesty on the recommendations of the Board of Control subject to the approval of the Minister."
It really reads as if the approval of the Minister was required to an appointment by His Majesty, which would be an altogether strange and terrible thing to put into an Act of Parliament. Passing from the extraordinary position in which Ministers would be placed if they were to approve actions of the Crown, appointments by the Crown must be on the recommendations of the Minister, so that, in form, the Amendment is almost unconstitutional, very strange, very unusual, and I do not think in accordance with the Constitution. What is the substance of the Amendment? We propose that there should be senior commissioners who would be appointed by His Majesty. With them, there will be junior commissioners who will be in the nature of inspectors, officers of the Board of Control. It is right that we should mark this difference in status by a different form of appointment. It is not generally the practice to appoint the junior officers in the Civil Service on the appointment of His Majesty. That is a form reserved for the very highest class. It is said their duties are important. They are extremely important, but so are the duties of many other inspectors who do similar work in connection with the great hospitals; great educational work, in which men of the highest scholastic attainments meet and discuss details of administration with the inspectors of the Board of Education who might, in the public estimation, be in fact of much lower status. Very important persons who may want to settle some trifle will talk with inferior officials, by which I mean officials lower down in the grade. They may come up to the Board of Control, they may come up to the Department, they may come to the Minister himself. It is therefore quite unusual and quite unnecessary that the officials who act in the main as inspectors of the Board of Control should have this especial mark of appointment by the Crown. I hope that, having regard both to the odd form and unnecessary character of the Amendment, the House will not pass it.
Amendment negatived.
Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 14, line 7, after the word "and" to insert the words:
"there shall be included among them women as well as men and."
1834
This Amendment, I think, needs no explanation.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Amendment of s. 330 of principal Act.)
Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 17, line 33, to leave out paragraph (2), and to insert instead thereof the words:
"(2) No proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be brought against any person in any court in respect of any such matter as is mentioned in the last preceding sub-section, without the leave of the High Court, and leave shall not be given unless the court is satisfied that there is substantial ground for the contention that the person, against whom it is sought to bring the proceedings, has acted in bad faith or without reasonable care.
(3) Notice of any application under the last preceding sub-section shall be given to the person against whom it is sought to bring the proceedings, and that person shall be entitled to be heard against the application.
(4) Where on an application under this section leave is given to bring any proceeding, and the proceedings are commenced within four weeks after the date on which leave was so given, the proceedings shall for the purposes of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, be deemed to have been commenced on the date on which notice of the application was given to the person against whom the proceedings are to be brought."
It will be remembered that the Royal Commission pointed out that the protection allowed by the law to medical men against whom proceedings were taken was not sufficient and that many doctors would not sign certificates on account of the difficulties in which they might be landed. The Government resolved to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission and inserted a form of words that was discussed in Committee. As a result of that discussion, the Minister of Health promised to meet some of the difficulties and objections raised. We have very considerably amended the original Clause which provided that the doctor was obliged to apply to the judge for a stay of proceedings. In this new Clause, proceedings may be conducted in a more appropriate way. Before an action begins, a judge has to be satisfied that there is substantial ground for it. Many people who have undergone treatment have been discharged partially cured, and they are unfortunately very likely to take legal

1835
proceedings. The hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Hastings), in the Second Reading discussion, said that there were two classes of insane people, and that one of them included those people who never believed them and bore a grudge against everyone. It is quite likely that there might be a mass of baseless actions against doctors, and we have provided that leave must be given for the initiation of such proceedings against a medical practitioner. That is the main change that we have made in the Bill, and I hope that in its new form it will meet the apprehensions that were expressed by hon. Members.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 19.—(Provision as to rate-aided patients.)
Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 19, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
"the provisions contained in the First Schedule to that Act with respect to rate-aided persons of unsound mind; or,"
This is a mere additional drafting Amendment, which I hope the House will accept.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In line 19, after "(c)," insert the words:
"any of the provisions of the Pensions Act, 1839, or,"—[Miss Lawrence.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Part I: Form of Application for Reception of a Temporary Patient. Part II: Form of Recommendation for Temporary Treatment.)
Amendments made: in page 24, line 29, at the end, insert the words:
"(ii) is likely to benefit by temporary treatment."
Leave out line 32.—[Miss Lawrence.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Sir B. MERRIMAN: It is really an outrage that the Third Reading of this Bill should be taken at 4 o'clock in the morning. I do not know whether the House realises that, among other things, we have just passed a Clause which, almost as an isolated instance, deprives a whole class of persons of their right to bring an action. We have not debated
1836
that, because it is appreciated that there is a very grave overriding question of policy. On the one hand, we are very definitely limiting the liberty of the subject, but we are doing it for the reason that, by one way or another, the medical profession must be safeguarded as much as possible in carrying out the procedure of this Bill. I mention that only as one illustration of the things that are embodied in this Bill. The whole question involved in treatment without certification and other principles involved in this Bill are to be dealt with, without a word said by the Government, at this hour of the morning. I am going to say no more than this, that in our opinion it is an absolute outrage that this procedure should be adopted.
4.0 a.m.
Dr. DAVIES: I would like to corroborate the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken. We are passing a Bill that will affect thousands of people. We have passed it through this House with a minimum of discussion and a maximum of forced closure. We have not been able to do justice either to ourselves or to the people whom we represent. A Bill like this, which is an innovation and is very welcome as regards the early treatment of mental diseases, should be dealt with in a manner that is fair to the House. Hon. Members will have to go back to their constituents and justify their action in passing a Bill like this in the early hours of the morning, with the minimum of discussion and the maximum of forced closure. It is useless to say that we on this side of the House regard the Bill as satisfactory even as passed. We had the greatest hopes on Second Reading. We visualised that there were great opportunities for this class of patient if we got them in the early stages of diseases. In the Committee stage, we were strongly desirous of helping. Some of us medical men who have a certain knowledge of what we were talking about found the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary most determined opponents of what we proposed. The Bill has been forced upon this House.
There are many provisions of the Bill, which is now receiving its Third Reading, which I am perfectly certain are not going to act as we want them to act. The Bill is going to be detrimental to the treatment of mental disease. It is

1837
going to prevent some of these people submitting themselves for treatment as early as they should do. The obstinacy of the Minister in refusing to accept change with regard to the Board of Control is going to have a detrimental effect. People are going to be more suspicious of the Board of Control than ever in the past. They are going to regard it as a Department of the Ministry of Health. If we have to point out certain faults, all we can do is to put a question on the Paper, and the Minister will tell us exactly what he wants us to know. We know that sometimes it is practically impossible to get any information from Departments. There we are dealing with a most vital consideration in the health of the people. We are dealing with people who may be on the border line, and the right people at the proper time might prevent them crossing that border line. By a slight mistake or Departmental obstinacy we may allow people to pass over that border line and add to the tremendous number of suicides. Last year there were over 5,000 suicides. I was hoping and visualising that, when this Bill went through, with some of the Amendments we proposed, we should have seen a great and rapid diminution. The Bill is going to prevent some of these people submitting themselves for early treatment, and hon. Members will be watching the papers and finding that this poor woman, or that poor man, has committed suicide. The thought will come over them, "I wonder if we had done something different to the Bill, if we had been a little more humane, whether that life would not have been saved." The responsibility is upon every Member who has forced this Bill through without discussion and without having taken the advice of men who knew what they were talking about. Hon. Members opposite simply jeer at the medical profession. They think that their motives are not of the best and purest and impute to them unworthy motives. It has been constantly done in this House. The medical profession has been more or less the butt of the party opposite. They have not remembered that the health of this country is in the hands of the medical men, and that people's opinion regarding the medical men of this country is not improved by constant ill-
1838
informed criticism. Hon. Members have had the opportunity of expert advice from men who have no axes to grind, from men who have retired from practice, and, by their rigid adherence to the party Whip, or blindly following a Department, have passed on to the Statute Book a Bill not half so good as it might be. Nevertheless, I hope that it will give some relief to the poor people of the country.
Mr. E. WINTERTON: Of all people who have the right to complain surely the medical profession have the least. This Bill would probably never have seen light in this House except for the demand of the medical profession that they might be relieved of certain obligations which most other professions are willing to accept. If a solicitor gives a man bad advice, he can be proceeded against because of that advice. If a journalist makes a blunder, he can be proceeded against and made responsible for his actions. In this Bill the privileges of the ordinary individual are invaded in order to give extra privileges to the medical profession and place them in an entirely privileged position which no other profession has ever asked for. The curious thing about the discussion, and the rather artificial indignation from the other side is, that the people who have got the most out of the Bill are the people who are complaining most. If I could feel sure in my heart that the patients who will come for treatment under this Bill were as secure as the doctors are I should feel a great deal happier about it. It comes with ill grace that those who have got so much out of this Bill and who have supported it through thick and thin against the liberty of poor people should now come and complain that they have not got enough.
Mr. PYBUS: Is the hon. Member quite sure that the medical profession are complaining.
Mr. WINTERTON: I have only one other remark to make. I do feel that if we had the interest of the patients at heart to the extent that we have had those of the medical profession at heart this would have been a far better Bill.
Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I feel sure that this is a very excellent Bill and I should like to congratulate the Minister of Health on getting it through. I think it is a

1839
great charter for the poor of this country, and for the first time it gives the poor as great a chance as the rich. I must say that I cannot quite agree with the hon. Member who spoke last and who talked about the privileges of the medical profession. I deny emphatically that there is anything in this Bill that confers any privileges on the profession in any shape or form. I think the Bill gets away from the spirit of detention to that of prevention and treatment. I have no hesitation in saying that when the Bill comes to be adopted and understood in the country it will be successful.

OVERSEAS TRADE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension and periods during which guarantees under Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1929, may be given and remain in force.)
Mr. SMITHERS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end, to add the words:
"Provided that the period shall not be extended in connection with export transactions to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics."
I beg the House to believe that I am moving this Amendment in all seriousness. Owing to the late hour or early hour of the morning, I do not wish to keep the House at all. I have moved the Amendment as a protest against the continuation of export credits to Russia. I think anyone who gives further credits to Russia requires mental treatment. After having had conversation with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and having moved the Amendment, I propose to reserve any further remarks to the Third Reading.
Mr. E. BROWN: Those who believe in the possibility of reviving trade would not think that they were suffering from some mental aberration.
Mr. HAYCOCK: I should like to remind the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) of one or two simple
1840
economic facts. This country has got to sell goods in order that the people of this country may live. If we cannot sell our goods, then we cannot keep the 45,000,000 people in these islands.
Mr. SMITHERS: I purposely refrained from offering any argument in support of my Amendment. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury that I moved it to give me an opportunity to protest that we ought to go home.
Mr. HAYCOCK: I know perfectly well that you do not want to carry the argument any further. I would remind the House that day after day mean, contemptible arguments are used against the Soviet Government of Russia. We all require orders. You on the other side have done all you possibly can to prevent us from getting orders from that country. There has not been a day passed that there has not been hostile questions in this House. Do you want orders from Russia or do you want the orders to go to Germany, France or the United States of America? Russia is one of the most wonderful markets of the world.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been long enough in the House to know not to use the words "you" and "your."
Mr. HAYCOCK: Right you are. The policy pursued by the predecessors of the Government resulted in £100,000,000 being advanced.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must speak within the limits of the Amendment.
Mr. HAYCOCK: When I hear the people on the other side take the view—[Interruption.] When I consider what has been done in the past, when we spent more than £100,000,000 for which we got no return, I protest very deeply against the people on the other side raising questions day after day, week after week, month after month—[Interruption].
Sir PATRICK FORD: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to threaten the House by using words to punish them? Is he entitled to use such language in this House?
The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman must be aware that many Members feel we have already been punished sufficiently by these late hours.
Mr. HAYCOCK: I am merely suggesting this. I have been a commercial traveller, through no fault of my own, and I know. If you want orders, do not grossly insult the people from whom you want these orders.
Mr. SMITHERS Mr. SMITHERS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question, "That those words be there added," put accordingly, and negatived.
Clause 2 (Short title), ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time to-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes before Five o'Clock a.m.

POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE SYSTEM (ADMINISTRATION).
  TELEPHONE SYSTEM (ADMINISTRATION).
  MONEY ORDERS (AIR MAIL TRANSMISSION).
  MONEY ORDERS (AIR MAIL TRANSMISSION).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, CHANNEL ISLANDS.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, CHANNEL ISLANDS.
  TELEPHONE FACILITIES.
  TELEPHONE FACILITIES.
  TELEPHONE CHARGES.
  TELEPHONE CHARGES.
SCOTLAND.
  FISHING GEAR (INSURANCE).
  FISHING GEAR (INSURANCE).
  EDUCATION (EXPENDITURE).
  EDUCATION (EXPENDITURE).
  TEACHERS (TRAINING).
  TEACHERS (TRAINING).
INDIA.
  LAND REVENUE ASSESSMENT.
  LAND REVENUE ASSESSMENT.
  ROADS COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  ROADS COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).
  LOCOMOTIVES (GERMAN CONTRACT).
  LOCOMOTIVES (GERMAN CONTRACT).
  MEXICO (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).
  MEXICO (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).
CHINA.
  BOXER INDEMNITY.
  BOXER INDEMNITY.
  CHINESE-OWNED FIRMS (BRITISH EMPLOYéS' SALARIES).
  CHINESE-OWNED FIRMS (BRITISH EMPLOYéS' SALARIES).
BRITISH ARMY.
  RECRUITS.
  RECRUITS.
  TERRITORIAL PERMANENT STAFF.
  TERRITORIAL PERMANENT STAFF.
  MALTA.
  MALTA.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  DOMINIONS AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  DOMINIONS AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  COMMERCIAL CONVENTION (FOREIGN COAL).
  COMMERCIAL CONVENTION (FOREIGN COAL).
  RUSSIAN TIMBER.
  RUSSIAN TIMBER.
  CINEMAS (REGULATIONS).
  CINEMAS (REGULATIONS).
  MOTOR-CAR UPHOLSTERY (IMPORT DUTIES).
  MOTOR-CAR UPHOLSTERY (IMPORT DUTIES).
  MUNICIPAL CONTRACTS (FOREIGN TENDERS).
  MUNICIPAL CONTRACTS (FOREIGN TENDERS).
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
HOUSING.
  DECONTROLLED HOUSES (RENTS).
  DECONTROLLED HOUSES (RENTS).
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE.
  INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (DEVON,CREDITON EXHIBITION FOUNDATION) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (FYLDE WATER BOARD, OLDHAM ANT ROCHDALE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons: read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (No.1) BILL.
Read 2a.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (No.2) BILL.
Read 2a.
WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
DERBY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WALSALL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WEDNESBURY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House would indicate what he proposes to do with reference to the sitting of the House this evening and also to-morrow.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I propose, if it is convenient to the rest of the House—we should, of course, have regard to any suggestions the noble Marquess might make—that we should adjourn this evening from about a quarter to eight until nine o'clock. Then at nine o'clock we should resume and go on to an appropriate hour, which will depend upon how much progress is made. I think it would be better to leave any suggestion with regard to to-morrow's sitting until we see how far we have got on with the business to-night. Our desire is to have a full discussion with the maximum of convenience, if I may put it in that way. I am glad to say that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, has intimated to me that he will defer the Question which he has put on the Paper for to-morrow, in order to meet the general convenience of the House, so that we shall have to-morrow quite free.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord has behaved exactly as one would expect him to behave, but I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, if it should happen that the Committee stage is not finished to-morrow, what course he would take in those circumstances?
LORD PARMOOR: I propose that we should go straight on until we finish the Committee stage. I think I intimated that the other day. If the Committee stage is not finished to-morrow we shall continue on Thursday.

COAL MINES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Schemes regulating production, supply and sale of coal.
1.—(1) There shall be a scheme (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the central scheme") regulating the production, supply and sale of coal by owners of coal mines situated in Great Britain, which shall, subject to the provisions of the scheme, be administered by a body referred to in this Act as the "Central Council"; and, subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be for every district a scheme (hereafter in this Act referred to as a "district scheme") regulating the production, supply and sale of coal by owners of coal mines situated in the district, which shall, subject to the provisions of the scheme, be administered by a body referred to in this Act as an "executive board."
(2) No scheme shall have effect under this Act unless it has been approved or made by the Board of Trade.
(3) If before the expiration of the period of four weeks from the passing of this Act or such further period as the Board of Trade may in any case allow, the central scheme or a district scheme for any district, is submitted to the Board by any voluntary association or other persons appearing to the Board to be representative of a majority of the owners of coal mines situated in Great Britain or in the district as the case may be, the Board may, if they are satisfied that the scheme complies with the requirements of this Act, approve the scheme with or without modifications, and in default of such a central or district scheme being so submitted and approved as aforesaid, the Board shall themselves make the scheme.
(4) For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection, the owners of coal mines which, during the period of six months ending on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, produced more than half the output of Great Britain or of any district, shall, respectively, be deemed to be a majority of the owners of coal mines situated in Great Britain or in the district:
Provided that, if it appears to the Board of Trade that during the said period of six months the output of a substantial number of coal mines in any district was subject to regulation under any arrangements made by a voluntary association or otherwise, the Board may treat any scheme submitted to
488
them for that district as if the latest period of six months during which the output of those coal mines was not so regulated had been the period mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this subsection.
(5) Any scheme may be amended with the approval of the Board of Trade, in manner provided by the scheme, and a new scheme to have effect in substitution for any scheme theretofore in force may at any time be submitted to the Board of Trade by the Central Council, and, in the case of a new scheme for any district, by the executive board for any district affected thereby, and any scheme so submitted shall, if approved by the Board, have effect accordingly.
(6) Every scheme shall come into force on such date as the Board of Trade may appoint, being (except where a scheme is made by the Board themselves or is to take effect in substitution for a previous scheme) a date not less than one month nor more than three months after the passing of this Act, and the Board may appoint different dates for different schemes, and any scheme for the time being in force shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act.
(7) The Board of Trade shall, immediately after making or approving any scheme or any amendment thereof, publish the scheme or amendment, as the case may he, in the London Gazette and for the purpose of the Documentary Evidence Acts, 1868 to 1805, any such scheme or amendment shall be deemed to be an order of the Board.
LORD AIELCHETT LORD AIELCHETT moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection:—
"() Every scheme and every amendment to a scheme under this Act shall be published in the London Gazette and within twenty-eight days of such publications shall be considered and reported upon to the Board of Trade by the appropriate committee of investigation hereinafter referred to."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one which I have put down at the request of the Federation of British Industries who attach very great importance to it. Their desire is that all these schemes should have as much publicity as possible and that there should be every opportunity for those interested to make representations to the Board of Trade in regard to them. When one considers the importance of these schemes, which are going to regulate the production, sale and supply of coal in all the collieries in Great Britain, and when one considers, further, that these schemes after they have been approved and passed by the Board of Trade become statutory provisions, I think that any amendment of this character, which gives opportunity for more complete and close

489
examination and provides for the fullest publicity, ought to receive the support of your Lordships. It will not be a very long delay that will take place, or might take place, in view of the importance of the subject under discussion. I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, which is really one of procedure and not of principle. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord ill elchett.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): As the noble Lord himself pointed out, the first effect of this Amendment will be to delay the production of schemes, which is in itself undesirable. The object of the Amendment is quite clear. I think I am interpreting the noble Lord's ideas correctly when I say that it is designed to give interests other than the coal owners an opportunity of stating their case in regard to these schemes. As a matter of fact, all those interests have had ample opportunity, during the negotiations which have taken place in regard to this Bill, of stating their case to the authorities concerned. It remains to be seen, therefore, how they could gain by this suggestion. The interests to which I referred would be met before the schemes were put into operation, when complaints would be referred to the courts of investigation. Prior approval is given by the Board of Trade. It is submitted that the Board of Trade is really a far more competent authority to decide whether a scheme shall go forward or not than a court of investigation. A Committee of the Board of Trade in these circumstances would have to examine each scheme in order to find out whether it was in accordance with the will of Parliament and whether it was a practicable scheme. After that, the courts of investigation would protect all the interests concerned in the operation. I hope that this explanation will meet the point raised by the noble Lord, for I am afraid I shall have to resist this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As my noble friend has said, this is only a matter of procedure, but it is an important matter of procedure. Considering the nervousness with which various interests, and especially the
490
public, regard this Bill, and the apprehension that it may lead to an increase in the price of coal and to great difficulties, I think the Government would be well advised not to shrink from any reasonable safeguard that may be put forward. I do not say that I desire that this Amendment should be pressed. My noble friend, as I say, has admitted that it is only a matter of procedure. But I hope the noble Lord and his colleagues will realise that they are on their defence in respect of this Bill and that they will do well to reassure the public as soon as they can.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (3), to substitute "ten weeks" for "four weeks." The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a point of some substance in connection with the preparation of schemes. Under the provisions of this Bill it is necessary for a, central scheme as well as district schemes to be promoted by the coal owners and, in the event of their failing to do so, it is necessary for the Board of Trade to establish a scheme in place of the central or district scheme. Under the provisions of the Bill owners in the district are given only four weeks for the preparation of a scheme, and the period is reckoned from the passing of the Bill. That is all the time allowed, except that there is a proviso allowing the Board of Trade to extend the period in certain circumstances. I submit that to allow four weeks to a whole district for preparing the scheme after the passing of this Bill is an absolutely unreasonable limitation of time. I propose to omit the word "four" and to insert the word "ten." If the Government will accept another figure, such as "eight," I do not demur, but I venture to point out that to suggest that four weeks is a reasonable time is almost preposterous.
I have been Chairman of one of the committees in a district, and it took us many weeks to secure almost complete agreement amongst the owners in the County of Durham in connection with one scheme. As soon as the Government's Bill was introduced that scheme was entirely dropped, and we in Durham, like the owners in every other district, will have to begin de novo. The first thing that will have to occur, even with a natural desire to move as rapidly as

