Sitting of 23 April 1931

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London Assurance Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London County Council (Vauxhall Cross Improvement) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
London Electric, Metropolitan District, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill,
To be read the Third time To-morrow.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Manchester and South Staffordshire) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (City of Worcester) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

NEW WRIT.
For the Borough of Glasgow (St. Rollox Division), in the room of James Stewart, esquire, deceased.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    HOTEL AND CATERING TRADES.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour to what extent use is being made of the facilities provided by the special Employment Exchange for the hotel and catering trades?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): A special Employment Exchange for the hotel and catering trades was opened in London on the 25th November last. Since its opening
    1122
    7,035 placings have been effected and the number of placings per week is increasing. The number of establishments using the Exchange is over 1,000.
    Mr. STRAUSS: Is the Exchange entirely free?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Entirely free both to employers and workers.

    WOMEN (WEEK-END EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Minister of Labour whether she proposes to take any steps to ensure that where a woman worker has regular week-end employment she shall not be granted unemployment benefit for those days in the week on which she has not normally been in the habit of working?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The conditions for the receipt of benefit are laid down by Statute, and I have no power to alter them.
    Sir HENRY BETTERTON: Is this question of part-time employment one of the questions now being considered by the Royal Commission?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.

    TRANSFER OF WORKERS.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Labour if she is still taking steps to promote industrial transference by placing persons from the depressed areas in employment elsewhere; and how many persons were transferred in the last four weeks for which figures are available?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. During the four weeks ended. 13th April last, 1,582 persons were transferred from the depressed areas either direct or after a course at a centre.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Can the Minister say how it comes about that this important work is almost the only work for which there is a reduced Estimate in the current Estimates?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The answer is that the number of opportunities for transferring are less generally.

    GERMANY.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Minister of Labour what are the latest

    1123
    figures of unemployment in Germany as published from official sources; and what percentage those figures bear to the industrial population and the total population of Germany, respectively?
    Miss BONDFIELD: On 31st March, 1931, the latest date for which figures are available, the total number of per-, sons recorded as unemployed by the official Employment Exchanges in Germany was 4,756,000. This total includes manual and non-manual workers normally employed in agriculture, forestry, fishery, commerce, entertainment and domestic service as well as manual and non-manual workers normally employed in industry and transport. The total of 4,756,000 unemployed represents about 7 per cent. of the total population, and is equal to about 22 or 23 per cent. of the total employé population.
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Does that include partly as well as wholly unemployed in Germany?
    Miss BONDFIELD: It includes the official figures. Our part-time area is wider than that of Germany, but some part-time is in these figures.
    Earl WINTERTON: In view of the constant quotation by Members of the Government and others of these figures, could the Minister in future from time to time publish these figures of unemployment, together with the percentages, as asked for in the question?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly, but I think they are published monthly in the Ministry of Labour Gazette.
    Mr. STRAUSS: Would the Minister give the figures in regard to England, corresponding to the 7 per cent. and the 23 per cent.?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am afraid that the 23 per cent. is parallel to the 21 per cent. in this country.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the Minister give the figures showing the percentage of unemployment in the industrial population of Germany and this country respectively, excluding the agricultural population?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Yes. I understand there are 25 per cent. if you exclude those categories.
    Mr. McSHANE: With regard to the original reply, is it not true also that there is a considerable number receiving national relief as distinct from unemployment benefit, who are not included in the figures at all?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The figure given here is the official figure of the total number of unemployed, whether they are receiving relief from insurance or in any other form.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND (for Sir ASSHETON POWNALL)asked the Minister of Labour what is the total amount contributed by the German Government towards unemployment insurance during the most recent 12 months for which figures are available.
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the Minister of Labour inquire at the same time whether there is any increase in debt in addition to the contributions?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly.

    SHREWSBURY BY-PASS ROAD.
    Mr. DUCKWORTHasked the Minister of Labour if she can state the number of men at present employed on the work begun in connection with the Shrewsbury by-pass road, together with the number of local unemployed who have been found work in the same connection?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

    ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY (ALIENS).
    Mr. O. LEWIS (for Sir COOPER RAWSON)asked the Minister of Labour for what reasons permission is being granted to 140 Russian dancers and singers to enter the country for the purpose of accepting employment for six weeks from the 18th May at the Lyceum Theatre, London, under Sir Thomas Beecham; and whether consideration has been given to the effect on the unemployment problem?
    Miss BONDFIELD: An application for permits in these cases is at present under consideration.
    Captain CAZALET: How long will it be before the Minister of Labour comes to a decision in this matter, and is she aware that, if permission is refused, it will deprive 150 English people of their occupation this summer?
    Miss BONDFIELD: This is a very complicated position, and I am making the fullest inquiries in order that justice may be done.

    DEVONPORT AND PLYMOUTH JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT BUREAUX.
    Mr. GLASSEY (for Mr. HOREBELISHA)asked the Minister of Labour what decision has now been reached with regard to the amalgamation of the Devon-port and Plymouth juvenile employment bureaux?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on this subject on 10th April. I should add that I was satisfied that the arrangement therein referred to was successful. I therefore approved its continuance, reserving the right to re-open the question if special arrangements for boys and girls living at a distance from the central bureau appear to be needed.

  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX FIGURE.
  Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Minister of Labour why the Ministry bases its cost-of-living index on part, and not the whole, of a household budget; why the selected household's weekly income should be assumed as 36s. 10d., and why the assumed year should be 1904; and will she now discard these factors and in future compile the index number upon prices and the standard of living applicable to 1931 with frequent re-tests of commodity prices and adjustments of weightings, so as to provide a measure of, and show the changes in, the average level of retail prices?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The memorandum on the cost-of-living index number, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, gives the answer to the first two parts of this question. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 19th February to the hon. Member for North Newcastle (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle).
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the Minister aware that the existing system is now 27 years old and that it is calculated on a very narrow basis? Does she not realise that she ought to revise the weighting and bring it out on a correct system, so that we may have up-to-date and accurate cost-of-living indices?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave in February, that the question is still under consideration.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will the Minister ask the Institute of Actuaries and the Life Assurance offices to advise and assist her?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The matter is in the hands of a special committee for report.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is the Minister not aware that this was never meant to apply to millions of people's wages, and that it really is causing a great deal of public uneasiness because in some cases, as between man and man, it works out so very unfairly?
  Miss BONDFIELD: A sliding scale method of fixing wages was adopted after the cost-of-living index was in operation.

  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour if she can give figures showing the number of strikes and lock-outs in Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the year 1930?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The total number of strikes and lock-outs reported as having begun in the year 1930 in Great Britain and Northern Ireland was 422. Small disputes, involving less than 10 workpeople or lasting less than one working day, are not included in this total.

  TRADE UNIONS (MEMBERSHIP).
  Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour if she has any information as to the principal causes of the decrease in the total membership of all trade unions between the years 1920 and 1926?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The decrease was due to a variety of causes, the principal

  1127
  factor being the increased amount of unemployment and short time working in the years 1921 to 1926 as compared with previous years.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Is this decrease still going on?
  Miss BONDFIELD: No; on the contrary, it is on the up-grade.

  LOTTERIES AND SWEEPSTAKES.
  Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of letters that have now been intercepted on instructions from his Department for the Irish hospital sweepstake on the Derby; and can he state the amount of money or its equivalent that has been returned to the senders?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): For the reasons already given on the 3rd February and the 2nd of this month, it would not be in the public interest for me to give this information.
  Mr. DAY: Is the whole of the money found in the letters returned intact to the senders?
  Mr. CLYNES: Yes, I understand that the money is always returned.
  Mr. DAYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any instructions have been issued to the customs officers of Great Britain to intercept lottery tickets issued for the Irish sweepstakes, either on the recent Grand National or the forthcoming Derby; and will he give particulars of these instructions and state the number of tickets that have been so far intercepted?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): It is part of the ordinary duty of customs officers to enforce the law, including the provisions contained in Section 1 of the Revenue Act, 1898, in regard to articles the importation of which is prohibited. I regret that I am unable to give particulars of the number of tickets for Irish sweepstakes seized on importation contrary to the prohibition.
  Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say whether any of the travellers have been
  1128
  searched, or whether they have been merely requested to say if they have any of these tickets in their luggage?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot give any particular details.
  Mr. DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
  Mr. HAYCOCK: Does the hon. Gentleman know that my hon. Friend has his pockets full of them?

  LICENSING LAW (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Sir K. WOODasked the Home Secretary whether he can now state when the report of the Royal Commission on Licensing will be available?
  Mr. CLYNES: I regret that I can add nothing to my previous replies on this subject.
  Sir K. WOOD: How many reports will there be?
  Mr. CLYNES: The Royal Commission is not a Government Department. It is an independent and detached body, and we must await the result of its work.
  Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to what is going on?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have asked for information, and I informed the House some time ago that the members of the Commission were considering materials with a view to the issue of a report.

  DOGS (EXERCISE).
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a recent case at Birmingham of ill-treatment to a dog, which had been so chained up that its muscles were partially atrophied and it had to be killed at once; whether he is aware that many dogs are kept similarly chained up without adequate exercise; and will he consider the desirability of issuing a circular to all local and police authorities calling attention to this matter, and urging the necessity of seeing that every dog is released at least once a day for adequate exercise?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have not seen a, report of the case referred to, nor have I any information to suggest that similar cases are of common occurrence. I am afraid I do not see what good purpose could be served by issuing a circular as suggested in the question, as local and police authorities cannot be expected to attend to the daily exercising of dogs.

  POLICE.

    METROPOLITAN FORCE (COMMISSIONER).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is yet able to announce the name of the individual who is to fill the vacancy at present existing at the head of the Metropolitan Police Force?
    Mr. CLYNES: The right hon. Gentleman may be assured that when I am in a position to make an announcement I shall lose no time in doing so.

    PRESS COMMUNICATIONS.
    Mr. O'CONNORasked the Home Secretary whether it is the practice for information as to arrests which have been made, and as to impending criminal trials, to be issued to the Press from Scotland Yard; and whether he proposes, in view of the observations of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the recent cases of R. v. the "Surrey Comet" and R. v. the Editor of the "Daily Mail," to put an end to this procedure?
    Mr. CLYNES: It is the practice of the Commissioner of Police to authorise the making to the Press of such communications as may properly be published, because such communications tend to accuracy in news and often assist the ends of justice. It is not the practice of the Commissioner to communicate information, for instance as to antecedents, which would prejudice the legitimate interests of persons accused. He informs me that the details published in the "Surrey Comet" were not even known to any person in the department at New Scotland Yard that is the medium of communications to the Press. As regards the information published in the "Daily Mail," he states that it is an absolute rule not to give the Press information as to the criminal records of persons
    1130
    accused. I do not know what grounds, if any, exist for the allegation that the details in the "Surrey Comet" in the other case emanated from the Department at Scotland Yard. On the facts of these cases, therefore, no ground at present appears for any change of practice: but I need hardly say that, if ground did exist, the Commissioner would take action at once, with my full approval.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that defending counsel, who happens to be a Law Officer of the Crown, said, in regard to the "Surrey Comet" case, that the material had emanated from the Press Bureau at Scotland Yard?
    Mr. CLYNES: Yes, and it was because of that knowledge that my answer was framed in the terms in which I have given it.
    Mr. O'CONNORAre any steps taken to ensure that material is not issued from Scotland Yard which, if published, would constitute contempt of court?
    Mr. CLYNES: I think that the terms of my reply will emphasise that.
    Sir K. WOODIs it not a fact that, in this case, the defendants were dealt with by the judge on the very same information which was received from the Press Bureau at Scotland Yard?
    Mr. CLYNES: I cannot say what was in the mind of the court, or how far it might have been influenced by that fact.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the risk of impropriety which might occur in connection with this bureau, would not lead him to consider its suppression?
    Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir, it is a very useful section of Scotland Yard, and I do not think that any isolated instance of this kind justifies that suggestion.

    MOTOR PATROLS.
    Mr. GLASSEY (for Mr. HOREBELISHA)asked the Home Secretary if he will state which police authorities in England and Wales have not yet availed themselves of his offer of a grant-in-aid for the purchase of motor cars and motor cycles for the formation of motor patrol sections?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot give full particulars, as the returns from the forces which were asked for by the 20th instant in connection with the claims for grants have not all been received. Returns have been received from 107 forces where motor patrols have been instituted, and it is known that they have been instituted in most of the other forces—excepting 15 of the smallest forces to which the scheme was not extended.

  CATHOLICS (OATH).
  Mr. McELWEEasked the Home Secretary whether he will introduce legislation to make it permissible for a Catholic to claim to take the oath on a Catholic Bible or, if none is available, to be allowed to affirm?
  Mr. CLYNES: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any case in which there was difficulty I will gladly look into it. As at present advised, I do not think legislative change is required.

  KING ALFONSO.
  Mr. MORLEYasked the Home Secretary whether any application has been received on behalf of King Alfonso for permission to reside in this country?
  Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir.
  Mr. MORLEY: Will the Government consider the possibility of giving permission to other distinguished exiles to reside in this country?
  Mr. CLYNES: That scarcely arises out of the original question.
  Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: What extra cost has fallen on the police service as a result of the reception—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.
  Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. I desire to put a question regarding the answer just given by the Home Secretary.
  Mr. SPEAKER: No question arises on that answer.
  Mr. BROCKWAYasked the Home Secretary if he is prepared to grant the right of asylum to King Alfonso?
  Mr. CLYNES: No question of asylum has arisen. As my hon. Friend is aware King Alfonso landed at Dover on Tuesday last.
  Mr. HAYCOCK: Is he King Alfonso or Mr. Alfonso?
  Mr. BROCKWAY: May I ask whether ex-King Alfonso has had a visa granted to him to visit this country?
  Mr. CLYNES: As far as I know, King Alfonso comes to these shores under conditions corresponding to those always prevailing in the different countries with regard to visits of royal personages.
  Mr. E. BROWN: Is it not a good British principle not to hit a man when he is down?
  Mr. HARDIE: May I ask a question on the procedure of the Home Office?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question or answer.

  RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD.
  Mr. E. BROWNasked the Home Secretary if he has approved the form of accounts to be presented with the Second Annual Report of the Racecourse Betting Control Board?
  Mr. CLYNES: The answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. BROWN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the form of accounts will state the amounts for the various types of machine and for the various courses?
  Mr. CLYNES: I can give my hon. Friend all the information, if he will be good enough to put down a further question.

  LOCAL ELECTIONS.
  Viscount ELMLEYasked the Home Secretary if he will consider the altera-

  1133
  tion of Rule 12 for the election of parish councillors whereby such an election takes place by a show of hands?
  Mr. CLYNES: This matter has been carefully considered on many occasions, but no satisfactory method of voting at the parish meeting has so far been suggested, which could be substituted—as the law stands at present—for the show of hands. The subject was considered by the Royal Commission on Local Government, which suggested alternative methods of election. Legislation would be required to give effect to these suggestions and I do not see my way to undertake this at present.
  Mr. MARCH: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is nearly time that these parish councils were abolished, as has been done in the London boroughs?
  HON. MEMBERS: Why?
  Mr. MARCH: Because they are a nuisance.
  Mr. CLYNES: This matter scarcely arises out of the question.
  Captain WALLACEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a candidate who contested the four Hornsey Divisions in the recent county council elections, where he received a total poll of only 64 votes; whether he is aware that the cost to the ratepayers was approximately £280; and whether the Government will consider the introduction of legislation to provide that all candidates at county council elections shall make a deposit of money which shall be forfeited if they fail to obtain a certain percentage of the votes cast?
  Mr. SHORT: The attention of my right hon. Friend had not previously been drawn to this case. As stated in reply to previous questions on the subject, the question of requiring a deposit to be made in the case of local elections has been considered more than once, but it has been found that considerable divergence of opinion exists as to the desirability of doing so. The case, however, to which the hon. Member draws attention is certainly a striking one and my right hon. Friend will look into the matter again.

  EDUCATION

    SECONDARY SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIPS (STAFFORDSHIRE).
    Mr. McSHANEasked the President of the Board of Education, in regard to the county of Staffordshire and the county borough of Walsall, respectively, the total number of secondary school scholarships, excluding central schools, awarded during each of the last five years; and the ratio of these scholarships per 1,000 of the elementary school children on the registers?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lees-Smith): As the reply includes a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. McSHANE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether, in respect of Staffordshire, for last year, there was any marked increase in the number of scholarships?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: There was an increase last year, but, on the whole, Staffordshire is practically stationary.
    Following is the reply:
    The information required is given in the following table:—

    Year.

    Number of Secondary School Scholarships awarded.

    Ratio of these scholarships per thousand of the Elementary School children on the registers.

    Staffordshire

    1926–27

    …

    287

    2·5

    1927–28

    …

    303

    2·6

    1928–29

    …

    291

    2·6

    1929–30

    …

    295

    2·6

    1930–31

    …

    353

    3·1

    Walsall

    1926–27

    …

    60

    3·6

    1927–28

    …

    44

    2·6

    1928–29

    …

    43

    2·6

    1929–30

    …

    39

    2·3

    1930–31

    …

    60

    3·6

    The figures for Staffordshire include the areas in which Part III Education Authorities are responsible for Elementary Education only.

    TALKING FILMS (ENGLISH).
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education what steps he proposes to take to ensure that English is correctly spoken in all talking cinematograph films used in schools?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Willesden East (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on 16th April, the Board are watching with interest experiments which are being made in the use of talking cinematograph films in schools and I can assure my hon. Friend that neither the Board nor local education authorities are likely to lose sight of the very important aspect of the matter to which he refers.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these films are manufactured in Great Britain?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I do not know as much about the industry as my hon. Friend, but I believe that all talking films are, in fact, manufactured by a company which is situated in America, but is a member of the Federation of British Industries.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Does this arrangement apply to schools where the Welsh language is taught; and will the right hon. Gentleman see that correct Welsh is spoken?
    Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that the majority of these films are manufactured in Great Britain and that the authorities could get them if they required them?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I do not know the technique of the film industry, but I understand that the talking film industry is centred in the United States.
    Mr. HAYCOCK: What will the accent be—will it be a sort of B.B.C. accent or the Oxford and Cambridge accent?
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that talking films are being produced in two different areas in Hertfordshire by Instructional Films, and International Films?

    TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL SCHOOLS.
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education how many new junior technical and junior commercial schools, respectively, were sanctioned in each of the years 1928, 1929, and 1930?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: For the years in question the number of new junior technical schools recognised was seven, 10
    1136
    and five, respectively. Five new junior commercial schools were recognised in 1928 and three in 1929.

    TEACHERS' SALARIES.
    Captain WALLACEasked the President of the Board of Education whether the National Union of Women Teachers will be represented on the Standing Joint Committee on teachers' salaries?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I understand that the Standing Joint Committee on the salaries of teachers in public elementary schools will have before them, at their meeting to-morrow, an application from the National Union of Women Teachers for representation on the committee.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If there is any other body representing a substantial number of school teachers, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider an application for representation?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I presume that they themselves would apply to the Standing Joint Committee.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Is their application likely to be accepted?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The committee meets to-morrow.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE FUNDS.
  Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Health what is the amount standing to the credit of the National Health Insurance Fund at the last convenient date?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The total amount of National Health Insurance funds it Great Britain at 31st December, 1930, was £127,000,000 approximately.
  Mr. REMER: In view of the increased charges on industry, is it intended to continue accumulating these large funds?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I would remind the hon. Member that these funds are required in respect of future liabilities.
  Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Health what is the amount standing to the credit of the Widows' Pensions and Old Age Insurance Fund at the last convenient date?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The funds under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts in hand at 31st March, 1931, amounted to £46,000,000, approximately.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    MILK PREPARATIONS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. O. LEWISasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that the importation or sale of milk preparations not containing prescribed minima of milk fats is prohibited in 24 countries in the British Empire and in 20 foreign countries: and whether he will consider the desirability of promoting similar legislation in the interests of public health in this country?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware of the fact stated, but I do not think it is necessary in the interests of the public health to introduce legislation for this country similar to that referred to.
    Mr. LEWIS: Why should we be satisfied with a lower standard in this country?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not satisfied that there is a lower standard.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If a minimum of butter fat is prescribed for fresh milk, should there not be a minimum for preserved milk?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The point of the question related to public health, and I understand that there is no reason, on that account, for altering the law.

    PHYSICAL STANDARD.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, from October, 1929 to September, 1930, 66,717 men offered themselves for service in the Army and 52 per cent. were rejected on physical grounds; and will he say if his Department have done anything to find out what were the physical disabilities, so that steps could be taken to advise the House of Commons on adopting measures to improve the physical standard of our people?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that the facts are as stated in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, my Department has obtained full
    1138
    information on this subject from the War Office and it will receive my careful consideration.
    Earl WINTERTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a manifesto issued by a number of doctors stating, as one of the reasons for this deplorable physical condition and these deficiencies as to health and teeth, that they are due to the artificial foods eaten in this over-industrialised country; and will the right hon. Gentleman have that report considered by the appropriate experts in his Department?
    Mr. GREENWOOD

    VOLUNTARY HOSPITALS (APPROVED SOCIETIES CONTRIBUTIONS).
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health what is the approximate estimated cost of the services rendered by voluntary hospitals to members of approved societies; and what contributions are made by approved societies to the funds of voluntary hospitals in return for such services?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: No material is available to enable any estimate to be made of the cost of the services rendered by voluntary hospitals to members of approved societies. The total amount allocated by societies in England in payments to hospitals under schemes consequent upon the second valuation was at the rate of about £300,000 per annum. Schemes based on the third valuation are at present in operation in societies covering only about one-quarter of the total insured population, but under those schemes the annual amount allocated to hospital benefit has been increased by about 14 per cent. above that previously allocated.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health if, in view of the fact that last year University College Hospital treated over 2,000 members of approved societies at a cost of £22,000, towards which the societies contributed only a little more than £3,000, and that of 124 of these societies whose members were admitted to the hospital 44 contributed part of the cost and 80 contributed nothing, he will take steps to bring the claims of the voluntary hospitals to the notice of approved societies in connection with the allocation of their disposable surpluses?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The attention of all approved societies has already been directed to the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act, under which they are empowered to allocate part of any disposable surplus disclosed on valuation to the making of payments to hospitals in respect of the maintenance and treatment of their members therein.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to draw the attention of the societies to the fact, which they probably do not realise, that they are getting very much more from the voluntary hospitals than is covered by the small contributions which they make? I am sure they wish to pay their own way.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am prepared to do what I can, but I have no power to enforce it.
    Mr. GOSSLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the great bulk of the workpeople who are compulsorily insured, are contributing week by week to the Hospital Saturday Fund?

    RADIUM SUPPLIES.
    Captain PETER MACDONALDasked the Minister of Health whether he has been informed of a recent discovery of radium supplies in Canada; and whether he has yet opened negotiations with the Canadian Government with a view to securing supplies of radium at reasonable prices to British hospitals?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The duty of taking the necessary steps to purchase supplies of radium with the assistance given from public funds in 1929 rests with the National Radium Trust, and not with me. I understand that the trust will take into consideration the reported source of supply to which the hon. and gallant Member refers.

    RHEUMATIC DISEASES.
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Health if, in view of the new efforts being made to combat the evils arising from rheumatic diseases, he will now consider the advisability of setting up an advisory committee on rheumatism on the same lines as the advisory committee on cancer?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have given careful consideration to this suggestion and
    1140
    have come to the conclusion that I should not be justified at the present time in setting up such a committee as is mentioned in the question.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE CARDS (STAMPING).
  Mr. HARDIEasked the Minister of Health what immediate steps he proposes to take to prevent insured persons being penalised owing to the fault of an employer neglecting to stamp the employé's card?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: As explained in the reply given to a similar question by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Law) on 20th March, 1930, provision is already made under the National Health Insurance Acts for the protection of insured persons in such eases, and I am not satisfied as to the need for amending legislation on this matter.

  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health the number of persons who, since 1st June, 1929, to the last convenient date, have been refused their applications for a widows' pension?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The number of applications for widows' pensions which have been rejected in Great Britain since 1st June, 1929, is 61,470.
  Mr. E. BROWN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for Scotland?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I could not without notice.
  Major McKENZIE WOODasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in many cases the period of one month which unsuccessful applicants for pension under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts may appeal against the decision of the Ministry of Health has been found to be insufficient, in view of the investigation which has to be made by applicants to determine whether there are sufficient grounds of appeal; and whether he will consider amending the Regulations so as to extend the period to two months?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not sure that the position is as stated in the first part

  1141
  of the question, and I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the Regulations provide that an appeal made after the end of the specified period of four weeks may, with the consent of the referee, be entertained. In the circumstances I am not satisfied of the need for an amendment of the Regulations as suggested in the second part of the question.
  Major WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the time it takes for applicants for pensions to consult their advisers, and that a month very soon runs out; and will he consider extending the period?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am prepared to consider it, but the period of a month was really fixed in the interests of the persons concerned to avoid unnecessary delay.
  Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have many cases of applicants who have had pensions refused, and who, by the time they come to me, have lost their right of appeal because the month has elapsed?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: In many cases this may be due to a little laxity on the part of the persons concerned, but, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will discuss the matter with me, I shall be glad to do what I can.
  Mr. E. BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the difference between running this in an office and living in a scattered district; and will he consider the case of the fishermen, for instance, who are away from home, and who perhaps have no legal advisers, and who lose their rights owing to the shortness of the period?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: In cases like that, the referees have power to dispense with the Regulations with regard to the period of one month.
  Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Has the Minister, apart from the referees, discretion to extend the period beyond a month?

  HOUSING.

    RURAL WORKERS ACT.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Health if he will invite suggestions from the associations representative of county councils and rural district councils as to
    1142
    the best means, by conferences, photographic exhibits, or otherwise, of informing housing authorities generally and owners of the advantages of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act and of the exact methods by which in certain areas, e.g., Devonshire and the rural district of Atcham, Salop, it has been used successfully to provide rural workers with houses at rents which they can pay?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am already taking steps to obtain information on the lines suggested by the hon. Member of the exact methods adopted in the areas he mentions, and will consider what further steps can best and most conveniently be taken to secure the purpose desired by the hon. Member and by myself.

    SOUTH SHIELDS.
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Health how many occupied houses in South Shields are regarded as suitable for demolition under slum clearance schemes; how many of these are houses let in tenements: how many persons they house; and what proposals he has received for dealing with such property,
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret the information sought in the first three parts of this question is not immediately available, but I will make inquiries and communicate with my hon. Friend. As regards the last part, the corporation propose to demolish in five years 1,737 houses in slum clearance areas, and have already declared one area, containing 101 houses or blocks of tenements, to be a clearance area.

    PLYMOUTH.
    Mr. GLASSEY (for Mr. HOREBELISHA)asked the Minister of Health if he can now say what is the position with regard to his representations to the Plymouth City Council in respect of their five years housing programme; and whether he is satisfied that the most effective steps are being taken to provide suitable accommodation for the number of persons in Devonport and Plymouth who are compelled to live in overcrowded or otherwise unsatisfactory conditions?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I have now received the further communication which I was expecting from the corporation. The reply to the second part of the question is, on the information at present before me, in the negative.

  FISHING INDUSTRY (INQUIRY).
  Major WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when the report of the committee which is inquiring into the fishing industry will be published?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 2nd April in reply to a similar question by the hon. and learned Member for South Aberdeen (Sir F. Thomson).
  Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Chairman of this committee that many developments in the fishing industry are being held up in anticipation of the publication of this report, and that the delay is causing a great deal of uneasiness?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The committee have been asked to produce their report without any unnecessary delay.
  Major WOOD: It is nearly two years since they were appointed.

  COTTON INDUSTRY (INDIA).
  Mr. HACKINGasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the recent letter sent to him by the President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce in connection with the gravity of the present position of the cotton export trade to India; and, if so, whether he will tell the House the nature of his reply?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have received no such letter and have, therefore, sent no reply.
  Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the nature of the legislation, if any, which he intends to introduce in order to overcome any impediments to the improvement in the cotton trade which were found to exist as a result of the Government's committee of inquiry into the cotton industry?
  Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The committee on the cotton industry did not recommend that legislation should be undertaken except in the event of a contingency which, I hope, will not arise.
  Sir W. BRASS: May I make a protest to you, Mr. Speaker, on the same point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams)? This question was addressed to the Prime Minister, whom I see in his place. This is the second time that I have addressed a question to the Prime Minister and found it turned over to one of the Departments. It is now addressed to the Board of Trade, but even the President of the Board of Trade does not answer it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I can only say to the hon. and gallant Member what I said to the other hon. Member. It has nothing to do with me who answers questions.
  Mr. E. BROWN: Is it not the custom that an hon. Member should have the courtesy of being told what is being done, so that if he desires to do so he may withdraw the question? He may not be concerned with the details of the question, but with the wider implication as to the responsibility of the Government as a whole as apart from a particular Department.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That may be so.
  Captain P. MACDONALD: As this question arises directly out of a statement made by the Prime Minister, may I be allowed to read the statement?
  HON. MEMBERS: Order!
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have called on the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton).
  Mr. REMER (for Sir GEORGE HAMILTON)asked the Minister of Labour whether since the provisional agreement in India there has been an increase of employment in the Lancashire cotton industry; and if she will give the appropriate comparative unemployment figures for the industry?
  Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. HACKING: Do the figures indicate, in the words of the President of the Board of Trade, that there has been a notable improvement in the cotton industry as a result of the signing of this agreement?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I will give the percentages. The percentage of unemployment on 26th January, 1931, was 45.6; on
  At 23rd March, 1931, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 193,290 insured persons in the cotton industry classification recorded as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in the North Western Division, as compared with 219,517 at 23rd February, 1931.
  The following TABLE gives figures for the past three months.

  Cotton Industry—North Western Division.

  —

  26th January, 1931.*

  23rd February, 1931.

  23rd March, 1931.

  Number Unemployed.

  Per cent. of No. Insured.

  Number Unemployed.

  Per cent. of No. Insured.

  Number Unemployed

  Per cent. of No. Insured.

  Wholly unemployed

  136,080

  26·7

  136,086

  26·7

  132,481

  26·0

  Temporarily stopped

  96,291

  18·9

  83,431

  16·4

  60,809

  12·0

  Total

  232,371

  45·6

  219,517

  43·1

  193,290

  38·0

  * The figures for 26th January, 1931, are exclusive of persons disqualified for unemployment benefit by reason of the trade dispute then in progress.

  Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will call for a telegraphic report from the British trade commissioner in India on the subject of the import trade of Lancashire cotton goods into India since 1st March last, in respect of both volume and value?
  Mr. GILLETT: I fear that the suggestion of the Noble Lord is unpracticable because there would be the greatest difficulty in obtaining figures and I doubt whether any sound conclusion could be drawn from them if obtained.
  Earl WINTERTON: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that officially the report refers to the cotton industry, and says that this is the most important part of the British imports into India, and why does the hon. Gentleman now say that it is impracticable to obtain a report from the trade commissioner?
  Mr. GILLETT: That would involve a very great deal of time, and in my opinion, when the figures were obtained, they would be of little value. They would not be worth the time and trouble involved.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is it not a fact that this official, in his annual report, refers to the cotton industry, and, if that is so, why is the hon. Member not able to give the figures asked for?
  23rd February, 1931, 43.1; and on 23rd March, 1931, 38.
  Following is the statement:
  Mr. GILLETT: The Noble Lord overlooks the fact that the figures asked for would include figures dealing with goods ordered many months before and therefore would he of very little use.
  Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Does this not involve a very heavy and unjustifiable expense?
  Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Will the hon. Member give us the information on which the President of the Board of Trade made his statement the other day?
  Mr. GILLETT: I do not think that that question has any bearing on this matter.
  Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: All I am asking is whether we can have the information upon which the President of the Board of Trade based his statement?
  Mr. GILLETT: I cannot definitely promise the figures and the same difficulty applies to this question as applies to the point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton), but I will undertake to look into the matter.
  Mr. SANDHAM: Can the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department intimate to us what progress is being made with regard to the national reorganisation of this industry?

  BREAD (FLOUR CONTENT).
  Mr. LEESasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the world surplus of wheat, he will introduce legislation to increase the amount of flour in the four-pound loaf and reduce the amount of water?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am about to set up a committee to consider the law relating to the composition and description of articles of food, and in the meantime I do not propose to consider the introduction of such legislation as is suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. LEESasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to an official Government publication in which it is stated that over 100 four-pound loaves are made by British bakers from 280 pounds of flour; and whether he can state what other matter is added to produce the result?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have been asked to reply. I am aware of the statement referred to, and I am advised that the principal other constituent of the loaf is water, which is necessary for making the dough.
  Mr. LEES: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reports of the successful results secured from the baking of a loaf from Yeoman Seconds Wheat?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: That is a question which might appropriately be put to the Minister of Agriculture.
  Mr. LEES: May I say that all three questions which I have put down on this subject have been transferred to diffrent Ministers.
  Mr. MATTERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a chemical substance known as "improvers" is used in British flour to make it hold more water?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: That may be so, but the amount by weight of other substances is merely negligible, and that is the point of the question.

  RATING AND VALUATION (APPORTIONMENT) ACT.
  Mr. HARDIEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total cost to the Exchequer in connection with the putting into operation of the Rating and
  1148
  Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928; can he state, separately, the amount paid, or estimated to be payable, to the Government Land Valuation Department, including charge for extra staff; to the counsel in London and throughout the country (other than the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General); to the Attorney-General; to the Solicitor-General; to the solicitors in London and throughout the country; and the amount of expenses to ratepayers in appeals of inland revenue officers which were unsuccessful; and can he say why in Scotland ratepayers who were successful in their appeals had to pay their own expenses, whereas such ratepayers in England recovered their expenses from the Treasury?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As the answer is a long one and contains many figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. HARDIE: Can we know the amount given to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think that they were given on Tuesday.
  Mr. HARDIE: Is the Department, in view of the need far economy, considering wiping out all such payments?
  Following is the answer:
  Excluding certain administrative expenses of the Health Departments, which may be regarded as negligible, the total cost to the Exchequer in connection with the putting into operation of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, may be estimated at approximately £220,000.
  The estimated expenses of the Land Valuation Department amount to £170,000 approximately.
  The amounts paid or payable to counsel, other than the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, may be estimated at £20,000; to the Attorney-General, at £6,400; to the Solicitor-General, at £1,750, and to outside solicitors engaged on behalf of the Crown, at £3,500.
  I am not in a position to give the information referred to in the penultimate part of my hon. Friend's question. With regard to the last part of the question,

  1149
  I understand that it is not the practice of the Lands Valuation Appeals Court in Scotland to award costs against either party.

  ESTATE DUTY.
  Mr. DENMANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether Estate Duty has been levied on the capital value of the annuity payable under 46 Geo. III., cap. 146?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. DENMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman consider making the necessary amendment of the law?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Gentleman must await the Finance Bill.
  Mr. HAYCOCK: Is it fair for people who have large private incomes of their own to put down questions of this character?
  Mr. DENMAN: Is not the hon. Gentleman one of those responsible for the terms of the Finance Bill?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Obviously, I cannot discuss a vast issue of this kind in answer to a question.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. O. LEWISasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that the allowances of Members of Parliament in Northern Ireland have been reduced from £200 to £170 per annum, and with the object of setting an example of economy, he will lay proposals before this House for some similar reduction in the salaries of Members of Parliament?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member's suggestion, in common with all other proposals for reduction of expenditure, will be conveyed to my right hon. Friend for his consideration.

  SLOUGH DEPOT (PURCHASE AND SALE).
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will give the cost to the State of the purchase and lay-out of the estate
  1150
  now occupied by the Slough Trading Corporation and the sum received on its sale?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The total cost to the Government of the property comprising the Slough Depot was approximately £2,500,000. This property was sold as a whole to the Slough Trading Corporation Limited for a sum of approximately £2,000,000.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Was that £2,000,000 paid in cash, or in what way was it paid?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am afraid I could not answer at the moment, but, if the hon. and gallant Member will put down a question, I will give him an answer.

  AGRICULTURE.

    BRITISH WHEAT (MILLING QUOTA).
    Captain P. MACDONALDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he intends to bring before Parliament in the near future any proposals for making it obligatory upon British millers to mill a minimum quota of home-grown wheat in the manufacture of wheat flour?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I am not in a position to add anything to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a question put by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) on Monday last.
    Captain MACDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to make a statement?
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot add anything to the reply given.

    RUSSIAN FRUIT PULP (IMPORTS).
    Mr. SMITHERSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the decree by the commissar of foreign trade in Russia to intensify the dumping of fruit pulp into this country during the coming season; and what steps he proposes to take to protect the livelihood of market gardeners, fruit growers and their employés in this country from the effect of the dumping of such goods?
    Dr. ADDISON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) on 12th March last, in which I stated that I was considering the possibility of introducing the necessary legislation to enable jam made from home-grown fruit to be brought within the scope of the National Mark Scheme.
    Mr. SMITHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the market garden industry is brought to the verge of ruin by the importation of this dumped produce—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech.
    Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what quantity came from Russia?
    Dr. ADDISON: I could not say that without notice, but whatever quantity came from Russia would be small as compared with imports from elsewhere. That was not the cause of the depression last year.
    Mr. SMITHERS: On a point of Order. May I respectfully point out that an important industry in my Division is being brought nearly to the verge of ruin—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That may be so—I do not know—but Question Time is not the time for the hon. Member to make speeches.

    ALLOTMENTS.
    Major CARVERasked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the extra money now being voted for the creation of allotments, he can state, by counties, the estimated number of allotments now in existence?
    Dr. ADDISON: Returns showing the number of allotments on the 31st December, 1930, are now being tabulated and the figures will be available in about a month. In view of the fact that there are approximately 12,000 local authorities responsible for the provision of allotments, I cannot see my way to incur the expense which would be involved in preparing special returns.

    VETERINARY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CAMDEN TOWN.
    Mr. LEESasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the financial situation of the Veterinary Research Institute of Camden Town; and whether he will be prepared to recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a special grant be given to keep the institute in reasonable efficiency?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, Sir; I am well aware of the financial position of the Animal Pathology Research Institute attached to the Royal Veterinary College at Camden Town. A scheme for the development of research in animal diseases upon a considerable scale is in an advanced stage of preparation and will, I trust, he sanctioned and brought into operation at no distant date.
    Mr. LEES: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to get a grant from the Treasury for this institute, in place of spending national money on opera?
    Dr. ADDISON: We will consider every case on its merits.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: When the scheme is brought before the House will an opportunity be given for a discussion on it?
    Dr. ADDISON: I would like notice of that question.

  ROAD FUND.
  Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Transport what is the amount standing to the credit of the Road Fund at the last convenient date?
  Mr. CHARLETON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The investments and cash held on Road Fund Account at 31st March, 1931, amounted to approximately £1,120,000.

  NEW GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, WHITEHALL.
  Mr. SMITHERSasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, before putting forward his proposals for the erection of new Government offices in Whitehall at the approximate cost of £2,000,000, he gave full consideration to the possible alternative of extending the

  1153
  Government offices at Acton at considerably less expense; and on what grounds it was decided to sacrifice the economy involved by adopting such alternative?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The extension of the Government offices at Acton would not fulfil the requirements which the new building is designed to meet, as it is essential that the staffs for whom the accommodation is being provided should be housed in the Whitehall area.
  Captain WATERHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of approaching the Prime Minister to see whether he cannot do away with the staffs instead of erecting buildings in which to house them?

  SHALE OIL INDUSTRY.
  Major COLVILLEasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware of the situation in the shale oil industry in Scotland owing to the fall in price of imported oil and petrol; and what steps he proposes to take to assist?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): The situation in the Scottish shale oil industry is receiving the consideration of the Government.
  Major COLVILLE: Can the hon. Member assure us, in view of the serious situation in this industry, that he has made representations in the proper quarter that this home produced oil should be exempted in the event of any further duty being placed on motor spirit?
  Mr. SHINWELL: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I made proper representations to the proper quarter.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    COLLIERIES, LANARKSHIRE.
    Mr. TRAINasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the approaching closing of certain collieries in the Lower and Middle Wards of Lanarkshire; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the consequent flooding and closing of other pits in the area?
    Mr. SHINWELL: My attention has been drawn to the possible cessation of
    1154
    pumping operations at certain collieries in this area, but I am advised that no question of safety arises at the present time. The possibility of introducing a co-operative pumping scheme to deal with the situation that may arise is a matter, in the first instance at any rate, for the consideration of the owners of adjacent collieries, and I understand that discussions between them are being held.
    Mr. TRAIN: If I send the hon. Member particulars of this case, will he take steps to avoid these pits being flooded, as they are likely to be, with the result that 500 miners may be thrown out of work?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I shall be happy to receive information from the hon. Member, but I can assure him that full details are in our possession.

    ROYALTIES.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines whether the Government will consider the introduction of legislation with a view to nationalising royalties in this country?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am afraid that there is no possibility of such legislation at present.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker? This question was originally addressed to the Prime Minister, because it affects the time of the House. It was changed, with notice to me, but without asking in any other way for my opinion. How are we to find out on the Floor of this House about matters concerning legislation, if when we put questions to the Prime Minister they are transferred to a Department?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not my business to decide who answers questions.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Has not a private Member the right of direct access to the Prime Minister for the purpose of putting questions dealing with legislation?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Questions are answered by the Minister who happens to be responsible for the subject to which the question refers.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: If I had asked a question as to when legislation is coming on I should have been referred to the Prime Minister. It is quite impossible for us

    1155
    to get information, if all matters which may be connected with a Department are transferred to it.

  FACTORIES (WORKERS AND MEDICAL OFFICERS).
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE (for Dr. HASTINGS)asked the Home Secretary if he can give the number of persons employed in factories and the number of full-time medical officers in the factory service?
  Mr. SHORT: According to the Workmen's Compensation returns for 1929—the last year for which figures are available—the number employed was 5,531,322, including 347,480 outside workers. As regards the latter part of the question, the only whole time official appointments are the medical inspectors of factories who now number eight. The certifying and other surgeons who are appointed under the Factory Act for particular duties and who number about 1,800 are part-time posts.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    OIL FUEL.
    Mr. EDMUNDSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, to allay doubts as to the possibility of the Navy reverting to the use of coal for fuel and to encourage in every way experiments with a view to the production of oil from coal, he will issue periodical statements as to the progress of such experiments and the adoption of the results obtained?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): As regards the use of coal for fuel, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of yesterday (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 982) to the hon. Member for West Rhondda (Mr. John). The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research already issue periodical reports of the experiments carried out for the production of oil from coal.

    LOWER DECK PROMOTIONS.
    Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty in what branches of the Royal Navy is promotion to warrant rank authorised by Order-in-Council as a reward for long and zealous service?
    Mr. AMMON: As the reply is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Promotion as a reward for long and zealous service is applicable only to promotion to the rank or equivalent rank of lieutenant, and not to promotion to warrant rank. Provision far promotion to the rank or equivalent rank of lieutenant for long and zealous service is made in respect of all the branches in which warrant rank is attainable, namely:

    Branch.

    Warrant ranks attainable.

    Seaman

    …

    Gunner

    Gunner (T)

    Boatswain

    Signal

    …

    Signal Boatswain

    Telegraphist

    …

    Warrant Telegraphist

    Regulating

    …

    Warrant Master-at-Arms

    Shipwright

    …

    Warrant Shipwright

    Engineer

    …

    Warrant Engineer

    Stoker

    …

    Warrant Mechanician

    Ordnance

    …

    Warrant Ordnance Officer

    Electrical

    …

    Warrant Electrician.

    Sick Berth

    …

    Warrant Wardmaster

    Writer

    …

    Warrant Writer

    Supply

    …

    Warrant Supply Officer

    Cookery

    …

    Warrant Instructor in Cookery

    LIEUTHNANTS (PAY).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the current daily rates of pay of a lieutenant ex-cadet and a lieutenant promoted from warrant rank and will he state the considerations on which an age element is included in the pay or retired pay of these latter officers, in view of the later ages at which their promotion is permitted as compared with other officers?
    Mr. AMMON: As the reply is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The current daily rates of pay of lieutenant ex-cadet and lieutenants

    —

    Officers entered as such and Officers promoted to Warrant Rank before 5th October, 1925.

    Officers entered as such and Officers promoted to Warrant Rank on or after 5th October, 1925.

    Lieutenants Ex-Cadet.

    A day.

    A day.

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Lieutenant on promotion

    …

    …

    …

    15

    10

    14

    0

    Lieutenant after 4 years

    …

    …

    …

    18

    8

    15

    10

    Lieutenant after 6 years

    …

    …

    …

    1

    2

    4

    18

    8

    Lieutenants promoted from Warrant Bank.

    Mechanical Branches.

    Lieutenant on promotion

    …

    …

    …

    1

    6

    0

    1

    4

    2

    Lieutenant after 3 years

    …

    …

    …

    1

    7

    0

    1

    5

    6

    Lieutenant after 6 years

    …

    …

    …

    1

    7

    10

    1

    7

    0

    Non-Mechanical Branches.

    Lieutenant on promotion

    …

    …

    …

    1

    5

    2

    1

    3

    4

    Lieutenant after 3 years

    …

    …

    …

    1

    6

    0

    1

    4

    8

    Lieutenant after 6 years

    …

    …

    …

    1

    7

    0

    1

    6

    0

    The lieutenant promoted from warrant rank usually attains that rank after age 40, while the lieutenant ex-cadet attains it at about age 22. This consideration, and the consequential longer period of service of the former officer, is the reason for the higher rates of pay granted to him.
    The age factor does not enter into the retired pay of lieutenants promoted from warrant rank, which is based on their rank and service as such. It will be appreciated that officers promoted from cadets have, on attaining age 40 or over, attained higher rank than that of lieutenant, and that consequently there can be no comparison between them and lieutenants promoted from warrant rank.

  STEAMSHIP "CALDER."
  Mr. TOM SMITH(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information with regard to the Steamship "Calder" belonging to the Goole Steam Shipping Company, which left Hamburg on Friday, 17th April, for Goole, and has not yet arrived at that port.
  Mr. GILLETT: I have no information with regard to the casualty referred to by my hon. Friend beyond what has appeared in the shipping Press. Instruc-
  promoted from warrant rank are as follow:
  tions were given, yesterday for a preliminary inquiry under Section 465 of the Merchant shipping Act, 1894, to be made forthwith, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend when I am in possession of the results of this inquiry.
  Mr. SMITH: Can my hon. Friend say whether this boat was fitted with wireless apparatus?
  Mr. GILLETT: No; I am afraid I cannot.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Sir W. BRASS: On a point of Order. As Question No. 66 arises directly out of a statement made by the Prime Minister on Friday last, which was this:
"In the cotton industry a tremendous impediment had been placed in the way by the Tory cotton owners. That sort of thing must be changed or legislation introduced,"
I would like to know why I could not have this question put to the Prime Minister; and I should also like to ask the Prime Minister how he knew that they were all Tories?
The PRIME MINISTER: I did not say they were all Tories; I said they were individualistic Tories. That was what I said, and it will be found in the local newspapers, which gave an extended report of what I said. However,

1159
the real question is one on which I would like to take the House into my confidence. I did not know that this question was put to me until the hon. and gallant Gentleman said so just now. [Interruption.] It is not the Clerk at the Table; I am responsible; but I did not know, as a matter of fact, that this question was put to me. I am responsible in this way: I have asked my secretaries to deal with the questions put to me, and to scrutinise them very carefully, so that I am not asked to answer questions that are in a state of departmental consideration.
Great attempts have been made recently, either quite directly to get me to answer departmental questions, or so to draft questions that they appear to bring in business of this House, or something of that sort, so that they have an appearance of being Prime Minister's questions. If for nothing else, in the interests of public expenditure, that sort of thing will not be encouraged. In a case like this, supposing that I had taken this question, what would have happened? It would have come to me; it would have been handled by my secretaries first of all; they would have wasted their time upon it, and they would have sent it either to the Board of Trade—[Interruption]—they would have wasted their time in this sense, that the work would have had to be done twice by being handled by my Department. It was sent straight to the Board of Trade, and the answer given was exactly the same as would have been given by me; it would have been supplied to me by the Board of Trade; and we felt that the action that was taken was such as to have allowed my secretaries to work effectively, and not to take up time in duplicating other Department's work.
Sir W. BRASS: The question to which I wanted a reply, and which I mentioned in my question, was as to the impediments which were put in the way of the recovery of the cotton trade, and which the Prime Minister said were due to Tory millowners. That was reported in the "Daily Herald."
Captain P. MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that most of the millowners are Liberals, and not Tories?
Mr. T. SNOWDEN: No; there are a few Labour men among them.
Mr. HACKING: I put down a question to-day, No. 45, in connection with a communication which I thought had been sent to the Prime Minister by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce. The right hon. Gentleman tells me that he received no such communication. May I suggest that he might have made inquiries from the appropriate Government Department?
Mr. SPEAKER rose—
The PRIME MINISTER: I know you have intervened, Mr. Speaker, but I am not at all sure that, in the interests and for the information of the House, this matter should not be cleared up. The right hon. Gentleman asked me if I had had a letter from a certain correspondent. That took us about two hours yesterday to investigate. I received no such letter, and, if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to have noticed that the letter, which apparently was in his possession, was addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, and not to me at all, it would have saved at least two hours of my secretaries' working time.
Mr. HACKING: The Prime Minister has just said that he knew that the letter was addressed to the President of the Board of Trade. Why, then, was not that question transferred to the President of the Board of Trade?
The PRIME MINISTER: It was not until a few minutes before I came into the House that the inquiry, which I insisted yesterday should be very carefully carried out, was completed, and I could make up my mind as to what was the answer that I should give. The question was addressed to me, the alleged facts were given, and I felt that it was my duty to answer the question and then to have a private interview with the right hon. Gentleman opposite and ask him not to repeat it.
Mr. HACKING: The Prime Minister casts a reflection on me. He has said that I ought to have known that the letter was addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, and that no doubt I had a copy of it in my possession. I have had no such copy of the letter.
Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
Mr. SPEAKER: This is quite out of order, and I cannot allow further time to be taken up.
Sir HUGH O'NEILL: I do not want to go into the matter which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, but, on the general question with regard to questions to the Prime Minister, used it not always to be the practice of this House that questions asking for information about legislation were properly put to the Prime Minister, as head of the Government? After all, forthcoming legislation is really a matter for the Government as a whole. You have said, Sir, that it is not a matter for you to decide as to who shall answer questions, but I would submit to you that it would be appropriate that you should give some Ruling as to whether or not the practice of the House which used to exist has been or should be changed.
Earl WINTERTON: On that point of Order. May I call your attention to the Ruling—[Interruption.]
Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord is quite entitled to speak on the point of Order.
Earl WINTERTON: May I respectfully call your attention to the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker Whitley on two occasions, when he stated that questions with regard to legislation should be addressed to the Prime Minister, and should not be answered by Departments?
Mr. SPEAKER: I have not had an opportunity, since this question was raised, of referring to past Rulings, but I have always understood that, although questions might be addressed either to the Prime Minister's Department or to some other Department, that particular Department was always at liberty to transfer questions to some other Department if it thought that they were more concerned. The only Ruling that has been given is that, if a question has been referred to another Department, the Member who asked it should be so informed.
Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask a further question, Sir, on the Ruling that you have just given? I have always understood that it was in the discretion of the Minister to answer a question addressed to him or to ask one of his
1162
colleagues, if he thought that more appropriate, to answer the question on his behalf. But is it not the right of a Member to put down his question to the Minister from whom he wishes a reply, subject to the right of that Minister to refer him, if necessary, to another? Ought not the Member's question to appear on the Order Paper as addressed to the Minister as it was in the notice which the Member gave, and not be transferred by any other authority than the Minister who requests his colleague to answer to another Minister?
Mr. SPEAKER: I thought that it always is the custom that Members should be informed whether a question has been transferred or not.
Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether, as a point of Order, I can put it that that is a very inconvenient change. After all, a Minister may not always understand the particular reason which led a Member to put his question to that particular Minister. I remember a case in which the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture were both interested, and a Member interested in agriculture wanted the views of the Board of Agriculture, but the question was transferred, as I would say, automatically, to the Minister of Health. On that occasion you recognised the fact that it was a proper question to address to the Minister of Agriculture, and you permitted it to be addressed to him. I submit that, if a Member puts his question down to the wrong Minister the penalty is that he is asked by that Minister to repeat it on another day to the right Minister. That is the sanction for the error that he has committed. But he is at any rate entitled to give notice to the Minister of his choice and have his question on the Paper in that form.
Mr. SPEAKER: The change to which I referred, that Members should be informed when their questions were transferred to another Department, was made because complaints were made that sometimes a question was put to a Minister and another Minister said, "I have been asked to reply." That caused complaints. We could revert to the old system, if generally desired.
Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that there is hanging in the Library and in the Lobby a form letting Members of the

1163
House know the particular days upon which particular Ministers are replying to questions? Is it not the case that, where Ministers are in charge of a Department they should not be expected to give answers on behalf of other Departments, and ought not Members on the opposite side to understand the forms and procedure of the House better than they evidently do?
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that faults are always confined to one side of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: Will the Prime Minister tell us the business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his Budget statement.
Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday will be available for business arising out of that statement.
Friday will be a day for private Members' Bills.
Mr. BALDWIN: The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless have in mind that the usual phrase relating to business on the day succeeding the opening of the Budget is "Consideration of the Budget Resolutions." I notice he says: "The day will be available for business arising out of the statement." Is there anything he can tell the House as to what is meant by "arising out of"?
The PRIME MINISTER: Something may arise out of the statement to be made on Monday which will require some action on the part of the House. I assure the House that they need not be at all
alarmed about it, but, until the statement is made, if I said anything about it it would be in the nature of a revelation of the Budget. I want to assure the House that it is nothing that is going to be of any importance or that need give rise to concern.
Mr. BALDWIN: I might perhaps ask one more question. I gather, whatever the mystery may be, discussion of it will take place in all probability on Thursday.
The PRIME MINISTER: As soon as the statement has been made, if it is necessary to do anything in consequence of it, I will answer a question if it is put to me.
Mr. TINKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman decided when he will give a day for the further stages of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions (Contributory) Bill, which passed its Second Reading last week?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, I cannot give a date for that, but my hon. Friend can be assured that it will be all right.
Mr. McSHANE: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself will make the Budget statement?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on London Passenger Transport [Money] 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, 240; Noes, 108.

Division No. 223.]

AYES.

[3.58 p.m.

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

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Church, Major A. G.

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

Bowen, J. W.

Clarke, J. S.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Cluse, W. S.

Ammon, Charles George

Brockway, A. Fenner

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Arnott, John

Bromfield, William

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Aske, Sir Robert

Brothers, M.

Cove, William G.

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Ayles, Walter

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Daggar, George

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

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

Dallas, George

Barnes, Alfred John

Buchanan, G.

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Barr, James

Burgess, F. G.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Batey, Joseph

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

Day, Harry

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Cameron, A. G.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

Cape, Thomas

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

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

Ede, James Chuter

Benson, G.

Charleton, H. C.

Edmunds, J. E.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Chater, Daniel

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Elmley, Viscount

Lees, J.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Foot, Isaac

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

Freeman, Peter

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Sanders, W. S.

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

Logan, David Gilbert

Sandham, E.

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

Longbottom, A, W.

Sawyer, G. F.

George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

Longden, F.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Gibbins, Joseph

Lunn, William

Sherwood, G. H.

Gibson H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Shield, George William

Gill, T. H.

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

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Gillett, George M.

MacDonald, Malcolm (Baseatlaw)

Shillaker, J. F.

Glassey, A. E.

McElwee, A.

Shinwell, E.

Gossling, A. G.

McEntee, V. L.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Gould, F.

McKinlay, A.

Simmons, C. J.

Granville, E.

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

McShane, John James

Sinkinson, George

Groves, Thomas E.

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

Sitch, Charles H.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Manning, E. L.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mansfield, W.

Smith, Lees-, H. B.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

March, S.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

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

Marcus, M.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Marley, J.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Marshall, Fred

Sorensen, R.

Hardie, George D.

Mathers, George

Stamford, Thomas W.

Harris, Percy A.

Matters, L. W.

Stephen, Campbell

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Maxton, James

Strauss, G. R.

Haycock, A. W.

Messer, Fred

Sullivan, J.

Hayday, Arthur

Middleton, G.

Sutton, J. E.

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Mills, J. E.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

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

Milner, Major J.

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

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

Montague, Frederick

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

Herriotts, J.

Morley, Ralph

Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)

Hicks, Ernest George

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Thurtle, Ernest

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

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

Tillett, Ben

Hoffman, P. C.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

Tinker, John Joseph

Hollins, A.

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Toole, Joseph

Hopkin, Daniel

Mort, D. L.

Tout, W. J.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Muff, G.

Vaughan, David

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Murnin, Hugh

Viant, S. P.

Isaacs, George

Nathan, Major H. L.

Walkden, A. G.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

Walker, J.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Wallace, H. W.

Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

Watkins, F. C.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Palin, John Henry

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Paling, Wilfrid

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Perry, S. F.

Wellock, Wilfred

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Kelly, W. T.

Phillips, Dr. Marlon

West, F. R.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Westwood, Joseph

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

Pole, Major D. G.

White, H. G.

Kinley, J.

Potts, John S.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

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

Price, M. P.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Lang, Gordon

Pybus, Percy John

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Quibell, D. J. K.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Lathan, G.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Raynes, W. R.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Richards, R.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Lawrence, Susan

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Lawson, John James

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Romeril, H. G.

Leach, W.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

Rothschild, J. de

Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

NOES.

Atholl, Duchess of

Butler, R. A.

Duckworth, G. A. V.

Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Campbell, E. T.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Carver, Major W. H.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Beaumont, M. W.

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

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

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

Berry, Sir George

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm,W.)

Ferguson, Sir John

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Clydesdale, Marquess of

Ganzoni, Sir John

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Brass, Captain Sir William

Colville, Major D. J.

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Briscoe, Richard George

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

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

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

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Buchan, John

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

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

Buckingham, Sir H.

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

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

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

1166

1167

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

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

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

O'Neill, Sir H.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

Penny, Sir George

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Thompson, Luke

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

Remer, John R.

Tinne, J. A.

Hurd, Percy A.

Reynolds, Col. Sir James

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Lamb, Sir J. O.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Train, J.

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kanyon

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Ross, Ronald D.

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Salmon, Major I.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Long, Major Hon. Eric

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Savery, S. S.

Womersley, W. J.