491
we can in securing a scheme, will be to come together in conference. The next procedure obviously must be the formation of a committee in order to prepare the scheme. There will not be only one committee, for, since coal is to be classified, you will have to have in every district a special meeting of all the salesmen in order to have a proper classification of the coal. It cannot be done in the time.
No recommendation of a scheme can be made under two or three weeks if we are to deal with all the points which will have to be considered. After that the matter will have to be considered by the coal owners again as a whole, and the owners will have to go back to their various firms and secure the views of their colleagues. The directors of each company will have to thrash out the proposals in the scheme, and then, undoubtedly, they will have to communicate with the Government and the authorities with a view to the scheme being adjusted to meet the various views of the coal owners in the district and to secure a system of general co-ordination, so that each scheme will work into the central scheme. These meetings are often very difficult to arrange and, with every desire to expedite the matter, I do not think it is possible for a scheme to be suggested within six weeks at the very least so as to meet the provisions of the Bill satisfactorily. I suggest, therefore, that the Government might well meet me in extending the period. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("four") and insert ("ten").—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD MARLEY: The Government felt that this suggestion was at first sight a reasonable one, but on examination I think your Lordships will see that the matter is not so difficult as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, made out. In the first place, the Bill provides that schemes under Part I shall be submitted to the Board of Trade within four weeks. We already have with the Board of Trade schemes for practically the whole of the districts, schemes that have been considered by the owners themselves and will require but the slightest modification as soon as the Bill has passed. In any case the Board has power under the Bill to extend the period beyond four weeks. I would also remind the House that the
492
Board must approve the schemes within three months. If this Amendment were accepted and ten weeks were substituted for four weeks, it would only leave the Board two weeks in order to consider the schemes, if any of the districts took the maximum time before they submitted their schemes. In view of the fact that the schemes, with one or two exceptions, are already in the hands of the Board of Trade, I submit to your Lordships that it is unnecessary to make this alteration, and I hope the noble Lord will accept this explanation and withdraw his Amendment.
LORD GAINFORD: I do not see my way to accept the explanation, because as a practical man, having had some experience of these negotiations connected with schemes, I am certain that the schemes which have already been submitted to the Mines Department of the Board of Trade have not been generally accepted in the districts. It is absolutely vital, if you are going to make a success of this, that you should begin almost de note, and the Government must not be under the delusion that schemes proposed voluntarily, in different circumstances, are now going to be accepted as those upon which the districts are necessarily going to stand. They must reconsider the whole matter in connection with this new legislation, and they will have to consider the matter absolutely afresh. It is because of that that I venture to press my Amendment. As I have said before, if the Government are conciliatory and will extend the period even by two or three weeks, I shall not press the House to divide. Otherwise I feel that the Government are asking us to perform what is quite impassible.
LORD JOICEY: I quite confirm what has been said by. Lord Gainford. Only those who have had to deal with these proposed schemes know the difficulty in connection with them, and I think if the Government would realise the difficulty there is in getting coal owners, living in different parts of the county, together, and in fixing special days with gentlemen who have all kinds of engagements to fulfil, they will begin to realise how difficult it is to go into schemes with only four weeks allowed. The statement made by my noble friend is a perfectly right one, and I hope the Government

493
on consideration will be a little more reasonable. You must understand that these schemes are schemes to take possession of property belonging to the different districts, and if those who own the property wish to have a little more time in which to consider various particulars with regard to schemes to take possession of their property, I hope the Government will give the matter further consideration and be a little more reasonable.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think the Amendment moved by my noble friend is one which the Government should consider, even if they do not go so far as to accept it at this stage of the Bill. As Lord Joicey has told us, there are certain difficulties attending the meeting together of coal owners in various parts of the country. If a little more time can be given my noble friend is prepared not to press the actual Amendment of ten weeks, but is willing to accept a smaller number of weeks. After all, these schemes are then likely to come forward in a better condition than they would be in if the coal owners had to formulate them in a hurry, and bring them forward as best they could. The noble Lord who answered for the Government has told your Lordships that these schemes are already more or less in the hands of the Board of Trade.
LORD MARLEY: The draft schemes are actually in the hands of the Board of Trade at this moment.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: That being so I would like to point out to him that there was what I may express as a certain amount of pressure put upon the coal owners last year, for the purpose of bringing forward schemes, and I think I am not far wrong in saying that those schemes were brought forward under duress, and are not accepted or received in full agreement by various coal owners in various districts. That is why I think that schemes which will be put forward will probably be different in character from those in the hands of the Board of Trade. For this reason I suggest to the noble Lord that if he can see his way to do it, and I think he ought, he should give us this latitude and allow us a little longer period than four weeks.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (EARL RUSSELL): I think we
494
might be able to meet the wishes of noble Lords who have spoken, but I would ask your Lordships to envisage just what the position is. The subsection says: "before the expiration of the period of four weeks from the passing of this Act, or such further period as the Board of Trade may in any case allow." It is perfectly obvious that if a scheme is maturing, but people have not quite come together, the Board of Trade will allow further time. In addition, your Lordships will appreciate that schemes are not going to be considered at the first moment after the Royal Assent is received. As Lord Marley said, there are some schemes already before the Department, and softie of the districts are reconsidering those schemes in the light of the Bill, and making necessary rearrangements in anticipation of the Royal Assent. So probably four weeks is not unreasonable. The Amendment proposes ten weeks. The noble Lord will see that schemes have to come into operation within three months, which is thirteen weeks, and that would hardly give time to the Board of Trade to make any readjustments that may be necessary. The noble Lord intimated that he would be satisfied if further time were given, and we should be prepared to make four weeks into six weeks, always reminding your Lordships that the Board of Trade can extend the period if there is proper reason why they should do so.
LORD GAINFORD: I recognise the advantage that the extra two weeks would be, and I accept that offer, and will move my Amendment in that form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("four") and insert ("six").—(Lord Gainford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MELCHETT LORD MELCHETT moved to omit from subsection (3) all words after "modifications." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that at the end of the subsection power is given to the Board of Trade, in default of a central scheme for the whole of the collieries or coal districts of Great Britain being presented to the Board of Trade, or in default of any district scheme being presented to the Board of Trade, to make a scheme themselves. I do not think it can be quite fully realised what enormous, far-reaching

495
consequences the passage of this subsection, as it stands at present, would have. It really makes a Government Department the arbiter in any district, and even for the whole country, as to what quantity of coal the mines are to produce, what the quotas of different pits are to be, and at what price coal is to be sold. In fact, it is difficult to see, if this power were ever exercised, what the functions of the coal owner would be at all, because he would have no power regarding his production, and no power regarding its price, and I do not know whether all that remained to him would not be merely some power of bargaining about wages.
Surely, it cannot be contended that we ought to pass a Bill which enables a Government Department to override the wishes of the majority of the coal owners of any area, whether they wish to make a scheme or not. If a majority of owners in a certain district do not make a scheme, why should they be compelled to do so? They are not merely compelled to make a scheme themselves, but somebody else is empowered to make a scheme for them in certain circumstances. Even that is not the most serious thing. If you visualise it from the point of view of a central scheme the matter becomes much more important. Turn to the beginning of Clause 1, which states:—
"There shall be a scheme (hereafter in this Act referred to as the central scheme ') regulating the production, supply and sale of coal by owners of coal mines situated in Great Britain, which shall, subject to the provisions of the scheme, be administered by body referred to in this Act as the 'Central body'"
It is possible to have a scheme administered by a central council affecting the entire output of the country, and if such a scheme, which might be difficult to create on a voluntary basis—for many difficulties would arise—is not made by the coal industry, then apparently the Board of Trade is to step in and make a scheme affecting fundamentally the output and the price of coal of the whole of the collieries of this country.
I am not aware that such a power has ever existed in any Government Department in this country up to now. It is practically nationalisation in fact, there is very little left for nationalisation to do if the clause passes in its present form, because all the powers, except the power
496
of losing money—which is, of course, left to the coal owners—are vested in a Government Department. I sincerely trust that this House, as the custodian—as it still is as long as it exists—of the rights of the private individual and also of the interests of the people of this country, will support this Amendment, upon which I certainly think we ought to divide.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("modifications") to end of subsection (3).—(Lord Melchett.)
EARL RUSSELL: During the Second Reading debate on this Bill in another place some merriment was aroused at the expense of my Party by the Leader of the Liberal Party in pointing out that this Bill gave everything to the owners and that the fixing of this, that, and the other was left to the owners under this Bill. That certainly has been the object of the Government, as I think appears in every clause of the Bill. The noble Lord admits, as he must admit, that this residual power of the Board of Trade would only come into force if the owners had failed to come to an agreement, or failed to submit a scheme. His Amendment would really cut across the whole structure of the Bill, because the object is to co-ordinate the whole coal industry, and you could not possibly have a district standing out of this structure. Every opportunity is given under this Bill to the coal owners to frame their own scheme, to arrange the matter in the way that they, with their experience, think best; but as was pointed out on the Second Reading, if they will not do that, then it has been thought necessary to have in the background a final element of compulsion, and so something of this kind must be done.
The basis of the whole of Part I is that there must be a central scheme and schemes in all districts. If the whole industry is not covered the advantages of the Bill will not be secured, and indeed it will be impossible for the schemes to function satisfactorily. Your central levy, if you have one, would not work, and your regulation of output would not work; nothing in this Bill would work. And, as a matter of fact, this position was fully understood, and, according to my instructions, was accepted by the coal owners themselves in the discussions when the Bill was drafted. The noble Lord, if he

497
carries this Amendment, will make Part I of the Bill entirely useless. It is perfectly obvious that if you are going to maintain the Bill in any form in which it can be of any use to the coal industry, the residual element of compulsion must remain. But the tendency all through is to say: "Let the owners get together, let them frame their own scheme, let them use their own knowledge, make their own suggestions"; but if they simply will not take part in this re-arrangement and will do nothing, then ultimately some authority must make the scheme.
LORD LAMINGTON: Will the noble Earl say whether the clause as it now stands is as it was originally introduced in another place, because amalgamation came into the Bill owing to the log-rolling of another Party?
LORD THOMSON: I am not in a position to inform the noble Lord on that point; but I understand it is as originally drafted. The whole point is that if this Amendment is accepted one small coal concern could wreck the central scheme. That is the state of things to which the coal industry would be exposed if this Amendment were passed. Whatever happened in another place—and I understand nothing happened in the way of compulsion—I should like to point out that this matter was discussed at length with the coal owners before the Bill was originally drafted. In view of that, and of the possible dangers that lurk in letting such an Amendment through, I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not divide on this. The purpose of the Government has been most adequately explained by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and there is no intention of bullying any owner. The whole idea of the Bill is to get the owners to work together, but in the end, for the purpose of introducing a central scheme, there must be some means of compulsion to keep a small recalcitrant minority in order.
LORD LAMINGTON: I hope the noble Lord will go to a Division. It has never been shown that the central schemes have done any good to the coal trade. So far they have been on a voluntary basis. I was impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberconway, the other day. He approved of amalgamation. I am a shareholder in one of his companies, as I hoped that with his
498
ability and knowledge it would fructify to my benefit, but it has not. If owners want to come together, let them come together, but I object entirely to the element of compulsion. The central body composed under this Bill would not be able really to get a sound opinion on these matters, and it would be very dangerous to entrust them with compulsory powers.
LORD THOMSON: This central body consists of coal owners. There is no question of bringing constraint by an outside body of officials or anybody appointed arbitrarily, giving them these tremendous powers. It is a body of coal owners working in the interests of coal owners for the purpose of working this trade. Compulsion, if applied, would be on the recommendation of that body—a scheme drafted by coal owners for coal owners, except for a very small minority.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The noble Lord said that the Board of Trade had no intention of bullying the coal owners. That may be quite true of the present Board of Trade, but what we have to deal with is not the present Board of Trade but Boards of Trade to come, and if we allow a provision of this sort what safeguard have we that the officials of the Board of Trade in a few years time may not start bullying the coal owners? If it is not intended to do any harm, why not accept the Amendment of my noble friend and set the matter at rest at once?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Your Lordships are placed in a considerable difficulty by this Bill. Using the most moderate language, I think I may say that the vast majority of your Lordships heartily dislike the Bill altogether. We think it to be a thoroughly bad Bill, and I do not entertain any hope that, after your Lordships have done with it, the Bill will be a good one. I hope it will be a much better Bill; but that is quite a different thing. It will not be a good Bill. Therefore, we are in this position. If we are to accept the Bill at all we must accept a certain number of provisions which we have no real confidence will work well in the least. My noble friend Lord Melchett, who is a great authority on these business matters, is probably much more likely to be correct

499
—I hope I may not be thought to be using disrespectful language—than His Majesty's Government are as to the usefulness of this provision.
I also think it is true, and I must make this admission, that if the Amendment passes Part I of the Bill will become practically useless. The question we have to put to ourselves is this—Having agreed to the Second Reading, in my case with great reluctance, are we prepared to make Part I useless? I think my noble friend Lord Lamington was in error in thinking that questions of amalgamation arise on this clause. When we reach Clause 11 I hope he and others of your Lordships will help us in an effort which we shall certainly make to improve that Part of the Bill as far as we can. Then questions of amalgamation will be very properly raised; but they hardly arise here. What I would rather suggest to your Lordships is that we should not here this afternoon determine to destroy Part I of the Bill, but that, as we have accepted the Second Reading, we should allow Part I at any rate to go through in some form or other. If, after discussion in Committee, we come to the conclusion that the Bill is so irredeemably bad that nothing can be done with it, then there are future stages of the Bill on which we can make our opinion felt.
LORD MELCHETT: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the noble Marquess. My Amendment, according to the noble Lord opposite, will destroy Part I of the Bill. What is Part I of the Bill? Part I really gives Government sanction and statutory support to voluntary agreements made in various areas among coal owners. That is the real function of Part I. It gives a statutory sanction to what are now voluntary agreements. That, in itself, is going a very long way, much further than we have ever gone in this country and much further, I think, than, in my business experience, you ought to have to go. In itself it is a very far step, an important step and, perhaps, a useful step. That is really the object of Part I. If noble Lords will look at the next subsection it says that if a scheme is brought forward by the owners who have produced more than half the output of Great Britain they shall be deemed to be a majority of the owners of coal mines
500
situate in Great Britain or the district, as the case may be, and on their votes, so to speak, the Board of Trade can act. What a farce that appears to be. What is the use of subsection (4) if, under subsection (3), whether the coal owners agree or not—even if they unanimously disagree—they can still have forced upon them a scheme they do not require? It seems to me to be the greatest contradiction imaginable.
Then I would ask why the Board of Trade, which right through Part I of the Bill acts in an advisory capacity, is suddently made to act in an executive capacity? Who is to criticise the schemes which are made by the Board of Trade? That Department is rightly put in a position to criticise the schemes put forward by the coal owners. If another body is to make schemes which the Board of Trade can make compulsory, surely the Board of Trade ought not themselves or on their own initiative to be the Department to make those schemes. That is extraordinarily objectionable, because the same person is both the judge and the executive. Look at the extraordinary position you get yourselves into. A scheme is brought from a district by the coal owners. Some people at the Board of Trade do not like it and, therefore, the Board can reject the whole scheme and introduce one of their own. You are giving power to the very people who are to be the judges of somebody else's scheme to substitute a scheme which they may like better. After all, the Board of Trade being, like other Departments, peopled by human beings who think they know better than others, will probably prefer any scheme that they work out to that brought forward by a body of coal owners.
Therefore, apart from the root objection that I have raised, I would seriously ask noble Lords opposite whether they are right in the form which they have given to this power. If it is necessary to have this power in reserve it ought to be put more into reserve. If you reached a point where in a given time, much longer than ten weeks, it was found necessary to exercise compulsory powers, surely some body could be set up and power given to the two Houses of Parliament to deal with the matter. With all due respect to the noble Marquess it seems an extraordinary demand to make on the members of your Lordships' House that we should

501
agree to hand over England's greatest industry to the ipsi dixit of beaurocrats at the Board of Trade without any real redress or supervising authority except the cumbrous method of a Vote of Censure for which you would never get a day in another place.
I do not want to wreck this Bill particularly, but I would point out to the noble Earl who spoke that after all there are other people in this country besides the coal owners, and the fact that the Government and the coal owners have agreed on something is by no means a reason why this House should accept it as the last word on the subject. There is the British public to be considered. There is British industry to be considered. The very large British industries which buy coal are vitally interested in the question. Therefore, the fact that coal owners and the Government have agreed and that the coal owners are happy is not necessarily a conclusive answer. Could not the Government meet me in this matter if I withdraw my Amendment, and consider this question and leave it over for the Report stage to see whether could not at any rate make it make the clause a good deal more innocuous than it is at present? Otherwise I shall feel bound to press it to a Division, whatever the result may be.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: There is some slight hesitation on the Benches opposite as to whether the reasonable proposal of my noble friend Lord Melchett shall be accepted or not. May I supply a small reason which I think may tend to induce them to reconsider the matter and bring it up at a later stage? It is too soon to begin to talk about wrecking the Bill by this Amendment. I appreciate the case put by the noble Earl. If you have a recalcitrant body of coal owners who will not produce a scheme at all and there is no power in anybody to produce a scheme over their heads, the Bill would come to a standstill, as far as schemes are concerned. It would, therefore, be necessary to provide that in that event, but only in that event, there should be such power.
But look at your own words in this Bill. Going by the words of the Bill alone, if the Board of Trade chooses to say of any given scheme: "We do not approve of that scheme and we are not
502
going to notify that scheme and that is that," they can then make their own scheme at once. There is no provision whatever obliging them to refer the matter back to the coal owners, saying: "We think that this, that or the other is objectionable, although the rest of it may be tolerable." There is no provision requiring them to keep the matter open. There are no words under which the coal owners are entitled to have another chance, and to bring in a modified scheme. If the Board of Trade chooses to do that, down comes the guillotine, out goes the coal owners' scheme and in comes the Board of Trade scheme. I dare say that was not thought of. If what I say is producing any impression on the noble Lord, whoever he is, who is in charge of this matter, I need not say any more, but I should like to add this. Do not please tell us you can leave it to the Board of Trade, because the longer one lives and the more one knows of the Board the more one is convinced that, although their virtues are almost super-human, they are not beyond the reach of the temptation to tyranny.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said he would criticise and he would control these schemes, and he went on to draw for your Lordships the usual picture of the apparently totally irresponsible and quite ill-informed bureaucrat sitting down at his own seat while concocting some scheme which had no element whatever of reality. Your Lordships know, in spite of what the noble and learned Viscount has just said, that this is not the way business is conducted in public Departments. I will answer his question. If he asks who will be the critics of this scheme, my answer is, first of all the coal owners will be the critics of this scheme, and very acute and very well-informed critics they will be. They are critics who will be able to make their voices heard. In addition, the critics of these schemes will no doubt be the actual users and consumers. And when he asks who will control this scheme, the answer is, the President of the Board of Trade will control the fashioning of the scheme, and he himself will be controlled by Parliament. There you have every possible representation, and every possible pressure can be brought to bear upon him to do what is supposed to be the right thing to do.