Marjoribanks, Edward

Skelton, A. N.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

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

Smithers, Waldron

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

Somerset, Thomas

Major Sir George Hennessy

and Captain Margesson.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—

Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill,

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Inverness Harbour) Confirmation Bill,

London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Cecil Wilson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill); Sir Hugh O'Neill to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the British Museum and National Gallery (Overseas Loans) Bill [Lords]); and Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Town and Country Planning Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Captain Ronald Henderson and Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hanbury and Captain Peake.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of
  1168
  Relationship) Bill): the Lord Advocate, Mr. Barr, Sir John Birchall, Commander Bellairs, Mr. Ernest Brown, Lord Hugh Cecil, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Short, the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Watkins.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following. Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Grey Seals Protection Bill [Lords]): Mr. W. M. Adamson, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Culverwell, Sir Robert Hamilton, Major Llewellin, Mr. Macquisten, Mr. Sinkinson, Commander Southby, Mr. James Welsh (Paisley), and Mr. Westwood.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Bill): the Lord Advocate, Commander Bellairs, Sir John Birchall, Viscount Elmley, Lieut.-Colonel Gault, Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle, Dr. Hastings, the Countess of Iveagh. Mr. Mander, Dr. Marion Phillips, Miss Picton-Turbervill, Mr. Ramsbotham, Mr. Short, the Solicitor-General, and Mr. Watkins.

  STANDING COMMITTEE D.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Brigadier-General Sir George Cockerill and Major Glyn; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Beaumont and Captain Waterhouse.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D (added in

  1169
  respect of the Town and Country Planning Bill): Colonel Ashley and Mr. Chamberlain; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle and Mr. Womersley.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (No. 2) BILL.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Maximum scale of election expenses.)
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first three Amendments on the Order Paper—in page 4, line 40, to leave out the "words 'sixpence' and," and to insert instead thereof the word "word"; to leave out from the word "substituted," to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "the words 'fourpence halfpenny'"; and in line 41, to leave out the words "'fivepence' and 'fourpence,'" and to insert instead thereof the words "'threepence' and 'twopence'"—appear to me to cover the same point, and perhaps a general discussion had better take place on the first Amendment.
    Sir SAMUEL HOARE: There is another point I want to put to you, Mr. Dunnico. I understand that if we get through Clauses 7, 8 and 9 before 10.30 this evening, when the Time Table ends this section of our discussions, you will allow us to go on with the discussion of the new Clauses and Schedules. I understand that the Secretary of State for the Home Department agrees with that arrangement, and Sir Robert Young, with whom I discussed the matter, also agreed, subject to the approval of the Committee; but I should like to have it clear at the beginning of our Debate.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that might be possible without any prejudice to the Rules. The only question is whether the Committee will agree to taking business not perhaps anticipated by hon. Members.
    Sir S. HOARE: The point is that, under the Time Table to-day, we do not go further than the end of the Clauses. Supposing we get to the end of the Clauses before 10.30, then, I presume, we could go on with such new Clauses as are in order, and the Schedules?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes)The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes) indicated assent.
    Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, to leave out the words "words 'sixpence' and," and to insert instead thereof the word "word."
    In submitting this introductory Amendment, I would point out that the effect of this Amendment and the next one on the Order Paper—in page 4, line 40, to leave out from the word "substituted" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "the words 'fourpence halfpenny'"—would be to leave in the counties the present maximum scale, but to reduce the maximum scale from 5d. to 4íd. in the boroughs. It will be within the recollection of Members who sat in the last Parliament that I moved an Instruction on the last Representation of the People Bill to enable a reduction to be discussed. In that Parliament the matter was left to a free vote of the House, and there was a, general agreement that, as far as the counties were concerned, a reduction of the then maximum of 7d. to a maximum of 6d. was desirable. So far as the boroughs were concerned, there was a much more divergent opinion, and the decision was taken by a small majority to leave matters alone. The figure I am suggesting in my Amendment would have been accepted had the decision gone the other way.
    I want to put the case more for the counties, because a reduction of expenses in the case of counties is in many ways much more important than a reduction in the case of the boroughs. As the Committee will remember, the scale of election expenses was considerably altered by the Principal Act in 1918, when the constituencies were largely increased in number when redistribution took place, and this had a considerable effect on the areas, while the charges of the returning officers were taken off the shoulders of the candidates. There were, I think, since 1918, four elections in the winter, and the experience of hon. Members who contested county divisions was that the sum allowed under the 1918 Act was unnecessarily large, and consequently, in 1928, the sum was reduced from 7d. to 6d.
    The first point I want to make is this: In 1929, we had an election in May, not like the previous elections. It was fought

    1179
    when the days were long, when darkness did not fall until after the end of the day's compaign, and when it was very much easier for hon. Members, in the country especially, to hold their meetings out-of-doors and not in hired buildings. Those things do make a very considerable difference in the election expenses of a candidate, because we all know, especially in country districts in the winter—and I have taken part in more than one county election—that you cannot hold open-air meetings, and therefore you are compelled to hold your meetings in hired rooms after dark. Even if you use the powers conferred in 1918 and take for your meetings, as you are entitled to take, elementary schools for the purpose, you still have to pay the charges for lighting and heating those schools, as heating in the winter months in this country is essential if a meeting is to be held in comfort. Take the case of a very large county constituency. A candidate who wishes to make himself and his views known to the electorate may very easily hold between 100 and 180 meetings in the course of an election, and the probability is he will not get off with less than 7s. 6d. per meeting merely for heating and lighting, which, in the aggregate, comes to something between £75 and £100.
    There is a second peculiarity with regard to counties. We must remember that in these days, when we are fixing a maximum of election expenses, we are fixing a statutory maximum, and not a sum which must he spent in all cases up to the limit. I submit to the Committee that, in fixing a statutory maximum of any sort or kind, we are bound to take into account what is really fair and reasonable in the most difficult cases. It is not fair to put a, difficult constituency upon the same basis as a comparatively easy one. In the course of the Debate last night, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) instanced the fact that he has a compact constituency, and that in regard to motor cars the maximum number proposed in the Amendment which stood in my name would be a great deal larger than he needed. I agree that in the case of a compact constituency the expenses may be a great deal lighter, but we want to consider what is fair in regard to big scattered county constituencies with a
    1180
    not very large population, but with very large distances to cover and great difficulty of getting any communication whatever between candidates and the electors, and where the number of meetings which have to be held in the course of a contest is very considerable.
    It is an interesting fact that when, in 1928, we increased the electorate by granting the vote to women at the age of 21 and over, and at the same time cut down the election expenses in county constituencies from 7d. to 6d., the effect was that in certain county constituencies the total amount available for a candidate to spend in respect of a very much increased electorate was actually smaller than he was allowed to spend in 1924 on a smaller electorate. That is a point which requires to be taken into consideration in fixing the maximum charge per head of the constituency. I feel that there is a good case for leaving the counties alone at the present moment. Since the last reduction was made, we have only had one election, and it was an election held in the summer. When the light lasts long into the evening, and it is easy to get about, and outdoor meetings are easy and desirable, and in other ways, election expenses are not as high as they are in the winter. I submit to the Government that it is desirable to allow that reduction as far as the counties are concerned to remain in force a little longer until we have had greater experience.
    I know the answer which the right hon. Gentleman will give—and it applies equally to counties and boroughs—is that the return of election expenses in respect of the last election in May, 1929, showed very few candidates had spent up to the maximum now suggested by the Government. I have been through that return with extreme care, and I agree that the figures bear out that result, but hon. Members must remember that the election of 1929 took place in the summer. If we had another summer election, I agree that the number of members of any party who would be likely to exceed these limits would be exceedingly small. But I do not think that you can argue in favour of the reduction from the experiences of a summer election. It has been my experience to fight four elections, two during the summer, and two in the winter. In both cases in the summer months I was able to cut my expenses very largely

    1181
    owing to the fact that open air meetings were possible, and that canvassers had far more opportunity of getting about. They had better weather, and had not to canvass on wet nights, which people dislike. For this reason the literature required to be distributed was infinitely less than was the case in the winter.
    Mr. VAUGHAN: Let us have them all in the summer.
    Captain BOURNE: I would remind the hon. Member—and it is a point worthy of consideration—that under the statutory limitation on time which is imposed in this House, a summer-time election is not a very easy matter. There are very strict limitations by Statute on the question of finance. It is very difficult to hold an election during the summer months because of the business which the Government have to get through during those months. There are these obligations under the Rules of the House, and therefore a summer election, except under exceptional circumstances, is, I believe, likely to be very rare.
    Mr. HOFFMAN: It would be a good year in 1934.
    Captain BOURNE: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the election will not take place in the summer of 1934, but on some earlier and more sudden date, even if this Parliament survives until very near its legal limit. The easiest time for any Government to have an election, no matter what party is in power, is in the autumn, and the expense is likely to be as much in the future as it has been in the past. That is a point of view which should be taken into consideration.
    There is another point which I want to submit on the question of election expenses generally. There can be little doubt that the ordinary Member of Parliament, no matter in what quarter of the House he sits, is desirous of keeping down his election expenses to a minimum. Many of us keep far below the sum which we are entitled to expend. It must be remembered that compared with candidates, and especially candidates who come forward to contest seats at the last moment, we, as Members, are in a very favoured position. It is one of the reasons why I am leaving the limit as at present in the counties. The ordinary Member who does his duty to his consti-
    1182
    tuents receives through his local Press a vast amount of gratuitous advertisement. When we go down to open a bazaar, to attend some public dinner, or to hold a public meeting, it is reported in the public Press and our names are brought before the electorate. Our constituents are in the habit of writing to us—which is a penalty we all have to suffer—and in various ways our names and our activities are brought plainly, week after week, in front of the electors whom we represent. Although perhaps we may not realise it, it is the greatest advertisement that our names should be known and be familiar.
    Take the case of the candidate who is adopted shortly before a Dissolution. He has to make himself known to one of the big electorates—and our modern electorates are indeed very large—perhaps to some 50,000 or 60,000 people in a very short space of time. Although it may be true that a large number of the electorate vote on purely political grounds, I do not think that anyone will deny that there is a considerable section of the electorate who perhaps are not particularly attached to any political party and who give their votes at an election largely on personal grounds as between the contesting candidates. If a candidate is to have a fair chance, not only his views but his personality and his name must be fairly familiar to all sections of the electorate.
    I submit to the Committee, very seriously, that anything which tends to cut down election expenses is a definite benefit to the sitting Member. As I have said, we have had the advertisement and are known, whereas a new candidate has to fight and make himself known over a large area in the county, and, in the borough, among a vast number of people. He has need for more posters, more literature, and more general advertising than is necessary in the case of any one of us. Have we the right to make the job of the man who comes forward and wishes to put his view in front of the country and believes that his view is the correct one, and that ours is the wrong one, for our own ends, more difficult than it naturally will be I put that point forward very seriously. I have said that we in the provinces get help from the local Press, but you must remember that the London Member is without that help. London is served largely by the national

    1183
    Press, and the local activities of the Member are far less distributed through his constituency than is the case with many of us. Most of our meetings are reported and generally largely read by our constituents.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am going to place before the Committee the proposals contained in an Amendment standing in my name and the names of other hon. Members—in page 4, line 41, to leave out the words "fivepenee' and fourpence,'" and to insert instead thereof the words "'threepence' and 'twopence.'" I am urging a more drastic reduction in the political expenses than is proposed in the Bill. I have listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), and I appreciate very fully his point of view on this matter. I am sure that the limits proposed in the Amendment which has been put upon the Paper are more than sufficient to meet all the difficulties that admittedly exist between winter and summer elections, between town and country, and also between the relative prospects of the sitting Member and the rising candidate who is endeavouring to displace him.
    It seems to be rather a small thing to be arguing and fighting about, "four-pence halfpenny" and "threepence," and "fivepence" and "sixpence," but there is involved in the whole question the tremendous principle of democracy and how our political life should be conducted. It covers the whole way in which we approach the electors, it covers the way in which the electors apply their minds to the problems in front of them at an election, and it also affects our way of carrying on the procedure of this House. There is doubt in my mind, after sitting in two or three Parliaments, that the question of heavy election costs is one factor which is present in the minds of Members when they have to cast a vote which would mean either a Dissolution or not. I do not suggest that there is not in the minds of Members of this House questions of greater principle, but that fact is there. Personally, I should not have minded if this Parliament had lasted only six months. The Government ought to have appealed to the country for a wider and a more definite mandate. I think it would have been good for this
    1184
    country, good for the House of Commons and good for future progress. But there are 615 of us here, and we are involved in taking that decision. If I may say so of hon. and right hon. Members on the other side, although they breathe threats of slaughter against the present Government, there has been a very marked indisposition to put them out of office.
    HON. MEMBERS: No!
    Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: On the part of hon. Members below the Gangway.
    Mr. MAXTON: I know about them and I know about us. I am speaking as a fairly unbiased looker-on, and the impression that has been conveyed to me is that the Members of the Conservative party have not been disposed to put the Government out. [Interruption.] Well, I am merely giving it as my individual opinion.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is merely using that as an illustration incidental to his argument I will allow him to go on, but it must not develop into the argument.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is it in order for the hon. Member to impute motives and to suggest that every action taken by hon. Members on these benches is insincere.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would suggest that the hon. Member should not take the statement of the hon. Member too seriously.
    Mr. MAXTON: I would certainly withdraw at once if I had made a charge of insincerity against hon. Members opposite. I am merely suggesting that there are gradations in the intensity of sincerity. The point that I wanted to make was that, in coming to a decision of that description, the question of whether a man personally is going to be faced by an expenditure, in many cases, I understand, a personal expenditure of £1,000, will be an influence of a different quality than it would be if the expenditure was £500 or £200. Therefore, this is a matter of considerable constitutional importance. In our approach to the electors it is our business to put a plain, straight case before them. There are two, or perhaps three, divisions of

    1185
    opinion which should be put to the electors plainly, simply and straightforwardly, without any attempt to arouse passion and heat or to make the people think that it is a great festival or an orgy of passion. I do not suggest that the late Secretary of State for Air, or the late Under-Secretary of State for India, or the late President of the Board of Education should go into the country and start telling the people what a lot of treacherous dogs and revolutionary—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I can see no possible end to this discussion if we proceed on those lines.
    Mr. MAXTON: I respect your Ruling, but I know that there is an end in sight at 10.30, by means of the Guillotine. The point that I am trying to put forward is, that if you are going into a General Election that is going to be a great orgy of passion, a stirring up of hatred and so on, you will go into all sorts of expenditure for great posters that will play up to that passion. You will arrange great demonstrations, with loud speakers and gramophones and all sorts of things, and there will be a general resort to the rousing of mob passions, which will cost money, whereas if you go to the electorate on the assumption that there are two or three lines of political thought in this country that are each capable of demonstration by simple, intelligent men in a simple intelligent way—[Laughter] I am very serious about this—and with a realisation that the people that you are going t-? meet are simple, intelligent people, capable of forming an opinion, it is a different matter.
    Then, you do not need any elaborate expenditure. You do not need the beating of big drums. What you do need is an opportunity of meeting your electorate face to face and an opportunity of the electorate meeting you face to face, to hear you propound your views, and an opportunity for the electorate to form an opinion on those views and as to whether you are the type of candidate capable of standing up to those views. You have the right to give the electorate an opportunity of seeing you, hearing you and reading your views in print. If you limit your conception of electioneering to doing these two things,
    1186
    you have more than ample room to do them within the figures that are proposed in our Amendment.
    It may be said that I am thinking of a comparatively easy borough constituency. My election experience has not been limited to my own Division. Before coming into the House of Commons I was a full-time worker for my organisation and on many occasions I had to take responsibility for the running of elections. I know that other constituencies are not all as easy as my own. I can go the whole length and breadth of my constituency on a penny tram, and the electorate can come and hear me for a similar or less expenditure. It is a good constituency and they have a good candidate. Those two things are not always found together. Never in the course of the elections that I have fought in that Division has it been necessary to reach an expenditure of over £200. On the one occasion that I did go over £200, I was beaten. That taught me a lesson which has never had to be retaught. I have strictly kept my expenditure under the £200. On the last two occasions I brought it under the £100 expenditure. Therefore, I think that I am making ample provision in my Amendment, which allows £333 in a borough constituency with a 40,000 electorate, which more than compensates for the advantage that Members in Divisions like my own happen to enjoy.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford does not know in the whole of England a constituency that is more difficult from the point of view of transport than the Argyllshire Division of Scotland. There you have mainland and you have a peninsula. You have to get from the mainland to the Mull of Cantyre by road. To go a distance of 40 sea, miles you have a road journey of several hundred miles. You have islands remote from the mainland. Yet, when I was responsible for electioneering in that area in 1920, when expenses were heavy for motor cars, sea travel, etc., it was passible to cover that constituency adequately and effectively on an expenditure of £250. Therefore, leaving the margin as our Amendment does for a county Division of £500, on a basis of a 40,000 electorate, we are leaving a maximum which is well above all that experience has proved to us to be perfectly adequate to meet the situation. The

    1187
    hon. and gallant Member for Oxford also made a strong point about advertisement. It is a fact that we get a certain amount of advertisement. We get a lot of advertisement of a kind, but it is usually of the wrong kind. I do not know whether the pro-advertisement that we get for our activities in the work of this House is not neutralised by the anti-advertisement so far as electioneering is concerned.
    The hon. and gallant Member made a point about the new man who is unknown in the constituency and who has to make himself known in the short period of three weeks' electioneering. That comes right up against my whole conception of democracy in politics. It reminds me of what we have called the "carpet bagger." That, of course, applies in all parties. Normally, the Member of Parliament evolves from the area to which he belongs, or he evolves in a movement that stands for the sort of idea for which he is proposing to stand on the Floor of the House of Commons. Generally he has a record of public service and is usually the type of man who has proved himself to be capable of doing public work in an effective and efficient way. Therefore, we need not be unduly sensitive about giving our possible successors a fair show. I have no doubt that in practically all the constituencies there are people to-day who think that they are more competent than any of us to do our job. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) shakes his head.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I did not move my head.
    Mr. MAXTON: Perhaps it was due to my astigmatism. There are men all over the country who are proving themselves by public activities of one kind and another to be capable men and their names are known to the people, so that when they go into a Parliamentary election they do not go in as unknown men who feel that they have to compensate for their anonymity by spending thousands of pounds. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford that in the recent by-election in the northern part of the City of London there was a candidate who stood without the support of any of the great political parties. I refer to East Islington. The candidate's name was Critchley. In the
    1188
    short period of three weeks would he go beyond the expenditure that was permitted? [Interruption.] I hope hon. Members opposite do not suggest that there was any illegality. His name came to be known throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain. It shows that if a man comes forward for a great principle and is prepared to stand fearlessly for it the free Press of this country will give him all the advertisement possible. [Interruption.] I am sorry to have to end on what hon. Members opposite seem to regard as a humorous note. It is only in the last week or two that they have been able to regard it as humorous, they thought it was going to be a tragedy but, fortunately, right has triumphed, as it always does. I hope the Committee will recognise that while the lower limits to which expenditure can be brought is a matter for a man's personal control there are upward limits which this Committee should set, and the upward limits in the Amendment we propose are completely adequate for effective electioneering work in this country.
    Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is inclined in this matter to draw too much on his own experience. If a vote were taken as to the 12 most popular Members in this House he would be very near the top of the poll. He has no trouble in filling the halls in Bridgeton, no trouble in getting a hearing, such is the power of his personality here and in Bridgeton. But I am not quite sure that it is always as easy for his opponent to draw the crowds in Bridgeton or if he gets them into a hall quite as easy for him to get a hearing as it is for the hon. Member. Therefore, I beg him, when we are considering 615 seats and some 1,500 to 1,800 candidates, not to be too idealistic about the personal power and attraction of his opponents, or even of his friends, by considering them in terms of his own personality. We have not to legislate for the exceptional candidate like the hon. Member; we are fixing a limit for all candidates, and it is a serious matter for those who have to run elections.
    The fact is that it is quite impossible for any party to run certain elections in this country on the limit now imposed. Take the case of a big county by-election in which the three parties are concerned, where the constituency stretches

    1189
    for 55 miles across the country, and where you have 120 villages. The supporters of all parties in that constituency expect to have prominent speakers from the House of Commons and outside to represent the views of the parties and they expect sometimes to have the leaders of the parties. I have myself seen a list of 20 and 25 and 30 Members of this House who have been down to such a by-election, and everybody knows that when such a by-election occurs in a county area like the limit at present in force is not adequate. If the law is broken it is a serious matter. Sometimes it is broken, and sometimes agents are found out; and that is a very serious thing for an agent.
    We have to fix a limit so that a reasonable campaign can be carried out in all types of constituencies by all parties. That is our problem. The boroughs I think might be less, although I am not quite so sure about London. The point made by the hon. Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) that it is sometimes difficult for a candidate to make himself known to the electors in a provincial constituency without a higher range of expenditure is one which should receive consideration. Hon. Members opposite are not quite fair sometimes as regards other parties when they are discussing this matter. I have been in some elections in which it has been said that the Labour candidate has been supported by voluntary workers. In fact, they were actually official trade union leaders, drafted into the constituency from outside, seconded by their trade unions and paid by their trade unions. Their expenses never appeared in the election expenses of the candidate; yet the claim was made that their work was voluntary. I have actual cases in mind and, therefore, it is no question of one party throwing stones at another. Our job is to make the law so that no party should spend more in these elections than the legal limit.
    Take a great County constituency like Galloway. You have Dumfries, and then to the Mull of Galloway it is 100 miles by road with a great stretch of wild country in the centre and a large number of polling stations; and if you get a winter election it will take any candidate all his or her time really to do that constituency as it should be done inside the limit provided in the Act of Parliament. If it
    1190
    is a by-election the demand of the constituency is to have a great debate between the three parties not merely in the terms of the personalities of the candidates but of the leading members of the parties, and I am quite sure that it is a difficult thing for any party thoroughly to organise such a campaign inside the present county limit. The hon. Member for Bridgeton will be well advised, when considering his own Amendment, to realise the differnce there is between a wild county constituency and his own and, indeed, between one county constituency and another.
    I have fought all kinds of constituencies myself, and I have never exceeded the limit, but I am perfectly certain that there are many constituencies so large, so scattered, and so varied in their needs that it puzzles the candidates and the agents in making a return of the costs to the Home Office to bring the total expenditure within the limits laid down in the Act of Parliament. I am sure that 3d. for a county constituency will be admitted by the agents of every party to be thoroughly insufficient to run a normal general election and quite outside the range of possibility for any by-election. I am rather inclined to take the view of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). The limit in the Bill for boroughs might perhaps stand, with some thought as to London; but I am not quite sure that the minimum on which you can fight allowing for every type of constituency, is the sum which is proposed, and, allowing for the greater expenditure in by-elections, I think that the figure of the hon. Member for Oxford should not go into the Bill.
    Major GEORGE DAVIES: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) assured us that he approached this question without any bias and, of course, we accept that assurance, but it really was a little like Satan reproving sin when he suggested that it was quite unnecessary to go tub thumping. Does the hon. Member suggest that no one has ever voted for him because of the gross dereliction of duty on the part of his hairdresser?
    Mr. MAXTON: I have no information.
    Major DAVIES: We have to deal with facts and not with ideals. The electors

    1191
    have to be approached, and they are not always approachable with the barren arguments which are so skillfully put forward by the hon. Member when he addresses his electors. This is a question which has to be approached on the basis of real facts. No one will think that I am one who wants an unduly heavy expenditure on elections. I went through the experience of fighting three elections in 12 months, and my bankers have not yet got over the shattering effect. I am not looking forward to spending more money than is necessary even for the privilege of adorning the benches on the other side of the House. It is not my own point of view that I am voicing. The hon. Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has pointed out that we have to consider not only the conditions of well known hon. Members in their own constituencies and weather conditions in summer but the worst possible conditions in the worst possible constituencies in the worst possible time of the year.
    Surely the Committee is not going to fool itself by putting in imaginary low limits which are very desirable but which we know are going to be departed from, and which agents will get round. That is the case with all legislation which cannot really be carried out. There is a great difference between an election in a county constituency fought during the summer and fought during the winter. We in the West Country divide these times into Lloyd George's time and God's time, and it makes a great deal of difference to the amount of your election expenses under which of these dispensations you happen to appeal to the electors. The question of distance has been mentioned. It would be an excellent thing if hon. Members opposite could swop constituencies with those who sit for rural areas. It would be an extremely good experience for them, and they would realise the actual difficulty of fighting such constituencies. You have long distances to go through these tremendously scattered areas, to get to these little centres, a hamlet, a little group of cottages, consisting perhaps of a dozen or 20 cottages, not big enough to have a parish hall or a church; but you have to have a meeting there, and if you get 50 people at the meeting you
    1192
    have got the entire population. It costs just as much time, and, money, and transportation to have that meeting as going to your big centre and addressing 5,000 or 10,000 people.
    5.0 p.m.
    Those are situations that hon. Members opposite do not appreciate. At the last election I read the Riot Act to my agent, in view of my financial position, and said, "You have got to cut down my expenses to the bone." I am glad to say that I was able to get away with a great deal less than the limit that was allowed although it was a terrific expenditure; but I remember when I first fought a by-election. The hon. Member for Bridgeton said that nowadays the general tendency was that the constituency, as it were, produced its own representative and threw cold water on what it called the carpet-bagger. I do not think that is fair. After all, what the constituencies want is to have a good representative in the House of Commons, and, while I think it is true that if you can have a local production, it has its advantages, a so-called carpet-bagger, if he is a more able representative, is a better Member for a constituency than the home production who is a dud, without saying which category I fill.
    On the occasion of my first by-election, I had lived in my constituency for some few years. I had tried to do a job of work of a semi-public nature, but I was' not known. Circumstances happened that I was called upon to fight a by-election, and I had to get known. Talk about the rural amenities! I absolutely ruined the beauty of the countryside with a reproduction of the front of my head in every available spot. It cost a lot of money, but it achieved its purpose. It got to certain electors who took a different point of view from those who calmly accept the logical arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, but the reproduction was so unlike me that I won the election. The expense was just the same, whether the reproduction was good, bad, or indifferent, but I have not had to incur that expenditure again. My constituents have never forgotten the shock, and the result is that now I am able to fight an election within the law and at a cost—I wish it were half what it has to be now—that is a great deal less than the limit now proposed.

    1193
    I should like to draw attention to the fact that it is not very long ago that we reconsidered this question and made a considerable reduction. Do not hon. Members think that it is rather soon to make a still further drastic reduction, such as is suggested by the hon. Member for Bridgeton and his friends? I think it is quite possible, though I hesitate to give a figure, because I have never represented a borough, to reduce the cost per head in the boroughs, but I am quite sure that, if we cut down the cost per head in the rural constituencies, we shall be losing sight of the questions of by-elections and of new candidates, and shall therefore set for all cases a maximum which will be impossible to live up to.
    Hon. Members opposite, as they showed yesterday also, want to have exact equality of opportunity in all the different parties, and therefore we are to legislate down to the lowest. They would do away with the use of motor cars and therefore cut down to an absurd minimum what is allowed to be spent. It is impossible to deal with it in that way. After all, one candidate is probably better than another. Do they want to legislate to handicap them? Do they suggest that the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) shall only speak with one lung in order to equalise another candidate who is not so blessed by Providence in his way of getting a message across? The thing is ludicrous, and therefore we have to think on a much wider basis and take into consideration the exceptional cases, because limy must come under the maximum which you are putting down.
    I suggest that while it is the object of all of us, particularly in these hard times—and we have in our minds what we are going to hear next Monday—to cut down our expenditure in every possible way, we must appreciate the fact that our constituents, particularly the very scattered ones, have a right to hear the point of view, the message, of the candidates, and to do that, in many of these constituencies, is unavoidably expensive. Therefore, it is absurd to deceive ourselves by putting in an Act of Parliament a maximum sum for all conditions, which we know under special conditions cannot really be lived down to. I support the Amendment very strongly.
    Dr. MARION PHILLIPS: I hope the Committee is going to vote for the Bill
    1194
    as it stands with regard to expenses. I should be very glad indeed if one could say that the limit suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was a practicable proposition Perhaps it is for a General Election, but it is a very small amount indeed for a by-election, with all the particular circumstances that surround a, by-election and make it more difficult to fight. I have no sympathy whatsoever with those who want to keep to the present higher limit or with the more modified view of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). I have, however, very great sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Major G. Davies), because he made a somewhat careless statement in addressing the Committee. He told us that his first elections were extremely expensive, but that on the occasion of his last election he said dramatically to his agent, "Cut it down to the bone." Unfortunately for the hon. and gallant Member, I have here the election expenses return published on the 16th April, 1930, which gives in detail the expenses of every Member who was returned at the last General Election, and as the hon. and gallant Member made that dramatic statement, I turned to the page which gives his election expenses. The permitted amount of his election expenses was £1,133, and the total of his election expenses returned was £1,008. The cutting down to the bone left a good deal of meat still on!
    Major G. DAVIES: I very carefully stopped when I said that I had told my agent to cut it down to the bone. I did not say what his idea of a bone was. He heard from me afterwards.
    Dr. PHILLIPS: The impression that the hon. and gallant Member left upon us was that on the last occasion he got off a bit more lightly, but the difference, as I say, is not very large for that very bony election. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford suggested that we should have more experience of elections under the present limit. As far as hon. Members on this side are concerned, they do not require more experience in that matter, and I hardly think that the country would agree to a continuance of the present level when it is definitely proved that you can run elections at a lower figure. It is, after all, a wasteful

    1195
    expenditure of money to make elections cost more. If you take the figures of the last election, it is no use saying that that election was in the summer and that therefore you did not have to have indoor meetings, because on the whole, while the expenditure of Labour candidates was very much lower than that of the candidates of other parties, especially of the Tory party, actually their expenditure on public meetings was often more than that of the Tory candidates. Therefore, there is no sign whatever that the expenditure of the party which has by long habit made a, speciality of open-air meetings, was decreased during that election, and our elections are run for a very much lower figure.
    I will give the difference. On the whole, if you take the average expenses of all the candidates in the English and Welsh counties, which are the highest, you get the figures of 3.14d. and 3.29d. Those are the highest figures, and the average for all candidates. As far as Labour candidates are concerned, these are the figures—and I am quoting the returns from the official report. They show the following figures for the boroughs: London, 1.80d.; the English boroughs outside London, 2.04d.; the Welsh boroughs, 2.03d.; and the Scottish burghs, 1.35d. Take the counties. The average per Labour candidate in the English counties is 1.91d., in the Welsh counties 2.15d., and in the Scottish counties 1.81d. You get a very different picture when you look at the expenditure of Conservative candidates. The highest figure there is for the English counties, 4.7d., and the next highest figure is for the Welsh counties, 4.53d., the Scottish counties' figure being 3.47d. With regard to the boroughs, the figures range from 3.25d. for the Scottish burghs up to 3.88d. for the English boroughs; the Welsh boroughs are 3.4d. and London boroughs, 3.7d.
    It is perfectly clear, that, on the average, Conservative candidates can fight their elections within the figures suggested by this Bill. It is a fact that there are cases in which they fight at a much higher figure, but, in our opinion, it is a very good thing to bring those who conduct election work up against the problem of getting their message to the electors with a smaller expenditure
    1196
    of money, and as it is quite clear that even in the Conservative party they can manage their elections at a lower cost, we think it is reasonable to say that they must bring them all down to a lower cost. Their average is well within the figures suggested, and I submit that there is no need to make those special proposals put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford.
    If hon. Members look at the details of expenditure, they will find, it is quite true, that a great difference exists between Conservative expenditure on printing and literature and for assistance by clerks and so on, and Labour expenditure. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) suggests that that is because, in an election conducted by the Labour party, numbers of trade unions officials are brought in to do that work. As a very experienced person in running Labour party elections, as the hon. Member for Leith was kind enough to point out, may I say that it is an extremely unusual thing to have help on that side of election work from any trade union officials and that such trade union officials as give that help, give it, like other members of the Labour party, freely and voluntarily, in their own time?
    I myself have fought only one election as a candidate. In that election, with over 100,000 electors, we fought with a legal limit of over £2,000, but spent just £800, and in spite of the fact that by far the majority of the people assisting us were unemployed people, many of them receiving Poor Law assistance, our total sum for expenditure that kind was less than £50. I have had it suggested to me that we were employing blacklegs, because we did not pay people to do work like that, and that other parties paid for such work. All I can say is that Members of the Labour party consider that as citizens part of their duty is to give their time freely, and that they have a vast deal more of this assistance from those who give their time, instead being paid to do a little bit of writing, as apparently they would be by other parties.
    Captain GUNSTON Captain GUNSTON What is the difference between the parties in the expenditure on speakers?
    Dr. PHILLIPS: I said, with regard to meetings, that our expenditure was in

    1197
    many cases higher than the expenditure a the Conservative party. We have not paid speakers, but our speakers' expenses must be paid. That is the ordinary method of all parties. But it will be found that much Labour party work is done freely and voluntarily. That can be seen in the returns. The expenses of meetings are shown in the ordinary way in the election return, and as far as I know the return which I have quoted is available for anyone who likes to ask for it. Let me revert to the question of paid help. As I said, we have been considered as acting unfairly. Those Members who make that suggestion belong to a party which has an enormous number of supporters without occupation—persons of leisure, persons living comfortable lives, persons able to give their time without any sacrifice whatever to themselves. It is surprising that, in spite of that, so much money is paid for help which has to be obtained on an ordinary financial basis. My ideal of a party is a party which at any time of crisis, such as an election, has hundreds of thousands of people ready to come forward and freely to give every possible effort to bring their cause to success, and that a party which cannot so rely upon workers from its own ranks ought not to ask for special concessions in regard to the amount of expenditure permitted in order to give as paid employment what in our opinion they should seek to get freely from the members of their organisation.
    Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: Is the hon. Lady not forgetting that we are legislating not merely for the two or three, big parties in the House now, but that a candidate may not be a member of a party at all? We ought to provide sufficient expenses to cover a reasonable amount of work to be paid for at a reasonable rate.
    Dr. PHILLIPS: I do not think we should contemplate persons who belong to a line of thought or to a group which has not sufficient support in the constituencies to conduct the work of an election. I do not think we should specially provide a scale of expenses for everyone in order to meet extravagant needs. Such persons are not fit to run candidates on that basis. They should wait until the support of the country is such as to enable them to make their
    1198
    way with the assistance of electors who believe in their policy. If I go back to the old times when the Labour party was making its way, we certainly never wanted to reach and never could have reached a limit of expenditure higher than that now suggested in the Bill. There is one more point that I want to mention. Hon. Members have dealt with the great expenditure in county divisions in getting candidates known. I am very largely in agreement with what the hon. Member for Bridgeton said about that. If a candidate is a stranger in a constituency that candidate ought at least to be someone who by his or her public work has become sufficiently known, and no great expenditure should be necessary in making him or her known. But that does not apply to a by-election where the field for candidates is necessarily a narrower one. You must have someone to come forward just at that moment, and it may be the case that the candidate is new to the constituency. Therefore, unless you are going to adopt a completely different scale for by-elections and general elections, you must have a little more margin allowed in the Bill in order that you can cover the needs of both occasions.
    I hope that hon. Members opposite will agree with the conclusion to which we on this side have come, that the less money spent on elections the better for the community and the better for the elector. The ideal is that we should have to do no more than publish an election address and hold meetings throughout a constituency. The fact is that parties are apt to spend a great deal too much in stunt work during an election. The smaller the amount allowed in expenditure during the contest the more the parties will be driven back to an endeavour to rouse the interest of the constituency during the period between elections, and so to develop an interest amongst the electors which will not need all this whipping up when the time of an election comes.
    Sir S. HOARE: The hon. Member for Sunderland (Dr. Phillips) has made a very interesting speech. She has quoted her own experience in Sunderland. In view of recent events it is open to doubt whether the methods that she adopted at the last election will be equally successful at the next.
    Dr. PHILLIPS Dr. PHILLIPS Why not?
    Sir S. HOARE: I am judging from the by-election.
    Dr. PHILLIPS: If the hon. Baronet will look at the vote on that occasion he will see that we have been amply repaid. For the moment we have had a misfortune, but we fully expect that that misfortune will be redressed.
    Sir S. HOARE: The future will decide between us. I think we can all approach this question on non-party lines. It is a question upon which every Member of the House has an equal right to express his opinion and to give his vote. We are talking about something that we all know within our own experience. So far the Debate seems to me to show at least a certain measure of agreement. We all wish to keep elections as cheap as possible; there is no question about that at all. The cheaper the better, from everyone's point of view. Secondly, we all wish that there should be no corruption at elections, that elections should be carried on honestly and above board. There is no difference of opinion between us on that point either. Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said earlier, the case of the parties should be put to the electors with the greatest efficiency and the least possible expenditure. The difference between us, if difference there is, arises when we come to apply those three principles. Hitherto we have had a fairly high maximum—a maximum, after all, and not a minimum—within which candidates have been free to spend at election times. There has been no compulsion that they should spend up to that maximum. Indeed the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Sunderland show that a great majority of Members spend well below the maximum. The figures for the last election and the 1924 election show clearly that the great majority of Members spend far below their legal maximum.
    If you bring the maximum down too low you will get what we hoped we had got out of our public life—a recurrence of the corrupt practices that were abolished during the nineteenth century by a whole series of Corrupt Practices Acts. It is no answer to point to the average expense of elections. I admit that the average expense is much below
    1200
    the legal maximum, but there is a substantial number of seats in which a reduction of the expenditure would place the candidates in great difficulty. If we have the legal maximum proposed in this Bill there would still be no fewer than 80 seats, judged by the expenditure at the last election, that would come above that maximum. The risk, therefore, is that if you put the maximum too low you will have what we have not now in our public life—evasion and secret corrupt practices, and a recurrence to the bad old state of affairs in our public life. Moreover, it is not a sufficient answer for the hon. Member for Sunderland to tell us that the expenses of the Labour party are low because more work is done voluntarily than is done by Members of the Conservative party. I do not believe that that is so. I believe that the difference between the returns of the two parties is not due to the fact that the Labour party has more voluntary workers than we have, but is due to the fact that we return certain expenses that are very often not returned by Labour candidates.
    Let me tell hon. Members what I mean by that statement. I am not now making vague charges or charges of corrupt practices, but I am pointing to the fact that there is quite obviously a different procedure with election returns between the two parties. Indeed, during the course of the Ullswater Conference we discussed this question. It was clear to many of us, when we discussed the question with the organising agent of the Labour party, that there was this divergence of procedure between the two parties. For instance, at the last election, nine Socialist Members in London returned no expenses for clerks and messengers at all; 23 returned amounts of between £1 and £25, and eight returned amounts of between £100 and £200. Obviously those great divergencies show a considerable difference of procedure even within the Labour party. Take the English counties. There, 32 Labour Members returned no expenditure under this head at all, whereas 11 returned amounts of between £100 and £200. I could go through the various categories of contests at the last election and give other instances, but it is quite clear to anyone who studies, impartially, these figures—which are public property—that there are to-day many Labour candidates not returning in their election

    1201
    returns an adequate amount for expenditure on clerks and messengers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Hon. Members say "No." Let them, in the course of this Debate, justify the kind of figures which I have just quoted. I could add several more instances, if I had time, taken from the public return in connection with the last election. That consideration has to be taken into account. It is quite obvious, at any rate to me, that expenses have not been in the returns of certain candidates which ought to have been in those returns.
    Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the clerks in these instances were paid but that the payment was not put into the return?
    Sir S. HOARE: I suggest one of two things. Either they were paid and it was not returned, or they were not paid and they ought to have been paid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For this reason. The hon. Lady the Member for Sunderland ought to know, in view of her great experience of political organisation, that there are certain items against which actual sums of money have to be placed in an election return. For instance, a candidate cannot have his committee rooms for nothing. Even though a friend may offer him the use of committee rooms, he has to put expenditure into his return against the item for committee rooms, and so it is in the case of clerks and messengers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I understand that the hon. Lady says "No." That is a legal point between us, and, possibly, the Solicitor-General or the Home Secretary will deal with it later, but, certainly, according to the information which I have and which appeared to be confirmed during the discussions at the Ullswater Conference, it is quite definite that expenditure ought, legally, to be included for these items.
    Let me proceed to another feature of the problem which we ought to take into account before coming to a decision. During yesterday's Debate various suggestions were made which were excellent in themselves but which would certainly increase the expenditure on elections. For instance, there was the interesting suggestion of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) that there should be a travelling polling booth—that motors should go round from village to
    1202
    village, bringing, as he said, the poll to the elector, instead of the elector to the poll. That may be a very good suggestion but if it were adopted it would involve heavier expense. Again, an appeal was made for more polling stations, particularly in the county constituencies. That is a suggestion which is sure to be made every time we discuss electoral reform, and it is a suggestion which probably, some time or other, will be carried into effect, but it will entail raising the expense of elections. In coming to a decision to-day we must contemplate the possibility of these further items of expenditure being imposed on candidates and agents.
    Having put those views before the Committee and my own opinion upon the subject, may I sum up by saying that all the facts seem to point to the necessity for acting with caution in this matter. The Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) seems to be a wise and cautious proposal. It leaves the counties as they are, but makes reductions in the boroughs. I am prepared to go as far as that, but I should not be prepared to go anything like the length suggested by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, and I have great hesitation in going as far as the Government's proposal in the Bill. Past experience shows that we have need to go cautiously in a matter of this kind. The last change made was only made a short time ago. Only one election has lien fought since that change was made, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford showed, it was fought under very favourable conditions as regards expenditure. It was a summer election, in which open air meetings took the place of meetings in halls. I suggest that we have not yet had sufficient experience to enable us to go further than the cautious proposal which my hon. and gallant Friend has made this afternoon and if he presses it to a Division I shall certainly support it.
    Mr. CLYNES: We have had a number of very interesting and helpful speeches, but there was one point in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) with which I must to some extent quarrel, because there was in it the implication that Labour candidates incurred expenses which they did

    1203
    not enter in their returns, or, that on the other hand, if they got certain assistance without payment it was labour of a kind for which payment ought to be made. I can say from personal experience that under the head of clerks and messengers the Labour party does get a great degree of assistance, for which the said clerks and messengers would never think of accepting anything. With that exception, I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was delivered in terms of reasonableness and moderation, in contrast with certain of the rather explosive utterances of yesterday afternoon.
    I suggest to the Committee that in the course of this discussion no formidable case has been made out against the terms of the Clause as it is submitted, and, by implication, much has been indicated in its favour even by those who may be disposed to support in the Lobby the first Amendment on the Paper. As has been pointed out, one very large item, if not the chief item in connection with these matters is the item for printing—for that enormous weight of literature, most of which we know must be left unread by those who receive it. I think there has been in the last 20 years less tendency to plaster the walls of our constituencies with huge posters than was the case some years ago. We know that the efforts of competing candidates in this respect only cancel the effect which each one desires to produce, and we are beginning to feel that we reap no advantage from much of the money which is lavished in those encounters. My own experience in the Platting Division of, Manchester is that the halls there are so small and so few, that even with the greatest physical exertion, addressing two or three meetings at least each night during the two or three weeks of an election contest I find it impossible to reach more than about one-half of the electors. Certainly one cannot reach more than one-half, even allowing for the margin of people who congregate around a hall and to whom one has to deliver some of the scraps of one's oratory under the auspices of what is termed an overflow meeting. We are bound therefore to try to convey our message more and more by means of the printed word, and, in view of the
    1204
    very large electorate to-day, that is bound to involve candidates in very heavy expenditure.
    The right hon. Gentleman gave a figure which says much in favour of the terms of the Clause as it stands. I understood him to say that only 80 of the candidates at the last election exceeded the figure in the Bill. Surely that is a proof of the fact that our proposal would not impose any great disability on the general run of candidates. I do not know the exact number but I think about 2,000 candidates must have gone to the poll at the last election, and if only 80 would be placed under any disability through the figure of expenditure which is in the Bill, it indicates that the vast majority of candidates have a quite acceptable and sufficient maximum here, in respect of the expenditure which they desire to incur. I have, however, secured some more figures bearing on this point, and they show that, taking the case of the counties and' the rate of 5d. per elector—which we propose—at the last General Election this rate was exceeded only in the case of 162 candidates and of these only 80 were successful, that is two Labour, 60 Conservatives and 18 Liberals. Of the successful candidates, only 28 exceeded the figure which we propose, to the extent of 100. There are corresponding figures with which I need not trouble the Committee in relation to the boroughs.
    There is one matter upon which I must differ from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea, and that is as to the suggested increase in the number of polling stations. I leave the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) to make out his own case and offer his own reply with respect to the proposal for a travelling polling-booth. But I have great sympathy with what was said on this point of additional polling stations yesterday and even though it would be costly, it is not a monthly cost or an annual cost, but a rather exceptional cost, which the State might very well bear in meeting the exceptional disadvantages which arise in this connection in widely scattered areas. Indeed it may be said that it is not fair that one candidate, as in my own case, should be able to cover his constituency from one end to the other with a 2d. tram fare, while another should have almost a little country to cover in

    1205
    his efforts to reach the electorate. In the matter of more polling booths, I find that there is in our law provision for meeting many of the claims under that head, and for removing what are real grievances in cases where they have been urged. If I can do anything by administrative action, or by drawing the attention of those concerned to the disabilities which the present law might remove, I shall be happy to take that matter into consideration.
    There has emerged from this discussion a general admission that the present figure is, on the whole, too high, and though it is true that it has not existed for very long, this is an opportunity for lowering it. A similar opportunity may not occur for very many years, and, in face of the facts that have been produced, I suggest that the Committee might very well agree to lower the figure now. There are variations of experience according to the area or whether the election is held in good weather or bad. The question of the season is all-important, and all of us as candidates, however much many may mourn the result of the last election, will be agreed that we enjoyed an exceptionally favourable advantage on account of the election being held in the summer time.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) submits in his Amendment a figure which is far too low for the purpose, and I can assure him that it would impose upon Labour candidates a very serious disability if the figure were reduced to the amount he proposes. That is particularly true in the case of by-elections, as has been stated by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Dr. Phillips), and if Labour candidates have to conduct their fights under the figure proposed by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, they will be under a very great disability. My hon. Friend submitted himself to the Committee as a simple, intelligent man. Of course we know he is that, but we know that he is something more also. I appeal to him in his capacity of the simple, intelligent man to recognise the case that has been made out against his Amendment, and not to press it to a Division. On the whole, the Government have good reason to be content with the discussion, and I trust that the Committee will be agreed that a case
    1206
    has been made out for the moderate reduction which the Government propose.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I was glad to observe the favour which the Home Secretary showed to the proposal of the travelling polling booth. It emanates from these benches, but, unfortunately, it cannot be moved into the Bill, as the Title is drawn so strictly, and I am informed it would be out of order. I hope, however, that at some future date the Government may take steps to bring that proposal into operation, and that the observations made by the Home Secretary to-day are a precursor to action being taken on a suitable occasion. With regard to the point which is directly before the Committee, the question of election expenses was examined by the Ullswater Conference, of which I had the honour to be a member; the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) and other hon. Members who are here to-day were also members. The Conference did not arrive at any conclusions on the point, but it heard some evidence with regard to it, and also examined a number of statistical returns showing the expenditure by Members of various parties in various types of constituencies. The Liberal members of the Conference came unanimously to the conclusion that the maximum expenses could safely be reduced by one penny, both in the counties and the boroughs, and that the figures now proposed in the Bill could properly be accepted. We made it clear that if the Conference had been invited to come to a decision, we should have supported that proposal there, and we are prepared to support it here to-day.
    Further economies could be made in electioneering, particularly with regard to posters, as was suggested by the Home Secretary. The important thing is that everyone should be on the same footing. Each of us, of course, is unwilling to effect economies of that character if his opponent is free to continue as before. It is like the limitation of armaments; if only it could be simultaneous, it would be to everyone's advantage. So it will be with a statutory limitation of this kind. Let us remember, in comparing the elections of to-day with those of an earlier day, that the heavy expenses of returning officers, which used to be a charge upon the candidates, is now removed to the public purse. It is

    1207
    now nearly 30 years ago that I introduced the only private Bill that I have ever introduced into this House, to remove returning officers' expenses from being a charge upon the candidates, and we had to wait for nearly 15 years before it was done by a Government Measure. That was a great relief to the candidate's expenses. Furthermore, there is the free postage which is now allowed, and that again is a relief to the expenses which candidates have to bear.
    In these circumstances, the figures which are suggested are adequate to enable candidates and the views they wish to propound to be brought adequately to the notice of the electorate. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), in his charming but not very convincing speech, suggested figures which were too low. It is essential to have an adequate stimulus in order to create a sufficient interest, and, it may be, excitement in the country to induce the great bulk of the electorate to take the trouble to go to the poll, and we ought not to fix our figure so low that adequate and reasonable propaganda is impossible. The figures suggested in the Bill are those which occupy the happy mean between excessive expenditure on the one hand, and an inadequate allowance on the other, and, for our part, we shall be glad to support them.
    Lord ERSKINE: I do not feel very strongly one way or the other on this matter. A great many of ray bon. Friends think that we should have a little more experience of the last change that was made before embarking upon another alteration. Many of us spent far below the maximum amount allowed: I spent some £400 below, and I hope on the next occasion, whatever the maximum may be, to spend even less than that. Nevertheless, fairly forcible arguments have been put forward, particularly by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) to show that it is not a very good thing to make a change of this sort in a hurry. He rightly argued that we should have the experience of more than one general election before we decided whether this was the right amount or not. The last election occurred in the summer, and we have not yet had the experience with
    1208
    the present figure of an election in the winter. That consideration should be taken into account by the Committee when it is settling the maximum amount of election expenses. You cannot argue from one constituency as if it were the same as another, and the same considerations arise here as in the case of the motor car Clause. The counties are different from the boroughs, and the expenses of the last election show that nothing like the same amount of money is spent, as a rule, in the boroughs as in the counties.
    On the whole, I would rather that the amount of expenditure for the candidates remained for a few more years at what it is to-day. This is not the amount up to which everybody has to spend; it is the amount beyond which a, candidate may not spend. There are times, such as by-elections, when it may be essential to have two postages. I used only the free post, but if I had had two postages, it would have cost me another £240. I would remind hon. Members that we are dealing not only with general elections, but with by-elections, and on all sides we are sometimes up against that powerful organ, the Press. If you have a violent Press campaign in a by-election against a candidate, no matter on which side he may be standing, he has, in the nature of things, to spend more money in combating that campaign than if he were merely fighting a normal election. We are laying down now as the law of the land the expenditure which is not to be exceeded at any time. This expenditure is laid down for every election that will take place in future, whether a by-election or a general election, no matter what local or national circumstances may have arisen. Therefore, there should be a good deal of latitude. No ordinary Member desires to spend any more than he possibly need at an election, and the great bulk of Members look forward financially with horror to the next time they will have to face their constituents. Therefore, it is to the advantage of everybody that they should be able to keep their expenditure as low as possible. Most of us do.
    6.0 p.m.
    Most of us do not go anywhere near the limit to which we are allowed, but there may be occasions on which a candidate, in face of a Press or other campaign, may have to meet excessive propaganda, and

    1209
    may quite properly desire to spend more money than is actually allowed under this Clause A certain amount has been said about voluntary work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) said that, on the whole, the Labour party had a different point of view in regard to election expenses than we have. He did not mean to charge the Labour party with an attempt to get round the Corrupt Practices Acts, but that there may be legitimate differences in the idea of what the law is as between one party and another. I well remember about two elections ago having given to me two or three committee rooms, for which I did not pay, and which I did not enter in my election return. I now find, after the Oxford election petition, that I cannot have a committee room given to me, and whether I pay for it in cash or not, that room has to be entered in my election return. That, I understand, is generally agreed after the Oxford election petition, to be the law of the land. There is grave doubt as to what the law is on a great many other matters affecting elections. A great deal of election law has never been interpreted. We may think it means one thing, and hon. Members opposite may think it means another thing. I have my own idea as to what the interpretation of the law would be in the case of messengers—I do not know whether the point has actually been before the courts—and that is that, whether you pay messengers or whether they work voluntarily, nevertheless messengers should be returned as one of the election expenses. I believe the view taken by some hon. Members opposite, and, for all I know, by some of my hon. Friends, is that if the work is done voluntarily there is no necessity to enter it; but if one view on this matter were taken by one party and a different view taken by another party there would, of course, be a great difference between the sums they returned for election expenses.
    On the question of voluntary workers, I would like to say that while we get a great deal of voluntary work done for us hon. Members opposite may have had more voluntary work done for them in the last few years. I think I may be able to explain why, up to now, they have had the advantage of this vast
    1210
    amount of voluntary work. They have been a young and a growing party, and have never before really had the experience of being in office. Everybody in this House, whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal, knows that all parties in office disappoint their supporters, and in proportion to the extent to which they disappoint so do they get less voluntary work done for them. After the Labour party have been in office several times, and have had as long a period in which to disappoint their supporters as we have had during the long years we have been in power, they may find they will not get more voluntary work done for them than we get. Looking at the future, therefore, I think they had better make some provision for payment of messengers and clerks, such as has been the case in the past.
    The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said it was quite easy to win an election. All one had to do was to put a plain case before the people, hire halls and make speeches. That is very nice for the hon. Member for Bridgeton; but I venture to submit that in the past his opponents have found a certain amount of difficulty in putting their case before the people of Glasgow. There have been rather rowdy meetings, and if a candidate's meetings are broken up all he can do is to resort to the printing press and put his ideas into the printed word. That may not be such an effective method of appeal, and, personally, I do not think it is, for I agree with the Home Secretary that a great many of the posters and pamphlets which we all circulate at election time go to wrap up the fish, and are never read at all. Nevertheless, one must have some way of getting one's ideas before the electorate if it is not possible to hold meetings. The remarks of the hon. Member for Bridgeton suggested that in the future an election in Glasgow would be a sort of tea party. He envisaged a prospect in which we should see nothing very different in Glasgow from what we see at ordinary times. I do not think elections will ever be conducted quite in that spirit, in Glasgow or anywhere else. There will always be excitement. At election times people do and say things which they would not do or say on ordinary occasions, and things will not be much different in the future. As I have said, I do not very much mind

    1211
    whether the Clause as submitted by the Government goes through, or whether it is amended in the sense that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford has suggested in his Amendment. My view is that as it is not necessary for anybody to spend up to the amount which is allowed we might well await the experience of a few more elections, in various months and under all conditions of weather. Nevertheless, I do not think any great harm would be done if the Clause were to pass as it is now. However, as I think we might wait a little longer, particularly as regards the boroughs, I shall vote for the Amendment.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I propose to vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I believe that election expenses can be considerably reduced if an attempt is made to curtail the enormous and wasteful expenditure on posters. Of all forms of useless expenditure that upon posters at election times is the worst. I have fought three Parliamentary elections and five elections for lesser bodies, and I have always felt that the distribution of election literature, and particularly posters, was a waste. The division which I represent is an extended one, reaching from the north-west corner of Birmingham right up to Burton-on-Trent. At the last election I gave orders to have this huge area plastered with the conventional bills—because my opponents did it, and not because of any desire on my part. I am satisfied that a great deal of bill-posting is wasted. Let hon. Members test it by their own experience and that of their Friends. Many hon. Members pass along streets lined with posters. How many of them read the posters, how many of them remember them, and how many of them act upon them? How many buy things because they are recommended by posters? I am satisfied that at the last election the Conservative party spent an enormous amount of money on posters for which they got no return. I took the trouble to inquire about it. It was said that the Conservative party spent £200,000 on bill-posting in the last election. They covered the country with posters, setting forth long series of figures. I made many inquiries about
    1212
    how many people read those figures, which set faith the merits of the Conservative administration, and I am satisfied that not one person in 10,000 read them. One poster in particular did the Conservative party an infinity of harm.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss the contents of the posters of the Conservative party.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: May I not comment on the posters of the Conservative party?
    The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: That would be entirely out of order. The hon. Member may discuss whether posters are necessary or unnecessary, but he must not make any comment on the contents of them.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I am afraid that Ruling curtails considerably what I was proposing to say. May I say, then, that I hope the day will come when posters will be made illegal? I am not prepared to say that the time for it is ripe now, but I hope the abolition of posters will be one of the things on which all parties will agree.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is a great pity that we have been deprived of the eloquent denunciation, which we were about to hear, of a very important industry. I will leave hon. Members opposite who belong to the trade unions concerned to exact the proper retribution from the hon. Member for his intended attack.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I was not going to attack the unions.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will leave the hon. Member to explain that in the proper quarters. I was glad to hear from the Home Secretary, who always speaks with moderation, and always has a mind open to conviction, that he had been persuaded by yesterday's discussion upon motor cars that that Clause would be rendered unnecessary if travelling booths were provided. I propose to approach this Clause from a similar point of view to that which I took up on the Clause yesterday. I think the Clause envisages the whole matter in the wrong way. There is something unsavoury about writing in a modern Bill that the cost of an elector is 5d. if he be a county elector

    1213
    and 4d. if he be a borough elector. In a more affable and more cynical age we had a price list for the suffrages of the people, and 4d. or 5d. would have been a very moderate payment to make in return for a vote. We live in a much more moral age Instead of making direct payments to electors we combine ourselves into parties and offer to use the Parliamentary machine for favourable class legislation as an inducement to the electors to vote for us. That is a far more moral way of doing things; and if any undue advantage is gained by that method of corruption we ought to put a Clause in the Bill to lay some restraint upon political programmes.
    What does this Clause seek to do? Of course, like all Socialist legislation, it follows a Conservative precedent—and follows it very closely. This Clause seeks to make it impossible for a man to obtain an advantage at an election because of his wealth, and to remove any disability suffered by a candidate for Parliament on account of his lack of wealth. That is what it pretends to do, but it does nothing of the kind. How can that end be achieved? We have a precedent. For many years' membership of this House was looked upon by hon. Members opposite, who are now so numerous, as being a burden that an ordinary individual, even if he were fortunate enough to be elected, could not himself sustain, and accordingly we adopted payment of Members. That was based upon the theory that government, being a national need, those who served the Government of the country should not be put to any personal cost on that account. Why cannot that principle now be carried to a more logical conclusion? If the service of the State should not place a personal liability on a Member of Parliament, why should access to this House place any liability upon a prospective Member of Parliament, if he be seeking to perform only what the nation wishes him to perform? You will never achieve that object by a Clause of this kind, because, after all, you have to remove a fundamental difficulty which can be approached only in a whole-hearted way and from an entirely different angle.
    I would like hon. Members to take notice of this wonderful return of election expenses. The average cost of an election
    1214
    is some hundreds of pounds. Supposing you have a better distribution of wealth in the community—on Monday, I notice, the Government are going to take away most of what remains of the capitalist system—it is suggested that unless a man cannot spend some hundreds of pounds upon an election he cannot get into this House? In an average constituency, whatever your politics may be, you can never hope to be elected to this House without the expenditure of a large sum of money. What results from that? Members have to put themselves under the protection of some outside organisation, some vested interest whether it be an industrial or a capitalist interest, or a trade union. Often a man cannot fight as an independent candidate because he has not the resources—in fact, very few men have—and he has to enlist the support of the very powerful propaganda that comes from some central body on behalf of the candidate. A man cannot fight an election at the cost of 4d. or 5d. per elector in a constituency containing 60,600 electors. This House is supposed to be a deliberative assembly and we are supposed to come here to listen to arguments and then make up our minds. That ideal is rendered nugatory if those who are Members of the Senate are under obligation to respond to the dictates of an imperious interest. Therefore, I appeal to the Socialist party, above all parties, to tackle this question in a fundamental way, and create in this great country for the first time a genuine democracy, and give us a free Parliament which shall represent a free people.
    Mr. McSHANE: The whole Committee will be ready, I think, to join with me in congratulating the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on the excellent speech which he has just delivered. I agree with the theory of democratic government which the hon. Member has so lucidly and forcibly laid down. May I point out that the capitalist system is inherent in the Clause which the hon. Member is so anxious to abolish? Able and eloquent though the speech of the hon. Member was, I think some of us noticed that there were also complications which the hon. Member did not seem to realise. I can imagine a Government undertaking the election expenses of independent candidates in a truly