503
But, as the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition truly pointed out, you cannot run this scheme at all if you have a certain section of it standing out and saying: "We won't play. We will take no part in your scheme. We will have nothing to do with it. We will let the whole thing remain higgledy-piggledy and unorganised as it is now." It is essential that the trade should be organised, and these residual powers remain for that purpose. In spite of what the noble and learned Viscount said, I doubt whether any large section of your Lordships believe that any official of the Board of Trade, or any President of the Board of Trade, would be so amazingly foolish as to make a scheme which he knew was unworkable, and that is the reason why it is necessary and desirable it should be left to him. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said: "Why not set up some special tribunal for the purpose? "What better judges can you have in the first instance than the coal owners themselves who are asked to prepare the scheme. As to the tribunal of control surely the only tribunal of appeal which has any weight is the public opinion of this country, and that is represented by the President of the Board of Trade, who, in turn, is responsible to the House of Commons.
LORD CARSON: I do not profess to know anything about the working of these schemes, but there is one question that was raised by my noble and learned friend who sits beside me (Viscount Sumner) upon which I would like a specific answer. Is it the fact, as he says, that under the control—I offer no opinion myself—if the owners do put forward a scheme, the Board of Trade can say: "We do not like your scheme, and now we are going to make a scheme of our own"? Is that a fact? If that is a fact what you are doing is this, you are putting the Board of Trade in a judicial position, determining whether the scheme of the owners or the scheme of the Board of Trade is the better one. Does the House wish to do that? So far as my experience goes, when you get a conflict of that kind you are borne down by a Department and you have no control at all. As I understand, there is even no Parliamentary control provided in the Bill. There should be in the Bill a provision that, in the case of difference between the coal owners and the Board of Trade as to which was
504
the best scheme, it could be referred to Parliament; the scheme should have to lie upon the Table of the House for so many days so that the whole thing might be raised and discussed. But, as I understand, there is no control of any kind given to either House of Parliament over the matter once the scheme has been rejected (by the Board of Trade.
I hope your Lordships, without a good deal more consideration, will not give such powers to a Department in the present day in a case where owners are being ousted from the whole management of their business which may, or may not, progress. The very conditions under which they will be compelled, according to the provisions of this Bill, to carry on their business may mean ruin to them. If any thing in the world is clearer than another to my mind it is this, that dual control of that kind must in the end lead to nationalisation, for you can never have a Department telling a coal owner how to carry on his business, and, if there is a dispute between them, the Department is the judge. I say no business in this country, whether coal or anything else, could possibly prosper under such conditions, and I hope the House will support my noble and learned friend if he goes to a Division.
LORD JOICEY: I quite appreciate what has been said by the two noble and learned Lords who have just spoken. Something ought to be done to deal with the matter that has been brought before your Lordships, and I think it is well worth consideration whether something could not be done on the Report stage. I quite admit that you cannot carry on any scheme without some form of compulsion. Suppose a third or a quarter of the coal owners in a particular district said: "We are not going to have a scheme," what would be the result? Do you not think that the other coal owners who were under the scheme would have their business practically destroyed? I was rather interested when the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said: "Do you think the Board of Trade is going to do a foolish thing?" I have known the Board of Trade at other times do very foolish things, and sometimes even the Government which is supposed to control the Board of Trade does foolish things. I hope that the Government will give way

505
to a certain extent, and undertake to deal with the subject which has been brought forward. It is a very important thing that there should be an opportunity of reconsidering any scheme which is proposed by the Government, after a scheme brought forward by the coal owners has been thrown aside. If the Government cannot deal with the question now I hope at all events they will do so on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I confess that the answer which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave has occasioned me some embarrassment and considerable I appointment. Speaking for myself, I do not entirely go with my noble friend Lord Melchett, in thinking that the only idea of Part I of the Bill is to enable the Board of Trade to sanction voluntary arrangements between coal owners. It seems to me that it is an essential part of the Bill as it is drawn that if the coal owners in any district, or if the coal owners in the country at, large, refuse to produce a scheme at all, there must be somebody in a position to make a scheme. I think a scheme is an essential part of Part I. That does not mean that I think Part I is good. On the other hand, I think there is very great force in the objection that it is not reasonable to say that any Government Department, however competent, should be put in the position of pronouncing upon a scheme without any appeal from their decision, and then to make an alternative scheme of their own which again is subject to no sort of representation or control. It is really no answer to say that the Minister at the head of the Department can be attacked in Parliament.
I should have thought that a very reasonable way out was afforded by the suggestion put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Carson—namely, that the schemes when they are made shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall be subject to the approval of the House. That is not a very unreasonable proposal. It seems to me to be very strongly indicated by the fact that that very provision is embodied in the Bill as it stands with regard to the amendment of any scheme. If your Lordships look at subsection (4) of Clause 2 you will find that if it is necessary to amend a scheme then the Board may lay before each House of Parliament an
506
Order effecting an amendment and, if the House approves, then it shall become operative. It does not seem to me unreasonable to suggest that with regard to an original scheme some similar procedure—the same procedure in fact—shall be adopted, and therefore that each House of Parliament shall have control over the inauguration of a scheme which admittedly must very greatly affect a very important industry.
If only the Government would give an indication of their willingness to consider—I do not ask them, of course, to embody an Amendment in the Bill at this moment—and if necessary put forward at a later stage an Amendment on these lines, then so far as I am concerned my own main objection would be met, and the objection which I feel confident is shared very largely on this side of the House—namely, the objection that the Board of Trade under the Bill as it stands is put in the position of adjudicating upon a scheme, that it can arbitrarily refuse to approve a scheme for the mere purpose of saying that it has no scheme before it, and therefore it is going to make one of its own. That does not seem to me a fair position in which to put any Government Department. I think that the machinery I have indicated, while it would preserve the power of making a scheme if the coal owners either in the central scheme or in a district refuse to put one forward, would at the same time afford a reasonable protection against an arbitrary exercise of that power by the Government Department in question. I do hope the Government will see their way to be a little more sympathetic to the suggestion which my noble and learned friend Lord Carson put forward.
LORD THOMSON: There are one or two points which I should like to deal with on this Amendment. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, said he did not quite know with whom he was dealing. I admit that it looks as if there were a three-headed dragon on this side of the House. May I say that I am the big head? I am the person in charge. The next point I wish to deal with is that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carson, who asked whether a scheme had to be submitted to and approved by the Board of Trade. Quite obviously that is so. It occurs in the subsection with which we are dealing. The element of compulsion is intended. Several noble

507
Lords opposite have spoken about this Part of the Bill as though it were going on to all eternity and as though there was ample time to deal with all its provisions. As a matter of fact, this Part of the Bill expires on December 31, 1932. That is not a very long time ahead. But after the speeches that have been made, and more especially that of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I will make this offer to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. If he will co-operate with us in framing some Amendment or subsection to meet his point, I can assure him we shall be very grateful for his assistance, and we will endeavour to incorporate it in the Bill at the Report stage if it meets with the approval of the Department and the other authorities concerned. We are anxious to treat this Bill sympathetically. We appreciate the value of your Lordships' opinions on any part of it. It seems to me that it would be very difficult at this moment to insert this Amendment in the Bill, but we shall welcome the assistance of Lord Melchett if he will endeavour to find a, form of words for insertion on the Report stage.
Loan MELCHETT: I shall be very glad to do my best to meet the difficulties which many of us feel with regard to this clause. Having regard to the terms of the noble Lord's offer, I will, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw my Amendment now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MELCHETT LORD MELCHETT moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "half." The noble Lord said: The next Amendment which I have on the paper is to leave out the word "half" with the object later on of inserting "three-quarters." My reason for moving this Amendment is that as the clause now stands a bare majority of the owners of coal mines, if they produce half the output, are deemed to be a majority, and it has been represented to me that it would be much more in accordance with our usual practice to make the majority rather larger than half, to make it three-quarters. A bare majority seems an extremely small one to deal with such an important subject, and to enable you really to compel, say, 49 per cent. of coal owners into a scheme to which they objected. I think if the owners producing three-quarters of the
508
Lord Thomson output agree on something then you might say that the minority of 25 per cent. should not be allowed to interfere with a scheme. I think unless you had some figure like that you really would not get a scheme at all which you could put forward.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 21, leave out ("half").(Lord Melehett.)
EARL RUSSELL: I had thought that this Amendment might be consequential on the noble Lord's previous Amendment, but as he has now moved it I gather that is not so. I am not sure whether it would really achieve the object he desires. It obviously would be undesirable that a scheme should have the assent of only 51 per cent. of the tonnage worked under that scheme, and if the other 49 per cent. were strongly opposed to the scheme it is likely that it would work badly. It would militate against the success of the scheme. But does the noble Lord see exactly what is done? These are schemes which are to be voluntarily submitted by coal owners to the Board of Trade. These are schemes which it is hoped they will make for themselves and the Board of Trade have power if they do not submit a scheme to make a scheme themselves ab initio. Presumably you would get a smaller number of schemes submitted voluntarily by the owners if you required a 75 per cent. majority than if you required one of 51 per cent., and therefore you would leave the initiative in making schemes to the Board of Trade in a larger number of cases. We think that very undesirable, as, I imagine, does the noble Lord himself. It is far better that these schemes should come from the coal owners themselves.
If the noble Lord is afraid that the interests of minorities would not be protected, he must remember that the Board of Trade have power to insist upon modification of schemes before approval if they think that there is anything in a scheme definitely unfair to a minority. The position of minorities is further protected, because even those who do not support the submission of a scheme and against whose will the scheme is made are still entitled to their fair representation on the executive board as it is first elected. I really think that the effect of this Amendment would be almost exactly

509
the opposite of that which the noble Lord desires, and I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw it.
LORD DIELCHETT: I think there is a good deal of force in what the noble Lord says. If we had taken out the words which I wished to omit from subsection (3) it would be a different matter.
EARL RUSSELL: That is why I thought this was consequential.
LORD MELCHETT: Really I do not know why subsection (4) should be in the Bill, for it seems to me to be a mere concession to human weakness, but in the circumstances I agree to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD THOMSON LORD THOMSON moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "and" ["and, in the case of a new scheme"], and to insert "or." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment, designed to make it clear that a new district scheme, in substitution for an earlier district scheme, can be submitted by the executive board for the district.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40 leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BANBURY or SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY or SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 1. The noble Lord said: In rising to move the deletion of this clause, I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the other Amendments that I have put down, to leave out the remaining clauses of Part I, are consequential upon this and, if I do not succeed in inducing your Lordships to omit this clause, I shall not move them. There are two reasons, to my mind, why we should not accept this particular clause. The first is that it is an impossible clause, as I hope to show later on. The second reason—and I wish, if I may, to have the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition—is that the rejection of this clause, though it means the rejection of Part I, does not in any kind of way imperil the rest of the Bill, nor does it do anything that would imperil the object for which the Bill was introduced.
Your Lordships all know the real object of this Bill. Pledges were given during the Election that the coal miners should work only seven hours and be paid at the
510
same rate as if they were working eight hours. That was the object of the Bill, and no other. If you leave out Part I, you do not interfere with that object at all. That comes in later. All you do, if you leave out Part I, is to leave out a project which has never been put before either House of Parliament, or even considered in the country. Just see what Clause 1 does. It says:—
"There shall be a scheme (hereinafter in this Act referred to as 'the central scheme') regulating the production, supply and sale of coal by owners of coal mines situated in Great Britain, which shall, subject to the provisions of the scheme, be administered by a body referred to in this Act as the Central Council'; and, subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be for every district a scheme (hereafter in this Act referred to as a district scheme') regulating the production, supply and sale of coal by owners of coal mines situated in the district, which shall, subject to the provisions of the scheme, be administered by a body referred to in this Act as an executive hoard.'"
I will not trouble your Lordships by quoting the rest of Part I, if you will take it from me that all the safeguarding provisions are done away with in the long run. Whatever scheme the owners produce or whatever they do, the Board of Trade can say: "Take away your scheme and take away your committee; we are going to start a scheme and put in the people who are to administer it." That is all covered up, no doubt, but that is the effect of this clause and of Part I as it stands.
Let us see what it is they are going to do. They are going to regulate "the production, supply and sale of coal." What does that mean? It means that the business of the coal owner is to be regulated, not by him but by a body set up by a Government Department. If there is a loss, owing to bad management by the Department, it does not fall upon the Department nor upon the taxpayer, but upon the coal owner, who may have objected entirely to the scheme and who had to put up with a loss made by foolish administration on the part of the Government Department. Have we any record of administration by a Government Department? We know that during the War the Board of Trade administered the railways. At that time I had the honour of being Chairman of the Great Northern Railway Company, and therefore I know something of how the Board of Trade administered the railways. The result was a loss, but in that case the taxpayer

511
had to pay. As soon as the administration of the Government ceased, the railways, under proper management, made a profit. In those circumstances it seems to me to be perfectly inconceivable that your Lordships should pass this Part of the Bill, which will enact provisions such as I have just outlined to you.
What is the real object of the Bill? Nationalisation. And it is bad nationalisation, because, under real nationalisation, the country would have to recompense the coal owner and, if there were a loss, the loss would fall upon the country. In this case nationalisation is hidden, and the result is that, while the effect is that of nationalisation, because the mines will be run by a Government Department, the loss will fall upon the coal owner. Is there anything else behind this? Supposing my noble friend Lord Melchett desires to purchase an undertaking. I think I am not doing him an injustice if I say that he does not 'proclaim loudly to the world that he is prepared to purchase that undertaking and, if somebody should do something by which the value of that undertaking is depreciated and my noble friend Lord Melchett is able to buy at a reduced price, I do not think he would object. Is this what the Government are trying to do? Are they now, under Part I of this Bill, trying so to depreciate the value of the coal owners property that if—and I hope such a thing is impossible—they should remain in office long enough to bring in a nationalising Bill, they will he able to buy a depreciated property at a less price than they would have to pay if they took the manly course now and said: "We are going to nationalise the mines." If I can get anybody to support me, I shall certainly go to a Division on this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 1.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD THOMSON: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, will not suspect me of any discourtesy if I do not reply to him at great length. In point of fact the answer to what he said has been very largely given by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition. This Amendment is really a wrecking Amendment, and it would mean the putting of the Bill into force without Part I. The object of Part I is
512
to set up schemes whereby the coal industry shall be regulated and a senseless competition stopped between pit and pit, and concern and concern—a competition which has resulted in uneconomic prices and general distress throughout the industry. That is the effect on the industry of this Bill, and Part I provides the machinery for it. The noble Lord, I think, was mistaken when he said that these schemes had never been submitted to the country, and came like a bolt from the blue.
LORD BANBURY or SOUTHAM: I said that no scheme of this sort had ever been put into effect, not that it had never been submitted to the country.
LORD THOMSON: That is the point of my argument. These schemes have been put into effect, or something very like them, in South Wales and Yorkshire—the five-counties scheme even. Schemes which are almost identical have been applied as part of the voluntary efforts of coal owners themselves. That is, I think, the whole point. The schemes have been applied by practical men, and I am not sure that Lord Melchett has not applied them himself. They are the outcome of practical experience in two of the most progressive coalfields in this country, and it is based on that experience that the Government go forward with Part I which lasts only until December 31, 1932. It is hoped by the successful application of Part I of this Bill to mitigate any rise in the cost of production which may result from the reduction in hours. Therefore, Part I of this Bill is intimately bound up with other essential Parts of the Bill, and I am sorry to have to say to the noble Lord that it is quite impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The noble Lord who has just sat down told us that in Yorkshire and South Wales certain schemes had already been put into operation, and were successful. Were not those schemes voluntary? The Board of Trade had no power under those schemes. Those schemes were voluntary ones. That is quite a different thing altogether. I have no objection to voluntary schemes. What I object to is the Board of Trade coming in and saying: "We are going to tell you how to conduct your business." I venture to.

513
say it is a novel proceeding, and except in the case of the railways during the War has never been brought into any Bill before. I do not know what the view of your Lordships is, but if I can get support I shall certainly divide the Committee.
LORD LAMINGTON: We have been frankly told by the Lord Chancellor that he is in favour of nationalisation, and it is true that this is a step towards nationalisation. I think it would be fairer to have nationalisation, because then we should have some responsibility, and now there will be none, for the Board of Trade, who will frame the schemes, have no financial responsibility, nor will they have any cognisance of the difficulties attaching to the industry. I do not understand your Lordships passing Part I without a protest. It would almost seem as if you were in favour of some form, and a very bad form, of nationalisation. I beg to support the Amendment.
On Question, Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Provisions of central scheme.
(2) The central scheme shall further provide for the following matters—
(b) for the allocation to each district by the council, after consultation with the executive board for the district, at such times and for such periods as the council thinks fit, of a maximum output for the district (in this Act referred to as "the district allocation");
(3) The central scheme may provide for such matters as appear to the Board of Trade to be incidental to, or consequential on, the foregoing provisions of this section or to he necessary for giving effect to those provisions.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved to add to paragraph (b) of subsection (2) "such maximum not to be less than the ascertained home consumption of that district." The noble Earl said: So many years have elapsed since last I had the honour of addressing your Lordships that it is with feelings of the greatest diffidence, I might almost say trepidation, that I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. But the matter with which this Amendment deals
514
is of such vital importance to the coal mining industry in South Staffordshire and East Worcestershire that I have ventured to bring it to the notice of the Committee. Let me say at once that this Amendment is not one that has been exhumed for your inspection after its demise in another place. A proposal on somewhat similar lines was, it is true, put on the Notice Paper in the House of Commons, but the time allowed was not sufficient to enable it to be reached. Therefore, so far as I know, this is the first occasion on which this matter has been referred to during the passage of the Bill through Parliament.
As your Lordships are, of course, very well aware, one of the principal features of this Bill is what is known as the quota arrangement, by which it is hoped, by limiting the output of coal, to approximate the supply very nearly to the demand. The theory of those who support this scheme is that as, throughout England generally, there is a lack of markets for the coal produced and a consequent heavy depression in price, therefore it is necessary artificially to raise that price by limiting the supply. Although that condition of affairs may perhaps be true with regard to most of the coalfields throughout Great Britain, there are nevertheless one or two areas in England where a very different state of things exists. In the Forest of Dean, for instance, and in the Bristol area, I understand there is no lank of markets. Especially is this the case in East Worcestershire and South Staffordshire, which is a district in which my family have been occupied in mining operations for many years past. In that district, owing to the rich deposits of coal, limestone, ironstone and fireclay, a great many local industries have gradually been built up. Those industries are large and constant, consumers of fuel, and are well served by easy and adequate transport services from the mines which lie near at hand. In fact I would impress upon your Lordships that in this particular part of England the demand for fuel has at the present time grown very much larger than the potential supply of the whole district.
The whole point, therefore, that I would make to the Committee is this, that in those circumstances it is unwise, and economically most unsound, that the output of coal should be compulsorily

515
restricted in those areas where the local industries are calling out for all the fuel that they can get, and where they would be heavily penalised if they were unable to get it. These Black Country industries have been established and have in the main succeeded on the basis of cheap and readily accessible fuel. Now this Bill inevitably is going to raise very considerably the price of coal. That is, indeed, its avowed object. That may be all very well from the coal industry point of view, and it may enable them to stave off for the time being the difficulties in which they at present find themselves placed. But, as my noble friend Lord Melchett has just said, there are other people besides coal owners in England, and this arrangement is going to be a very serious matter indeed for those people who depend very largely for their success upon their power of obtaining as much fuel as they require at the lowest possible price.
Therefore, if the compulsory limitation of coal is to take place in South Stafford-shire, these local industries which want coal will have to supply the deficiency from outlying districts at a much greater cast to themselves. For, instead of being able to obtain the fuel that they need quickly and expeditiously from the mines which are near at hand, they will be forced to pay the transport charges on coal from areas lying much further afield—coal indeed which, when they get it, may not meet their requirements half as well as the local supply. Moreover, the extra expense to which they would be put would in no way enrich the owners of the outlying areas; it would merely represent an extra tax upon industry, the whole proceeds of which would be divided among the transporting companies. I would, therefore, conclude this portion of my remarks by submitting that in those areas where a large demand for fuel exists the already severe difficulties under which the local industries are at present suffering should not be increased and their trade arrangements disorganised by a compulsory limitation of their local fuel.
There is, however, another and I think an even weightier reason why a compulsory limitation of output in South Staffordshire would be particularly injurious, for it is a district which in one or two respects is quite unique as regards
516
its physical mining conditions. In the first place, the whole of the area is terribly waterlogged, and, in order to preserve the mines from flooding, it is necessary that constant and most costly pumping operations should be carried on. But the only way in which the cost of those pumping operations can be borne, and at the same time a margin of profit provided for, is that the mines should be allowed to work full time in order that the greatest possible output of coal may be raised, so as to keep the cost of working as low as possible in comparison with the revenues derived from the sale of coal. Therefore, a compulsory stoppage of work in that area for one or two days a week would very largely indeed increase the cost of the pumping operations—so largely indeed that it might very easily lead to the permanent closing down of a great number of the pits—an eventuality which, I can assure the House, would constitute a very grave menace indeed to the existence of the whole area.
But there is another peculiarity which South Staffordshire possesses, and that is that its principal seam of coal is of a thickness of no less than 30 feet—by far the thickest coal seam in Great Britain. I dare say there is a certain number of people who may think that we are very lucky to have a seam of that thickness, and undoubtedly the Black Country is very proud of it as a geological curiosity. But on the other hand I can assure noble Lords opposite that the difficulty and expense of working it is very great indeed. I am not going to attempt to go into mining details, which only a mining expert can properly explain, but I am quite sure your Lordships will easily understand what a tremendous weight a great mass of that coal must be, and how friable therefore it is, and in consequence what a tremendous lot of constant, costly and careful work has to be done, both on the roads and on the working face, in maintenance and repair. As an illustration of that, it has been calculated that a stoppage of one day in these "thick" pits will add a cost of 6d. a ton to the output of the whole pit for one week. And if the stoppage is for two days, the increased cost of working will be at an even higher ratio. Another point is that if in any day's working you

517
have a stoppage in these "thick" pits the proportion of slack and dirt to coal is very much greater than usual, and, as the value of slack is comparatively small, the overhead cost is correspondingly increased.
I hope I have already said enough to show that the position of the South Staffordshire coalfield is a totally different one from the position of most of the coalfields of Great Britain. For that reason any compulsory limitation of the output of coal in that district would have most injurious and perhaps disastrous results upon the industrial interests of the whole locality. I may be told presently by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that under its provisions a Central Council and a Board of Referees have been set up, who are to allocate every three months or so to every mining area a certain output of coal which they may raise, and that it is to them and not to Parliament that we should make our representations. That is not a solution which finds the smallest favour in the eyes of those in whose interests I speak here this afternoon. This question of the limitation of output in South Staffordshire is such an important one to miners and industrialists alike that they naturally view with very great anxiety the delegation by Parliament of these most important powers to a board which may not fully appreciate and understand the particular mining difficulties of the district and which, indeed, may be composed to a certain extent of trade rivals. Nor do they want to be compelled every three months to send the most expert members of their technical staff to argue before these boards what allocation they are to have. I cannot conceive of any system more fraught with inconvenience and uncertainty.
As far as South Staffordshire is concerned, I can assure the House that any uncertainty with regard to the number of working hours per day in these thick pits may have a, very bad effect indeed upon our local labour supply. As it is we are finding large and increasing difficulty in obtaining the number of men we require, to work the thick pits, partly, as I have already pointed out, because the conditions in those pits are very exceptional and partly because, owing to those conditions, men have to have long and very careful training. Hitherto the great inducement we have been able to hold out
518
is the prospect of full-time work from one year's end to the other. But if under the provisions of this Bill the thick pits of South Staffordshire are to stand idle one or two days a week that inducement will be removed, and it may very well be that the young men of the district will turn their attention to more continuous channels of employment for their livelihood.
Therefore we appeal to Parliament to safeguard us from those dangers by the simple enactment of this Amendment, so that the mines shall be allowed to work full time when the local markets are sufficient to enable them to do so. I submit that this is not an unreasonable request to make. It will not interfere in the least with the main objects of the Bill or hamper its working throughout the rest of the country. It merely maintains the principle, which, surely, is a sound one, that coal owners should be allowed to supply their local customers to the fullest extent of their resources and their plan and that in these days of fierce industrial competition and of widespread depression no further burden as to cost should be put unnecessarily upon the shoulders of manufacturers who are striving hard for better days. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, at end insert ("such maximum not to be less than the ascertained home consumption of that district").—(The Earl of Dudley.)
LORD MARLEY: It falls to me to deal with the Amendment of the noble Earl. May I, with the permission of the Committee, deal first of all with the point made that this Bill will inevitably raise prices. The Government have never taken that point of view. I would like in passing to deal with that point though it is actually not closely connected with this Amendment. In the first place, the Government believe that under the Bill prices may be raised in the world market; that is to say, that by international agreement and the allocation of neutral markets there is every reason to suppose that we shall be able to obtain a remunerative price for export coal in the future which we have definitely failed to do in the past. If there is in fact, and we have reason to believe it is the case, a source of income to be tapped for the coal mining industry from the international market, that will go far to meet

519
any possible rise in price which may result from the shortening of the hours of the miners.
Then there is the fact that the quota system will tend to result in a concentration of production in the more efficient pits with the consequent lowering of the cost of production. We have it as a fact that public utility societies are not paying a remunerative price for the coal they purchase and there, again, will be a source of some extra income for the coal mining industry. From various other sources money will be available, and for this reason we believe that in point of fact the price of coal will not be raised in this country. Many experts believe in fact that there may result a lowering of the price of coal to the domestic consumer and to the iron and steel industry. With regard to the actual Amendment—
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD MARLEY: I think I have a right to deal with points raised in a speech, though they may not have anything actually to do with the Amendment, particularly when those points have been raised in many parts of your Lordships' House and in the country. The Amendment seeks to lay down that the maximum output shall not be less than the ascertained home consumption in each district. I think that is the meaning of the Amendment. May I point out that in some disstricts consumption is actually greater than production. Therefore if this Amendment were carried such a district would receive a larger share of the national output, which would mean a lowering of the district allocation in other and less favourable districts.
Then there are a number of districts, such as South Staffordshire, with which the noble Earl is particularly concerned, in which most of the local output is consumed locally. I would point out to him that such a district would have the right to claim as a district allocation the full amount of its local consumption. It would have a right to claim that full amount, and if in any way it was not satisfied it could go to arbitration. But as South Staffordshire has been producing for some time the full amount required for local consumption there can be no reason for any alteration in the amount of the district allocation for South Staffordshire, because, under
520
this scheme, there is no proposal to lower the total production of the country. On the contrary, it is hoped that by an increase in export trade we shall be able to raise the total production in the country. Districts which only sell a small proportion of their output within their own area will not be affected by the Amendment. I would therefore submit to your Lordships that this Amendment will do harm to South Staffordshire and not good, because under the Bill as it stands South Staffordshire will not suffer by a lower district allocation than its home consumption, whereas if the Amendment is passed there will be a district allocation for areas such as Lancashire, which are in fact consuming more than they produce, which will mean a lower district allocation for South Staffordshire and other similarly placed areas. I hope therefore the noble Earl will accept this explanation.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I do not want to interrupt, but do I understand the noble Lord to say that in the opinion of the Government a locality will receive its allocation according to the maximum market in that locality?
LORD MARLEY: No, according to the production over a number of years. The district allocation will be based on that production. If, therefore, South Staffordshire has been producing in fact the amount suggested by the noble Earl, that will be approximately the basis for the district allocation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I regret very much that the noble Lord representing the Government has not seen his way to accept the Amendment of my noble friend. May I say how much we welcome back to our counsels my noble friend [the Earl of Dudley]. As we listened to his well-balanced sentences we realised how much we had lost during all these years of his absence. I regret that upon his return he has not met with greater success on the merits of his proposal from the Government. The noble Lord said in the course of his speech that there was no suggestion by the Government to limit the production of coal. I thought it was the main point of the speech of the Lord Chancellor that supply had overtopped demand, and that there was urgent necessity to limit it.
LORD MARLEY: Potential supply, not actual supply.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Lord Chancellor said potential supply? It would be easier if the Lord Chancellor were here.
LORD MARLEY: In the coal mining industry consumption and production are virtually the same.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I was confuting, or trying to confute, the observation of the noble Lord that there had been no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to limit the supply of coal, and I ventured to say, in the absence for a moment of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, that a large part of his argument depended upon his allegation, which other noble Lords do not quite accept, that the supply had overrun the demand, and that it was right and necessary to check supply. I confess that I was not at all reassured by the noble Lord's speech. He said that if South Staffordshire, or wherever it might be—for my noble friend's Amendment is quite general, and does not apply to Staffordshire only—if South Staffordshire was aggrieved by the decision it could appeal and go to arbitration. But we do not want to hamper the trade of his country with all these law suits. Those are the things which are so objectionable. The Government seem to think that by piling on one kind of appeal upon another, and arbitration upon the top of that, they can meet all the difficulties.
The great way to make an industry work smoothly is to avoid all these things, and, indeed, the noble Lord in his speech did not seem to have the least feeling for the consumer. The whole point of the contention of my noble friend behind me (the Earl of Dudley), and of noble Lords sitting near me is, that this Bill and the Government's defence of it seem to ignore the wishes of the consumer. They are always considering or saying they are considering the interests of the coal owners. We are very familiar with that, but we never get the consumer consulted except in the part at the end of the Bill, which is only of an advisory character. All the compulsory parts of the Bill, with which it abounds, are against the consumer, and my noble friend comes forward with a plea in their favour. He says in the mines with which he is familiar the
522
provision of coal close at hand is of the greatest importance to the success of the local industries, and he asks why, in the name of all that is wonderful, should not the local people have the advantage of all the coal they require which is being got in the mines just at their door? I should have thought that was obvious common sense. The noble Lord says that will, of course, be considered when the calculation is made as to what the output of the mine has been in the last few years. Supposing the industry in Staffordshire increases; supposing it wants a little more coal. According to the noble Lord that would not necessarily be taken into consideration. It would depend upon what coal had been wanted in the past, not on what coal was wanted in the present. We do not wish to be hampered in that way and it appears to us to be mere common sense that we should lay down plainly on the face of the Act of Parliament that this maximum is not to be less than the ascertained home consumption of a district. That seems to be common sense, and we hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
LORD THOMSON: Without straying into the question of what we mean by production and consumption, because we hall have ample opportunity for studying that aspect of the problem when we get to Part II, what the Government mean by it, of course, is productive capacity. I listened with the greatest attention and interest to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, fully appreciating all his points, and, speaking personally, I can see a great deal in them, but Part I of the Bill is not for local application. There is such a thing as equity with regard to the whole country. South Staffordshire is undoubtedly rather exceptional in this respect. Take Lancashire. As my noble friend has pointed out, if you put the words into the Bill that the noble Earl suggests, you would be tying the hands of the Central Council completely. They would be obliged to give an allocation to the district far in excess of its actual requirements as a district, from the point of view that the allocation would be based on the consumption in Lancashire, which is two or three times as great as its production. This scheme has to apply to the whole of the coalfields in an equitable manner. The Central Council, I keep on repeating, consists of coal

523
owners, and the executive, boards in districts consist of coal owners. They will surely be able to arrange these matters in an equitable fashion between themselves. If they cannot, I cannot imagine who would be able to do it.
The noble Marquess says that you will have arbitration all the time. You cannot stop arbitration under these provisions. I wish I could suggest any method to your Lordships of avoiding arbitration, but I fail to see why the Bill as it stands should produce more arbitration than it would produce if the Amendment suggested by the noble Earl were inserted. I repeat that I listened with the greatest interest to the noble Earl's speech, and I thoroughly understood his points, but I hope he will understand my explanation also, that this Bill is for application throughout the entire country. It cannot take or give undue weight to purely local considerations. For these reasons I trust that the noble Earl will not press the Amendment because if he does I am afraid I shall have to resist it.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: It seems to me that the words which I ask to be inserted are of general application. They really are such reasonable words that I confess I am not altogether satisfied with the reply that has been given by the noble Lord on the Government Benches. Therefore I would ask leave to be allowed to press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD GAINFORD: May I be allowed to intervene for a moment to say that in our meetings the Staffordshire representatives have made it quite clear that in their interests they dislike very much any idea of having their production limited in any way. They have been quite anxious to join a scheme in connection with regulation of price, but they have been absolutely consistent in arguing that on account of their great expenses in connection with de-watering their collieries, it is essential for them to have a certain definite output. Whilst I admit that, I am bound to say that some of the rest of the colliery owners think that Staffordshire would be put in a preferential position as compared with coal owners in the rest of England. We recognise that their special position is rather a hard case, but at the same time we do say it should not be possible for one district to be given their total output whilst in other districts coal owners would be subject to a quota reduction.
LORD DARYNGTON: I should like to suggest a possible way out by using some such words as "due attention being given to the home consumption." I think that would meet the point made by the noble Lord just now.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course it is possible that the words may require to be slightly modified, but that might be done later on.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to call attention to one point. I am not quite sure if your Lordships fully appreciate the situation. Lancashire, as I understand, produces less coal than it consumes and certain other districts do the same. If the Amendment is accepted it would mean that Lancashire would really not come within the quota at all, because under the suggested Amendment as to maximum consumption she would produce far more coal than she consumes. Other districts on the other hand, the exporting districts, will not be affected. It seems to me if you are to have a general rule like this applying to all districts, you are going to put the whole scheme in jeopardy inasmuch as you will be giving a particular district such as Lancashire power to produce coal largely in excess of what she is producing at the present time or would be under the scheme. I submit that the Amendment suggested requires very serious consideration before it can be accepted.
LORD THOMSON: May I make a suggestion? If the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, would bring forward on the Report stage of the Bill an Amendment somewhat on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Daryngton, "having due regard to the district consumption" or words to that effect, I would certainly on behalf of the Government give it most careful and sympathetic consideration. But to accept the Amendment as it stands is really quite impossible.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sure my noble friend will be well advised between this and the Report stage to consider whether the words are quite perfect, but I see no reason why the words on the Paper should not be inserted at the present stage and the matter considered between now and the Report stage.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 136; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS.

Beaufort, D.

Chaplin, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Rutland, D.

Devonport, V.

Gifford, L.

Somerset, D.

Falkland, V.

Glanusk, L.

Wellington, D.

Falmouth, V.

Hanworth, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Goschen, V.

Harris, L.

Bath, M.

Hailsham, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Camden, M.

Hambleden, V.

Illingworth, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Hood, V.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Linlithgow, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Salisbury, M.

Lawrence, L.

Winchester, M.

Novar, V.

Leconfield, L.

Zetland, M.

Plumer, V.

Leigh, L.

Lloyd, L.

Abingdon, E.

Aberdare, L.

Luke, L.

Bathurst, E.

Abinger, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Bradford, E.

Addington, L.

Merthyr, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Aldenham, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Denbigh, E.

Alvingham, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dudley, E. [Teller.]

Ampthill, L.

Monson, L.

Fitzwilliam, E.

Annaly, L.

Newton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Armstrong, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Ilchester, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Inchcape, E.

Auckland, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Iveagh, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Biddulph, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bowes, L. (E. Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

Redesdale, L.

Lindsey, E.

Remnant, L.

Lucan, E.

Carson, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Lytton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Roundway, L.

Midleton, E.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Sackville, L.

Morton, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Saltoun, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Sandys, L.

Onslow, E.

Cranworth, L.

Sherborne, L.

Peel, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Sinclair, L.

Plymouth, E.

Cushondun, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Rosslyn, E.

Danesfort, L.

Sudeley, L.

Selborne, E.

Deramore, L.

Swansea, L.

Spencer, E.

Desborough, L.

Templemore, L.

Stanhope, E.

Digby, L.

Teynham, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Elphinstone, L.

Trevor, L.

Yarborough, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Vivian, L.

Ypres, E.

Fairhaven, L.

Wavertree, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Faringdon, L.

Wharton, L.

Brentford, V.

Forester, L.

Wyfold, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Leverhulme, V.

Joicey, L.

Mersey, V.

Kirkley, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Marks, L. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Northumberland, D.

Arnold, L.

Meston, L.

Askwith, L.

Morris, L.

Reading, M.

Clwyd, L.

Passfield, L.

Daryngton, L..

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Denman, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Do La Warr, E.

Dickinson, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Grey, E.

FitzWalter, L.

Shandon, L.

Lindsay, E.

Gainford, L.

Stanmore, L.

Russell, E.

Gorell, L.

Thomson, L.

Hastings, L.

Wargrave, L.

Hereford, V.

Hemphill, L.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (b), to insert:—
"Provided always that it shall be the duty of the Central Council in fixing the district allocation to provide that the maximum output thus allowed in any district shall be sufficient to ensure that the production, supply or sale of coal or coke destined for export overseas shall not be hampered or restricted."
The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I now submit to your Lordships is very closely connected with another Amendment which I have put down on Clause 3. The object of both these Amendments is to do what is possible within the structure of the Bill to prevent there being any restriction of the output of coal which is destined for export overseas. I take that as an object with which every member of the Committee will he in agreement. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, when moving the Second Reading of this Bill, laid stress upon the fact that one of its objects was to increase our export trade in coal, and throughout the debates on this Bill in the House of Commons the President of the Board of Trade laid stress upon the same point. My difficulty is this: I am confident that, unless some such provision as that which I have suggested is inserted in the Bill, it will, in spite of the noble Lord's professions to the contrary, have the effect of restricting our export trade, and this will be a very deplorable thing. I think your Lordships are all in agreement with me when I say that the more coal we are able to sell abroad the better for everybody concerned. There will naturally be less competition at home.
An Amendment was moved in another place in this connection which, if it had passed, would have had the effect of entirely exempting coal produced for export from the provisions of Part I of this Bill. It would have exempted that class of coal from the restrictions of quota and price. I want to make it clear that my Amendment does not interfere with the structure of the Bill. I read with great care the speech of the President of the Board of Trade when replying to this Amendment in another place, and although I am prepared to admit that he was able to make some case against the form of that Amend-
528
ment—that is against exempting this class of coal from the provisions of Part I of the Bill—I do not think he allayed the fears of those of us who feel that the effect of this Bill, unless it is altered, will be to hamper and restrict our export trade in coal. The President of the Board of Trade said that in his view this Bill was elastic enough and capable of meeting any situation which might develop in our export trade, but I rather fear that this elasticity is more in his mind than actually in the Bill, and I am afraid that the machinery of this Bill is too complicated to be operated with great rapidity, unless we give that machinery every possible help.
Although there are references in Clause 3 to different classes of coal, and the way in which they may be dealt with by the executive board, there is no mention of classes of coal in Clause 2, which is the clause now under consideration; that is, in fixing the allocations for the various districts no reference has been made to class, and no suggestion has been made that the matter of class should be taken into consideration. It may be easy enough to apply the provisions of this Bill to coal which is produced for home consumption, but when we come to export coal matters are very different indeed, and I think it is quite clear that the too rigid application of the provisions as to quota and prices will result in our losing contracts abroad. It is quite impossible to put up the price of coal to the foreigner. You can put up the price in this country and make the consumer pay, but you cannot do it with regard to export coal, because if you do, and the foreigner is not satisfied, he can easily go elsewhere. Therefore I maintain that as it is particularly in this class of coal produced for export that we hope to get an expansion of trade, it is absolutely essential that we should have the greatest possible freedom in dealing with this class of coal.
The position of coal for export is undoubtedly different from that of coal produced for home consumption, and I suggest that it comes very near to madness to control and restrict our coal which is destined for export overseas, when the foreign producers of coal, who are our chief competitors, are not subject to these restrictions. It really is playing into

529
their hands. This is not just a question of world over-production of coal. It is merely a case of handing over to the foreigner markets which have been ours for years past and which we can justifiably look upon as ours, and it is quite certain that if once we lose those markets they will be difficult indeed to recover. I suggest that really the Government have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Surely, before we start controlling and restricting our coal which is to compete with foreign coal in the world's markets, we should first try to come to some kind of international agreement. Till then we should have as free a hand as possible and as fair conditions as possible.
I am not making these statements at random. They are fully borne out by the facts. Your Lordships know that the position of our export trade in coal at the present moment is as bad as it can be. In South Wales we have a voluntary scheme, which has already been alluded to this evening, in existence. I am not going to suggest that the deplorable condition there is entirely due to that voluntary scheme, but I do say it has seriously aggravated the situation and increased the difficulty. In South Wales we have an annual production of about 50,000,000 tons, and out of that 30,000,000 tons is export. or foreign trade. Therefore I think it is quite clear to your Lordships that in South Wales we are almost entirely dependent upon our export trade.
I know of one company that has had a large contract halved owing to the uncertainty caused by the present Bill. The clients of this company have said that owing to this Bill, which is in the offing and which they believe will in due course become law, they have no confidence that the firm in question will be able to fulfil its contract, and therefore they have given half the contract to them and the other half has gone to some German company. Another company that I know has lost contract after contract in South America to the Germans, owing to the fact that their quotations have been slightly higher than those of the Germans, and these are contracts which we have had in this country for years, and on which the company in question is very largely dependent. I want to make it clear that it is not the coal owners who are chiefly suffering as the result of this. I believe I am
530
right in saying that all the pits of the company in question are working at a. small profit; but it is the men who are suffering and who are going to suffer. Some of the principal exporting companies in South Wales are now only working a half week and that means that the men are earning greatly reduced wages indeed, they might almost as well be on the "dole."
I think your Lordships will see from what I have said to what a great extent South Wales is dependent upon its export trade, and how absolutely essential it is that we should have the greatest possible freedom and elasticity in this Bill to deal with this class of trade. For instance, it ought to he made possible to amend quotations if necessary. I understand that this opportunity is very often given by foreign consumers to companies with which they have dealt for a very long time. I hope that the effect of inserting the provision which I have suggested in the Bill will be that, when it becomes evident, during the course of the period for which an allocation is made in a certain district, that that district will be able to sell for export more coal than can be done under their allocation, it will then be possible for the executive board for that district to go to the Central Council and ask them to increase that allocation. With this provision in the Bill it will be incumbent upon the central body to deal fairly with this question. I honestly believe that some such Amendment is really quite essential in the Bill if we are to ensure that there is no unnecessary restriction put upon our export trade. It would be a real disaster, not only for those districts which are chiefly concerned with the export trade, but for the whole country, if that were so, because there would be greater competition at home and greater difficulty in selling the coal. The two points I desire to make in conclusion are, firstly, that this Amendment does not in any way alter the structure of the Bill and, secondly, the object which this Amendment has in view is an object common to all sides of the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Plyntouth.)
LORD THOMSON: I see that the noble Earl has read the reply of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade with as much attention as I have

531
myself and therefore some of my arguments may be familiar to him, because I confess candidly that I am going to use the same arguments as were used by the President of the Board of Trade, with one or two exceptions. My first point is that I think the Amendment is largely met already by the Bill. So far as I am advised, if it is necessary to produce more coal for export a special quota, if necessary 100 per cent., can be applied at once to export coal.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: That is Clause 3.
LORD THOMSON: Yes, that is the application of Clause 3.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Yes, but Clause 2 is the allocation.
LORD THOMSON: Yes, but the allocation is fixed by the Central Council on the advice of the executive board of the district. Is not that so? The noble Earl may fairly say, if it does no harm, if the Amendment has the same effect as the Bill, why not put it in? But there is this drawback to that course, that, though export coal is a particular class of coal, it is one of many classes of coal; and to give it special treatment in the Bill is considered most inadvisable. I am sure everybody who has thought about this problem has a good deal of sympathy with the noble Earl's argument, but to make it incumbent upon the Central Council is perhaps a little too strong. It the noble Earl would consider some such phrase as "shall take into consideration," it would be different.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Lord tell me the words in Clause 3 which he relies on? It does not appear in Clause 2, which we are discussing.
LORD THOMSON: Clause 3 (2) (d) says each scheme shall provide
"for the determination at such times and for such periods as may be decided in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, of the proportion (in this Act referred to as the quota) of the standard tonnage which each of the coal mines in the district is to be allowed to produce, so, however, that the scheme shall provide—
And paragraph (iii) goes on:—
"that all quotas shall be so calculated that, during any period for which the district allocation has been fixed by the Central Council, that allocation shall not be exceeded."
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: That does not help.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understood the noble Lord to say that the Bill really does what my noble friend desired because there was some subsection which provided that in the case of export coal the quota would be fixed at 100 per cent.
LORD THOMSON: That is exactly what I did say. I regret extremely that for the moment I cannot lay my hands on the subsection. In view of my ignorance on that point, if the noble Earl can prove to me that that provision does not exist I will gladly see that his point is met on the Report stage.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The Amendment does not really lay down anything very sensational, but is more in the nature of a pious opinion. The more active Amendment which my noble friend has down occurs on Clause 3, and I should say that, while the form of the words may not be entirely agreeable to the noble Lord, he might between now and the Report stage find such words as could, if necessary, be inserted in the Bill.
LORD THOMSON: I am quite prepared to accept that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD VERNON LORD VERNON moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (b), to insert as a new paragraph:—
"(c) For securing that any price determined by any executive board under paragraph (f) of subsection (2) of Section three of this Act for any class of coal shall be applied equally, irrespective of destination, by that executive board to all coal of that class the destination of which is within Great Britain."
The noble Lord said: This Part of the Bill sets out the regulations for output and for establishing minimum prices, but it will be observed that, whereas the output regulations are laid down both in Clause 2 and Clause 3—that is to say in so far as they affect the central scheme and the district scheme—the minimum price regulations only affect the district scheme. and nothing is said about them under the central scheme. Indeed, paragraph (f) of Clause 3 which lays down this regulation is very vague. The object of my Amendment is to bring the minimum