    1215
    democratic State in order that those candidates should be under no difficulty, and in order that they should have the same opportunities as other candidates. In those circumstances I can imagine that a large crop of independent candidates would arise in the hope that the State would aid them in their election fight, and not merely pay their expenses, but, on the offchance, land them into Parliament where, in relation to their then circumstances, they would be much more comfortably off. I am sure the crop of candidates that would arise in those circumstances would not induce us to vote in favour of a proposal like that.
    The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) was a powerful argument in favour of a further reduction of the amount of money mentioned in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought we ought to keep the maximum fairly high in order that, as candidates had to spend a considerable sum of money, they would not exceed the maximum, and not cheat in the returns and not contravene the Corrupt Practices Act. That argument is unconsciously a plea for further expenditure, because the logical conclusion is that we should raise the maximum so high—say £50,000—as to make it utterly hopeless for any candidate to evade the Corrupt Practices Act. The speech of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Lord Erskine) approached the question from a very different angle, and yet his speech had a, similar effect, because he said that sometimes one candidate adopted such excessive propaganda that it was necessary for his opponents to reply, with the result that things went on in the same vicious circle. An enormous proportion of money spent on propaganda at elections is utter waste. I will give an example which occurred in my own constituency. The Conservative Association had an office in the main street, and above that the Liberal Association had an office. The Conservative Association placed in the window a large but not a very flattering picture of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin). Whereupon the Liberals put in the window a picture of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and placed upon it a caption "Lloyd George tops Baldwin." The
    1216
    Conservative reply to that was another caption, "Baldwin undermining Lloyd George." This kind of thing went on, and it was a source of amusement, but in regard to the electioneering purpose of getting any "forrader," they were hopeless and an absolute waste of money.
    There is one other aspect of this question which has not been named in connection with this Debate. The Home Secretary said that we were legislating for a number of years. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) referred to the difficulties in counties of candidate's getting into touch with remote areas. No previous speaker in this Debate has taken cognisance of the development of the cinema and the wireless and all their implications, the use of which would meet the difficulties which arise in remote areas, because hon. Members or candidates could cover a whole county in one speech by wireless. Consequently, there is no difficulty in regard to that matter. I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) that a great proportion of the money spent by the candidates of all parties is sheer waste. It would lead to a much more healthier citizenship if that expenditure were reduced, and in that case I should be inclined to support the Amendment.
    Captain CAZALET: Contrary to the view which has just been expressed by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane), I have always held that it was far more moral to pay out of your own pocket than try to ray something out of the pocket of somebody else. In this particular instance, unlike some of my hon. Friends, I feel strongly on this matter. Strange to say, I feel strongly in support of the proposal of the Government in regard to this question. I feel that anything that can be done in the direction of limiting expenditure at an election is a good thing not only for the country, but more particularly for the candidate who takes part in the election. Unless the amount is fixed, what happens? It is not the candidate who actually spends the money but his election agent, and an election agent, like others, when he is spending other people's money is more generous than when he is spending his own. What happens is that your election agent tells you that in some little village in a corner of your constituency the Liberals have put out a

    1217
    very important poster, and that the Conservative party must have a poster in that village to reply to it, otherwise the Liberals or the Socialists will capture the votes. Then the candidate, who is busy making speeches, agrees to the suggestion. Every candidate must have had the experience of his agent saying during an election: "This is going to be a very close thing; I think the result depends upon how many votes we get in a certain area." When a candidate is told by his agent that such an expenditure is a matter of winning or losing the election, naturally the candidate agrees to it. In, this way many candidates are persuaded, often against their will, to spend up to a very large limit. I think all hon. Members will agree that very often a number of items of expenditure at an election do not find their way into the public returns. No doubt these expenditures, limited as they are, will continue in the future, and, therefore, such limit as can be put on the official amount that any candidate may spend is, I think, greatly to the advantage of the country and of the candidate.
    I found myself in much sympathy with the speech and the arguments of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). As has been pointed out, he is, perhaps, in many ways, not only an ideal candidate, but an ideal Member. He fights his elections with a minimum of expenditure, and I believe he also lives on the salary that he receives as a Member of Parliament, which is probably even rarer than the smallness of the amount that he spends on his elections. I only regret that he has not been in his place since he spoke, to hear the numerous compliments which have been paid him from every section of the House. But, however sympathetic one may feel towards his arguments, many of them were knocked on the head by the practical difficulties raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). I have every reason to appreciate, almost more than any other Member, the power that the Press can apply in a by-election, hut, although it is quite possible for an extensive Press campaign to deflect good Conservatives on certain occasions, and bamboozle a certain section of the electorate, I think that in the end the common sense of the public reasserts itself in one way or another—
    Mr. McSHANE: Much later.
    Captain CAZALET: —and I do not think that you can legislate for by-elections, but that you must rather legislate for what take place in a General Election. I appreciate that in a constituency like that of East Islington, which has been mentioned, there are various difficulties, where you have a population of some 60,000 constituents, many of them absent in other parts of London during the day, many of them absent in other occupations during the evening, and where it is necessary to spend more on distributing literature than it may be in other parts of the country. Again, in my own constituency there are 120 villages, some 70 polling stations, and a very small number of electors. I think the average has been taken as 40,000, but in my case the number is only just over 30,000. But all the difficulties which prevail, and all the expense which is necessary for diffusing the political views of a candidate in a constituency of 40,000 or more, are just as great and just as necessary in my constituency with a smaller number. Therefore, if we were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, and limit the figure to 3d. instead of to 5d., it would give rise in country constituencies to real practical difficulties in spreading the doctrines of the various political parties at a General Election. To-day the general diffusion of knowledge is much greater than it has been in the past. There is a much greater distribution of newspapers, general and local; speeches are made by various prominent members of political parties on the wireless; and I am sure the day is not long distant when every Member will arrange to address his constituency on his own particular wireless set. I only hope that that day will soon arrive, so that we shall be able to reduce our election expenses to a far lower figure even than that suggested by the Government to-day. For the reasons I have given I intend to support the proposals of the Government in this matter.
    Mr. T. LEWIS: I welcome the suggestion of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) with regard to the payment of election expenses by the State. I feel sure that, if that were done, there would be little chance of evasion in regard to the cost of elections.

    1219
    No doubt a great deal of evasion goes on to-day, in spite of the very heavy allowances that are made. Surprise has been expressed that the hon. Member should put forward a suggestion of that kind, but we are, indeed, gradually approaching that stage. It is not so very long since candidates were compelled to pay the expenses of the returning officer, but since that time we have gained free postage, and I suggest that, if we want to make elections free from the excitement that some hon. Members opposite seem to desire, but which I want to avoid, the limitation of expenses, in conjunction with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Devonport, would greatly assist in bringing that about. The last speaker rather made out a case for a differentiation between counties and boroughs, but I do not think he made out a case for an increase in the amount allowed in the present Bill.
    Personally, I am strongly in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and I think that the amount set forth by him is amply sufficient for conducting any election, either in a borough or in a county. In my opinion a tremendous amount of money is simply thrown away in elections to-day. It has been suggested that more money is required in a by-election than in an ordinary election, but I cannot understand that. Having fought five consecutive elections myself, and having acted as a an election agent as well, I can claim to have some experience as to the costs that are necessary. I quite admit that in the case of the Labour party a tremendous amount of work is done voluntarily. I do not like the suggestion which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), that evasions take place because in the returns made by Labour party agents they do not necessarily mention committee rooms or messengers or clerks to whom no payments have been made. I have yet to learn that it is necessary to set forth the names of clerks and messengers who have not received payment. It is the fact that an enormous amount of voluntary work is done by members of the Labour party, whereas the Conservative and Liberal parties have to pay for a good deal of that kind of work. I should have
    1220
    thought it would have been better for the Conservative and Liberal parties to approach this question from the standpoint of coming up to the high standard of the Labour party in this connection, rather than to want to keep very high amounts in order to pay for these services.
    The hon. Member for Sunderland (Dr. Phillips) quoted her own case, and said that, while the allowance in her constituency for election expenses was somewhere in the region of £3,000, they actually spent—the two candidates together, I suppose—somewhere about £880. I think I can quote a better case than that, namely, the case of my own constituency of Southampton, which is also a two-Member constituency. The amount that was allowed, according to the estimate in the return, was £3,239, and the expenditure, which was the highest of any election with which I have been connected, amounted to £668 for the two candidates. If any evidence were wanted as to whether that was sufficient, I think it may be said that the mere return of the candidates ought to be evidence that the amount spent was sufficient. At any rate, it achieved the result that we desired. Will anyone suggest that it was really necessary for the Conservative candidates to spend £1,982, and for the Liberals to spend nearly as much, namely, £1,711?
    It may be suggested that printing accounts for a large amount, and it is true that, of our £668, we spent £480 in printing, but the Conservative spent—as I think, wasted—£1,144, and the Liberals £661. With regards to clerks, we spent £2 for clerks and messengers. [Interruption.] I should like to say that the £2 was not distributed over the total number of clerks and messengers that we employed; probably it was paid to an errand boy for assisting, in order that he should not go without receiving something for his labour. The Conservatives spent £280 on that item, and the Liberals £298. I suggest that the other parties could reduce these amounts just as easily as the Labour party. The hon. Member for Sunderland made out an overwhelming case for the reduction of costs by the figures which she gave, namely, 1.86d. for London, 2.4d. for the boroughs, 2.03d. for Wales, and 1.35d. for Scotland. I am of opinion that there is no need whatever for the expenditure of vast gums of

    1221
    money, and I do not think that it assists the candidates very much. I hope that the Government will consider leaving this matter to a free vote of the House. Of course, Members on this side are bound to vote with the Government if the Whips are put on, but, if the Government cannot agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, I think some compromise should be arrived at between the sum suggested by him and the amount in the Bill at present. They must know that all this expenditure is sheer waste, and helps no one in the long run.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Everyone, I think, must have been impressed by the eloquent appeal of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). Many such speeches have been made from time to time, but this is the first time that I have heard the hon. Member make a revivalist speech. He was calling the House to a revival of independence. One has heard the doctrine of the independence of Members throughout the House urged before, but there is nothing in it whatever. If you are to have political parties, everyone, in order to get elected, has to sink a good deal of his personal prejudices and views, and what a collection of 615 independent persons, all elected to this House by the generosity of the State, would amount to, one hesitates to think. I must say that on this occasion I am impressed by the arguments of the Government, and I intend to vote for the Government on this issue.
    I should very much have liked to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), because I am impressed by his arguments, and I have always thought that in a way it was a terrible scandal that a person of ability who really desired to go into public work, and who could bring himself within the purview of any political party, should not be able, either independently or under the auspices of a party, to stand for election on behalf of a constituency in which he may be in interested. Of course, he cannot do so. He is handicapped, especially on this side, by the question of means. It is perfectly true that, as hon. Members opposite have said, we have, in the nature of the case, to spend more on our elections than they do. They are very fortunate, and should appreciate their good fortune, but for very good
    1222
    reasons, which are well known, we have to spend more. Therefore, a young man with ability, with power to express him self, and with a real interest in public affairs, who takes a Conservative and Imperialistic point of view, is at a great disadvantage, and probably cannot enter Parliament until he is past middle age. I do not disguise the fact that I am extremely fortunate. When I look back to my university career, I know that there were others much more qualified than myself who ought to be sitting where I am sitting, but who lacked the ordinary influence to enable them to do so. On the face of it, that is a great outrage. Of course, it is easy on the other side of the House, in theory, for a young man to come into the House, but in practice it does not seem to me particularly easy. If you look round the House, you see more evidence of youth on this side than on that, and one can only consider, therefore, that youth is very heavily handicapped on that side for some reason which we poor Conservatives, being uninitiated in the mysteries of the Labour party, are not able to understand.
    On this slide it is a matter of finance. We all understand why we have to pay more to enter this very expensive club. With the poor people who work for us, it is a matter of tradition. They expect to be paid by a Conservative candidate, and they think they have a right to be paid. I should be the last person to withhold that right from them. The other side represent the new idea. They say that they are the party of the people and are out to save society, and, naturally, with the extravagant promises that they are accustomed to give to the electorate, they get a great deal of credence and a good deal of free assistance. In my constituency—it must be the experience of many—a poor widow went to the post office a week after the Labour party came into power expecting her additional pension, which she thought had been promised. If you make that kind of promise, you are going to get a great deal of free labour. It will not be given to the poor, wretched Conservative who tries to explain what his party has done in the last four years. People are not impressed by what has been done in very difficult times, but they are deeply impressed by what they are told is going

    1223
    to be done for them almost on the morrow of the election. It is perfectly fair for Conservatives, when they consider the allegations that are made against them in regard to expenses, to consider the promises that are made by the other parties.
    There is one point of view which has not yet been expressed. I am all in favour of reducing election expenses. There are a number of ways in which it might be done. The State might give free postage. So far, I am prepared to go with the hon. Member for Devonport. Instead of using posters, you might use the local Press and then, I suppose, you would make your constituents buy the papers and read what you have to say. That is another suggestion. Wireless is a third element which might make for greater cheapness. If we on this side adopted the open-air meeting policy of the other side, we might be able to do it a good deal more cheaply. All these are practical suggestions. But there is this one argument against making it cheaper for any candidate to stand, that you would be bound to have a number of frivolous candidatures—a number of people getting up and saying, "I am worthy to stand as a representative and put forward my own particular view." That would lead to a great deal of confusion of thought. Independent candidates would spring up everywhere. I am forced to the conclusion that it is a good thing that it is, to some extent, expensive to stand for Parliament. Another remedy that has been suggested is that there should be a heavier fine in case of failure to get the requisite number of votes. That would not apply to a man of straw who had no money or standing. It is an unhappy and imperfect world in which we live, and I am forced to the irresistible conclusion that, unless you make rules for the limiting of candidates in each constituency, it is a good thing that elections should be expensive, either to some organisations or to some individuals.
    Mr. EDE: I desire to support the Clause because it reduces the limit now allowed for expenses. I want to deal with the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet), because he maligned a very estimable set of men of whom I
    1224
    was one, and for whose work since I left their ranks I have nothing but admiration, that is, the election agents. My experience, both as an agent and as a candidate, is that the person who forces up the cost of elections is not the agent but the candidate, who generally gets the wind up about three or four days before the election and comes along and says: "The other people are making a tremendous splash in certain parts of the constituency. We seem to be doing nothing. Is it not time to do something over there?"
    At the last election I had a very good agent, but I came to the conclusion that he was far too economical. He assured me that, with the money he was spending, we were going to win, and although we spent less than a third of what the Conservative candidate spent, after the returning officer had been counting the votes for seven hours, we at last found that we had a majority of 40. When we came out from the election, the agent said to me, "Do you not agree that our policy of being economical was right?" He ran the election with an absolute maximum of efficiency, because he could not have been accused of over-spending a penny, yet he had managed to secure my return. I believe a great deal of unnecessary money is spent, and has been spent for a good many years, in the course of elections by all parties. All parties put so much literature out that all they do is to prevent the electors reading their opponent's literature by providing so much of their own that the elector says in despair: "I cannot read any of it. I shall vote for my party allegiance or for some other reason not connected with the literature at all."
    I should like to see tried the system of public advertisement that prevails in France. Just before an election in France the State erect in every polling district a hoarding, and every candidate who is nominated is allowed his proper fraction of the hoarding. If there are two candidates he gets a half, if there are three he gets a third, and so on. In France, it has this peculiar result, that, between the first ballot and the second, a candidate who has been eliminated has the power of letting his fraction of the hoarding to one or other of the candidates who have survived the first ballot. I believe there are occasions when an unsuccessful candidate has gone a considerable way towards

    1225
    meeting his expenses by the rent he has received for his fraction of the hoarding. It seems to me that such a system would be justified in this country because it would prevent a good deal of the iniquitous fly-posting, as it is called, that goes on, in which posters are placed upon telegraph poles and on the windows of opponents prior to the election in a frenzied effort to secure as much publicity as possible.
    There can be no doubt that the limit that was imposed in 1918 was imposed with a knowledge of the costs as they then were, and no one can suggest that the difference in cost between running an election in 1918 and running it now is really represented even by the proportion by which the Government now propose to reduce the expenses. I believe even a lower limit could quite well be set, and I would not even be averse, if there are cases of very scattered constituencies where expenses may tend to be higher than in more compact areas, from special arrangements being made in limiting expenses. But unnecessary money is wasted, and the cost is made so high that independent candidates are practically debarred from standing. It is all very well to say that people are benefited by the present proposal, but very few men indeed who have independent minds and who are not prepared to ally themselves with one or other of the political parties have any chance of being elected, because of the difficulty of finding the necessary money to run the election in competition with the money available in one form of another for the Members of the three parties. I hope, as time goes on, the cost of elections will be progressively reduced. In some constituencies now there is agreement between the parties that no posters shall be used. I have not heard that those constituencies are less interested in the general affairs of politics than others in which hoardings are covered with posters. I hope one effect of the Measure will be to reduce the amount of money that is spent quite unnecessarily on elections.
    7.0 p.m.
    Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I wish to say a few words on this matter, because the Debate has been interesting for the very genuine attempts which have been made in various parts of the Committee to express really original opinions as to what is wrong with democracy, how we
    1226
    ought to run our elections, and so on. I am afraid that those opinions have been a little vitiated by being cast in this kind of mould: "Why cannot we change our methods? If Conservatives and Liberals would only act up to the high standard of the Labour party, everything in the garden would be lovely, and democracy would be really given effect to." As the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said, if only passionate spellbinders like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) and myself could restrain our eloquence and our exaggerated statements, and adopt that tone of calm, cold, and unimpassioned statement of fact which the hon. Member for Bridgeton and his colleagues adopt in Glasgow, we should be approaching the atmosphere which should really prevail. I am very much interested, and I hope that the next time I address an election meeting at Glasgow a rather larger portion of my remarks will be audible. The whole trend of the argument of Members opposite is that, by adopting a very low limit of expenditure for elections, you can get something more like true democracy and, if only the Government would pay the election expenses of candidates, we should get nearer to democracy. The hon. Member for Bridgeton assumed that it was most desirable that no one should stand as a candidate unless he had taken a considerable part for many years in local public life or in the management of a national movement which brought him into touch with local public life. Until he had had that kind of experience, he should not be able to stand for Parliament. What would that mean? That the man who spent the first 10 years of his working life in the public service of the country, or in work which was quite remote from party politics, but which, perhaps, had been very intimately connected with industry or various branches of administration, would not be able to stand. It would be improper for him to stand and it would be improper, therefore, that he should have those aids for putting his views to the electors which are given by election expenditure. That simply means that you are wanting to strengthen the power of the machine in politics, and especially in elections to this House.
    The hon. Member for Bridgeton proposes an Amendment which would reduce

    1227
    election expenses to a very low level. Even so, it would be too high a price for most of the working men in this country to pay, and they would still be obliged to get into Parliament, as now, exclusively through the machine. I remember in a previous Debate the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen) protested against the exclusion of Civil Service unions from politics on the ground that because the Post Office Union had been excluded, he had been obliged to get into the House of Commons, as he put it, by hook or by crook, and that represents the facts. Practically no man can get into the House of Commons as a member of the Labour party except by devoted service to the machine and by active experience in the running of the Labour movement, which is very largely political in character.
    That is the real evil of our democracy, and is what is really threatening the existence of the home of our Parliamentary life. It is the power of the machine, and this question of election expenses is comparatively unimportant. The hon. Member for Devonport realised that the evil is the machine, but he seemed to think you could deal with the power of the machine simply by reducing the amount of election expenditure, or having it paid by the Government. The power of the machine extends much further than that. No matter what the expenditure may be, within reasonable limits, unless you are a really rich man, you cannot, in these days with large electorates, set in motion a sufficient volume of propaganda unless you are part of a machine and enjoy all the advantages, quite apart from expenditure, which accrue to the propaganda continually conducted by that machine and the opportunities for publicity which the machine gives you.
    If we are going to be unorthodox and original, let us face the logical conclusion to which the arguments of the hon. Member for Bridgeton and the hon. Member for Devonport lead us. You want elections carried on in an atmosphere of calm, deliberate thought and consideration. The reason why any of us go down to the constituencies at a general election is not to convert people to our political views in the last fortnight before the poll—for very few are
    1228
    converted at that late date—but to arouse warmth and excitement. Of course, we do! We want to make people keen, and if you think it would be better that people should consider the issues of a general election in a cooler spirit, you had better propose that candidates for Parliament should not be allowed in the constituencies during the last fortnight before the poll. That would really be contributing something to make the ordinary processes of democracy dignified, and possibly more useful.
    Therefore do not let us ride off on any of these half-measures and little items of self-satisfaction and personal predelictions, and represent them as if they were some great, original method of reform. They are nothing of the kind. For instance, in regard to election expenses, the truth of course, is that the effective way to limit expenses is that of the real revolution which took place in 1918, namely, the restriction of the time, far more than the actual amount. When you come to the expenditure of the candidate himself, I share every view which has been advanced in this Committee that the less expensive it is to get into Parliament, the better. It is one of those things which will take place much more speedily and rapidly than it can be brought about by law. The whole tendency at the present moment is to reduce election expenditure and to agree that a great deal of the expenditure is useless and a waste of money. New inventions like wireless have already revolutionised the American elections. At present, the Presidential elections in America are conducted almost entirely on the wireless, and the Presidential candidate can hardly get a hall filled for a public meeting. Those processes are going to take place far more rapidly than you can bring them about by statutory limits.
    This attempt to assess the value of the individual elector is really unimportant, like the rest of the Bill, and is really not worth while wasting time upon. It stands aside from the real forces which are tending to reduce election expenditure. I only warn hon. Members who mention the wireless, for instance, as a new thing which was brought in at the last election, and which tended to make the election laws obsolete, that they should be very careful how, by any new

    1229
    prohibition and attempts to redress the balance, in order to improve the position of their own party, they restrict the use of such inventions, because it is the progress of these new methods which is really going to reduce election expenditure.
    This is not a Bill about which we can exert any original ideas. It is a Brobdingnagian Bill which must be allowed to wind its slow reptilian length along the Floor of the House, and it is impossible to make it the occasion for any real formative change in our election laws or democracy. Within the narrow limits of the Clause, I will vote for the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), simply because I think, on the whole, it is more reasonable than the Government proposal, and a good deal more reasonable than that of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, but it is not going to make any considerable difference. What is going to make the difference is the development at elections of new methods which will proceed far faster than any alteration of the law.
    Mr. ATKINSON: One's only desire is to put down election expenses, and nobody desires it more than I. I have a very large constituency and the maximum sum allowed is £1,740. I know that at the last election but one my agent spent up to the last penny, and last time we were very near the mark. It is so difficult to generalise about constituencies. Although you may be doing something perfectly reasonable to a great number of constituencies, you may be doing something unfair to others, have about 17 different places in my constituency, and propaganda and meetings in one place do not help at all in the next place. Therefore, one has different sets of expenses, which, in the end, amount to a great deal.
    There is a point of great difficulty to myself and to others which I should like to make. There should be a little margin, for the reason that you plan out your expenses as best you can. What happens with many of us is that two or three days before the election a pamphlet is published by your opponent or somebody containing some completely untrue statements, which may be personal ones, and which it is most important to contradict.
    1230
    What happens? I have 70,000 people on my register, and how are you going to communicate with 70,000 except at very great expense? A penny a head comes to almost £300. You cannot send out a circular except at very great expense, and there is no other way of removing the effect of what has been done.
    For that reason, you ought to have a reserve of expenditure, and if you are going to cut down the maximum unduly, there will be nothing in reserve to enable you to meet these emergencies. I remember very well that a number of us had to sit up the whole night, I think for two nights in succession, trying to meet statements which had been circulated and with which it was necessary to deal, and that was the reason why, I think, I almost reached the maximum. If a change had been made, and it had been 5d. instead of 6d. I could not have done it. My expenses were something over 5½d. If the amount had been cut down in this way, I might have been so handicapped that I should not have been able to meet those statements. That is the only reason I have for urging that there ought to be a fairly liberal scale. Nobody spends more than he feels bound to spend when the election comes, but, if you are going to cut the expenses down in this way, there may be occasions in constituencies covering large arears where candidates may be in the very greatest difficulty and find it almost impossible to meet statements which may have been said about them. I have that one fear that we may be going too far in reducing the expenses.
    Sir F. HALL: I have listened with very much interest to the discussion and it is not the first time that I have heard discussions in this House upon this matter. I remember that in 1918, when a reduction was made, we had, practically speaking, the same kind of speeches, a little different in form but more or less on the same lines as the speeches that we have heard to-day. If one looks through the list of expenditure at the various elections it will be seen that some candidates spent nearly the full amount to which they were entitled and that others spent considerably less. No candidate in these hard times wants to spend more than he can possibly help, but at the same time he wants an opportunity of bringing his views with regard to the

    1231
    situation before the whole of the electorate. As has been indicated this afternoon, there may be as many as 110 of 150 villages in a constituency extending for many miles from north to south and from east to west. Expenditure has to take place in each of these small places. It does not matter how small they may be, expenditure has to be incurred in order that the electors may be made conversant with the views of the various candidates. I am a great believer in allowing a reasonable amount to be expended. I know that some hon. Members on this side of the Committee think that the proposals of the Government are such that, as far as they are concerned, they are prepared to support them, but a certain amount of latitude should be allowed. It is not a question of any candidate desiring to spend more than is necessary, but one set of circumstances is not the same as another set of circumstances. Our constituencies are not all governed by the same conditions. It is advisable to leave the amount as it was in 1918.
    I have fought a good many elections since 1910 when I was first elected to this House, and I have had to expend a lot of money upon those elections. I have not been in the fortunate position in which perhaps hon. Members on the other side of the Committee have been of having big trade unions behind them. It is a well-known fact that many hon. Members on the other side of the Committee have had behind them and have been supported by trade unions, and they and their trade unions naturally want to see a considerable reduction made, if possible, and a very laudable desire, too. I do not happen to agree with them, and therefore I have to pay the money out of my own pocket. I want to see a reasonable latitude allowed to all candidates who come along. I well remember on one occasion just before an election took place that the policy which I was advocating was put in a very different manner from that which I thought was the correct version, and considering that I have 42,000 electors, it meant that I was called upon at the last moment to spend l½d. per head on postage. If you are going to reduce the amount in the boroughs to 4d., you are not going to leave a candidate much latitude to send out some notification which he may think
    1232
    necessary at the last moment contradicting, perhaps, something that may have been said by his opponents.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Sunderland (Dr. Phillips) called attention to the expenditure which took place in her double-barrelled constituency. The position is quite different with regard to double-barrelled constituencies. You have the one meeting house for two candidates. You have the same printing where the printing is on behalf of two candidates. Only one poster is required for the two candidates. That reduces what I call the personal expenses. Where there are two candidates fighting under the same regime, one poster does for both. Therefore, with all deference to the hon. Member for Sunderland, I think that she will readily realise that the opportunities in the double-barrelled constituencies are not applicable in single-member constituencies. In the county constituencies the position is much easier in the summer, because you can have outdoor meetings, and all that sort of thing. You have not to meet the indoor expenditure which is so necessary in the winter. We ought not to legislate on the basis of summer elections, as the bulk of the elections, or at any rate those which I have had to fight, have been in the winter. Only twice have I had an opportunity of fighting an election during the summer months.
    We are not affected as much in the London constituencies as the county constituencies. We have a smaller radius. Personally, I am not wedded to the Amendment because as long as you give a reasonable amount of expenditure all well and good, but for goodness sake do not take it upon the basis of a summer election because the figures show a considerable reduction. You are making regulations now, not for one election but, in the ordinary course of events, for years to come. You are going to decide as to what shall be the ultimate expenditure allowed to any candidate who comes along. Although the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said that as far as he was concerned the amount of expenditure was very small, yet he considered that it was the duty of a candidate to make himself both seen and heard in every part of his constituency. As in my case, he has not a very wide radius in his constituency, and he can get round, as I can, much easier than those who re-