533
price regulations within the scope of the Central Council in order that they should see that they are fairly applied as between one district and another. The reason why I suggest this is that during the period of very bad trade through which the coal trade has been passing dumping has been extraordinarily prevalent. By "dumping" I mean the selling of coal at "cut" prices, often extraordinarily uneconomic prices, sometimes representing a price at pit-head which is practically nothing at all. That has been going on, and it is just as objectionable in the coal trade as I think it is agreed by everybody to be in international trade. It has been one of the greatest factors in bringing about the cut-throat competition of which we heard so much on Second Reading. It disturbs markets. It disturbs the rational working of the industry, and it is of no real or lasting benefit to the consumer.
The suggestion in this Amendment is really in accord with the intention of the Bill, as far as I can make out. I suppose it is really the intention of the Bill that the minimum prices determined under paragraph (f) shall be pit-head prices, although it does not say so. Any other alternative means that every district must fix delivered prices all over the country at every point to which they deliver coal. Indeed, I noticed last week that the President of the Board of Trade actually said in another place that so far as coal was concerned, this Bill carried it as far as the pit-head. If they are to be pit-head prices surely those prices should be fixed, no matter what the destination may be. It should not be within the power of any district to vary them or to set up differential rates according to where the coal is going; always provided, of course, that it is not export coal for which there are special arrangements and which is, therefore, excluded from the Amendrnent.
It may be said that if this is really the intention of the Bill there is no object in putting this Amendment into it; but I do not think that is clear, and I happen to know that there are people who will have to administer these schemes under the Bill who, at any rate, have not been under the impression that the prices to be fixed were necessarily pit-head prices. Further, if the matter is left
534
entirely to the district boards it does not follow that a district board would have any particular interest in seeing that they are observed. In the case that I quoted of the dumping of coal in distant markets by any district, the board of that district would not have any particular object in seeing that the dumping did not go on; in fact, they would be very glad to see their own competitors trying to capture a foreign or distant market.
I submit that it is essential, therefore, that the central scheme shall be such as will give fair play between district schemes in the matter of these minimum prices. It is a rather extraordinary feature that these minimum prices which are so important are not mentioned in any way in the central scheme at all. As they are not in the central scheme, it follows that any district which is aggrieved by coal being dumped in its market at an uneconomic price below the fixed price has only one remedy; that is the remedy in paragraph (h) of Clause 2 (2) of the Bill, which lays it down that a district which is aggrieved can go to arbitration. In such a case as I have suggested, where there has been dumping of coal, I do not quite see what the result of that arbitration would be. The arbitrator might tell the district which had been dumping coal that they were not to do it again, but that seems to me to be about as far as he can go. What is essential in a case of that kind is that there shall be penalties as there are in regard to the output and quota regulations. If the minimum price is brought into the central scheme—that is to say, into Clause 2—then penalties will automatically ensue against any district which contravenes the regulations under paragraph (i).
It should be remembered that these are only minimum prices. They may do a great deal of good in the way of stopping the undercutting at ridiculous prices to which I have referred; but being minimum prices, I do not think they can do anything to force up the price of coal seriously. Many noble Lords dislike the whole idea of a minimum price. Even so, I do not think there is any Amendment on the Paper to delete the part of the Bill which deals with minimum prices. Presumably, therefore, it will go through. In that case it is right, surely, that we should

535
say that it is to apply fairly as between one district and another. I suggest that the only way in which that can be done is to bring it into the central scheme on the same basis as the quota and output regulations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Vernon.)
LORD THOMSON: The point of this Amendment is as to what is meant by a "class" of coal. A "class" of coal is defined later on in the Bill, in Clause 18 (1), as
"a class determined according to the nature of the coal or of the trade, industry or other category of consumer supplied, or according to whether it be supplied for use in Great Britain or for export to any other country."
In other words, the class of coal is not dependent only on its nature, as, I imagine, the noble Lord would like it to be. He would like to limit the definition of coal to the nature of the coal. But the definition in the Bill extends its class to include the consumer and the destination. That is the basis on which this clause has been framed.
I come now to what is really a practical point. Apparently, in the coal trade and, indeed, in other trades, it is not the custom to charge the same price for the same article to all consumers. If it is suspected that a certain class of consumer can pay a little more that price is demanded. I admit it is rather an astonishing state of affairs but I believe I have described it accurately. The minimum price for a particular class of coal as defined by the noble Lord would restrict sellers to asking, we will say, the same price for coking coal for coke furnaces and for gas concerns. As a matter of fact, I am told that they ask quite different prices from those two different sorts of consumers and the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to limit the definition of a class of coal simply to its nature, and it would interfere with the custom of the trade. I am now speaking as a pure amateur in this matter, but I believe there is a custom of the trade which is extremely widespread, and is accepted by all concerned, sellers as well as buyers, and would in point of fact confer unfair advantages on certain of these buyers at
536
the present time. It is a practical point. It is not really a point with which any one unacquainted can deal at all effectively, but that is how the position stands, as I am advised by those best qualified to advise upon the subject, and for that reason I trust the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD VERNON: The noble Lord has not really met the point that this aims at. I quite appreciate the point about the definition of the class of 'coal and the consumer supplied, but he does not deny that this is intended to fix pit-head prices. The prices to be determined under this paragraph are, I take it, to be pit-head prices. It was stated so in another place last week by the President of the Board of Trade, and, if he starts to work it out he will find that otherwise it will lead almost to absolute chaos. Does he suggest that every colliery district shall fix a delivery price to every destination and for every consumer? If so that is no longer a minimum price at all. It does not mean anything. If the people who are to produce the coal are to fix a price for the coal they produce, then it must surely be a pit-head price, and if it is to be a pit-head price, then, even if the actual wording of the Amendment which I have put down is not quite correct, the point is still there, and that is the geographical distance between different areas.
The area in which I am interested, for instance, is in Lancashire, and in Lancashire we have suffered a great deal from this dumped coal and cut prices. As I have already said, cases have been known where coal has been sold at prices which represented really nothing at the pit-head, and practically only the cost of the transport. It is the geographical question with which I am trying to deal. No district should be able to cut prices, and to have differential prices for areas away from their home market and recoup themselves out of the higher prices which they charge in that home market. That I think must surely be the intention of the paragraph in the Bill. The noble Lord will hardly deny that. If that is the intention, then I say it should be carried out, and I submit it is not carried out under the paragraph as it is at present.
LORD GALNFORD: I do not think the noble Lord realises the effect of this Amendment in the coal trade. It is very necessary to arrange with other colliery owners that certain prices be charged for certain classes of coal. We desire to have as much freedom as possible, and we do not want to be restricted to pithead prices. I realise that what the noble Lord has in his mind is that it is desirable to the Lancashire coal owners that other coal should not come into Lancashire and interfere with the Lancashire trade, but it is essential in the interests of the consumers that they should have the option of getting other coal if they like to do so. Apart from that, if the noble Lord's Amendment were carried it would prevent us making arrangements in connection with our export trade. Most of our coal is sold free on board at our ports, and it is not a question of pit-head prices at all so far as a very large portion of coal is concerned. In other cases we sell c.i.f. delivered to our customers abroad. As long as there is an arrangement among ourselves what is to be the minimum price, whether it is c.i.f. or f.o.b. or pit-head, it is equally effective, and we want the liberty and freedom which this Amendment would take from us.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (3), after "The central scheme may provide," to insert:—
"(a) for the collection from the executive boards for the several districts of levies, imposed upon them at such times and for such periods as the Central Council thinks fit in proportion to the output or disposal of their respective districts, for the purpose of facilitating the sale of any class of coal;"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one of some substance to which I referred when I addressed your Lordships on Second Reading. I press this Amendment mainly on two grounds. The first is that it is unfair to a large number of districts if the Bill is left with a power to raise a district levy and does not contain the power, which I seek to give by this Amendment, of securing a central levy also. The second point which I want to make is that it is absolutely necessary, in our national interests, that in any negotiations with foreign countries we shall have exactly the same powers to raise a. central levy as they have in competition with us. This Amendment was
538
included in the Bill when it was introduced into the other House, but after a long debate it was only thrown out at the instance of the Liberal Party. by a majority 'of eight. The result is the Bill has been left in what appears to me to be an emasculated condition.
I want to make it quite clear how unfair would be a district levy without a central levy. I am interested in Yorkshire as well as in Northumberland and Durham, but I am bound to say, on behalf of Northumberland and Durham, that they regard the Bill in its present form as very unfair to themselves. The County of Northumberland sends 51 per cent. of its coal to foreign countries, and it sends seaborne 31 per cent.—in other words 82 per cent. of the Northumberland coal is seaborne. Therefore, if they were to raise a levy in their district on the home consumer, they would get a very small amount of money with which to subsidise their export trade. Yorkshire, on the other hand, does not export 10 per cent., and its export and sea-borne trade is only 10 per cent. of the total production. They, therefore, can raise by a comparatively small levy on the 90 per cent. of their inland trade a very large sum to subsidise their export trade, or, in other words, they are prepared, if this Bill passes in its present form, to subsidise Yorkshire coal with a levy and take away from Northumberland its whole trade, or a very large portion of it indeed. The Northumberland coal owners and workmen themselves realise that, and feel very strongly on the point that you ought to have a central levy as well as a district levy in order that justice may be done.
But there is another point which I said I wanted to emphasise, and that is the international arrangement. The Ruhr and Silesia both have the power of raising money from their own consumers by increasing the price, and of exporting a very large volume of coal abroad which they are prepared to sell at even less than cost price, gaining the advantage in some cases by very much larger prices charged to their own home consumers. We are in communication with the German and also with the Polish Silesian coal owners with a view to considering whether we cannot come to some better understanding so that, instead of cutting each other's throats where we meet in competition, we in common with the other countries could have certain allocations of the requirements

539
of these customers abroad. If we have no power to raise a levy by a central demand on the consumers of this country as a whole we shall lose what is one of the most vital interests of our country—namely, the exportation of coal in large quantities in order to pay for the raw materials and the food which we in this country require from foreign countries. Therefore, the export trade in competition with Germany and with Polish Silesia especially is very important to us.
If we have the power, I do not believe myself that it will be really necessary to exercise it, but on this point I should like if I may to read one or two passages from the Deutsche Bergwerks-Zeitung. That paper, in its issue of April 29, says in a leading article dealing with this question:"
"The British Coal Mines Bill will soon be passed. … This will enable the British mining industry to establish district syndicate arrangements on a better and more solid basis than has hitherto been possible."
It goes on to say:—
"It is sufficient to point out that in important circles in the British coal mining industry, strong efforts are being made to arrange for an inter-district levy with the help of which it would he possible to establish a fund for the subsidising of British coal exports. … It is clear that with the help of such a subsidy the British coal industry could very easily overcome the competition of other countries."
In other words, the Germans are afraid of our having this power because they think we would be able to make better terms in regard to the amount of coal which we export. On this ground I do think there is a strong case for the reinsertion of the clause giving this power —I do not believe, as I say, it would be very much exercised—to raise a central levy in order to place us on an equal footing with our competitors abroad. I have therefore great pleasure in moving the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 1, after ("provide") insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Gainford.)
THE EARL OF LINDSAY: I rise to offer the most strenuous opposition I can to the Amendment that has just been moved by the noble Lord. I hope the Government will resist this Amendment. What the noble Lord really is trying to bring before your Lordships is the fact that Northumberland and Durham have such
540
a very small inland sale of coal that any levy raised upon it would have very little effect upon them. The exporting districts, up to now, I would remind your Lordships, have always managed to conduct their export trade without a subsidy and have taken a world price for coal in competition with foreign exporting countries. The position in Yorkshire is entirely different. Before the War, as the noble Lord has pointed out, Yorkshire only exported about 10 per cent. of its total output. Since the War that had increasingly diminished until in 1927 we only exported 2,000,000 tons. With the assistance of the five-counties scheme, however, we have now managed to improve on that export trade to the extent of 7,000,000 tons.
The implications of this Amendment are very important. The real point is one of sale proceeds and wages. If a central levy is made it will mean that the coal owners and the mine workers will be deprived of any advantage that they would obtain under the marketing provisions in Part I of this Bill. They will have to hand them over to the exporting districts of Northumberland, Durham, South Wales and even Scotland. If coal mining is successful in the five-counties area it will increase the proceeds of the sale of coal, and under an agreement entered into, as many of your Lordships know, any advantage goes to the extent of 85 per cent. to the miners and 15 per cent. to the coal owners. Therefore such a proposition as the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has made, would mean in effect that the wages of the mine workers would be raided by this levy as well as any increased advantage that the owners might derive.
Each district in this country up to now has always had to provide for and stimulate its own export trade. Furthermore, the exporting districts have since 1926 been working generally eight hours a day, which is a great advantage as compared with Yorkshire. In addition to that, they have had the advantage of the fact that the standard of wages in Northumberland and Durham is considerably lower than that in Yorkshire and under the five-counties scheme. Therefore I say that the Midlands will be severely handicapped and I hope the Government will resist this Amendment.
LORD JOICEY: I must support my noble friend Lord Gainford in this matter. It is a vital point both to Durham and Northumberland. No doubt the coal owners in Yorkshire are in a specially favoured position. At present they have a 7½-hour day while in other places they have been working more. Why? Because they have new pits, good seams that they can work much more economically and they are in a position to increase their output very considerably. If they put, as my noble friend says, a tax of 3d. upon the home consumers it gives them about 2s. 3d. a ton to deal with in competition with other exporters. I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind that unless this question is dealt with it will simply mean that instead of fighting, as we want to fight, the foreign exporter, we shall be fighting each other, and unfortunately Durham and Northumberland will not be able to fight successfully against the specially favourable position in which Yorkshire stands at the present time.
I cannot help thinking that when you pass a measure of this kind one object which you should have in view is to see that it is fair to all parties? How can you say that there is anything fair in connection with the scheme which has been put forward by my noble friend in favour of Yorkshire? Look at the large number of people who are interested in this question. It is not confined to the miners of Durham or Northumberland. It extends to the whole district represented by Northumberland and Durham. I see in his place my noble friend who is Chairman of the River Tyne Conservancy. I should like to ask him how he would like to have the export trade of Tyneside cut down by the Yorkshire people in the way that is proposed if we do not get this Amendment. I am certain that it will have effects upon Durham and Northumberland far more disastrous than people realise. I hope that, whatever the Government do, they will protect Durham and Northumberland from the unfair competition, which is brought about by their own Bill to a large extent, in connection with the export trade.
I think a very strong feeling will be created against the Bill if this Amendment is not accepted. So far as I am concerned—and I think this probably
542
holds good of many of your Lordships-1 do not like this Bill. But you may depend upon it that, unless certain Amendments are passed, you will find that there will be very strong opposition, even to the point of moving the rejection of the Bill on the Third Reading. So far as I am concerned—and I am not speaking for any organisation in either Durham or Northumberland, but am simply representing my own views—I prefer doing without the Bill altogether unless this Amendment is accepted. There are other Amendments with which we shall have to deal, which I hope the Government, in the interests of their own child, will try to meet in a reasonable way. I hope that they will meet the views that we put forward, when we are making such great sacrifices in accepting a Bill which we so much dislike.
EARL RUSSELL: This Bill and the industry with which it deals are so difficult and complicated and the questions involved are so full of snags that one cannot help feeling that one ought to walk very warily. Indeed, in addressing your Lordships on any of these technical points I feel a little like a schoolmaster who is only one lesson ahead of his class, coupled with the fact that in the class are a great many experts who are a long way ahead of the master. Accordingly one has to be very careful. This export question is a very interesting one. The noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, moved an Amendment just now which was designed to make sure that the export trade was protected. I am sure that it was admirably worded for that purpose. He said at the end of his speech, as is quite true, that we all agree that we should be willing to do anything we could to promote and increase our export trade. That is clearly of the first importance.
This central levy which has been suggested is rather intimately connected with that point. Earlier in the evening, when we were discussing the powers of the Central Council and the making of schemes and so on, it was suggested by one noble Lord (I forget at the moment who it was) that we might make our international agreement first and our regulations and quota schemes afterwards. The answer to that I think I can understand, and I believe I am right about it. Who is there that can make an international agreement for the coal

543
trade of this country? There is no body that can do it. There is no body that can speak for the coal trade of this country or make an international agreement with any prospect of success or of having it observed in this country.
Once you have the coal trade unified, so to speak, and under one hand in the form of a Central Council, you are in a position to go to foreign countries and you have behind you some possible support for the export of coal, either by a district levy or by what is probably quite as suitable a system—namely, a, central levy. Then you can go to a foreign country and say: "Unless we get some share of the business we are in a position to deal with the situation and to undersell and undercut you." That is the way that business is obtained, not as a matter of kindness but as a matter of bargaining and of price; and that I understand to be the real international importance of this scheme. But you cannot get an international agreement unless you have some such body or some such scheme as the central levy, which would possibly give you an instrument that would be very powerful to bargain with. I understand also, though not so clearly, that there are differences between the conditions of the various coal areas in this country and that, as your Lordships have already seen, some take one view and some another. What, of course, the Central Council or whoever is responsible would have to consider would be the balance of advantage.
LORD DARYNGTON: I should like to say one word in reference to that which the noble Earl has just said. The reason why there is a difference of view between the different coal areas of the country is quite simple. It is the reason given by noble Lords in, the last two or three speeches. It is very difficult to say exactly how a tax affects coal. I remember that years ago in the House of Commons, when the export tax of is, was put on coal, the miners said that they paid it, the owners said that they paid it, the shipowners said that they paid it, and the consumers said that they paid it. It is very difficult to say who pays a tax. This is a very important matter from the point of view of Durham and Northumberland, for the simple reason that in Northumberland something like 75 or 80 per cent. of the coal is seaborne,
544
and in Durham about 46 per cent. It is also very plain that, if this Bill passes in its present form, there will be a very considerable increase in the cost of production of coal. In order, therefore, to keep up our exports to anything like their present level, it is necessary to have some sort of central levy, and I hope very much that the Government will consider that point.
LORD MELCHETT: The noble Earl who spoke from the Government Bench seemed to make a very sympathetic speech in reference to the Amendment of the noble Lord. He pointed out very clearly what its effect would be, and that a central levy is essentially important from the point of view of an international agreement, which I take it the Government favours. Incidentally, I think he sat down without telling us whether the Government would accept the Amendment or not. That is what we should really like to know. The history of this matter is well worth recording. The original scheme included a central levy. It was, I suppose, in the minds of those who framed this very elaborate scheme that the central levy was an essential part of it. Apparently the central levy was deleted in the House of Commons because certain people did not like any levy, but inconsequentially they did not delete the district levy, as they ought to have done if they do not like levies. The result is that the scheme is left in the most absurd position of having no central levy and a compulsory district levy. Many of us feel that you should have either both or none.
Personally I think I agree with Lord Gainford. After all, South Wales is in a very similar position as regards export. We have no great home market hinterland to build upon, like Yorkshire, in order to help our export of coal. If we had, why should we export at all? But, if you have a central scheme, you must equalise these conditions. You cannot possibly leave the thing in the illogical position in which it rests at the present time. I take it that the whole upbuilding of this scheme, if it has any purport, is designed to lead to some international arrangement. Such an arrangement will undoubtedly come about. To-day nobody engaged in any big industry ever thinks in any other terms than those of international arrangements, because it is the only way in which you can conduct