    1233
    present county constituencies. It is proposed by this Clause that the cost shall be so considerably reduced that it will, in my opinion, seriously handicap those who fight, county constituencies. It is not only Members of my party who fight county constituencies. The same circumstances apply to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee. They have to make themselves known to their constituents. I sincerely trust that the Government will leave the matter as it is at the present time. I hope that they will not press for the revision contained in the Clause.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I consider that the present allowance is distinctly too high. I maintain that a great many admirable candidates desirous of a seat in this House are kept out because of the tendency which has continued for so many years of spending such vast sums of money on elections. I confess that I have made it my business steadily to reduce my election expenses step by step wherever it has been possible. I think that Members of this House have a great deal to do to live down the rather bad things which have been done at elections in the past. I have never forgotten two things which were said to me within the first, hour or two of my first campaign. One was, "What are you expecting to make out of being a Member of Parliament?" and the next was, "You are not much of a candidate. I can remember a candidate in this constituency dropping as many as a dozen shilling cigars at this corner and not taking the trouble to pick up any of them." That was indicative. I came to the conclusion, that a good many people seemed to think that the proper thing to do was to cause you to spend the largest amount of money possible, and I maintain that that is a bad principle. I heard just now complaints from the other side of the Committee of the way money was wasted by Conservative candidates, but I want to remind those who feel like that that one of their tenets is the distribution of wealth.
    The travelling booth was one of the first things which appealed to me. In country districts it would be a great help to constituents, and, I believe, would save a great deal of money and a great deal of trouble. We heard from the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir
    1234
    S. Hoare) of the difference between Members on this side and on the other side in regard to messengers and clerks. It is far more important to ensure that proper expenses are duly included than to make the limit of expenditure too high, and thereby save candidates from the possibility of being accused of corruption or of spending more than they ought. We ought to aim in the direction of reducing expenses. I am certain that more money is spent on elections than need be.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: This is the only Clause in the Bill which is worth having. The only thing that I like better is the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). One regrets that the Government, if they really do believe in getting cheap elections and in giving more people a better chance of getting into this legislative assembly, did not bring in this Clause in company with another Clause that would have simplified elections and would have prevented the kind of misstatement about which the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) spoke, and would have made it easier for people of all classes to get into the democratic assembly. As I listened to the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham, I thought that the real answer to his conundrum was not to provide means for spending more money in order to contravert lies, but to tighten up the law regarding lies at election times. I have never been able to understand why it has not been treated as a punishable offence to circulate lying statements at elections, which can only be countered by the expenditure of a great deal of money.
    I did not find myself in agreement with the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). What he said was, and it is a recognised fact, that you can only get into this House through the machine—the Unionist machine, the slowly disintegrating Liberal machine, the numerous Labour machines, or the trade union machine. Where I differ is that I think it is a thousand pities that people should have to get in through the machine. It is the machine that crushes out individuality and initiative and that fills this House with grey and bald heads, that deprives this House of the drive and power to cope with emergencies, and results in the emergence of arrivists like

    1235
    the hon. Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley). It is a great mistake to adopt the view that you must only select candidates through a kind of sifting machine. What we want is to give more scope for the young and energetic men to get into Parliament. The machine does not look at anybody until he is too old to be any good, whether he be a trade unionist, a Tory or a Liberal.
    It is perfectly fantastic that one should have to spend these appalling sums in order to have the honour of representing a certain number of one's fellow citizens. If you take the average constituency as 45,000 (and that is well under the mark), the cost at 1d. per voter works out at £187, but at 5d. per voter it is just under £1,000. In these days it is practically impossible for people unless they are in contact with wealthy organisations, which are going to stifle their initiative in one way or another and to exercise a sifting effect, to get into the House, and it is almost impossible for young professional men to get into the House. That is a bad state of affairs. I do not see any need for the expenditure of these vast sums of money. They are spent in vulgar, blatant, self-advertisement in nine cases out of 10. A large amount of the money is paid to useless people, who wait from one election to another in the hope of getting a job. Coupled with any reduction of expenditure there ought to be special measures aimed at the method by which elections are conducted, in order to prevent expenditure in these wasteful and useless ways. Is the money thus
    spent justified? Does anyone really believe that it adds very much to the majority one gets when you spend so much? I know one member of a party, who shall be nameless, who lost his election because he came from a sick bed to an eve of the poll meeting, and the constituents heard him. If his doctor had only been able to keep him in bed for another 24 hours, the election would have resulted in a victory for his party; I will not say which party.
    This is another case in which the Government might have taken their courage in both hands, if they really believe in democracy and progress and in giving everybody a chance to represent his fellowmen. To achieve that end they might have taken much more deliberate steps. It is more difficult on this side of the House to do it. It is much more difficult for those of us who are "the inheritors of unfulfilled renown" and who represent seats where money has been easily come by in the past, to alter these scales of expenses. If the party opposite really have any desire to do a service to democracy they will withdraw this miserable Bill and bring in a Bill for better and cleaner elections, with the expenses reduced to something like the reasonable figure that has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton).
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 68.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Consequential amendments.)
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): I beg to move, in page 5, line 6, to leave out the word "In."
    This is a consequential Amendment, and also the next Amendment, to leave out the words
    the words 'according to the principle of the alternative vote' shall be substituted for"
    and to insert instead thereof the words—
    "shall have effect as if the words 'according to the principle of the alternative vote or' were inserted therein before."
    The reason for these two Amendments is that, as the Committee has decided to retain university representation, and as the Government accepts that decision, there must be a consequential alteration in this Clause. The Clause, as amended, will read as follows:
    "Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-seven of the principal Act shall have effect as if "the words 'according to the principle of the alternative vote or' were inserted therein before words under the system of the transferable vote'."
    Formerly, the Clause provided to omit the words dealing with the transferable vote and to substitute words only dealing with the alternative vote. Now, as the university vote is still to be conducted on the transferable vote system under the Act of 1918, it is necessary to have them both in the Clause, and, therefore, these Amendments propose to allow the Sub-section to read either according to the principle of the alternative vote or under the system of the transferable vote, whichever is applicable to the election that is taking place.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 7, leave out from the word "Act" to the second word "the," in line 8, and insert instead thereof the words
    "shall have effect as if the words 'according to the principle of the alternative vote or' were inserted therein before."—[The Solicitor-General.]
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, at the end, to add the words:
    "(4) For the words 'I have not voted at this General Election in respect of any qualification other than a residence qualification,' wherever those words occur in Part II of the Second Schedule to the principal Act, and wherever those words occur in the Fifth Schedule to the principal Act there shall be substituted the words 'I have not already voted at this General Election.'"
    This Amendment is also consequential upon the retention of the university vote. It is an addition to Sub-section (4) of this Clause. Under the existing law a voter can exercise a vote at a General Election, both in respect of his residence qualification and his university qualification, but he cannot exercise a vote in respect of his university qualification if he elects to vote in respect of a business premises qualification to which he may be entitled. The existing law, therefore, requires a university elector to make a declaration before voting for his university constituency that he has not voted at the General Election in respect of any qualification other than his residence qualification. As Clause 3 has been passed by the Committee it does away with all plural voting in the case of universities as well as in the case of other qualifications, but Clause 4 has been deleted which, therefore, leaves university representation still in the Bill, and it becomes necessary to provide by this Amendment that the declaration which is made by a university voter shall be in different words to those in the present Act. That alteration is made by substituting the words "I have not already voted at this General Election" for the words which at present stand in the Schedule, "I have not voted at this General Election in respect of any qualification other than a residence qualification." It makes it clear that the university voter has not given any vote at all and, therefore, has not contravened the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill.
    Lord E. PERCY: We have no objection to this Amendment purely as a drafting Amendment, but we do not accept the principle that the restoration

    1241
    of the university vote should be combined with a continued prohibition of plural voting in that respect. It would reduce the university franchise almost to a reductio ad absurdam. I do not want to argue that question at this stage, nor should I be in order, but I should like to point out that of all the extraordinary pieces of drafting this is one of the most amazing. When I send in my voting paper for my university I have only to say on it that I have not voted at this General Election and, as I always send in my paper two days before the poll, I shall continue to do this with the utmost candour and honesty. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Government, but it is so obvious a point that I should have thought they had considered it.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I should have thought that this was an excellent Amendment. The Government, apparently, will enable a university voter to vote at his university and then vote somewhere else. This is one of the occasions on which the Government have had a sudden influx of common sense. This is an Amendment which we can accept without any great quibbling, but it would be interesting to know exactly how it is proposed to enforce these words and how it is proposed to enforce this particular form of oath, which the university elector is to take on these occasions. It rather looks as if the Government are sticking into this Bill words which have no meaning, and I have always been opposed to a superfluity of words in any legislation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member opposite is dying to say something on this Amendment. Why have the Government been so sloppy in their drafting of this Bill? They have had weeks and weeks with practically nothing to do during which they could have put this Clause right. Is it really a sort of mean, underhand way of the Government's to try to get some unseen benefit which we have not yet discovered? It is a waste of printing to put these words down, and on the whole I think they would be better left out. If the Committee would follow my advice, they would negative the Amendment. I notice that the Home Secretary is shy about supporting these words, and has left his more or less legal advisers to tell
    1242
    the Committee what the position is. I think we ought to have the help of the so-called advisers in the matter, if they are capable of giving the advice, and I hope to hear it in due course.
    Mr. KELLY: May I assure the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that he makes many mistakes in this House, and when he says he is very anxious that too many words should not be used, he may have referred to the words in the Bill, but I do not think anyone would accuse him of any brevity in the use of words? I assure him also that there is no hon. Member on this side who is dying to join in this discussion. We know that it is usual for those who cast their votes for university candidates to do so by post before the date when they are called upon to attend a polling booth in any other constituency throughout the country, and does this declaration, "I have not already voted at this general election," mean that they will have satisfied the Act if, having signed the declaration, they vote at a university election, and are then at liberty to vote in some other constituency? If language means anything, it means that they are only asked to make this declaration once, and that is when they are casting a vote in a university election.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I think I am entitled to reply to the very personal observations which were made about myself by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) when he referred to my brevity. May I assure him that it was only last night that I was accused by someone on his own Front Bench of not having taken part in the Debate? I think it is a wicked thing that he should accuse me of a lack of brevity at any time, when it is well known that my main object is to make my speeches brief.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has drawn my attention to the form of this Amendment. It is in the form which follows the wording of the Act of 1918, and exactly the same point would of course arise under that Act as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out would arise in this case when there is a university vote. A declaration made some days before the polling itself would obviously not be of very much value in such circumstances. The actual prohibition is under Clause 3, where there is a prohibi-

    1243
    tion against any plural voting at all. The penalty is that it is an illegal practice under Section 22 of the principal Act:
    "If any person at a General Election votes for more constituencies than he is entitled to vote for in accordance with this Act, or asks for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of so voting, be shall be guilty of an illegal practice."
    That is the penalty under Section 22, so that, although these words appear to be rather useless, they would not affect a right to vote in more than one constituency. In these circumstances, I think it would be better if I were to ask leave to with draw the Amendment now, so as to have an opportunity of looking into the matter a little more closely and dealing with it on the Report stage.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, at the end, to add the words:
    "(4) In any election conducted upon the principle of the alternative vote,—

    (a) the substitutions specified in the Schedule to this Act entitled 'Directions to Voters' shall be made in the form of directions for the guidance of the voter contained in the Second Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872;

    (b) the figures on the left-hand side of the names of the candidates shown on the form of front of ballot paper in the Second Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, shall be omitted."

    Hon. Members will see that I have also put upon the Order Paper a new Schedule, on lines recommended by, I cannot remember whether it was Mr. Speaker Lowther's Conference or one of the Departmental Committees which were set up At that period on the question of the Alternative Vote. In the preparation of the Act of 1918, there was a great deal of activity, and, hon. Members will remember, the Alternative Vote And Proportional Representation were both brought into the original draft of the Act of 1918 and subsequently omitted by the decision of this House and another place. It was suggested that these alterations which I am now putting forward should be made in the case of seats where the Alternative Vote was to operate. An enormous amount of consideration was given to these rather technical problems at the time of the 1918 Act, and I put this Amendment down in order to ask the
    1244
    Home Secretary why those particular recommendations have not been incorporated in this Bill.
    We have not had a great deal of experience in this country of the Alternative Vote. We have had a certain amount from our Dominions, which are the only parts of the world where this system of voting is carried out. Investigations in 1918 evidently suggested that these particular proposals would be desirable in the event of the Alternative Vote being adopted in this country, and they do not seem to me to affect any very far-reaching point of principle. I think that further instruction to voters than are contained in the existing instructions under the 1918 Act in the Third Schedule to this Bill are needed, and if voters are going to be asked to number the candidates on the voting paper, it is very undesirable that the numbers 1, 2, 3 and so on should appear on the opposite side of the ballot paper. It seems to me that there is no point in having those numbers on the opposite side, and they might very well be Abolished. I move my Amendment chiefly in order to inquire why these recommendations of either a Departmental Committee or one of the committees of investigation in 1918 have not been carried into effect in this Bill.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has raised quite an interesting point and one which the Government have attempted to cover in a way which they think more useful, especially in view of the novelty of the procedure, to which he has drawn attention. There were two possible ways of dealing with this necessary alteration to the directions for the guidance of voters and other matters which would arise with regard to Regulations under the existing Acts. One was to attempt to put them in the Schedule to this Bill in the form in which they are set out here, and the other was to leave the matter, as it is left in Clause 1, Subsection (2), to Regulations to be made by Order in Council. It was felt that that far more flexible method was a wiser method to adopt in view of the novelty of the procedure. Therefore, Subsection (2) of Clause 1 was put in to give power to make Rules by Order in Council to deal with any of the matters which might arise, such as those dealt with in the Amendment. I think perhaps the

    1245
    hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that that may be a wiser way of doing it when flexibility is rather necessary in introducing a new matter of this sort.
    Lord ERSKINE: The learned Solicitor-General said that this matter can be covered by regulations to be made by the Home Secretary under Clause 1, and it may well be that that is a better method of carrying out the intention of the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I want to ask whether, if theses regulations are made, they have to be laid on the Table of each House of Parliament, or if Parliament has any control at all over them.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am horrified to think that these regulations should be dealt with in any way by Order-in-Council. I have always had a very grave dislike of Orders-in-Council which are made to take the place of legislation. It is never very satisfactory, and on a matter such as this, it is all the more important that the House of Commons should be able to make up its mind, and that either these figures should be on the left side of the paper before the voting has taken place or on both sides of the paper after the voting has taken place. That should either be the law of this country and made plain to every elector in the land that that is the position, or else you should have some alternative method.
    The learned Solicitor-General referred to a previous part of the Bill which deals with this iniquitous method of Orders-in-Council, but Orders-in-Council have been run to an absurdity. They have been used in such a way as to enable almost any hon. or right hon. Member who is defending a Bill to say, "This is a difficult point, and therefore we will leave it to Orders-in-Council." The learned Solicitor-General took that defence upon himself this evening and seemed to think that that was an adequate answer to the very interesting and able exposition which was given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). The point which my hon. and gallant Friend made was that in a case such as this, the confusion which might arise should be dealt with clearly, and that you should not leave it to be dealt with at some future date.
    1246
    I realise that when you are in difficulties it is very nice to put the whole question on one side and to leave it to someone else to deal with, but the Solicitor-General did not give any real reason for objecting to the Amendment. If he had come down to the House with all those resources which he has behind him for the collection of information, and said that this Amendment was irrelevant and would not work, we might have been able to take another view of it. But he merely said that he thought another part of the Bill dealt with it fairly adequately. The Amendment is a real effort to make the Bill workable and clear as far as it is possible to make an almost imbecile Bill workable. For that reason we are entitled to have something very much stronger from the Government before we go over the Amendment. I wish that some of my hon. Friends would explain to me the first part of the Amendment. I am not certain what is the meaning of paragraph (a).
    Dr. MORGAN: Look it up for yourself.
    The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young): The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. Williams) is quite in order.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I did not resent the interruption. I should be delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman, if he can, make a speech on the subject. I am not sure whether he can or not. It is not a case of looking up anything. The complications of various Acts are sometimes so great that it is not possible for the ordinary layman to be in the position in which he ought to be, to be able to explain a Bill in detail to his constituents. I ask some hon. Member to give me a clear definition of what paragraph (a) of the Amendment means. I see the Solicitor-General smiling. I hope that he has the information there and that he is going to give it. I shall listen to him with the greatest attention. Are the Government and their supporters prepared to say that they have got the very best possible form under the Bill for dealing with the matter that is referred to in the Amendment? I do not think that they have. Therefore, I hold that the Government are wrong in turning down the Amendment, which has been most carefully drawn up by one of the greatest experts in election matters on this side of the Committee. If we

    1247
    have to go to a Division I shall vote for the Amendment without any qualms of conscience. I see that the Under-Secretary for the Home Department is looking anxious.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): No.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Then he is not looking anxious. I can only say that he has a most misleading expression on his face. I thought he was dying to make a speech, a thing which I abominate doing. If he does make a speech, I hope he will give us the benefit of his full legal knowledge, because otherwise some of his supporters may be following the Government into the Lobby under misguided circumstances without full knowledge of what they are doing.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: In reply to the Noble Lord, under Section 40 of the Act of 1918, all rules, regulations or provisions made under that Act have to be laid before each House of Parliament.
    Captain BOURNE: In view of the Solicitor-General's statement that the Government propose to deal with this matter by Orders in Council, and that we shall have an opportunity of seeing the Orders, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Now that we come to the Clause in the whole of its so-called glory, my first duty is to congratulate the Government on their great wisdom in having withdrawn one of their Amendments. If they had not withdrawn that Amendment the Clause would have been even worse than it is. I see at the side of the Clause the words, "Consequential Amendments." The Clause begins by saying:
    "In Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-two of the principal Act."
    It is always going back to the principal Act. I object to these reference Clauses. It is always better to have things clearly in print so that registration officers and others may know clearly what is meant. That is my outstanding objection to the Clause as it stands. Another objection is to Sub-section (2). It starts:
    1248
    "In Sub-section (2) of Section twenty-seven of the principal Act the words 'according to the principle of the alternative vote' shall be substituted for the words under the system of the transferable vote.'"
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman should pay attention to the business done. Those words have been taken out.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: That is just my difficulty. It is very difficult when things have been taken out to know exactly where one is. I objected to these words. I did not say that they were in or that they were out.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must be fair. He read the words as if they were in the Sub-section.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, I read them and I congratulate the Government on having taken them out of the Clause, but, while that has considerably improved the Clause, it is still a Clause which will not be easily understandable by those who have to administer it. It is the position of those who will have to administer this Measure—people like returning officers, election agents and the candidates themselves—to which I wish to draw attention. Their present position is very difficult, but the complications of this Clause will make their difficulties greater than ever, and before we place it on the Statute Book the Home Secretary ought to give us a clear definition of it and explain precisely what is being done by it. We have had no definition of the Clause during this evening's proceedings, and, on an occasion such as this, we ought to have a legal definition of what we are doing from some part of the House. I admit that the Clause is better than it was, but originally it could not have been very much worse.
    It has, I think, been a principle of the Liberal party to try to ensure that electors going to the poll will find it easy to avoid breaking the law in any way. I wonder if the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) could give me some enlightenment on this matter, because I value his opinion. Can he explain the last part of this Clause, and is he prepare to go to his constituency and give an exposition of the Clause and to reply to the heckling of his Scottish constituents on this matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "Welsh."] I most respectfully beg the

    1249
    hon. Member's pardon. I always thought he had some connection with Scotland, but this Clause applies to Wales as well as to Scotland. I should also like to ask the Under-Secretary if he has consulted with the Scottish Law Officers as regards the application of this Clause to Scotland. There may be complications in that respect, and, as there are no Scottish Members present, it is only right that someone should raise the question of Scotland's position in relation to this very important matter.
    I am glad to know that my own party propose to divide against this Clause, and, unless we have a better explanation of it than we have had up to the present, I shall be reluctantly compelled to vote with my party on this occasion. If the Government are out for converts I am willing to be converted—if they can explain to me the exact meaning of this Clause and show me that it is any improvement on the present electoral law. But their coyness in answering questions shows that they are really ashamed of the Clause and that they regard it as a disgraceful Clause which reflects no credit upon them. It has not merely a hidden meaning but many hidden meanings. As I said in reference to a Clause of another Bill which we were dealing with in Committee this morning, it shows that the Government and their supporters put forward proposals like this with no object and no intention, but simply because they are absolutely controlled by an inferiority complex.
    Sir BASIL PETO: I wish to ask the Government if they propose that the polling officer is to ask every elector before he votes, "Have you already voted at this General Election?" I wish to know whether any Member of the Government, or any hon. Member, has ever been asked by the officer in charge of a polling station this or any other personal question after the presentation of his card duly numbered and certifying that he is a registered voter? If the answer to that question be in the negative, then I ask the Government why they do not try to find some other method of dealing with the matter? Why put into an Act of Parliament a Clause which they know will not be operated? It is clear that in the rush hour at the end of a polling day, when a large number of electors are anxious to
    1250
    vote, it will be physically impossible for the officer in charge to ask this or any other question of each elector before the elector is allowed to vote. I object to any Clause in any Bill which seeks to enact something which those responsible know will never be carried into effect. I regard this Clause as a futility. It is not likely to be operated, and it serves no useful purpose whatever. I also ask the Government if they have considered whether they ought not to repeal these tests for electors and rely on the electors themselves or on any other method they like of imposing penalties for voting twice in an election, or anything of that sort, instead of throwing on the officer in charge a duty which it will be physically impossible for him to fulfil.
    That being my view, I would like seine justification from the Government for asking us to pass this Clause. Such a Clause ought to have been in a totally different form. The Government ought to have considered the conditions of modern elections with the enormous body of electors. It is not a question of a few privileged people in the possession of property who are alone entitled to use the franchise, and to whom it might be appropriate that the returning officer should ask all sorts of questions as to whether they have the proper qualifications one way or another, and whether they have voted once, twice, or, as was the law up to a few years ago, 11 times in one general election under different qualifications. All these circumstances do not exist in the present day, and for the returning officer in charge of a polling station to have to find out whether each individual elector has broken the law before he is allowed to exercise the franchise is an anachronism and a folly, and perpetuates tests which belong to another age and not to the elections of to-day.
    I seriously ask the Home Secretary that the Government should consider this from that point of view, and that they should employ simpler methods which are more applicable to the conditions of 1931. All that they have done is to consider whether this question, which has in the past had to be asked of electors before exercising the franchise, exactly fits the new conditions under which the franchise is to be exercised under this present Bill. They have then proposed

    1251
    such Amendments in the words as they thought are appropriate to the alteration they are making in the law. That is not the point of view from which they should have considered the question at all. They should have began by considering whether to ask this question of the electors is reasonably possible under the present conditions, and whether this ancient method of dealing with the subject is appropriate to the conditions of the present day. I do not think that they have ever considered the question from that point of view.
    Before we pass this Clause we are entitled to know how much hard thinking the Government put into this question before they had the Clause printed. We are entitled to ask the Government that they should not bring before the House and have considered in Committee a question to which they have not given any practical thought. As it stands, the Clause is useless and will never be operative. The Government know that, and, knowing it, ought to have considered whether a totally different way of dealing with the question ought not to have been adopted. If we proceed in legislation on these lines there will be no end to it. In every Bill that is brought in, we ought, instead of merely tinkering with the question, to use the brain power that God has given us and consider the question in the light of the present day and from an original point of view. If we merely look at it in a pedantic way, considering precisely what is written in some previous more or less ancient Act of Parliament, and considering only what slight verbal change is necessary in order to make it conform to the particular alteration we are proposing at the moment, what will our legislation look like in 50 years time, and who will be able to interpret it? I beg the Government, who are so up to date, and who represent a progressive party, and are introducing new legislation entirely in their own interest, to give at any rate one passing thought to the general public interest, and to bring just one fragment of the light of original thought to bear on to this matter.
    Mr. MORRIS: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) urges some hard thinking before the question is allowed to pass. I would
    1252
    certainly urge the Government to do a little more thinking on other parts of the Bill, but in this case I would ask the hon. Member himself to do a little more thinking. With regard to the question set out in the Schedule of the principal Act., it is clear under Clause 22 that the question need not be compulsorily put. It is clearly put for the protection of the voter who might be committing an offence. To vote twice in certain circumstances is an offence under the principal Act, and to vote twice in any circumstances will be an offence under this Bill. In order to protect a person who might be committing an offence, the presiding officer can, if he suspects that an offence is being committed, put the question set out in the Second Schedule. That therefore disposes of the hon. Member's picture of the rush hours at the last moment. Apart from this Clause, the presiding officer would not have the power to put the question at all.
    Sir B. PETO: I do not think that that disposes of my point at all. My point was that in the rush hours of a modern election it is practically impossible for the presiding officer to put this question to electors. I asked the question whether any Member of the House has ever been asked one of these qustions.
    Mr. MORRIS: I agree that it may be impossible for the presiding officer to ask the question, but it is not mandatory upon him to ask it. The Act, does not say he shall ask the question, but that he may ask it of any person who may possibly be committing an offence. He need not necessarily ask it. There are many unreasonable things in this Bill, but this is not one of them. As Amendments are being made to the principal Act, it is necessary to make consequential Amendments. This Clause is one of the most reasonable Clauses in the Bill. I am not enthusiastic about many of the Clauses, but I think that this Clause is a good one.
    Mr. R. W. SMITH: There is one question I have to ask. Suppose a voter is not asked the question: "Have you already recorded your vote?" Will that fact be a complete defence for him if proceedings are taken against him? It is hardly fair to say the returning officer has power to ask him that question; it

    1253
    ought to be his duty to do so; if he does not put that question, it should be a dereliction of duty on his part. In the rush hour at the poll, how could the returning officer scan the face of each person? Those who preside in the polling booths will be asking for extra pay if they have to run over whole lists of questions and say to themselves: "Must I put one of those questions to this man? Does he look as though he had voted before?" It is perfectly ridiculous that a returning officer should have to ask himself these questions. If a person goes up to the desk and asks for a voting paper that ought to be sufficient for the returning officer. He ought to regard the man as saying: "I am entitled to vote and I have not voted before."
    Mr. CLYNES: There is very little information which the Committee require in addition to that which has already been given by the Solicitor-General. I rise only to reassure the hon. Baronet that in his absence this Clause has been treated in the kindliest way. No other proposal in the Bill has been better treated, and the discussion has been of the most harmonious character. All the Clause is designed to do is to prevent an elector from innocently violating the law. The point is likely to arise in only a very few cases, and will not cause inconvenience to the general body of electors. It states what is intended in brief and simple language, and I hope the hon. Baronet will now be content.
    Sir B. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has ever known a case where these provisions dealing with a question to be asked by the presiding officer have ever had any effect or have ever been put into force?
    Mr. CLYNES: No such instances have come under my personal notice, but that does not mean that cases have not occurred, nor does it mean that we ought to frame the law without regard to the possibility of such occurrences in the future.
    Sir JOHN WITHERS: I am afraid there must be something smacking of the double vote about me, because I have been frequently asked whether I have voted before. I mention that for the information of the Home Secretary.
    Mr. R. W. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to
    1254
    whether it would be a reasonable defence for a man to say that he was not asked the question when it is possible for the returning officer to have put the point to him?
    Mr. CLYNES: We have to concern ourselves with the actual terms of the Clause, and not with possible questions in a court of law if an action ever arose. It would then be for the court to decide that point, and I had better not attempt to give an answer now.
    Dr. MORGAN: According to (1, a) of Clause 22 of the principal Act of 1918, the court has a discretion, in the special circumstances of a case, to mitigate or entirely remit any incapacity imposed by Section 10 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act. Therefore, whether a man was or was not asked whether he had voted before, if he innocently violated the law, and could prove there had been a genuine mistake, the court would have power to mitigate or remit the penalty.
    Mr. CECIL WILSON: I would like to point out that Section 22 of the principal Act reads thus:
    "If any person at a General Election votes for more constituencies than he is entitled to vote for in accordance with this Act, or asks for a ballot or voting paper for the purpse of so voting, he shall be guilty of an illegal practice."
    I think that answers the point put by the hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. HARRIS: In answer to the observations of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers), I can assure him that he is not a suspicious looking character. The last thing that a presiding officer would think would be that he was trying to break the law. The reason why he is singled out for special inquiry is, no doubt, that he has the business qualification vote, and in such cases it is customary to ask whether the man has already voted. Where a man has a business qualification vote that fact is shown on the register, as well as his private address, and it is in such cases that it is customary for the presiding officer to ask the question.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 68.

    Division No. 224.]

    AYES.

    [7.38 p.m.

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

    Brothers, M.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

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

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

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

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

    Dukes, C.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Buchanan, G.

    Duncan, Charles

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Burgess, F. G.

    Ede, James Chuter

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Butler, R. A.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

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

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Ayles, Walter

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Elmley, Viscount

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Cameron, A. G.

    Fison, F. G. Clavering

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Cape, Thomas

    Freeman, Peter

    Barnes, Alfred John

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

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

    Barr, James

    Chater, Daniel

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)

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

    Church, Major A. G.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Benson, G.

    Clarke, J. S.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    Bird, Ernest Roy

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour.

    Gill, T. H.

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Cove, William G.

    Glassey, A. E.

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Gossling, A. G.

    Bowen, J. W.

    Daggar, George

    Gould, F.

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Dallas, George

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Bracken, B.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Bromfield, William

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Groves, Thomas E.

    McShane, John James

    Sexton, Sir James

    Grundy, Thomas W.

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

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Manning, E. L.

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

    Mansfield, W.

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    March, S.

    Shield, George William

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

    Marcus, M.

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Hardie, George D.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Harris, Percy A.

    Marley, J.

    Shinwell, E.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Marshall, Fred

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Hayes, John Henry

    Mathers, George

    Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Matters, L. W.

    Sinkinson, George

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

    Maxton, James

    Sitch, Charles H.

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

    Messer, Fred

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Herriotts, J.

    Middleton, G.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Mills, J. E.

    Smith, Lees-, H. B.

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

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Morley, Ralph

    Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

    Hollins, A.

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Hopkin, Daniel

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

    Sorensen, R.

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Mort, D. L.

    Strauss, G. R.

    Isaacs, George

    Murnin, Hugh

    Sullivan, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

    Noel Baker, P. J.

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

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

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

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

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    O'Connor, T. J.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Tillett, Ben

    Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Palin, John Henry.

    Toole, Joseph

    Kelly, W. T.

    Palmer, E. T.

    Vaughan, David

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Viant, S. P.

    Kinley, J.

    Penny, Sir George

    Walkden, A. G.

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

    Perry, S. F.

    Walker, J.

    Lang, Gordon

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Watkins, F. C.

    Lathan, G.

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Potts, John S.

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Lawrence, Susan

    Price, M. P.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Lawson, John James

    Pybus, Percy John

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    West, F. R.

    Leach, W.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Westwood, Joseph

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    White, H. G.

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Lees, J.

    Richards, R.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Romeril, H. G.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Lunn, William

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Rothschild, J. de

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

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

    Rowson, Guy

    Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

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

    McElwee, A.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Wise, E. F.

    McEntee, V. L.

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    McKinlay, A.

    Sanders, W. S.

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Sandham, E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Scurr, John

    NOES.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

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

    Atkinson, C.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Fielden, E. B.

    Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

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

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Fremantle, Lieut-Colonel Francis E.

    Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

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

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

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Clydesdale, Marquess of

    Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

    Remer, John R.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hanbury, C.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

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

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Duckworth, G. A. V.

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

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    1238

    1239

    Skelton, A. N.

    Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Train, J.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Somerset, Thomas

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Lord Erskine and Captain Bourne.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Division No. 225.]

    AYES.

    [8.58 p.m.

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

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

    Palmer, E. T.

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

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

    Perry, S. F.

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Herriotts, J.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

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

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Ammon, Charles George

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

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Hollins, A.

    Potts, John S.

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Pybus, Percy John

    Ayles, Walter

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Isaacs, George

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Barnes, Alfred John

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Barr, James

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Richards, R.

    Batey, Joseph

    Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Benson, G.

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

    Rowson, Guy

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Kelly, W. T.

    Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Bowen, J. W.

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kinley, J.

    Sanders, W. S.

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Lang, Gordon

    Sandham, E.

    Bromfield, William

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Sawyer, G. F.

    Brothers, M.

    Lathan, G.

    Scurr, John

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

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Sexton, Sir James

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

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

    Lawson, John James

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Buchanan, G.

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Burgess, F. G.

    Leach, W.

    Shield, George William

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

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Caine, Hall-, Derwent

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Cameron, A. G.

    Lees, J.

    Shinwell, E.

    Cape, Thomas

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Chater, Daniel

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Lloyd, C. Ellis

    Sinkinson, George

    Cluse, W. S.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lunn, William

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Cove, William G.

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Smith, Lees-, H. B.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

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

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Daggar, George

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Dallas, George

    McElwee, A.

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Dalton, Hugh

    McEntee, V. L.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    McKinlay, A.

    Sullivan, J.

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Sutton, J. E.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    McShane, John James

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

    Dukes, C.

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

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

    Duncan, Charles

    Manning, E. L.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Ede, James Chuter

    March, S.

    Vaughan, David

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Marcus, M.

    Viant, S. P.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Marshall, Fred

    Walkden, A. G.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Mathers, George

    Walker, J.

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

    Matters, L. W.

    Wallace, H. W.

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Maxton, James

    Watkins, F. C.

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Messer, Fred

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Middleton, G.

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

    Mills, J. E.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gill, T. H.

    Montague, Frederick

    Welsh, James (paisley)

    Glassey, A. E.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Westwood, Joseph

    Gossling, A. G.

    Morley, Ralph

    White, H. G.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

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

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Mort, D. L.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Murnin, Hugh

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Hall, J. H (Whitechapel)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

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

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Noel Baker, P. J.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Hardie, George D.

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

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

    Harris, Percy A.

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Wise, E. F.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Hayday, Arthur

    Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Palin, John Henry

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Charleton.

    NOES.

    Albery, Irving James

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

    Atkinson, C.

    Bracken, B.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

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

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Butler, R. A.

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    1256

    1257

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Somerset, Thomas

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

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Peake, Captain Osbert

    Train, J.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Remer, John R.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Hanbury, C.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Wayland, Sir William A.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Wells, Sydney R.

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Withers, Sir John James

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

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Womersley, W. J.

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Skelton, A. N.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)

    Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Smithers, Waldron

    Sir George Bowyer.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Short title, citation, extent and repeal.)
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, to leave out the words "except as otherwise expressly provided."
    This Amendment is necessary in consequence of the decision of the House to retain university representation. As the Bill stood originally, it was proposed to abolish university representation in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain, and that was the reason why the words "except as otherwise expressly provided," were originally included. Now that Clause 4 has gone altogether, it is necessary to omit these words and simply provide that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland at all.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, to leave out Sub-section (3) and to insert the words:
    "(3) Sub-section (1) of Section eight of the principal Act from the words c but a person,' to the end of the Sub-section, is hereby repealed."
    This Amendment is also necessary in consequence of retaining university representation in the Bill. Part II of the Third Schedule deals with a number of points relating to university representation, and, as university representation has been left undisturbed, it is necessary to delete Part II of the Third Schedule. The position as regards Part I of the Third Schedule is rather different. Part I proposes to repeal certain words in Section 8 (1) of the Act of 1918, which relates, not to the right to vote, but to the right of voting in more than one constituency at a General Election. As Part I of the Third Schedule refers to
    1258
    only one enactment, it is considered convenient from a drafting point of view to introduce this single repeal into the body of the Bill, rather than to repeal it by way of the Schedule. The whole of the Third Schedule will, therefore, be omitted, and the words of this Amendment will be substituted for the repeal.
    Captain BOURNE: While it is the case that, owing to the decision of the Committee to retain the university vote, Subsection (3) as originally drafted no longer operates, I would suggest that the new Sub-section (3) does not read. I have here a copy of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of which reads as follows:
    "Every person registered as a Parliamentary elector for any constituency shall, while so registered (and in the case of a woman notwithstanding sex or marriage), be entitled to vote at an election of a member to serve in Parliament for that constituency; but a man shall not vote at a general election for more than that one constituency for which he is registered by virtue of a residence qualification or for more than one constituency for which he is registered by virtue of other qualifications of whatever kind, and a woman shall not vote at a general election for more than one constituency for which she is registered by virtue of her own or her husband's local government qualification, or for more than one constituency for which she is registered by virtue of any other qualification."
    The new Sub-section provides that Subsection (1) of Section 8 of the principal Act, from the words "but a person" to the end of the Sub-section, shall be repealed, but the words "but a person" do not appear in Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the original Act, and, therefore, I suggest that this Amendment had better be withdrawn and redrafted and put down again on Report.
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. and gallant Friend is not quite right,

    1259
    because, by the Act as subsequently amended, Section 8 (1) was altered so as to read:
    "but a person shall not vote at a General Election,"
    and so on. The Amendment, therefore, is quite accurate.
    Captain BOURNE: I am perfectly willing to accept that, but I think it is a misfortune that, in referring to the principal Act, it should not have been stated that that Act has been amended, because it is a little difficult for anyone to discover it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir GERALD HURST: Before the House gives its assent to Clause 9 in its present form, I suggest that a material passage in Sub-section (1) ought to receive the serious attention of the Committee. Sub-section (1) reads as follows:
    "This Act may be cited as the Representation of the People Act, 1931, and shall be included among the Acts which may be cited together as the Representation of the People Acts."
    All the Representation of the People Acts in our history have been Acts which have made better provision for the representation of the people, but it is a mere travesty of the facts to cite this Measure as a Representation of the People Act. On what grounds can this title be aptly given? The only ground on which it can be aptly given is that the Act secures in some way or another a better reflection of the various types of character and experience which make up the nation. That ground does not exist in the case of this Measure. The Bill has four principal provisions. In the first place, it establishes the system of the Alternative Vote, and a system of voting by which the supporters of the candidate who comes at the bottom of the poll have twice as much power in selecting their member as the supporters of any other candidate cannot be described as better representation of the people. This system of election may make its appeal to States in a more backward condition of civilisation. It is said to be practised in some of our dependencies, and it has made its appeal in some
    1260
    foreign countries; it has had some attraction for the Portuguese. But, so far as our own people are concerned, the Alternative Vote has never had any support at all. It has no mandate from the country, and it is ridiculous to call a Bill the main proposal of which is inserted for purely tactical reasons a Representation Bill. A second feature of the Bill is that it deprives the great cities of England of what has always been a distinctive element in their representation. The whole point of giving representation to the central divisions of our great towns is that they represent centres of trade, industry, commerce and enterprise and a system which deprives—
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is that Clause 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill, but the hon. and learned Member now is really discussing the whole Bill, and not the Clause.
    Sir G. HURST: The passage that I was discussing was the first words of Clause 9, which describe how this Act shall be cited, and I submit that it is relevant to put before the Committee grounds on which I suggest that it is not only inapt, but also inept, to describe a Measure of this sort as a Representation of the People Act.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: On this particular Clause, the only point would be as to whether it is inexact.
    Sir G. HURST: That is exactly my point, and you have put it more perfectly than I could myself. My contention is that it is inexact to describe this Bill as a Representation of the People Bill, and I was putting before the Committee the grounds on which I base that contention. I have already mentioned two; may I draw attention to a third? It has always been a characteristic of our university representation that a man who exercised his university vote was not debarred from voting also in the district in which he lived. That is based upon our idea that, if a man lives and works in a place, he ought to have a share in its representation, and that, if he is a member of a university, he ought to have his share, in deciding the representation of that university. This Bill deprives tree university elector of that right. He still has the one vote or the other vote, but he is not entitled to the two types

    1261
    of representation to which he has previously had the right. It is curious how the Socialist party talk so much about their belief in education, but seem to wish to put disabilities on all educated men and women. I suppose the reason is that, the more educated people become, the less sympathy they have with Socialism. The effect of this Bill is to diminish by one-half the power of university men and women to have their voice in deciding who shall represent them in the Imperial Parliament, and for that reason again I submit that it is both inapt and inept to describe the Bill as a Representation of the People Act. On these grounds I ask the Committee to take the view that the opening passage of Clause 9 as now drafted is, to use your own expression, Mr. Dunnico, inexact, and to protest against its insertion in the Bill.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Before we leave this Clause, whether it be added to the Bill or not, it is incumbent upon someone who is not a lawyer to protest against the attitude of the Solicitor-General five minutes ago in not giving the fullest information that it ought to have been in his power to give. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) pointed out that the Amendment which the Solicitor-General was moving did not exactly represent the case. The Solicitor-General had to admit that that was so, and made no apology at all for his attitude. Not having stayed to see the Clause through, it is incumbent on some one to make that protest. I am sorry that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend was not called, because there is no doubt that Misrepresentation of the People Act would have been a much better description of the Measure, and even a better one strikes me as being the Complication of Voting Act because, if there is one thing that it will do, it is to complicate the whole system of our voting and complicate the circumstances under which any elector is going to be permitted to cast his vote. It is a very great pity that the Government should be allowed to hoodwink the country by bringing in a Measure of this kind with Liberal assistance with the grandiloquent title of Representation of the People Act. It has absolutely no relation at all to any object of that kind. It is nothing
    1262
    more or less than a bargain between those two parties to keep the Government in office, the Home Secretary to continue to rule us and the Attorney-General to retain emoluments of £40,000 a year.
    Mr. CLYNES: I accept, as among the objects of the Measure, some of the provisions to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred, but it has others. I agree also that there may be something in the point of the two hon. Members who have spoken about the language of the Clause. I myself might have suggested an improvement, but it is too late now. We could make it by describing this Bill as a Bill designed to ensure greater equality in the representation of the people in this House, to cheapen elections, to make the use of motor cars more equal between candidate and candidate, to abolish the plural vote, to diminish the enormous privilege which wealth ham in Parliamentary contests, and to ensure greater equality in the representation of the people.
    Sir THOMAS INSKIP: We are not accustomed to such expressions as have come from the Home Secretary.
    Mr. MILLS: The caddishness of back benchers.
    Earl WINTERTON: I will ask you, Sir, to protect this side from the insolent interruptions of the hon. Member. I ask whether the word "caddishness" is in order?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The word "caddishness" is improper and ought not to be used with reference to any Member at all.
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
    Mr. MILLS: Out of respect to the Chair, I will withdraw the word "caddishness," and substitute for it "cheap and nasty."
    Sir T. INSKIP: When we had that most characteristic exhibition of the hon. Member opposite, I was about to say that, as Saul is among the prophets, perhaps I may attempt to make a clumsy effort at humour, not so successfully I am sure as the right hon. Gentleman. I do not share his great gifts in that direction. If the Bill were to be properly entitled, it might be called a Bill for the Relief of the Liberal party.
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 71.

    Division No. 226.]

    AYES.

    [9.20 p.m.

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

    Haycock, A. W.

    Palin, John Henry

    Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

    Hayday, Arthur

    Paling, Wilfrid

    Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Palmer, E. T.

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

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

    Perry, S. F.

    Ammon, Charles George

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

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Angell, Sir Norman

    Herriotts, J.

    Phillips, Dr. Marion

    Aske, Sir Robert

    Hicks, Ernest George

    Picton-Turbervill, Edith

    Attlee, Clement Richard

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

    Pole, Major D. G.

    Ayles, Walter

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Potts, John S.

    Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hollins, A.

    Pybus, Percy John

    Barnes, Alfred John

    Hopkin, Daniel

    Quibell, D. J. K.

    Barr, James

    Horrabin, J. F.

    Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

    Batey, Joseph

    Isaacs, George

    Rathbone, Eleanor

    Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Benson, G.

    Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Richards, R.

    Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

    Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Birkett, W. Norman

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

    Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

    Rosbotham, D. S. T.

    Bowen, J. W.

    Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

    Rowson, Guy

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Broad, Francis Alfred

    Kelly, W. T.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

    Bromfield, William

    Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Brothers, M.

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

    Sanders, W. S.

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

    Kinley, J.

    Sandham, E.

    Brown, Ernest (Leith)

    Lang, Gordon

    Sawyer, G. F.

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

    Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

    Scurr, John

    Buchanan, G.

    Lathan, G.

    Sexton, Sir James

    Burgess, F. G.

    Law, Albert (Bolton)

    Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

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

    Law, A. (Rossendale)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Caine, Hall, Derwent

    Lawrence, Susan

    Sherwood, G. H.

    Cameron, A. G.

    Lawson, John James

    Shield, George William

    Cape, Thomas

    Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

    Leach, W.

    Shillaker, J. F.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

    Shinwell, E.

    Chater, Daniel

    Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Church, Major A. G.

    Lees, J.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Clarke, J. S.

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Sinkinson, George

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lindley, Fred W.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Cocks, Frederick Seymour

    Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

    Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

    Cove, William G.

    Lunn, William

    Smith, Lees-, H. B.

    Cripps, Sir Stafford

    Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Daggar, George

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

    Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

    Dallas, George

    MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

    Stamford, Thomas W.

    Dalton, Hugh

    McElwee, A.

    Stephen, Campbell

    Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

    McEntee, V. L.

    Sullivan, J.

    Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

    McKinlay, A.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    MacLaren, Andrew

    Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

    Dudgeon, Major C. R.

    MacNeill-Weir, L.

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

    Dukes, C.

    McShane, John James

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

    Duncan, Charles

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

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Ede, James Chuter

    March, S.

    Viant, S. P.

    Edmunds, J. E.

    Marcus, M.

    Walkden, A. G.

    Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

    Marshall, Fred

    Walker, J.

    Elmley, Viscount

    Mathers, George

    Wallace, H. W.

    Foot, Isaac.

    Matters, L. W.

    Watkins, F. C.

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

    Maxton, James

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

    Messer, Fred

    Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)

    George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

    Middleton, G.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Mills, J. E.

    Welsh, James (Paisley)

    Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

    Montague, Frederick

    Westwood, Joseph

    Gill, T. H.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    White, H. G.

    Glassey, A. E.

    Morley, Ralph

    Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

    Gossling, A. G.

    Morris, Rhys Hopkins

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

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

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

    Mort, D. L.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Grundy, Thomas W.

    Murnin, Hugh

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wilson, J. (Oldham)

    Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

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

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

    Noel Baker, P. J.

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

    Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

    Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, K.)

    Wise, E. F.

    Hardie, George D.

    Oldfield, J. R.

    Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

    Harris, Percy A.

    Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle.

    NOES.

    Albery, Irving James

    Hanbury, C.

    Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

    Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

    Atkinson, C.

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

    Skelton, A. N.

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)

    Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

    Somerset, Thomas

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

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

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

    Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

    Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

    Bracken, B.

    Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral M., F.

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

    Inskip, Sir Thomas

    Thomson, Sir F.

    Butler, R. A.

    Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

    Tinne, J. A.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Margesson, Captain H. D.

    Train, J.

    Castle Stewart, Earl of

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

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

    Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

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

    Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

    Croom-Johnson, R. P.

    Muirhead, A. J.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Wayland, Sir William A.

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

    Peake, Capt. Osbert

    Wells, Sydney R.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

    Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Ferguson, Sir John

    Remer, John R.

    Withers, Sir John James

    Fielden, E. B.

    Reynolds, Col. Sir James

    Womersley, W. J.

    Ford, Sir P. J.

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Marquess of Titchfield and Captain Wallace.

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    The following proposed new Clauses stood upon the Order Paper:
    (Representation of City of London.)
    "The City of London shall only be entitled to one Parliamentary representative."—[Mr. Oliver Baldwin.]
    (Business premises qualification for directors of Companies.)
    "Any person who shall during the qualifying period including the last day thereof be a director of a company incorporated either by Royal Charter or by statute or registered within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1929, which if it had been a person would have held a business premises qualification under the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts shall be regarded as a person entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector by virtue of a business premises qualification in any register made after the passing of this Act."—[Mr. Hannon.]
    (Combination of English University constituencies.)
    "The university constituencies in England shall be combined into one constituency returning seven members."—[Mr. Cecil Wilson.]
    (Combination of Oxford and Cambridge University constituencies.)
    "The university constituencies of Oxford and Cambridge shall be combined into one constituency returning four members."—[Mr. Cecil Wilson.]
    (Application of proportional representation to elections for the City of London.)
    "In the City of London any election of the full number of members shall be according to the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transfer-
    1266
    able vote as defined in the principal Act."—[Mr. Cecil Wilson.]
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the proposed new Clauses, I have decided that I must rule all of them out of order.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the new Clause standing in the names of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. C. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Blakeley (Mr. P. Oliver). I respectfully submit that this Clause should properly be considered by the House as consequential upon the decisions which have already been arrived at, namely, the Bill, as introduced, abolished plural voting and also university constituencies, but, as now before us, the Bill abolishes plural voting but retains university constituencies. As a result only those persons will be able to vote in the university constituencies who forgo their vote elsewhere. How many of them there will be is not known, but it would be not unsafe to assume that at least one half of the university electors will prefer to vote for the place of their residence and only perhaps one half for the universities. The consequence of that would be that, owing to the decisions already taken by the House, some of the university constituencies would only have perhaps 1,600 voters or less than 2,000. As a consequence of this decision, I venture to submit that the House should properly consider whether those university seats should not be combined together and the combined electorate elect representatives

    1267
    on the principle of proportional representation. That is the purpose of the new Clause.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot pronounce on the general merits of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. It may well be that what he suggests might be the fit and proper thing to do, but as far as I am concerned, as Chairman, all I can do is to deal with what the Bill permits to be done. There is nothing in the title or scope of the Bill, apart from that which is expressly mentioned and provided for, whereby a reduction in the numbers of Members of Parliament can take place. Also, while it may not be actually correct to say that what the right hon. Gentleman suggests would alter the geographical boundaries of constituencies, it would amount in practice to a readjustment of constituencies, and that is surely outside the scope of the Bill.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: May I point out, first, that the title will have to be amended in any case, because it provides for the abolition of university constituencies, and since the Bill does not do that it must be omitted; secondly, that this particular new Clause does not propose any reduction in the number of Members of the House of Commons; and, thirdly, that the title of the Bill includes the words:
    "and for other purposes consequential on the matters aforesaid."
    My submission is that this proposal is consequential on the decisions already taken by the House, first as to the abolition of plural voting and secondly the retention of the university constituencies.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There are three points involved. On the strictly legal interpretation, for this purpose England includes Wales, and therefore proposes a reduction of the number of Members. There are eight at present—seven for England and one for Wales. The new Clause proposes only seven in all. The second point with regard to the title of the Bill being amended is a very important point, but the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that you do not alter a Bill for the sake of altering the title. You alter the title because the Bill has been previously altered, and consequently the title can only be altered if the Bill in the course of procedure
    1268
    through, Committee has been previously altered. I am doing my best to prevent it being altered beyond the scope of the Bill.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Then there was a third point about it being consequential.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I suppose as a result of the passing of this Bill dozens of matters may be consequential but which cannot be dealt with under this particular Bill.

    FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Alternative Vote Rules.)
    Sir B. PETO: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, to leave out the word "may, and to insert instead thereof the words "must, if he desires to vote."
    We now come to the consideration of the First Schedule of this Bill which contains the rules which will guide in practice what we passed in Clause 1 in regard to the alternative vote. We therefore turn to the subject which was the real purpose for which the Bill was designed, namely, altering the method of election to the supposed advantage of one party in this House. That raises a very much more serious question than that which the Committee has been recently considering. If we have to deal with this matter, we must try in Committee to make the best of a bad job. I feel convinced that the present method of election is the one which is understanded of the people, which gives them satisfaction and gives them the best representation of the popular opinion in the country which it is possible to devise. Moreover, it is one which gives a better representation in this House than that which is obtained in any foreign country or Dominion under the British Crown under whatever method they may conduct their elections. It is clear—I think that the learned Attorney-General will agree with me—that it is not desirable to introduce any unnecessary complications.
    I should like to refer to the two Amendments which stand in my name—the second one being in line 7, to leave out the words "the figure 1 or"—one being merely preparatory to the other. I will explain why I do what may seem strange, namely, substitute the word "must" for the word "may." I do not wish to introduce any element of compulsion into the election, but I want to

    1269
    indicate clearly to the elector that there are two definite things that he can do: First, whether there be two, three or more candidates, if he wants to exercise the franchise at all, he must indicate his first choice, and in the case where there are only two candidates, his only choice, by the same method of marking with a cross. That is why I put in the word "must." If hon. Members will refer to paragraph I (b), they will find that the words are:
    "he may also place the figure 2 opposite the name of the candidate whom he would prefer if the candidate, who is his first choice, cannot be elected."
    I want to make it clear that if he wishes to exercise the franchise, he must indicate his first choice always in the same way, whether there are two candidates or whether there are three. That is, obviously, the simplest method. I would now call the attention of the Committee to the words of Clause 1 to which the Schedule applies. Sub-section (1) of that Clause says:
    "Subject to the provisions of this Act, an election for a Member of Parliament shall, if there are more than two candidates, be according to the principle of the alternative vote and shall be conducted in accordance with the rules set out in the First Schedule to this Act."
    In the constituency which I happen to represent, in the last four General Elections, on two occasions there has been and on two occasions there has not been a Socialist candidate. Therefore, on two occasions we have had a three-cornered contest, and on two occasions we have had a straight fight between the Liberal party and the party to which I have the honour to belong. I ask the Minister whether it is a simplification of our electoral rules to say that on two of those occasions the elector should have had the option, under the word "may," of indicating his first choice with a cross, to which he was accustomed, or by the figure I, and on two occasions he should have had no such option, but should have indicated his first choice by means of the cross. It is a very confusing proposal, and one which is likely to produce an almost unlimited number of spoilt papers.
    I can imagine a Bill being introduced to alter the method of indicating votes at a General Election, but to introduce a Bill which says that in one election you can do it in one way, with the option of
    1270
    doing it in another, and that at the next election you can do it only in one way or lose your vote, is clearly a foolish and retrograde proposal. Therefore, I want by these Amendments to simplify the matter and leave it, as it is at present, to the system which is perfectly clear in the minds of all the electors in the country, be they in far distant country constituencies such as mine, or in the urban districts, that when there is an election and they want to vote for somebody, and do not wish to vote for any other candidate they are to put a cross against the candidate of their choice. That is the beginning and end of the process. If you introduce fresh complications, at least leave the old principle that their first choice means the putting of a, cross and nothing else—not any fancy figures. Let it be a cross that is made in this new gerrymandering proposal which has been introduced into this Bill, and, that in the case where there are three or more candidates, the elector may put the figure 2 against the person whom he prefers, if the candidate of his first choice cannot be elected. That would be introducing the smallest possible complications. If the provision in the Schedule remains, the voter at any election conducted in accordance with these rules—that is, the election where there happen to be three or more candidates, and not at any other election—
    "(a) may indicate the candidate who is his first choice by placing the figure 1"—It is only afterwards that we come to the words
    "or the mark 'X'."
    as if that were an out-of-the-way thing to do. So that in the first election which I have mentioned the voter had that option; in the second, he had it not; in the third, he had it; and in the fourth, he had it not. You can never know where you are under such a proposal. You are putting deliberate traps into which any Member of this House might easily fall, and which will produce spoilt papers. It is putting before the vast electorate in the country a proposal which is absurd. If it were the universal rule which the learned Attorney-General was introducing, I could understand that all parties in the House would have to have special classes for their electors, to urge upon them the necessity of thoroughly understanding this new method of indicating their choice to show them how

    1271
    dangerous it was to depart from it, and how they would lose their votes if they did. But once they had learnt it, they would always do the same thing. Under what the Government are proposing, nobody would ever know the position unless he carefully studied the question, and considered whether there were three or more candidates. One would have to make quite sure that a candidate had not withdrawn at the last moment or had failed to pay the necessary deposit. That sort of thing frequently happens. Though there may have been three candidates advertised, one may drop out at the last moment, and the elector may vote under an entire misapprehension. We do not want to spread the election day over the whole contest, and insist upon every voter knowing exactly, under this new proposal of cheaper elections, how many candidates are going to the poll, how many are going to drop out, or whether there are only two horses left in the race. In that case they have a different method of marking their ballot paper.
    I think it is incumbent upon the Government to accept my Amendment, because they can have no reason for preferring their proposal to mine. They admit that the cross to which the electors are accustomed should be a valid mark in every case. Why should it not be the only valid mark and the first, choice in the election? I cannot see any answer to that question. I shall be very curious to hear what the Attorney-General has to say. If the Government follow their method the direction to voters will have to be altered in a way that will make it infinitely simpler, but if my Amendment were accepted, bad as I think the whole system is, it will not introduce unnecessary and troublesome complication into the process of our elections. The process of registering votes will not be made so complicated that people will have to cudgel their brains to be sure to be up to date as to how many candidates there are. It may be said that the candidates always see that the electors are provided with a dummy polling card, indicating the name of the candidate of their choice in enormous capital letters, with a cross against it, and the name of the other fellow in insignificant letters. Are they to put a cross or a "1" or a cross and a "1"?
    1272
    Let us have something simple that the people can understand. I am throwing no reflection upon the understanding of the average voter. The voters in my constituency are as intelligent as those in any other constituency, but the electors ought to have some perfectly simple method of indicating their choice, and that is the method to which they have been accustomed for years. What is the second choice? It is supposed to be something which is not only equally valuable in its electoral effect as the first choice but in many cases is infinitely more important in deciding who is to be elected. We know that. That is part of the jerrymandering. Even when you have brought in the alternative vote, the vast majority of people will want one vote for one man or one woman, one vote for the person of their choice, and I do not think that they will value the second choice. They will certainly want to indicate their choice by means of a cross. Therefore, I ask the Attorney-General to cut our proceedings short, for we have a great deal of business to get through this evening, and the shortest way to express his views is to say that, for once, the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has hit upon a good idea, something that will help the Government and the voter and will help to simplify our elections. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. CLYNES: I agree with the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment that it is a very important one. Therefore, I do not want to say that it should be resisted or that we shall ask the House to carry it. We desire to know the opinion of hon. Members. If there is to be a change in the well-understood custom of how the paper is to be marked, it is a change which should only be agreed upon after the views of Members of this House have been elicited and the Government have received some guidance as to what hon. Members prefer to do. In this matter we are all equally interested. We are all wishful to leave this part of the Bill in terms that will best meet the wishes of Members of all parties and that will best suit the habit of mind of the electors. Therefore, I can only say that we shall not seek to force our will, whatever it may be, upon the House. I purposely refrained from rising immediately after the hon. Member had moved his Amendment, in order

    1273
    to see what other views might be expressed in addition to those which he had uttered.
    Mr. BUTLER: The only remark of the right hon. Gentleman to which I take exception is that he does not wish to impress his will upon the House. As a rule, we do not find that either in this matter or in other matters the Government have any particular will to force upon the House. I support the Amendment because I believe that the method that we have followed in our elections hitherto of using the cross as the first choice of the voter, should be adopted, and that we should not confuse it by using "1" as an alternative. I think that would be a very much sounder method of conducting our elections in the future. There is something familiar about the cross to which voters in the more scattered areas are accustomed. There is some value that they associate with the cross, almost as much as the osculatory value that they attach to a cross at the end of a letter to their best girl. I think they feel that when they are placing a cross to the name of their candidate they have a genuine affection for him. Therefore, there is something in the cross which should be retained in our method of voting. I am backed up not only by these osculatory views, but by reference to what takes place in other countries. I could quote five different countries where a particular method has been retained, instead of having an alternative. In the Tasmanian law of 1907 we find it provided that the candidate shall place the number "1" on the ballot paper. There is not an alternative between "1" or the cross. I could also quote from the experience of Wurtemburg and Belgium and the report of the general election in Australia in 1908, to show that in none of these cases is there an alternative method of signifying the preference of the voter. In each case "1" is used. In our case I maintain that the cross is of more value than the "1," and in support of the hon. Member for Barnstaple I urge that there should not be an alternative, but that we should follow the example of other countries by having only one choice, and in that choice the cross should be used.
    Sir S. HOARE: The Home Secretary has asked for the opinion of the Committee. My view is that the simpler we
    1274
    keep this matter the better. On that ground I agree with the Amendment. I think that it is much better to keep to the cross, and nothing else. The elector is used to the cross. If there is an alternative it will lead to a good many spoilt papers. I should advise the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, and, while I am giving him that advice, let me put a question to him. I am not quite clear, under the present provisions of the Bill, what constitutes a spoilt paper. Would it be a spoilt paper if the first vote is correct and the second incorrect? Under a new system of this kind the great majority of voters will give their first vote correctly, but they may make a mistake in their second vote. What happens to that voting paper? Is it spoilt if the first vote is correct and the second incorrect?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: I hope the Attorney-General will in due course reply to the point put by the right hon Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare). The particular question here is which system is likely to work the most smoothly. The right hon. Member for Chelsea says that he wants to avoid a large number of spoilt papers. If the Amendment were carried it would have this effect, that a person who wishes to vote must put a cross against his name. If he put the figure 1, as some people would if there were three candidates, and they went on to give their first preference and second preference, a great many people would put the figure 1 against their first choice, and you would have a great number of spoilt papers. The present law distinctly provides that while a cross is the right form of vote any sufficient indication by a voter is accepted, and if any person puts the figure 1 his vote is counted, it is not spoilt. Under the proposal of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) that would be impossible; the reverse would result. Now if a voter puts the figure 1, his vote is counted, but if in future, instead of putting a cross, he puts the figure 1, it would not be counted. Consequently, you would have a larger number of spoilt votes. This Amendment is open to the gravest possible objections and would go far to discredit the whole system of the alternative vote on account of the great masses of the people whose votes would be disqualified.