545
business. We are already sufficiently hampered in this country in our international arrangements by the terrible system of no tariffs. That has always hampered us very much, for we have nothing to give away. We have had very few big sticks to flourish. What my noble friend wants is a thick stick, with which to threaten, if not, perhaps, to hit with, behind him, and I hope we shall give it to him for the ultimate benefit of the whole of the coal industry. I think we should deal with this matter not sectionally but nationally.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite agree with my noble friend who has just sat down that the Bill, as it has reached this House, is in the last degree. illogical, because there was, as has been said, in the Bill when it was introduced in another place a central levy and a district levy. The two branches of the Opposition, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, combined to induce the House of Commons to strike out the central levy. Then something happened. None of us quite know what did happen, but something happened, under which the Liberal Party found at any rate to a certain degree salvation, and were persuaded no longer to oppose the Government Bill, and consequently when the district levy was reached, although logically, and I might almost say consequentially, the district levy ought to have followed the fate of the central levy, it was left in the Bill and it has now reached this House. Personally, I can have no doubt whatever as to the course which I should pursue, and which I think most of my friends will pursue, in this matter. We quite realise the great difficulties in which the export trade stands, but to bountify the export trade is an immense departure from received British traditions.
LORD DARYNGTON: So is the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree, but there is no reason why we should make it worse than it would be. Actually to bountify the coal trade at a moment when we are protesting against the Germans sending bounty-fed corn into this country is an inconsistency which it is almost impossible to defend. Let me recall in one or two words all that we urged when the Second Reading discussion was before your Lordships. We pointed out how grievously British
546
industry was suffering at the present moment. The British coal industry is suffering. The great steel industry is suffering. Are you going to lay an extra burden upon them? That is what is proposed by this Amendment. In order to help the export of coal we are to lay an extra burden upon the great staple industries of this country. I am sure none of us ought to countenance such a course. We know from countless inquiries and reports that British industry cannot stand any more burdens, and I cannot assent to adding to them by this central levy.
LORD THOMSON: The idea of a central levy has always been favoured by the Party to which I belong.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not always. It used to be Free Trade.
LORD THOMSON: I will come to that in a minute. The only occasion on which the Government was defeated in the House of Commons was on this particular question of a central levy. I am not referring to the highly honourable and desirable arrangement come to later for the benefit of the country. There was one point in the speech of the noble Marquess to which I would like to refer at once. Does he really think that a levy raised by the industry within the industry is the same thing as a Government bounty? This is a, levy to be raised within the industry by the industry and not a levy to be raised within the industry by people outside dictating to the industry.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: To be paid by the consumer, of course?
LORD THOMSON: It is a levy by the industry within the industry, to be fixed by the coal owners who ought to know their trade if any one does, and I submit that the noble Marquess ought to revise his description of "bountified," because it is a vastly different proposition from a Government bounty. The Labour Party have favoured a central levy for two excellent reasons: (1) It puts us on a level with the foreigner.
LORD MELCHETT: Hear, hear. Protectionist !
LORD THOMSON: The noble Lord has also changed his views on that subject, but undoubtedly it is the fact that in foreign countries the internal trade supports the export trade, and if we follow

547
that example, whatever principle may be involved, I think my statement remains true that we are putting this country on a level with its foreign competitors. The other point is that it is not a question of cheap coal to the foreigner. That was dealt with very ably by Lord Onslow in his speech on derating, if I remember aright. He there said it was a great mistake to suppose that the great bulk of British coal exported abroad went to competing industries. I do not want to labour the point, because there may be a variety of opinions upon it, but at the same time I think it is true to say of the Bill that in its early effects it will not give the foreigner cheap coal, and that if we improve our foreign export trade we shall prevent competition by exporting coal concerns with the coal concerns that cater for the home market, and there again the general public in this country will largely benefit. I have reserved for myself the pleasing task of accepting an Amendment, and I propose to do so now, and I sincerely trust the House will not be put to a Division.
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: I only ask for one moment in which to make a protest against the course taken by the Government. From one point of view I am very glad that the noble Lord opposite is gradually seeing the light, and is coming through bounties to some idea that absolute Free Trade is not practicable in the relations of this country with foreign countries, but I do protest that if your Lordships are going to vote for this Amendment you should consider this point, that while a very strong case has been made for the Counties of Durham and Northumberland, where undoubtedly there is a very large export trade and a, very small amount of coal on which the levy can he made, you are going heavily to penalise the Yorkshire mines, which, by reason of their distance from the coast, are unable to compete on
equal terms with those of Durham and Northumberland. The coal owners there will have an amount put upon them which, in addition to the difficulty already made by the Bill, will undoubtedly highly prejudice the Yorkshire coal trade. I think your Lordships would be taking a most retrograde step if you followed the advice of the noble Lord opposite, and I urge your Lordships to follow the advice of the noble Marquess.
EARL RUSSELL: The speech of the noble Marquess surprised me very much, and I should like to say a word in answer to it. The difficulty in this Bill really arises from the multitude of coal owners. In consequence you find in it a word like "levy" which suggests a tax, or impost, or something extra. But let the noble Marquess suppose that the whole coal industry of this country was in one hand, say of some gigantic American trust, and that it was necessary for the industry to sell the whole of its coal at an average price, let us say, of 20 s. a ton. What is there improper in that one hand that controls the industry selling some of its coal at 22 s. and some at 18 s. in order to capture the market? That is all that is really meant by a levy. It is really because there are a number of different owners, between whom you have to equalise things. But if the whole thing were in one hand, naturally the people who controlled it would say: "Very well, if to compete abroad we have to sell at 18 s., we will sell at 18 s.; and if we can get 22 s. at home to balance it, very well, we will get 22 s. at home." I cannot, see anything unreasonable in that simple process when you translate it into the complications of a central and district levy in this Bill.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 82.

CONTENTS.

Winchester, M.

Ampthill, L.

Hastings, L.

Amulree, L.

Joicey, L.

De La Warr, E.

Armstrong, L.

Kirkley, L.

Grey, E.

Arnold, L.

Luke, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Auckland, L.

Marks, L. [Teller.]

Rosslyn, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Cranworth, L.

Melchett, L.

Daryngton, L.

Meston, L.

Chaplin, V.

Dickinson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cowdray, V.

Faringdon, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Leverhulme, V.

Gainford, L.

Thomson, L.

Mersey, V.

Gorell, L.

Trenchard, L. Weir, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Beaufort, D.

Brentford, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Rutland, D.

Bridgeman, V.

Fitz Walter, L.

Somerset, D.

Elibank, V.

Forester, L.

Wellington, D.

Falkland, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Falmouth, V.

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

Bath, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hampton, L.

Camden, M.

Goschen, V.

Harris, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Hailsham, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Hereford, V.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Salisbury, M.

Hood, V.

Lawrence, L.

Zetland, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Leconfield, L.

Leigh, L.

Bathurst, E.

Novar, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Bradford, E.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Abinger, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dudley, E.

Addington, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Iveagh, E.

Alvingham, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Annaly, L.

Redesdale, L.

Lindsay, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Midleton, E.

Sandys, L.

Morton, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Sinclair, L.

Onslow, E.

Cushendun, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Peel, E.

Deramore, L.

Templemore, L.

Plymouth, E.

Desborough, L.

Trevor, L.

Stanhope, E.

Digby, L.

Vernon, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Ebbisham, L.

Wavertree, L.

Ypres, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wester Wemyss, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Wharton, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD THOMSON: There is a drafting Amendment here in subsection (4).
Amendment moved
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Thomson.)
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended at eight o'clock, and resumed at half past nine.]
Clause 3:
Provisions of district scheme.
(2) Every district scheme shall further provide for the following matters—
(c) for the determination, at such times and for such periods as may be decided in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, of the standard tonnage of every coal mine in the district in respect of coal and, if it is so decided in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, in respect of any class of coal, so, however, that the method of determination shall be specified in the scheme; and shall be such a method as will insure that, for the purpose of the determination, regard shall be had to the special circumstances of every coal mine, including the efficiency and economy of the working of the coal mine, the extent to which it has been developed, the extent to which its output has been increasing or decreasing, and, in the
550
case of the first determination, the proportion which the output of the coal mine bore to the output of the district during some recent period during which no arrangements made by a voluntary association or otherwise were in force regulating the output of any substantial number of coal mines in the district;
(d) for the determination at such times and for such periods as may he decided in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, of the proportion (in this Act referred to as the "quota") of the standard tonnage which each of the coal mines in the district is to be allowed to produce, so, however, that the scheme shall provide—
(iii) that all quotas shall be so calculated that, during any period for which the district allocation has been fixed by the central council, that allocation shall not be exceeded;
(e) for enabling arrangements to be made by the owners of coal mines in the district, whereby the output of coal or any class of coal from any such mine may exceed the quota fixed for that mine, as respects coal or that class of coal, so long as the output of coal or that class of coal from some other mine in the district is lower than the quota fixed for that other mine, as respects coal or that class of coal, by an amount not less than the excess;
(f) for the determination, at such times and for such periods as may be decided in accordance with the provisions of the scheme, of the price below which every class of coal produced in the district may not be sold or supplied, and for securing

551
that the actual consideration obtained by the sale or supply of the several classes of coal shall not be less in value than the price so determined;
(g) for the collection by the executive board from the owners of coal mines in the district of levies, imposed upon the several owners in proportion to the output or disposal of their respective coal mines in the district, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the executive board and any penalties imposed on, or levies payable by, that board under the provisions of the central scheme;
(k) for the production to and inspection by an accountant authorised by the executive board for this purpose of books and accounts relating to any coal mine in the district and for the submission by him of a report to the executive board;
(3) A district scheme may further pro-vide—
(b) for empowering the executive board, subject to the consent of the central council, to collect from the owners of coal mines in the district levies, imposed upon them at such times and for such periods as may be determined in accordance with the provisions of the scheme in proportion to the output or disposal of their respective coal mines in the district, for the purpose of facilitating the sale of any class of coal produced in the district;
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) after "including" ["circumstances of every coal mine, including"], to insert "the continuance in their employment of the number of mine workers employed at the coal mine." The noble Lord said: There are a very large number of Amendments to be dealt with and I will be very brief in moving this one. As the Committee will remember, Clause 3 deals with the provisions of the district schemes, their machinery and their powers. Every scheme has to provide for certain matters—first, for the appointment of the necessary officers, secondly, for the determination of the class to which the coal produced in the district belongs, and, thirdly, for the determination of the standard tonnage of every mine in the district. Subsection (2) of Clause 3 sets out the various considerations to which regard must be paid in the determination of this point—namely, the special circumstances, the economy of the working of the mine, the extent to which it is developed, the extent to which the output has been increasing or decreasing, and, lastly, the relation of its output to the output of the district.
The object of my Amendment is to add another consideration which shall be regarded in the process of determining the standard tonnage and that consideration is the number of mine workers employed in the mine. The purpose of the insertion of these words is not to provide for any compulsory number of men employed in the mine, because that would be altogether impracticable and unworkable. All my Amendment seeks to do is to add this point, that the number of men usually employed in the mine is a consideration which ought to be within the ambit of the regard which is paid to the various considerations set out in paragraph (c). No one will be surprised to hear that there is considerable anxiety in regard to the possibility that fixing the standard tonnage in certain mines may result in somewhat large dismissals of men, and the object of my Amendment is to ensure that, under the process of determining that standard tonnage, the point with regard to the number of men employed in the mine will at all events have consideration at the same time as the other considerations to which I have alluded. I have little doubt that not only the Government but the House generally will view with sympathy the object, at all events, which the Amendment has in view, and without further delaying your Lordships in explaining the grounds upon which I move it, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 12, after ("including") insert ("the continuance in their employment of the number of mine workers employed at the coal mine.")—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD MARLEY: I am sure that every member of your Lordships' House will sympathise with the object of this Amendment, but I suggest that it does not attain the object 'which the mover has in view. This Bill is not a Bill to restrict the output of coal, but to regulate it, and the total output of coal will not, in fact, be appreciably altered; so that there should be no unemployment resulting from the Bill. What may happen is that the less efficient pits may tend to become less occupied and, therefore, in those pits there may be less employment. But the production will be transferred to more efficient pits where there will be more employment. In that connection the Bill already provides that account shall be taken, in allocating the standard

553
tonnage, of the growth or decrease ox the production of a pit. Therefore, instead of considering the mere static number of workers employed, they will be considering the increase or decrease in the number of workers employed as shown by the increase or decrease in the amount of coal raised by the pit. I suggest, therefore, that in point of fact the Amendment is not necessary, but that the spirit of the Amendment is already included in the Bill in the arrangements for the determination of the standard tonnage. I hope the noble Lord will accept that explanation.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I did not intend to raise my voice in this debate except on a perfectly innocent Amendment which may come later. But I should very much like to know what the spirit of a static employment in a mine means, because I do not know what it means. Nor do I know why, in the name of creation, it should be said that because one mine does not pay it is a necessity that the people who are out of employment in that mine should get employment in another mine, which happens to be paying, but is not necessarily paying any better than it was before. Is it to take more people in when it cannot employ them? Is the other mine to try to carry on? I should like an explanation because I do not know.
LORD MARLEY: Let me attempt to explain that. The idea of this Bill is to make production more economic; that is to say, we are hoping—I express regret at having to go away from the actual wording of this Amendment—that the quota system will secure a gradual increase in amalgamations by less drastic methods, perhaps, than by compulsory amalgamation; by the method which has actually been used with great success in Westphalia; that is to say, the application of a quota to encourage amalgamation. Amalgamation really means a concentration of production in the more efficient pits and the closing down of the less efficient pits. If this Amendment were carried that movement towards the concentration of production in the more efficient pits would be virtually stopped. We want more efficient production. We want the gradual transference of quotas from the less efficient to the more efficient pits, and we do not want to have the
554
movement held up by an Amendment such as this which, in point of fact, will not carry out the spirit of the mover of the Amendment, because in any case employment is safeguarded by the fact that we are not restricting production; we are simply regulating it.
LORD CLWYD: After the information which has been given on behalf of the Government, I will not trouble the Committee with a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (2), after "developed," to insert "or should be developed for economic working." The noble Lord said: The Amendment I now move is to meet a case where a colliery is being developed. These are words which are essential in the interests of certain collieries. For instance, in Yorkshire there are very deep seams where it would take a long time to develop a large coalfield underground, and the only justification for the capital which is sunk in a colliery of that kind is to secure an economic output. In the course of the development of a colliery such as Hatfield near Doncaster, or a colliery in which I am interested called Thorne, the development is comparatively slow for the first few years after reaching the coal seams at more than half a mile below the surface of the ground. In the case of Thorne, after nearly two years of developing and driving roads through what is termed the pillar of coal, which has to be left intact round the shaft in order to prevent the loss of coal permanently to the nation, it is necessary to obtain for a time only a small portion of the coal. The proper way of working a mine is to go through a large portion of the coalfield towards the extremity and then work back to the shaft gradually by pillar working, or the long face system.
In the case of Thorne, we have reached the position of developing the colliery up to about 3,000 tons a day. We hope by next year to produce something like 4,000 tons a day, and in the following year we hope to obtain 5,000 tons per day. By that time the colliery will have become an economic one, and eventually, we hope, a profitable one; but if no regard is going to be had to the proper economic development of the colliery, it is obvious that this colliery, which would

555
be one of the most economic in the country, will be prejudiced. Therefore it is essential that between colliery and colliery justice should be done to the collieries which are not fully developed, but are in a condition of increasing development. I propose that the words standing in my name should be inserted in order to meet a case which has arisen, and no doubt will continue to arise in the future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 15, after ("developed") insert ("or should he developed for economic working").—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD THOMSON: The concluding words of the noble Lord's remarks on this Amendment force me to repeat what I have said several times in the course of these debates—namely, that the period for which this Part of the Act is going to operate is only to December 31, 1932. The period of two years to which the noble Lord refers is really not pertinent to the argument. I quite appreciate the point of his remarks, and their applicability to a certain special case, but the effect of this Amendment would be that the body charged with taking into account definite factors in regard to mines would also be obliged to pass an opinion as to whether the mine ought to be developed. That is not a matter upon which definite facts can be adduced. It is largely a matter of opinion, of conjecture, and it would put this body in the very difficult position of expressing an opinion on a state of affairs on which they really have not got all the facts before them. It would indeed put them in the position of being prophets and therefore without honour in their own district. They would have to prophesy as far as they could as to whether a certain mine should or should not be developed. That is the undesirable part about this Amendment.
I believe I am correct in saying that the noble Lord's point will be met by a provision in the Bill which lays down that there shall be periodical revision of standard tonnage, which will enable them to be varied as the condition of the mine varies. It seems to me therefore that the noble Lord's point is met in so far as it is not undesirable. There is another provision in the Bill which deals with the position when output has been increased. That is in the same
556
clause in the Bill. It seems to me that every point which the noble Lord desires to raise is met already by the Bill except the one by which he would attempt to impose upon this body the duty of fixing standard tonnage on a definite basis, to ask them to prophesy in the case of any particular mine that had not been developed. I therefore trust that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think there is more in the Amendment of the noble Lord than the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has said. He has fallen back on what has been said on more than one occasion when this Bill has been under discussion, that there are changes to be made in a very short time and therefore there is no need to put in Amendments of this description; but I think what the noble Lord does not realise is that this Bill involves vast changes and it is quite impossible when these changes are made that they should be set aside in a comparatively short space of time. As the noble Lord knows, there are many developments in different parts of the country which come under the Amendment moved by my noble friend. I think these are words which really cover a great many undertakings in all parts of the country, and I hope that the noble Lord will accept the Amendment. The noble Lord has spoken of the undertaking with which he is closely connected. It is one of those vast enterprises which would never have come into being at all if it had been worked under the system so pointedly put forward by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in his speech on Second Reading. I should be unwilling to state exactly the money which his colleagues have invested in this great undertaking. I do feel that for the benefit of the undertaking of which he is one of the promoters some such words as these should be inserted in the Bill, but I should have thought that the words would have been more applicable if the Amendment had read "is being developed for economic working" rather than "should be developed."
LORD GAINFORD: The words in my Amendment are, I acknowledge, my own. I do not pretend to be a Government draftsman and they may not be the best. I should like to tell the noble Lord in

557
charge a the Bill that if he had even the technical knowledge I have it would have been quite impossible for him to make the speech that he made. The position is not one of speculative development at all. You drive, let us say, through 400 yards of coal roadways in coal measures, and you then find a quarter of a mile from the shaft a seam absolutely intact all the way round. It is then only a question of gradually extending your operations round the circle of coal outside the solid pillar protecting the shafts until you get more coal. Until you have an economic output in the colliery—that is, the amount that can be drawn up the shaft—it means an expenditure of capital on very expensive machinery and appliances until you reach your output of, say, 5,000 tons a day. It is not until that output is reached that you have a perfectly up-to-date colliery. If you are going to restrict output by a quota based upon past tonnage, you are not going to give that colliery a chance to develop in the proper way. I hope I have made my point clear. I feel that this Amendment ought to be inserted in order to secure the proper economic development of our coal mines.
LORD THOMSON: I need hardly say that I do not pretend to any detailed knowledge of the working of coal mines, and I am quite prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment in the manner in which the noble Marquess proposes to amend it, if that will meet the noble Lord's view.
LORD GAINFORD: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 15, after ("developed") insert ("or is being developed for economic working").—(Lord Gin ford.)
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved to leave cut of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) all words after "some recent period." The noble Lord said: My Amendment proposes to omit the qualifications placing the voluntary association out of bounds, so to speak, in the process of determining the standard tonnage, and I will state very briefly my reasons for proposing it. The point at issue relates to a dispute internal to one or two districts in the coal trade
558
between pits that are in voluntary schemes and these that are not. The words as they stand in the Bill seem to me to be so drafted as to favour the pits that are not in voluntary schemes by making the independent pits, which are not in voluntary schemes, go back to a previous period for the determination of output. I have nothing whatever to say against those pits which have made arrangements by way of voluntary associations. They have done so because they were of opinion that it was desirable in their own interests to do so. They had a perfect right to enter into these voluntary associations, but at the same time I think we ought to remember that the coal undertakings which did not decide to enter into the voluntary associations had equal rights.
They did not enter into these voluntary associations because they felt that it would not be advantageous to them to do so, and the object of my Amendment is that in the process of reaching the standard tonnage there should be no distinction between these two classes of pits. It seems to me rather unfortunate that by these words in paragraph (c) the Government appear in this Bill to take sides in this dispute between the two classes of pits. It seems to me that the fairest result would be obtained by relating the standard tonnage not to any far-off period of years ago, when conditions were different from what they are to-day, but to the most recent times. To go back several years, beyond the voluntary association period, it seems to me in many cases may possibly create artificial results, and that will not be in the public interest. Upon the ground that I think it is on the whole the fairest arrangement that in fixing the quota all these pits should be placed upon exactly the same footing, I beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 19, leave out from ("period") to the end of line 23.—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD THOMSON: I am afraid that the Amendment moved by Lord Clwyd strikes directly against one of the purposes of this clause. I may as well be quite frank. I think I am stating the position of the Government correctly when I say that we do want to take sides in this matter, and to deprive the pits which stood outside the voluntary schemes of any advantages which they

559
gained under artificial conditions. It is an admitted fact among coal owners that the success of those voluntary schemes was in many cases gravely impaired by the fact that certain pits stood outside, and now that we are getting a Bill in operation we want to relate it to a normal period, even if it is some distance back—to a period when everybody was working on equal terms, and one set of pits by standing outside the scheme sought to reap an unfair advantage.
It is not as though under this Bill pits situated as described by the noble Lord are entirely without redress. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 3 subsection (2) (c) he will see that there are other considerations mentioned which are to be taken into account in fixing standard tonnages. I think it is a matter of common equity, and indeed will appeal to the sporting instincts of everybody,' that now that the voluntary schemes are becoming compulsory they should not get an unfair advantage because they stood outside the schemes in difficult days. I think Lord Melchett described those people as nuisances, and that is the attitude of the Government and the attitude which the Bill takes with regard to that particular sort of person. It would be very difficult to get this through and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord. Lord Clwyd, will not press his Amendment.
LORD CLWYD: I will certainly not press the Amendment after what the noble Lord has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MELCHETT LORD MELCHETT moved, after paragraph (d) (iii) of subsection (2), to insert:
"Provided that in determining the quota with respect to a coal mine which is owned or controlled by a manufacturing or industrial company or undertaking the coal which is supplied, whether as coal or coke by that coal mine to that company or undertaking for consumption in the works of that company or undertaking shall not be included in either the standard tonnage or quota of that mine."
The noble Lord said: Although the language of the Amendment is naturally somewhat involved, the object of it is fortunately fairly simple, and in itself the whole problem is one of difficulty but of great importance. Perhaps one weakness of the Bill as it stands and of its conception is that it conceives the coal
560
industry merely in the phase of a horizontal integration. It seems to me to overlook the very serious problem of the vertical integration. The horizontal integration means merely amalgamation of collieries with collieries, and treats coal as a separate item; but in the very important problem of vertical integration collieries become only a part, though perhaps a very important substratum to other industries, such, for instance, as steel, pig-iron. and possibly many other developments, of which oil from coal may become not one of the least important in the not very distant future.
Therefore it is important that the question of vertical integration should not be overlooked, and as the Bill is drafted now, I think myself—and those with whom I have consulted are of that opinion—that the vertical integration is endangered. An undertaking may have acquired complete control of a colliery with the object of supplying itself. It may have bought because that particular quality of coal may be of very vital importance to it in its manufacture. I am thinking of the case of a company with which I am connected, which deliberately bought a certain anthracite pit, not so much because of price, as because it required a very special sulphur-free anthracite, of which there was very little to be obtained, and of which it wanted to have control for its process. If that is interfered with you may very easily arrive—and will arrive—at very grave difficulties and dangers. You will defeat the objects with which these collieries have been bought. They might be allotted a quota inferior to that which is necessary even to supply the other part of the whole concern, of which it forms an integral part. That, I am sure, is nobody's intention, and would probably have very disastrous results.
My point is that it is one of the questions that were gone into fairly fully by the Coal Industry Commission, which stated in their Report that any nationalisation scheme which does not propose to nationalise any part of the vast combination which is gradually being evolved, except the mines themselves and those coking plants which are situated at the collieries, would, if mining were nationalised and the other associated industries remained in private hands, have the effect that integrations

561
which have already been made would have to be broken up, because the combinations would be disintegrated, and a serious obstacle would be raised against further integrations. Any minimum price fixing scheme which would not exclude the owner-user pit would have precisely the same effect, and the foresight and initiative of the promoters of economic and successful integrations would be thrown away.
I know this is a subject which has attracted a good deal of attention and of discussion and I understand that the attitude of the Government has to some extent been determined by the experience on this subject of the Rhenish Westphalian syndicate, who found, naturally, great difficulties in dealing with this problem of finding a scheme which would meet the case of the owner-user without jeopardising the success of the whole scheme. As far as I can ascertain, the main trouble in the German scheme seems to have been the objection of the non-integrated concerns to the working cost of the scheme and the small contribution made by the integrated pits. There was more trouble there because of the working cost than on the question of principle. Obviously the owner-user cannot have it both ways—he must not be allowed to produce for sale a quota based on his normal output in addition to fulfilling his purpose as an integrated concern. You would have to fix his quota on a different basis, naturally on a smaller basis than the possible outlet of his colliery, disregarding what you might call his home supply. What I am especially anxious for is that you should not reach a position, which seems to me quite possible, that the quota would be even below what you might call the sheltered supply, and that concerns having collieries, which they have acquired and on which the whole of their mechanism rests, coke ovens and the rest of it, would be put in a position that they could not work their own collieries to the full but would have to work them for part of their capacity and then go to outside collieries, which would be more expensive and possibly much less suitable.
It is for that purpose I have put down this Amendment, which I hope the Government will see their way to accept. I am not contending that this is the only
562
way in which this can be carried out, but I have endeavoured to have it drafted as widely as possible so as to cover as large an area as possible and I have not confined it, as my noble friend Lord Gainford has done, to a small part of the industry, the coke industry. This is really an Amendment of the first importance, deserving the careful attention and study of the Committee. It is admittedly a subject not free from difficulty. I do not think it passes the wit of man to find a method which will manage to obtain the value of the integrating merger which has been made at the same time without doing unfairness to other collieries which are not in the same position.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 44, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Melchett.)
LORD GAINFORD: I have an Amendment on the Paper and perhaps I may be allowed to intervene, as I raise practically the same point in principle as my noble friend Lord Melchett. The point is one which is felt to be very serious in the interests of the iron and steel industry. I want it to be clearly understood that I am not speaking purely as a coal owner now when I say that it is the iron and steel industry for which I am speaking in support of the Amendment. A majority of the coal owners are quite prepared to accept the Government's proposal that all the coal shall be subjected to a limitation in accordance with particular standards of output required in the tonnage, but the iron and steel industry runs a very great danger unless an Amendment of this kind is accepted by your Lordships. The iron and steel industry at the present moment is in a very precarious condition. Those who invested money in the iron and steel industry have also invested money in collieries in order to supply their iron and steel works with fuel suitable to themselves, and they only place upon the market a very small proportion of that fuel.
If I may take a case which I know best in the Cleveland district. Messrs. Dorman, Long & Co., Messrs. Bolekow Vaughan, the Consett Iron Company and the firm of which I am Chairman represented by Pease & Partners, send to their own ovens in order to meet the demand for the iron and steel industry. 55 per

563
cent. of their total output. They send to their other departments for their own purposes 10¼ per cent. They only supply to their inland customers 10¾ per cent. of their total output and they export the balance of 22.¾ per cent. It must be obvious to your Lordships that if there is to be a quota reduction on the coal that the iron and steel companies have bought for their own purposes, they are at once taking off the market some of the coal produced at those collieries. If they are to be subject to a quota on a great portion of their output they will have to diminish the amount of coal they consume themselves, and if they are to keep their iron and steel works going they must buy coal from outside at an increased cost to themselves.
Every shilling increase in cost which they have to give would mean something like 4s. 6d. to 5s. per ton on the finished steel which is going to be placed on the market. We have the greatest difficulty at present in keeping our plant going, and when I tell your Lordships that in Great Britain there are now only 178 blast furnaces as compared with the 311 which existed in 1912, you will see what a great reduction there has been in the production of iron and steel. It is true that the blast furnaces now at work produce a greater quantity than the blast furnaces did in 1912. Still, the aggregate production is about 20 per cent. less. In the last three or four days I have heard of four or five additional blast furnaces which have gone out of blast because there is no market for the pig iron which they produce. The industry is in no condition whatsoever to stand the placing of an increased cost upon it in the way proposed by the Government compelling those who consume their own coal to accept the same quota reduction as in regard to the coal they place on the market.
My Amendment is exactly the same as the noble Lord's in principle. I suggest that all the coal which is going to coke ovens and to make by-products and other things and is taken off the market, should be eliminated. The noble Lord has a different Amendment dealing with composite undertakings, but the principle is really the same. I urge that the Government should realise the danger of that large number of iron and steel firms who have their own collieries for their own purposes being compelled to reduce their
564
output in order to meet the wishes of other coal owners, so that all coal, for whatever purpose it is used, should be reduced equally. This coal is not placed upon the market and therefore it ought to be eliminated in any scheme. This is a scheme which deals with coal placed on the market and not with coal which a firm uses for its own purpose. Frequent allusion has been made to the five-counties scheme which has been in operation in connection with the sale of coal. They have fixed their own prices, and they have reduced proportionately their output, but they found it absolutely impossible in the case of 42 per cent. of the output in the five-counties scheme to secure agreement amongst all those who work coal in those Midland areas unless a provision of this kind is made. There is a clause in all their agreements making exception to coal going to coke ovens and we feel that there is a strong case to have the coal for the iron and steel industry removed from the reduction which would otherwise take place.
LORD JOICEY: I am sorry to have to oppose my two noble friends upon this Amendment. The whole question has been discussed by the coal owners of Durham, and they came to the conclusion that they could not accept this Amendment because they did not consider it was a fair thing to reduce the quota of those producers of coal in the County of Durham. It is really an advantage to a producer of coal to have a customer he can thoroughly depend upon taking a certain quantity of the coal he produces, and instead of its being a disadvantage it is possibly an advantage to these composite concerns to have at all events a certain quantity of their produce safe and secure from competition. But they maintain there is no competition with regard to this coal with the other coal owners. What are the facts? If you go to the County of Durham you will find advertisements of coke nuts everywhere. These are nuts which are made from the coke derived from the coke ovens. We find that there is a strong and an increasing competition taking place between these nuts and house coal, and some seem to think that these coke nuts are better for their purpose than coal. If the producers can persuade the consumers that the coke nuts are better no doubt the consumption will be very considerably increased.

565
My noble friend has spoken of the Consett Iron Company. That company has some wonderful coke ovens which consume a large quantity of coal and make coke. One of our salesmen happened to go to the Newcastle Gas Company to renew a contract which had been in our hands for forty or fifty years, and he was told by the general manager: "We cannot take so much of your coal because we are getting gas from the Consett Iron Company." They are getting millions of cubic feet of gas from the Consett Iron Company, and of course that is going to increase. If they can buy their gas at 5d. or 6d. per thousand feet and dispose of it at 1s. 6d. or 1s. 9d. per thousand feet they will find it a very good business indeed, although they may lose the benefit of by-products. Surely in these circumstances it cannot be a matter of surprise that the County of Durham should oppose this Amendment, and I hope that the Government will not accept it. It has been very fully and carefully considered more than once in connection with our Durham coal trade association and I hope the Government will act, as they seem to be anxious to act, fairly by all the collieries and refuse to accept this Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: In this case of the vertical undertaking, as the noble Lord calls it, or the mixed mine, as I believe it is sometimes called, there is a very natural appeal. One may look at it at the first blush in this way. You may say here is an industry—let us say the iron and steel industry—which has had forethought, which recognised that coal and coke are required in its business and which for that purpose has had forethought and has bought a mine. It has bought that mine as an ancillary to its business. Its object was not primarily to be a coal producer. Its object was to be a producer of steel, but it bought the mine because it wanted coal in its business and it bought the mine as an ancillary. Is it not rather hard and is it not rather unfair that these people who have had that foresight should be penalised under this Bill by being put in a position no better than those people who had not got foresight? That is an argument which may be, and I think has been to some extent, presented to your Lordships. But your Lordships will see that there is another side to the story.
566
I am bound to remind your Lordships, again—because even this evening it seems not to have been fully grasped—what is the intention of this Part of the Bill. The total productive capacity of the mines in this country was given roughly as 325,000,000 tons.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: That is exaggerated.
LORD GAINFORD: It is not more than 300,000,000 tons.
EARL RUSSELL: Well, that is the figure given to us, and I have not heard it challenged before. The consumption is about 260,000,000 tons. There seems to be some sort of an idea that, because it is desired that production should be regulated, therefore production will be reduced, but of course production does not exceed and never has exceeded and could not exceed consumption by any appreciable amount. You cannot store 60,000,000 tons of coal and wait for somebody to come and buy it. Therefore coal production has always followed very closely the actual consumption. But what has happened, as I think has been explained before, is that that margin of production or that margin of possible production has brought down the price to an uneconomic level. The object of this regulation—this artificial regulation, I admit—is to prevent that.
To go back to the mixed mine, the mixed mine is after all a colliery and a coal mine. It employs colliers, it will have to pay the standard rate of wages, it is subject to the special Acts which apply to collieries, and it is in all respects a colliery except, as the noble Lord, Lord Joicey, said, that it has a good and certain customer for a large part or even the largest part of its output. A colliery may have been acquired not only by an iron and steel undertaking. It may perfectly well have been acquired by a railway company. It may have been acquired by a gas company for its own purposes. But still it is a colliery and if you are going to deal with the general coal output of this country it is quite impossible to except it. I would ask your Lordships to consider what would happen if you exclude it. You would very quickly find more of these vertical undertakings, these mixed mines—many of them no doubt with the nexus between them only on

567
paper—but you would have many more if there was a prospect of their escaping the arrangements made by this Bill.
If there is any suggestion that the people who own the mine will not be able to get their coal from it, that surely is unreasonable. There is full power in this Bill to raise the quota if necessary to enable the mine to supply the people who have bought it and have bought it for their own enterprise. You have heard from the noble Lord who spoke last that many of these mixed mines are competitors in the market with other mines which are not mixed mines. Therefore it would be impossible to accept an Amendment of this sort unless you are going to give up the scheme of regulating coal altogether. You cannot have a coal mine excluded from the general scheme because it happens to feed iron and steel works or a railway company. When your Lordships come to look into it, I think you will agree that there is no reason for excluding such a mine.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Will the noble Earl answer a perfectly easy question? What on earth does he mean by a mixed mine? He talked about vertical and horizontal mines. In South Wales we generally call them "slants." I want to know what his adjectives mean. Would he kindly tell me?
EARL RUSSELL: If the noble Earl had applied to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, he would have obtained a full answer.
THE EARL OF HAISBURY: No, I should not. I have never heard the expression before.
EARL RUSSELL: That is what I was regretting. They are both technical expressions, and if the noble Earl proposed to discuss this point, he would have done well to have heard them.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: All I can tell the noble Earl is that the terms are not known in the South Wales coalfield. I have been there, prosecuting 900 of his friends, many of whom were convicted. I have heard no such expression in my life. I have been down many coal mines and I am supposed to know something about the coalfields. Those adjectives would not be recognised in a place like Llandilo.
LORD DARYNGTON: The noble Earl, in the beginning of his speech, put the case so well from the point of view that I hold that it would be hardly necessary for me to say anything if he had not added certain remarks at the end. I wish to support my noble friend Lord Gainford in regard to the position in the North of England. It is, from a broad point of view, a matter of supreme importance. The position there is that there is a considerable import of steel and great difficulty in selling both iron and steel. I am not sure that the position is not worse than it has been for a very long time. It seems to me that, when a man has had the foresight to acquire iron and steel works, there is no reason why he should not get some little benefit. Under this Bill he will be at some disadvantage. It is not generally known that a small blast furnace uses as much coal in a week as a town of 80,000 people. I should like to emphasise my view that Lord Gainford's statement was very sound.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: I wish to support this Amendment in a very few words by giving the facts regarding an industrial undertaking with which I happen to be connected—a glass undertaking which uses very large quantities of coal. For the last twenty years it has had collieries within the works and 70 or 8O per cent. of their output is used in the works, while large quantities of coal have to be bought from outside. Six different seams are worked in order to get the qualities necessary for the different parts of the process. As the Bill now stands a quota can be imposed on that colliery portion of the undertaking and instead of being able to use the particular seams of coal which are in the works—the qualities found by seventy years experience to be suitable—we shall be compelled to seek coal from outside. That, I think, is a pretty clear case which is not covered by the Bill as it stands. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that exceptions of this kind could not be made or there would be danger of new undertakings being set up. Surely that danger could be safeguarded by limiting this Amendment to cases where the mine was ancillary to the undertaking before this change took place.
LORD THOMSON: I think everybody has sympathy with the idea that such undertakings as have been mentioned are entitled to a certain amount of credit and practical reward. Lord Cozens-Hardy mentioned a case in point. I would submit for his consideration that that particular sort of case is already provided for in the Bill. Will he look at Clause 3, subsection (2) (d) (i), which says:
"that in any district in which a standard tonnage has been determined for any class of coal, a separate quota may be fixed as respects that class."
There is no desire to penalise a pit situated as the noble and learned Lord has mentioned. There is no reason why special consideration should not be given to it in circumstances such as the noble and learned Lord has described, and as Lord Joicey has pointed out, I should imagine that a coal pit or concern has a considerable advantage in the steady demand of its own ancillary undertaking.
There is another point not brought out so far in the debate on this Amendment, and that is that all iron and steel works are not associated with ancillary pits, and you are giving an unduly great advantage to those that are, if this Amendment passes. The majority of iron and steel concerns in this country are not possessors of pits of their own and they also have got to be considered in this connection. I have noticed some references to the five-counties scheme here, and how in all their scheme they had something to this effect about vertical undertakings. The five-counties scheme was one of the 'very few voluntary schemes in this country, and in those days it had to struggle for existence and compound with its enemies in the gate. That should not be necessary under this Bill. In view of all these considerations the Amendment is really not necessary to avoid injustice to those concerns which have displayed vision, and, if it were inserted, it might even involve injustice for other concerns which are not so fortunately placed as the concerns which have got ancillary pits. I trust the Amendment will not be pressed; if it is, I am afraid it will have to be resisted.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: The noble Lord told us that he had great difficulty in finding the reference, but he has referred eventually to Clause 3 (2) (d) (i).
570
I have been reading it, and also Clause 3 (2) (d) (ii). I should very much like him to say whether they bear any meaning whatsoever, and if so what meaning. I cannot see what they mean. Nor do I understand whether they have any bearing whatever on the answer just given.
LORD MELOHETT: I should like to ask the noble Lord what relevance the provision which he read has to my Amendment. It seems to deal with something entirely different. It deals with a class of coal which you find later in the Bill. There is no class of coal that you can call coal for steel works, coal for glass works, coal for chemical works. It is not a class, like gas coal, or steam coal, or coking coal. Therefore I really think there must be some misconception. I do not think what the noble Lord has said covers the point at all.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord was referring, I suppose, to this paragraph:—
"in any district in which a standard tonnage has been determined for any class of coal, a separate quota may be fixed as respects that class."
I understood that a class of coal used for steel was a definite class of coal, and could be described as a distinct class of coal. I also understand that what this paragraph means is that if necessary you can give a mine, if it is proper and suitable, a 100 per cent. quota, which would meet all the objections that are raised.
LORD MELCHETT: In what way is coal delivered to a steel works a class? The definition does not seem to make it clear what is meant by "class," which is exactly the point which wants bringing out. It is really a question of interpretation. This Bill has been carefully examined by experts, and the Amendment I have put down has been drawn up by experts. They have seen this Bill, and none of them has understood this point. It may be that the word "class" wants more elaborate interpretation later on.
LORD JOICEY: I think we are discussing this on rather limited lines. Supposing the Gas Light and Coke Company, which uses 200 million tons of coal in London, were to buy up some of the Durham collieries. If they do, I hope they will buy mine. The fact is that they would have to be exempt. Supposing my noble friend, who is the Chairman

571
of that great Imperial Chemical Company which has got very large works in Durham, takes it into his head to buy a colliery or two to supply him with coal, that would be exempt too. We do not know to what extent that limit would be removed. I hope the Government, whatever pursuasive voices we may have in favour of the Amendment, will not agree to it.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Might I suggest that the two noble Lords in charge of the Bill might come to some arrangement to postpone this question until the Report stage when they have finally made up their minds what in fact they mean by what they have put in the Bill?
LORD THOMSON: I feel some answer should be given to my noble friend Lord Melchett, who appears to be under a misapprehension as to what is meant by "class." It is defined in Clause 18 on page 23. It is not only the kind of coal, but there are various other factors. It is a very technical matter and I shall read the definition:—
"In this Act the following expressions lave the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them:—
'Class,' in relation to coal, means a class determined according to the nature of the coal or of the trade, industry or other category of consumer supplied "—
"Consumer supplied" in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Cozens Hardy, was his glass works—
"or according to whether it be supplied for use in Great Britain or for export to any other country:"
It is not only a question of the nature of the coal, it is its destination and consumer. I have already referred to it once on the question of trade custom because the trade distinguishes between its customers in the price.
I should like to read a paragraph of a letter addressed by the President of the Board of Trade to Lord Gainford dealing with this very subject:—
"To attempt to meet the position as far as we feel able to do so, provision has been made which would allow a special quota to be given to any class of coal. By that means an additional quota could be given to coking coal, if the owners are convinced that this is justified, but the additional quota would have to he given to all coking coal and not merely to that produced by composite undertakings. Except in this last essential provision
572
it would remain for you to satisfy the other owners of the justice of your case with ultimate recourse, if necessary, to arbitration."
I hope I have cleared up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Melchett. I had already referred to this definition of class of coal earlier in the debate. There is a vital distinction between the definition he had in mind and that in the Bill.
LORD GAINFORD: I have just been quoted in connection with a letter I received from the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place. It is perfectly true that that clause was inserted with the very object of allowing some alteration to be made in favour of the iron and steel industry, but I want to point out that the clause referred to is no value whatsoever to the iron and steel industry, for the reason that the majority of the coal owners are opposed to anything else than uniformity in connection with quota production. Those who have had the foresight to secure collieries, whether for their mills in Lancashire or for chemical works in order to secure their fuel, or iron and steel firms, feel that an injustice is going to be done them if they take off the coal from the market by buying a colliery themselves and consuming the coal for their own purposes in connection with the manufacture of some other article.
In the County of Durham, which is the strongest case in favour of uniformity, 25 per cent. of the output goes to iron and steel works and 75 per cent., represented very ably in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Joicey, who owns a great portion of that output, is sent elsewhere. The iron and steel interest say: We cannot afford to go outside and buy coal at an enhanced price from our neighbours—Lord Joicey, for instance—who might be able to sell us coal. We have had the foresight to secure collieries of suitable coal for ourselves, but we are to be subject to a reduction of the coal we require for ourselves. In other words, we have to go into the open market and pay a higher price for the coal we want, although we are in such dire distress at present in the iron and steel trade that we cannot afford to do it. We feel in justice to the iron and steel industry, that when the majority of coal owners in every district

573
would like to see uniformity, something is due to the iron and steel industry which is struggling to compete with the foreign production of iron and steel.
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD had given Notice of an Amendment, after paragraph (d) (iii) of subsection (2), to insert:—
"provided that where a coalowner shall raise and supply coking coal to coke ovens (other than gas works) situated within the United Kingdom, the tonnage of such coking coal shall be excluded for the purpose of computing the quota of the coalowner producing such coal."
The noble Lord said: I do not think this is consequential upon the Amendment which has just been carried but possibly the same point will be raised later and I do not move the Amendment now.
On Question, Whether the said Proviso shall be these inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 13.

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Elibank, V.

Faringdon, L.

Northumberland, D.

Falkland, V.

FitzWalter, L.

Rutland, D.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Somerset, D.

Hood, V.

Gainford, L. [Teller.]

Wellington, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Gifford, L.

Glanusk, L.

Camden, M.

Leverhulme, V.

Hampton, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Novar, V.

Hanworth, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Sumner, V.

Hastings, L.

Winchester, M.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Zetland, M.

Aberdare, L.

Joicey, L.

Abinger, L.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Bathurst, E.

Aldenham, L,.

Lamington, L.

Bradford, E.

Ampthill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Clarendon, E.

Annaly, L.

Leconfield, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Armstrong, L.

Leigh, L.

Eldon, E.

Arundell of Wardour, L.

Lloyd, L.

Feversham, E.

Auckland, L.

Melchett, L. [Teller.]

Fitzwilliam, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Monkswell, L.

Grey, E.

Biddulph, L.

Newton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

O'Hagan, L.

Ilchester, E.

Cawley, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Inchcape, E.

Clanwilliam, L.(E. Clanwilliam.)

Queenborough, L.

Iveagh, E.

Redesdale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Roundway, L.

Midleton, E.

Cranworth, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Midlothian, E. (E. Rosebery.)

Danesfort, L.

Sandys, L.

Morton, E.

Darling, L.

Sherborne, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Daryngton, L.

Sinclair, L.

Spencer, E.

Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

Somerleyton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Deramore, L.

Sudeley, L.

Ypres, E.

Digby, L.

Swansea, L.

Dynevor, L.

Trevor, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Elphinstone, L.

Wavertree, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Weir, L.

Chaplin, V.

Fairhaven, L.

Wester Wemyss, L.

Churchill, V.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Wharton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

De La Warr, E.

Amulree, L.

Marks, L. [Teller.]

Lindsay, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E.

Clwyd, L.

Meston, L.

Dickinson, L.

Thomson, L.

Hereford, V.

Gage, L, (V. Gage.)

Loan THOMSON: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 1, leave out ("the").—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD VERNON LORD VERNON moved, in paragraph (f) of subsection (2), before the first "price," to insert "pit-head." The noble Lord said: I gather from what the noble Lord said in reference to my previous Amendment that he will not look on this Amendment with favour. I must say, however, that I find it difficult to reconcile his point of view with what

575
was said quite definitely by the President of the Board of Trade in another place. He said he wished to make the matter perfectly clear and he went on to say that up to the pit-head the price of coal was regulated by this Bill and from that point it was regulated by the Consumers' Council Bill. He was of course referring to the Bill with regard to retail prices which is now in another place. Obviously if the view which the noble Lord put forward on my previous Amendment, and indeed which Lord Gainford supported, is held, it follows that these prices may be retail prices. Therefore it is obvious that they may easily conflict with the prices proposed to be fixed by this other Bill which is now in another place.
I submit that it is quite impracticable to fix minimum prices unless they can be referred to something comparable. Lord Gainford said it. was a perfectly well-known custom in the trade and so forth as to what charge was customary, but he knows perfectly well that, the only way in which you can fix prices is to refer to the pit-head price. If that were not so why is it that the ascertainment price for the regulation of wages is always related to the pit-head price? If all the different prices to consumers in different parts of the country were taken, the result of the ascertainment would be curious, to say the least of it. It is essential to reduce it to a comparable basis, which can only be the pit-head price. To take a simple case, supposing coal is sold at 10s. a ton in Sheffield and also at some far distant place at which the transport cost is 9s., the pit-head price of that coal becomes 1s. The whole of the provisions regarding minimum prices fail if you use that basis. I do not know how the noble Lord proposes that the clause should be worked, but I have yet to meet any one who understands how it can be worked except on a pit-head basis.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 13, after the third ("the") insert ("pit-head").—(Lord Vernon.)
LORD THOMSON: I am afraid I must give the same answer to the noble Lord as I gave him before. It is hoped that Part I will be worked by the coal owners in their own interests and those of the nation. I have described their customs on a previous Amendment. They sell the same article at different prices to different
576
people under different titles—c.i.f., f.o.r., f.o.b. and so on. It is a complicated business, and to that extent I am in thorough sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Banbury. I wish he were here to support me. We do not want to interfere with the customs of the trade, which are highly complicated and, if any civil servant attempted to interfere with them, I think he would regret it. I admit that the procedure is not entirely satisfactory. I should like very much, in the name of a dictatorship, to fix pit-head prices. I quite agree with the noble Lord. The fact remains that it is almost impossible to do so, for that reason, and in the interests of the coal owners themselves and their long established practice, I am forced to resist this Amendment, which I hope the noble Lord will not press.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD THOMSON: I have a drafting Amendment to make it clear that fixation of minimum prices is limited to coal sold or supplied by owners of coal mines.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 15, at end insert ("by owners of coal mines in the district").—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (k) of subsection (2), after "inspection by" to insert "on production of his authority in writing if so required." The noble Viscount said: Where, under various Acts of Parliament, bureaucrats are empowered to enter upon people's premises, I think it is usual that they should have to produce their authority. Under Clause 8 heavy penalties are imposed for giving away information obtained in the course of duty. An outsider could go and say:" I am So-and So, and I want certain information," and he would not, I think, be liable to a penalty. To prevent that kind of occurrence, I propose this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 9, after ("by") insert ("on production of his authority in writing if so required").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD THOMSON: I think this Amendment is based on a misconception of what the accountant would do. He is not a person with a roving commission who could go and visit any coal company he likes and demand to look at their

577
accounts. In each case where it is necessary to go the length of examining books there would be correspondence between the executive board and the coal owners and the board would have informed the coal owners in writing that they had decided that their accountant must examine the books. In that case the accountant would have been possessed of the form of introduction which the noble Viscount desires. It seems to me his Amendment is quite unnecessary.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I think it is a very inoffensive Amendment. The man simply has to produce his authority and I am going to press this matter.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Viscount really must not talk of this man as if he were a policeman going to inspect an illicit still or stop a motor car in the middle of the road. He is an accountant and on rare occasions will examine the books. There will be correspondence and it will be merely one man calling on another.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I wish to prevent a person impersonating the accountant.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, after paragraph (n) of subsection (2), to insert as a new paragraph:
"() For securing that in respect of the determination of the quota for each of the coal mines within the district and in respect of the prices below which every class of coal produced in the district may not be sold or supplied, the maximum output allowable and the permissible price for sale shall be so fixed as not to hamper or restrict the production, supply or sale of coal or coke destined for export overseas."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is very similar to one I moved in connection with Clause 2. The reason that I brought it forward was that those connected. with the export trade are very much frightened that with the Bill in its present state there will be restriction and hampering of production for export purposes. We feel that there ought to be the greatest possible elasticity in this scheme with regard to this class of trade. The noble and gallant Lord was good enough to say in connection with my last Amendment that he would be prepared to consider other words which might meet the case I had in view. I do not know
578
whether he is prepared to do the same thing in regard to this Amendment?
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 33, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD THOMSON: I am prepared to do anything I can to oblige the noble Earl, but I submit that there is same slight misconception of what the Bill does and how its principles are carried into effect. The owners fix the quotas themselves, having regard to what they expect to be able to sell. They will naturally fix those quotas as high as possible. I have a case given to me in which a 67 per cent. quota was raised in ten hours to 100 per cent. quota by the five-counties scheme, to meet a sudden demand for coal. Those figures were given to me officially. It does seem to me the noble Earl's point is met, but I am willing to consider, sympathetically too, any suggestion put forward. Provided the noble Earl does not interfere with the principle of the Bill I will consider any proposal he may suggest for making things doubly sure. But I have gone into this point very carefully with the official advisers of the Government, and they assure me that the noble Earl's point is already met in the Bill, and they give me this illustration to prove it. Obviously if the owners are working this Part of the Bill they will do their best.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite think that, especially as the night is getting on, it is not worth while taking time over a discussion of which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill offers an issue. He has said to my noble friend that he believes that my noble friend and himself are intent upon the same object, and it is only a question between them as to whether the words of the Bill achieve what they both desire. The last time when this particular point arose they came to an agreement that the matter should stand over to the next stage. If the noble Lord says again, as I understand him to say, that he is willing to consider whether words like my noble friend's are necessary, I am almost sure my noble friend will be satisfied with that assurance.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I will certainly withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (3). The noble Earl said: This paragraph enables the executive board of a district, if the majority of that board are of that opinion, to impose a levy upon all owners in their district to facilitate the sale of a certain class of coal. A short time ago we discussed the question of the central levy. In another place that provision had been deleted from the Bill, and we this evening adhered to that decision. I think there are a great many reasons for deleting this district levy as well, but I think that the perfectly obvious one is that you really cannot leave the district levy if you have once deleted the central levy. It is entirely unfair and illogical to leave the one in with the other out. And, as a matter of fact, I think that every argument that was brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, in favour of re-inserting the central levy can now be used in favour of deleting the district levy. On the whole probably the central levy is the less objectionable of the two. It is much more logical to deal with this matter taking the country as a whole, rather than by districts, as these districts are, we know, arbitrary districts, and can be changed in certain circumstances.
I read with considerable care the speech of the President of the Board of Trade when this matter was discussed in another place, but I confess I found no arguments whatever to substantiate his contention that there was a, very great distinction between the central levy and the district levy. One cannot get away from the fact that in principle they are entirely the same, and I do not think that there is any argument in favour of the district levy which cannot be advanced in favour of the central levy and vice versa. The provisions of the district levy are really unfair in certain respects. To begin with, as has been pointed out in connection with the central levy—and you are doing the same in this case—you are actually taxing the home consumer of coal in this country so that the foreigner may be able to get his coal more cheaply. I know it is contended that the great part of the coal which is exported does not go to industries which compete with our industries here at home. That may be so, but at any rate a certain amount does go to industries which are competitors. We
580
may also be told that this can be done now under a. voluntary scheme. That is quite true and it may be wise in certain circumstances to formulate a scheme of this kind, but, at any rate, that scheme is voluntary and anybody can come out of it if they want to. To make it statutory and compulsory would be a very dangerous thing to do.
There is a great deal to be said in favour of fixing the price of our export coal low enough to enable us to compete with foreigners and to retain our markets abroad, but there is nothing to be said for actually taxing the home consumer in this country to enable the foreigner to get his coal more cheaply. In the second place this levy would act very inequitably between one district and another. In some districts you can operate this district levy with ease, in others it is entirely impracticable. I gather that this levy is primarily intended, as the central levy was, to help coal which is produced for export. In South Wales, the area I know best, out of the 50,000,000 tons we produce a year, 30,000,000 tons are export coal and to try to apply that scheme in South Wales would lead to complete failure. It would mean that, in order to subsidise export coal to the extent of 1s. 6d. a ton, you would have to levy on coal produced in South Wales for inland consumption to the extent of something like 3s. 9d. a ton. That is absolutely ridiculous and shows that it is quite impracticable in that area.
It is of course quite different in the five counties, as we have already heard. They have a huge output there of something like 100,000,000 tons and of that not very much over 5,000,000 tons goes in export overseas. Therefore it is perfectly obvious that, with an infinitesimal levy, they are able to subsidise their export coal to such an extent that other districts could certainly not compete with them. In view of these facts it is impossible to discover any reason for maintaining this district levy when the central levy has gone. 75 per cent. of the original proposal has gone and the Prime Minister very rightly acknowledged, when the central levy was deleted, that the central levy was not vital to the Bill. Equally this provision is not vital to the Bill. I say it is entirely illogical. To leave it in leaves the Bill

581
lopsided. It is quite inequitable in its operation and I hope your Lordships will agree to delete it.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 6, leave out paragraph (b). —(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD THOMSON: With a great deal of what the noble Earl has said in regard to the leaving in of this provision making the Bill lopsided I am prepared to agree. At the same time I cannot let the Amendment go by default. I do not propose to repeat to your Lordships all the arguments that were used on the central levy Amendment. It would only be vain repetition as the principles are exactly the same. The only new point I could raise would be in connection with the County of Fife and I do not think it is worth while to fatigue your Lordships with it. It is obvious that this Amendment can be carried. I am afraid I shall have to go through the formality of saying "Not-Content," but I do not propose to proceed to a Division.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before the noble Lord rises I wish to put to him the question which, at this time of night, he must expect. To what point in the Bill does he propose to proceed before we bring our labours temporarily to an end?
LORD THOMSON: I suggest that our winding time should come when we have done Part I of the Bill, if that is agreeable to your Lordships. There is very little left on that Part and there is not a great deal in it. It will enable us to start fresh with amalgamation if we go to the end of Clause 10 to-night. If the noble Marquess will allow us to go-on for another quarter of an hour or twenty minutes I think we shall be able to do that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the noble Lord asks my opinion I think it not at all unreasonable that he should go on for another quarter of an hour.
Clause 4:
Effect of schemes on contracts.
(2) Where the output or disposal of a coal mine exceeds during any period the quota of that mine for that period, the
582
owner of the mine shall not be liable to any penalty under any district scheme, nor shall any deduction be made from the quota of the mine for any subsequent period, in respect of the excess, if it is adjudged by the persons having power under the scheme to impose the penalty or make the deduction or, in the event of an arbitration, by the arbitrator,—
(a) that the excess was solely occasioned by the performance of contracts made before the eleventh day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine;
LORD THOMSON: The next Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("Part I") and insert ("this Part").—(Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to leave out "the eleventh day of December, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine" and insert "passing of this Act." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to meet a case which has been brought to my attention of a firm which has sold nearly the whole of its output in the spring of the year because it supplies gas coal. I understand that it is customary in the gas industry to buy in the spring the coal required for the subsequent year. Unless some words like these are inserted those who carry on the usual practice of making yearly contracts in the spring of the year will be prejudiced in connection with the contracts they have made. Not only would the coal producer, who has, of course, accepted the market price of the day in regard to the contract, be prejudiced, but the consumer who has had the foresight to buy his coal for a year in anticipation, possibly, that prices might rise subsequently, would not be supplied by the producer with the coal he had contracted for.
In consequence of the case which has been brought before me I suggest that the date should be altered, so that some regard may be had to the sanctity of contract. In no case, I think, would the speculator be encouraged to speculate having regard to the prospect of increased prices; but existing contracts which have been made subsequent to the date in the Bill would be respected. Under my suggestion instead of contracts being respected merely up to the end of

583
last year's contracts they will be respected until the passing of the Bill into law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, leave out lines 19 and 20, and insert ("passing of this Act").—(Lord Gainford.)
EARL RUSSELL: I am afraid this really will not do even with the great phrase "sanctity of contract" which the noble Lord used. He is always very plausible and persuasive, but, after all, this Bill was published on December 11, 1929, and the fact that it was pending was known for a long time before that date. I do not think it will do to give people time to make contracts in order to make the provisions of this Bill up to the date of its passing. It is well known that a good many coal owners have endeavoured since tile terms of the Bill were known to discount the effect of it in this way and it is certain many others would. I think we must stick to the usual rule of binding people on the date they knew this legislation was coming and not allow them to make contracts to cover a period for its becoming operative.
LORD JOICEY: I protest very much against what the noble Earl has said. These contracts are made to retain contracts people have had for years. If we had not taken many of these contracts we would have had no sales at all. I think it would be a very unwise thing and produce a bad effect abroad if we attempted to avoid these contracts. In some cases they are undoubtedly a loss to the coal owners who have made them. To interfere with contracts by Act of Parliament would he extremely unwise and I support my noble friend Lord Gainford on this point.
LORD DANESFORT: The noble Earl who spoke against this Amendment apparently gave as his reason that the Bill was printed on December 11 last year, and his assumption was that everyone who saw that Bill printed was bound to assume that it would pass into law and that therefore anyone who made a contract after that date deserves no consideration whatever. I think that is a very rash assumption for anyone to make. We know the Bill was very nearly wrecked and that if it had met its deserts in another place it probably would have
584
been destroyed, but owing to some mysterious combination of parties, which has never been explained and I suppose never will be explained, the Bill got through the House of Commons. The noble Earl wants to penalise the man who, in good faith and justly having regard to his business, made contracts after that date because forsooth he should assume that any legislation brought in by the late Government would pass into law. I understand that is his argument and I trust your Lordships will not give effect to an argument of that character.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord understands that that is my argument, but he understands quite wrongly. What I want to prevent him doing is having an unfair advantage over his fellow coal owners. If the noble Lord will look at the clause on page 10 he will find that what it says is that:—
"Where the output or disposal of a coal mine exceeds during any period the quota of that mine for that period, the owner of the mine shall not be liable to any penalty under any district scheme, nor shall any deduction be made from the quota of the mine for any subsequent period, in respect of the excess, if it is adjudged"—
I am reading the material words—
"that the excess was solely occasioned by the performance of contracts made before the eleventh day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine."
That preserves fairness as between them and the other coal owners. It prevents one getting a quota to which he is not entitled and, by getting it, to deprive his neighbour coal owners, because he has made contracts after it was known that this Bill was likely to be in operation. That seems to me to be a most equitable thing, and I think if the noble Lord had read the Bill he would not have said what he has just said.
LORD JOICEY: I quite agree with the noble Lord. I think it will be an extraordinary thing if we deal with these contracts. The noble Earl has given the impression that people who do business with the coaltradearenever to be trusted. As a matter of fact the people we are dealing with are people of the very highest honour. I think it is a monstrous thing to shirk these contracts. I think it is altogether wrong. It would have a very bad effect abroad and, depend upon it, we cannot afford that at the present time.
EARL RUSSELL: The noble Lord who has just spoken is quite as wrong as Lord Danesfort. There is no question of cancelling contracts. It is a question of what is to be taken into account in fixing the quota.
LORD GAINFORD: Surely the noble Earl does not suggest that when an individual who has an output of, say, 10,000 tons a week and who has been in the habit every year of selling that output to the gas companies of London, renews his contracts—in the case I have in mind in the spring of this year—not knowing whether this Bill was going to pass into law or not, in the ordinary course of business, he is not to be allowed to fulfil those contracts but is to be made subject to a quota which will reduce his output? It seems to me grossly unfair that business of that kind cannot be carried on after this Bill was introduced. Was it to be assumed that the Bill would pass? No attempt has been made to take advantage of the possibilities of the quota by the individual I have in mind. He sold his coal in exactly the same way as he has sold it for many years past, to the gas companies in London in the same quantity. The consumer would have got the benefit of the lower price, but now, if he is going to be subject to the quota, not only will the contract have to be cancelled, but very likely law costs will occur in connection with the gas companies, and the gas companies will have to go into the market and pay a higher price for the coal for which they had already contracted to the great loss of the consumers of gas.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I should like, if I may, to put the case from the gas companies' point of view. It is the invariable practice of the gas companies, as many of your Lordships know, to buy forward for twelve months or even eighteen months. What does the noble Earl think would have been the correct procedure for these large gas companies of London, who purchase two or three million tons of coal, to have followed when this Bill was introduced? Were they to do nothing? They had been buying in the ordinary way from coal owners with whom they had done business for fifty or even 100 years. Were they suddenly to stop and leave themselves without coal? It seems an intolerable
586
suggestion that gas companies supplying many of your Lordships—supplying, I might say, everybody in the Metropolis—should be subject to that position.
LORD JOICEY: Treating them as scraps of paper.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I hope the noble Lord will press his Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: All this special pleading is really very clever, but it is very remote from the facts. I must again ask your Lordships to look at page ten of the Bill. The question of breaking contracts was mentioned by Lord Gainford. There is nothing in the Bill that will make a man break his contracts. If your Lordships look at page ten of the Bill you will see:—
"A contract for the sale or supply of coal, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, shall not …be void or unenforceable as between the parties by reason that it cannot be performed without contravening the provisions of a scheme …"
It says quite definitely therefore that a contract is not void and not unenforceable but can be performed. But if the body that fixes the quota—a body, remember, that is composed of coal owners themselves—consider that that contract has been obtained, not in the ordinary course of business, but for the purpose, so to speak, of jumping the claim and getting an unfair proportion of the coal to be allotted, then those coal owners, sitting as the executive board, will be entitled to say: "You will not get so large a quota as you would otherwise have got; you will lose something next year to make up for what you got by trying to jump claims. The contract is not void or unenforceable, but your quota will be less next year because you tried to get more than your fair share." That is a fair decision, taken by a board acting fairly as between one coal owner and another. It is simply that and nothing else.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The next Amendment to come before us, standing in the name of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, is an important one and will take us some time.
LORD THOMSON: In those circum stances I had better move that the House be resumed.
Moved, That the House be resumed.— (Lord Thomson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before twelve o'clock.

KIRKCALDY CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (DOCKS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
LIVERPOOL EXCHANGE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Burnley Corporation,

Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation,

Manchester Extension,

Dartford and Purfleet (Thames) Tunnel,

Hartlepool Gas and Water [H.L.].

Also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for Additional Provision in the following Bill:

Shoreham Harbour [H.L.].

And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
590

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Quay Extension, etc.).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

NEWPORT CORPORATION (No. 1) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 25th of March and the 9th of April last discharged, and Bill committed.
LOCHABER WATER POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord St. John of Bletso and the Lord Suffield be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Swansea and the Lord Fairhaven: Read, and agreed to.

LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN, DISTRICT, CENTRAL LONDON AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:—

E. Eldon,

L. Fairfax of Cameron,

L. Clanwilliam (E. Clanwilliam),

L. Hardinge of Penshurst (Chairman),

L. Clwyd:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Wednesday, the 21st of May, at half-past one o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard an desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL. FIFE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
SIDMOUTH ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
The King's Consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL.
  LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL.
  Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  WOKING DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1930.
  Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Woking District Gas Company:
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GUILDFORD AND WEST KENT MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL.
  Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
  MINISTERS' REMUNERATION.
  Message from the Commons for leave for the Viscount Hailsham to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House. Leave given for his Lordship to attend if he think fit; and his Lordship consenting thereto, a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.