    1275
    We must not disqualify a person for putting either a cross or the figure 1. If hon. Members think it would be better to retain the cross where possible and let the voter indicate his first choice by a cross or the figure 1, the order expressed in the Bill might be reversed; it is not a matter of great importance, but I think the Bill is better as it stands.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. CECIL WILSON: I have tabled an Amendment to the Schedule in favour of excluding the cross. We are introducing an entirely new method of voting and it seems to me that we should go the whole way and suppose that people are intelligent enough to understand what the figures 1 and 2 mean. If we retain the cross there will be a great deal of confusion. It is true that it has been the method of voting, but at a time when we are making a complete change it is much better to refer to the figures "1" and "2" rather than confine ourselves to the old method of the cross plus the figure "1." We have all seen voting papers upon which the elector has voted for one candidate and then crossed him out for another. That kind of thing will continue, and the elector will be still more confused if he has to begin again and put his cross to another candidate and then add his first and second preferences. I understand that as far as the university vote is concerned the practice is to put the figures "1" and "2" and not to have a cross at all; and, if that is so, it is a good reason for adopting it in the case of other electors. If it is necessary for university electors to have the figures "1" and "2," surely it is desirable in the case of those who are less highly educated. It is much better to have the figures "1" and "2" than to have the confusion which will clearly result if we retain the cross.
    Mr. O. STANLEY: If there was any substance in the point put by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) I confess that it would bring me down on his side, but I cannot think that there is very much in it. His point was that this is a different procedure to that which obtains under the present system where, if an elector makes a mistake and puts the figure 1 on his voting paper, his vote is counted. I do not know
    1276
    whether that is the case or not, but if it is, why cannot the same procedure be followed in this case?
    Sir H. SAMUEL: The Amendment forbids it. It says specifically that a vote given in that way cannot be counted.
    Mr. STANLEY: Voting at the present time is carried on under rules laid down by Act of Parliament just as this is, and those rules direct that the preference of the elector should be shown by a cross.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Rules cannot override the terms of the Statute.
    Mr. STANLEY: I only want to clear up the point. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has the reference and can assure me on the point. If there is any substance in it I should be inclined to agree with him. I put it to the Government, if I am wrong no doubt they will be able to correct me, that as the law stands it is laid down that a voter will express his vote by means of a cross and that even if the voter makes the figure "1" instead his vote is counted. It is a point that we should have cleared up by the Attorney-General, because if it is so, the point of the right hon. Gentleman falls to the ground, and under those circumstances the balance of advantage would incline to the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet.
    But there is one point which rather weighs with me in this matter. There is a danger under the present system that a man may believe that the use of the alternative vote is compulsory, that he has to indicate not only a first preference but a second and perhaps, if other Amendments are carried, a third and a fourth; and from that point of view I think it would be advantageous to make a distinction between the first and subsequent preferences and therefore more easily convey to him the fact that he is entitled to plump for one candidate and need not necessarily vote for more than one. I confess that my vote on this Amendment will be largely guided by the information which the Attorney-General is able to give us about the present position.
    The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): The matter arises in this way. It depends upon the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act, 1872, which

    1277
    merely provides that the voter shall mark his vote. The Act says nothing whatever about a cross at all, and as a matter of law so long as he marks with a figure 1 or a circle or anything else opposite the name of one person, it is perfectly right. It is right that I should also tell the Committee that in the rules which are attached to the Act, which as the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said, of course cannot modify or restrict the terms of the Act, a cross is referred to, but those rules are merely intended to be of assistance or direction to the voter, and the statutory position which the hon. Member asks me to clear up is therefore this, that under the existing law a figure 1 is just as effective as a cross.
    I have not dealt with the question asked me by the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare). The law is this, that all that a voter has to do, whether by means of a figure 1 or a cross or any other mark, is to indicate for whom it is that he intends to vote. My view as to the question he asked would be this: If the doubt about his paper arises with regard to his first preference, then I think the paper, assuming it was so doubtful as to make it bad under the existing law, would be bad for all purposes, for after all the right to exercise a second vote only arises on the assumption that you have legitimately exercised the first; but if, on the other hand, the ambiguity about the paper is not with regard to his first vote but with regard to his second vote, then I think he is in the same position as a voter who had not effectively exercised the second vote at all Therefore, I think his first vote would count and his second vote would not.
    Mr. E. BROWN: The law says he shall make a distinctive mark, and in the majority of cases it is actually a cross, but the presiding officer, providing the intention of the elector is shown to vote for a particular candidate, will always take a line of any kind, in one direction or another, as meaning a cross, as meaning an indication under the law of the mind of the elector. But the Bill alters that. It says that in some circumstances it may be a cross and in others it may be a figure "1." There is a great difference between that and the present law, and therefore there is substance in the belief of the hon. Baronet who moved the
    1278
    Amendment that the first choice should always be recognised in all circumstances by means of a cross. I can see no reason why the elector who wants to mark his second choice with a figure "2" should want to put a figure 1 for his first choice at all. His custom has been always to mark his paper by a cross and so indicate his mind, and I think there is great force in the hon. Baronet's contention that the cross should be the way to mark the first choice and that his second choice should be marked with the figure "2."
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Suppose the Amendment were carried and the Act were to read that the elector must, if he desires to vote, mark his first preference with a cross, and suppose that nevertheless that voter marked his first preference with a figure "1"; would the Attorney-General say that that vote could be held to be valid or not?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In my view, if the Amendment were carried in that form, the figure "1" would clearly be invalid, and whatever rules you might devise would not override the Act of Parliament.
    Lord E. PERCY: Why have not the Government proposed to respect the right of a person to put any distinctive mark? I have seen plenty of papers which have been marked by a tick. Why should not that be legal?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It would be a figure "2" now.
    Lord E. PERCY: It may be a circle, or a cross, or a figure "1," or any mark which quite clearly indicates for whom he wants to vote. The Government propose to restrict the right of the voter and to make spoilt papers what would not now be spoilt papers.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Is that so?
    Lord E. PERCY: Certainly. The Attorney-General has told us that if the Amendment is carried, any voting paper will be spoilt which has any other mark than a cross. Any paper which indicates his first preference by some other mark than either the figure "1" or a cross will be invalid. Why are the Government taking this course? It is gratuitous. If any mark is good enough for the first preference, let it be any mark,

    1279
    but if you restrict the right of the voter and give him only two alternatives, there is great force in the Amendment. Let him be restricted to the one alternative which is the commonest and the most familiar. Let us create a habit along the lines of the greatest measure of habit that now exists. Personally, I should much prefer that the law was left as it is now, and that so long as the voter marks his intention clearly for his first preference, it matters not by what mark he indicates it.
    May I drive home the other point about the spoilt paper? It is very remarkable that there is nothing in the Bill to indicate on what condition a spoilt paper is a spoilt paper, and therein it differs from every Bill establishing the Alternative Vote that, so far as I know, has been passed by any country in the world, which has always defined what shall constitute a spoilt paper. What makes a paper spoilt now is that it is void for uncertainty. If a paper was uncertain on any point, I should have thought it was void for uncertainty on all points. At any rate, it is far too uncertain a question to be left as it is now, without any defining words in the Bill.
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am inclined to agree with the Noble Lord in his last point. I think that this matter ought to be considered, and that the suggestion of the Noble Lord should be accepted. I shall so advise my right hon. Friend. I think that some specific provision should be made on Report to deal with this question of spoiled papers, so that the ambiguity may be removed. Then there is the other point in the argument. The words as they stand include the word "may" and not the word "must." The Noble Lord's argument was, "If you say he may indicate his choice by placing a figure '1' or the mark of a 'X,' do you not thereby say that he cannot indicate his choice in any other way?" Implications are not enough. The Bill provides in Clause 1, Sub-section (3), that
    "Nothing contained in this Act shall, except as expressly provided herein, affect the method of voting at Parliamentary elections in force at the time of the passing of this Act."
    Therefore, notwithstanding any implication which otherwise might have arisen, I am of the opinion, and shall advise
    1280
    the Committee that, assuming the word is "may" and not "must," and if we are to say that a voter indicates his first preference by an "O," it will be a good paper notwithstanding that it is neither a figure "1" nor a mark "X." I do not think it can be said that there is any express provision that a ballot paper marked with an "O" is bad. Apparently, a paper marked with an "O" is good to-day.
    Mr. E. BROWN: For the first time it is laid down that the elector must put either a "1" or a cross. That has never been done before.
    Mr. MAXTON: May I be permitted to make my first speech before the Attorney-General gets in his seventh? I am vain enough to believe that if he had heard my speech before his first, he would not have found any of his speeches necessary. I urge the Government on this matter to stand by the decision they have made in the Schedule. I never anticipated that this humble Amendment would have aroused the interest and the controversy that it has aroused. The Home Secretary said that the Government were prepared to go into the matter seriously, and so provoked a discussion which would not otherwise have arisen. I believe that in this matter we are pursuing a practice that was necessary in the days when the people of this country were first permitted to vote; we are thinking in terms of an illiterate and uneducated electorate. Like every other citizen I have received in my home a census paper which has to be filled up. I do not know how many questions there are to be answered, but the census paper is an involved and complicated document compared with a ballot paper. It will come back and contain important statistics, with the most complete accuracy, to the Government of the country, and the number of mistakes in it will be simply negligible.
    To-day you have a literate, educated, intelligent population—that is one of the troubles—capable of dealing with more complicated documents than a simple ballot paper. I had personal experience of the first Proportional Representation elections held in Scotland, in connection with the education authorities. I went through three such elections. In one division we had 13 candidates for six seats, and the electors were under the necessity of numbering the candidates on

    1281
    their papers from 1 to 6, or from 1 to 13 if they so pleased. Throughout the length and breadth of Scotland the number of spoiled papers was quite insignificant and was comparable with the number which we have in a Parliamentary election where it is a case of putting a simple cross opposite the name of one candidate. Let us realise the period of history in which we are living. We are not living in a period when large numbers of the population could only sign their names by having somebody else to write down "John Smith" while the signatory put down his cross. In the day schools of the present time, the children, before they are seven years of age, engage in a game called "Noughts and Crosses"—under the desks when the teacher's back is turned. That game is a much more complicated thing than a ballot paper. Then people engage sin solving cross-word puzzles. Has any hon. Member ever seen a football coupon? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I will explain. It may involve picking out seven winners at home, and seven away, and it may involve three permutations and combinations of the whole number of clubs concerned.
    Mr. E. BROWN: And some draws also.
    Mr. MAXTON: I see that the hon. Member is not so ignorant as I at first believed. Practically the whole population know these coupons. If hon. Members opposite above the Gangway do not know anything about football coupons, they may know something about horse-racing and the clerical work which is connected with investment in that department of sport. Yet here we are seriously discussing means to meet the needs of stupid, ignorant peasants and workers who send us here. It is a lot of nonsense. There is one thing which we have to do. I have one fault to find with Governmental documents such as Income Tax papers and things of that sort. I sometimes make mistakes in filling up my Income Tax form, not because I am stupid, but because the question is stupidly put. If we make it plain to the elector that he can choose his first candidate by putting down a cross or a figure "1" or a "y" or a "z" or the symbols of Alpha or Beta or Gamma or Delta, and if you show him precisely where he is to put it, he will do it. He has the intelligence to do it. Therefore, I ask the Government not to waste time
    1282
    in talking about a matter which belonged to real politics in 1840 but is a sheer triviality in 1931, and to stick by the Schedule as they have it.
    Major ELLIOT: The experiences of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) with regard to the voting in Glasgow under Proportional Representation are of great interest, but they would have been more interesting had he detailed further the results of that system of voting—for instance, the remarkable result which it had in discouraging a great part of the electorate from having anything to do with the elections.
    Mr. MAXTON: I was not dealing with the merits of Proportional Representation, which I would not have been permitted to discuss, but merely with the practice at the poll, which was in order.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman may be an authority on some matters, but I am now the authority on what is in order. I understand the hon. and gallant Member was proceeding to argue that the more complicated the system, the fewer people will go to the poll. That will be in order.
    Major ELLIOT: That is my simple desire. The hon. Member for Bridgeton charmed the Committee by an account of his experiences in filling up football coupons, in filling up his Income Tax papers, and in working out crossword puzzles, not that he wished to distant on those practices, either in a condemnatory or eulogistic manner, but rather with a desire to bring them in as examples of the remarkable skill and intelligence of the modern proletariat, as represented by the fact that although the party opposite has not reached a majority of votes in the country, they are, he believes, progressing towards that object. I do not wish to be unfair to his party, but it would be only fair of him to tell the Committee that during the election for the Glasgow education authority, which was done on this complicated system, the Socialist members were only returned with the greatest difficulty. In fact, they were generally given a seat as a consolation prize. I am merely bringing that in as an example of what would happen if those Who, from his point of view, were the intelligent portion of the democracy were driven away and frightened off from

    1283
    the poll, and the more unintelligent scum, which returns Conservative Members, were left alone to overcome all the barbed wire entanglements of the system.
    The voting under this complicated system will be done by a continually decreasing portion of the electorate. They will be a very small fraction compared with that which makes up those magnificent majorities by which the hon. Member for Bridgeton is accustomed to be returned to this House—so magnificent that on one occasion he asked the returning officer if the votes could be weighed instead of counted. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has the object of simplifying voting, which is already sufficiently complicated. The enlightened proletariat, the instructed democracy to which the hon. Member for Bridgeton appeals, after all applies its intelligence to things in which it more intimately desires to see itself victorious, than in the return of a Member to this honourable House.
    If we wish to broaden the basis of democracy, let us stick to simplicity. If we wish to narrow it, let us adopt this complicated machinery. If the hon. Member for Bridgeton desires to broaden the basis, he is going the wrong way about it. Let him remember what he said in previous discussions about elections under another system, the complicated system of the elections for the education authorities of Glasgow and of all Scotland. He said that he had never been able to change that citadel of Conservatism that was represented by the education authority of Glasgow. Let him remember his previous appeals, and let him not introduce the complicated system into this arena and put up a barrier against the march of his party which would condemn him for ever to the cold shades of Opposition, instead of to the seats of power where no doubt one day he will find himself.
    Mr. MORRIS: It is not often that I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), but on this occasion I find myself in complete agreement with what he said. The whole of this Debate really turns upon the position as it was 50 years ago. As far as I understood the speech of the hon. Baronet, his argument was that the practice, as far as the first part of the Schedule is con-
    1284
    cerned, would still remain the same. The one thing that would change the practice—and the law—would be the adoption of his Amendment. Personally, I do not mind which system is adopted, nor how complicated that system may be, because I have the good fortune to represent a Division where it will make no difference, whatever system be applied.
    Mr. CLYNES: The last half-hour of the Debate has shown how difficult, if not impossible, it is for a Minister with the very best intentions, to satisfy his supporters. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) complained that I had invited the House to give its views in order that a poor Home Secretary should know what Members, with their electoral experience, thought on the matter, and then it was suggested that all this had been rather a waste of time. If I did provoke discussion, it was worth it, if only for the speech which the hon. Member himself delivered, and the enlightenment which he gave us from his own experience. We have had a variety of views presented to us, and after hearing them I have come to the conclusion that the choice which the present terms of the Bill offer is the better course, and the legal information which the right hon. Gentleman has given has reinforced that conclusion. Therefore, I cannot accept this Amendment. It is a small point, but an important point. I think the Committee is not likely to improve the situation or to acquire further information by any longer discussion, and as we have reached the limit fixed by the time-table I trust the Committee will come to a decision on the Amendment.
    Sir B. PETO: In view of the opinions which have come from different sides of the Committee, I wish to ask whether the Home Secretary would consider this to be an improvement: That I should abandon the Amendment which I first moved and move the second Amendment in such a form that it would read:
    "The elector may indicate the candidate who is his first choice by placing the mark 'X' or any sufficient mark on his ballot paper."
    That would really leave the law exactly as it is. There is no question that the Clause, as drafted, does create an innovation, because the Act of 1872 said clearly that the elector might indicate his choice by any sufficient mark. The right hon. Gentleman has definitely sub-

    1285
    stituted a different and narrower code of procedure, namely, one of two things, the figure "1" or a cross. The purpose of my Amendment is that the general rule in future would be what is the practice now in 999 cases out of 1,000 voters on the register, whereby their choice is indicated by a cross. I want to add to that the words "or any sufficient mark." I would like the Home Secretary to indicate to me whether he thinks that would not leave the Schedule in a more satisfactory condition, and, if the right hon. Gentleman would accept those words, I would be willing to withdraw my Amendment and move the next Amendment with the addition of the words I have mentioned.
    Mr. CLYNES: The fullest length to which I can go is that, if this Amendment is withdrawn, I shall be willing on the Report stage to listen to any suggestion that may be made to attain the common object which we have in view. I think this is a matter which should be settled with as complete an understanding as possible.
    Lord E. PERCY: I think we are really agreed upon this point. According to the intention of the Government only two alternatives are given in the Schedule, but those alternatives are not exhaustive. What has been said amounts to an express provision that it is necessary for the counting of a first preference vote that the vote shall be marked in a certain way. There seems some doubt on that point, but the Attorney-General has already promised to consider the question of the spoiled vote. Now it is suggested that the Home Secretary will himself consider, after consultation with the Attorney-General, whether an Amendment to this paragraph is not necessary in order to carry out the intention of the Government.
    Sir B. PETO: In view of what the Home Secretary has said, I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment now, on the assurance that the subject will not only receive the consideration of the Government between now and Report, but that an opportunity will be given to my hon. Friends and myself, in the light of the Debate we have had, of considering whether the words which I ventured to put before the Home Secretary at the finish of this Debate are
    1286
    the best words, or whether some other words would be better, and that whatever Amendment we put on the Paper will receive the full consideration of the Government on Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Kennedy.]
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT [MONEY].
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
  [Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to provide (among other things) for the establishment of a Passenger Transport Board for the London Traffic Area and for the transfer to that Board of various transport undertakings and interests, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) the expenses of the London Passenger Transport Arbitration Tribunal to be constituted under the said Act, including the remuneration of members and staff of the tribunal;

  (b) any additional expenses incurred by reason of the provisions of the said Act in connection with the Railway Rates Tribunal;

  (c) any sums payable by the Minister into the Metropolitan Police Fund in respect of costs incurred in connection with the licensing of the drivers and conductors of certain vehicles;

  (d) any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in the granting of certificates in connection with the distribution of transport stock and money forming part of the consideration for the transfer of statutory undertakings to the said Board; and

  (e) the costs, charges, and expenses preliminary to, of and incidental to the preparing, applying for, obtaining and passing of the said Act."—(King's Recommendation signified).

  The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This is a Money Resolution which really, so far as I can see, involves no money to the State ultimately, but, in connection with the passage of the London Passenger Transport Bill, there will have to be, for a

  1287
  transitory period, an amount of expenditure by the Slate which will be recovered from the London Passenger Transport Board when it is established and working. Under the Bill there is to be established, for purposes of arbitration, an arbitration tribunal. Obviously, the tribunal will have to be paid, and there will have to be staffs. The cost will be met in the first instance out of moneys which will be provided by Parliament, and the expenditure can be reviewed on the Votes of the Ministry of Transport. It is, however, proposed under the Bill that the expenses of the tribunal shall be ultimately recovered from the Board, with interest at a rate to be determined by the Treasury. It is difficult to give any exact figure as to the expenses of the tribunal, but we estimate that they will be in the region of £35,000 on the assumption that the work of the tribunal will occupy some two years. There is a precedent for this arrangement under the Railways Act, 1921.
  The second point deals with the Railway Rates Tribunal, which was established under the Railways Act, 1921, under which expenditure is recovered from the four amalgamated railway companies. Clearly it would be improper that any expenditure incurred by the tribunal as the result of the London Passenger Transport Bill should be recovered from the amalgamated railway companies, and that expenditure will be recovered from the Board. Any expenses that we may require to advance in respect of the reference to the tribunal under the provisions of the Bill will be recovered from the Board, but in the meantime it may be that the Railway Rates Tribunal may have to incur some expenditure.
  The third point is with regard to payments to the Metropolitan Police Fund. Under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the licensing of omnibuses and stage carriages in the Metropolitan area remains with the Metropolitan police although the licensing of motor coaches goes to the Road Traffic Commissioner. Under the Bill the power to license stage carriages will pass to the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner functioning under the Road Traffic Act and also, unless agreement is otherwise reached, the licensing of drivers and conductors. It
  1288
  may be necessary, if the police continue to licence drivers and conductors, that some of the expenses in this and other connections will have to be met so far as the police are concerned. They will have to be reimbursed from the Road Fund and, therefore, that provision appears in the Resolution, although it is probable that the greater part of the expenditure will be met out of fees, and in that respect the Road Traffic Act generally, under Part IV, is paying its way.
  The fourth provision deals with the issue of transport stock in connection with the winding up of the existing undertakings and certain expenses, not material in amount, which may be incurred by the Board of Trade. They also will be repayable by the London Transport Board, and that expenditure again will not fall upon the State. Then there are the costs of securing the passage of the Bill, which is a hybrid Bill, and again it is proposed that that shall fall upon the board, expenditure in the meantime being advanced by the Ministry of Transport. For that expenditure, of course, Parliament will be responsible, but we shall recover that from the Board. I think that briefly explains the Resolution. There is really no point of principle involved in it. At any rate, practically all the money will be paid back to the State by the board and I hope, therefore, the House will give me the authority that I now seek.
  Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has said that in one sense this is a Vote which involves no ultimate public expenditure, but, of course, that is only contingently true, because what he is asking the House to give him is a general covering financial authority for all expenditure that will be incurred over the passage of the Bill and all expenditure that will be incurred after the Bill has gone through. It is only true that this involves no expenditure on the taxpayer on the assumption that the Bill passes through Parliament in such a form that all the expenditure for which the Minister seeks authority to-night is expenditure which Parliament puts upon the new board. Whether it is on this Resolution or on the Clauses which the Resolution covers when we come to deal with them ultimately in

  1289
  Committee, we are not at all exonerated from seeing that we do not incur unnecessary expenditure. I say that fur two reasons: First of all, if the Bill is to go through and is to work, obviously, we must not load the new undertaking with any costs which can be reasonably avoided. But we are also embarking on public expenditure, and, in accordance with the form the Act ultimately takes, it depends on whether Parliament decides that all those sums shall be recoverable from the board. Therefore, we have to see that the expenditure is necessary and reasonable.
  I do not propose to argue the general questions of principle which were discussed upon the Bill nor the details of those Clauses which the Resolution covers. One is a matter for Second Reading, and, though it would be within order, the other would be more appropriately debated on the Clauses of the Bill. There are, however, certain questions I should like to put to the Minister. First of all, take the estimate of, £35,000. The Committee will observe that no financial limit is placed on this Resolution. It is often the case that you get a White Paper which estimates for an expenditure, say, of £20,000, £30,000, or perhaps £40,000. One sometimes asks the Minister, if the outside estimate is £40,000, whether he will accept an Amendment to the Resolution limiting the expenditure to that amount. I have always hoped that that old watchdog the Treasury would have supported us on these occasions, but it always seems asleep, metaphorically, at such times. Although a limit may be put in a White Paper, the last thing the Minister is prepared to accept is any limit, and the only things which matter are the Financial Resolution and the operative Clauses of the Bill. I observe here that, though the expenditure is to be incurred under a number of heads, an estimate is given only under one and that is the expenditure on the arbitration tribunal which is put at £35,000. The Minister said, in opening the discussion, that there would be an opportunity for considering the expenditure under this head on the Vote of the Ministry of Transport. While that may be technically true in one sense, will the expenditure which is incurred by the arbitration tribunal appear as an item in
  1290
  the Vote for the Ministry of Transport? I gather from what the Minister said that it will—
  Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: It will be met in the first place from the Minister's Vote by Parliament, and the House will have an opportunity of discussing it, if it so desires, on the Estimates for the Ministry, and we shall recover from the Board after the arbitration is completed. It must be appreciated that under the Bill as it stands, the board can function straight away and then the arbitration can follow. In the meantime we shall have to carry the expenses so incurred, which will be recovered from the board, and clearly the House would be able to discuss that on my vote.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is rather a curious position, because the Minister is not going to have the appointment of the Tribunal. This Tribunal is to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. It is rather curious as the Minister does not appoint the Tribunal and they are not his creatures and are in no way responsible to him that we should yet have to discuss on the Minister's Vote the salaries, the emoluments and the conduct of the Tribunal which is appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and which as far as it is responsible to anybody, is responsible to the Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. MORRISON: It is true that the Lord Chancellor appoints them, but, as far as effective expenditure is concerned, I am responsible. The Lord Chancellor is responsible for the appointments.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I see, or at least I partly see. The Lord Chancellor is to appoint the three arbitrators, and the Minister is to appoint the secretary and typists. The big item of expenditure, the sum of £35,000, I should have thought, was to be in the salaries of those people. The Minister is to settle their salaries and not the Treasury. The Lord Chancellor is to appoint those people. Suppose that the House wishes in any way to criticise the functions or the work of the Tribunal, how can it effectively do it upon the Minister's vote when the Lord Chancellor and not the Minister is responsible for their appointment? It would he useful to know a little more about the Tribunal and its functions. I rather hoped that

  1291
  the Minister would be in a position now, when he is asking for this covering authority, to tell us of whom the Tribunal is to consist. I do not know whether he can do so. The House will be very interested to know if the Minister can tell us who are to be members of the Tribunal?
  11.0 p.m.
  I observe that in the White Paper it is estimated that the work of the Tribunal may go on for as long as two years. That seems to be a very long time and anticipates very contentious issues being raised before the Tribunal. I do not know whether it, is really to be expected that we cannot receive before the end of two years an assessment of the fair value of an undertaking which has been taken over. It is a curious position as far as stockholders of municipal and other undertakings which are being taken over, are concerned. As the Minister says, the board can function at once, but it may be two years before a man, or a public authority, whose property is taken over can get to know what is to be received in return for it. That seems to be a proposal which demands a certain amount of justification. It is infinitely preferable, if you are going into a transaction of this kind, that you should follow the precedent followed in the Port of London Authority of getting agreement with everybody concerned. Then you would be able to come to the House, and say, "What we are inviting you to do is to ratify the agreement which all the parties have made." That really is the proper way of dealing with a matter of this kind. If that has not been done in this case, we want some light on and some further justification for a proposal which may leave people in complete uncertainty for two years what value they are going to get for their property when it is taken over, while at the same time they have to part with it. With regard to paragraph (b), it is right that when questions go to the Railway Rates Tribunal arising out of the London traffic scheme, the expenses should be borne by the people engaged in London traffic, and should not be borne by the main line railways. Does this paragraph include the addition of two members? Does it include the salaries?
  Mr. MORRISON Mr. MORRISON indicated dissent.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There are no salaries? They are unpaid? So far as remuneration goes, it is a negligible item, and the expenditure will be litigation expenditure.
  Mr. MORRISON Mr. MORRISON indicated assent.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: With regard to paragraph (c), sums payable into the Metropolitan Police Fund, the Minister assures us that it is a small matter. Paragraph (d) relates to expenses incurred in the granting of certificates. Then we come to paragraph (e), an item which I suppose will be very large, namely, "the cost, charges and expenses preliminary to and incidental to the preparing, applying for, obtaining and passing of the said Act." How much will there be in that I should like to know what the preliminary expenses are. Has the Minister incurred large expenses in the preparation of this scheme? If so, I would like to know what those expenses are. A further item, I suppose, will be the cost of counsel, experts, etc., in connection with the Joint Committee. Obviously, that is going to be a very large item of expenditure. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of what those costs are likely to be, and whose costs are covered? Will the taxpayer in the first instance have to pay the whole of the costs of everybody who appears before the Committee? I was told to-night that 70 petitions have been launched against the Bill. I suppose that means that 70 counsel are going to appear for an indefinite number of days. That may be inevitable in a Bill of this kind. Does this proposal mean that the taxpayer in the first instance, and the Board eventually, when it has funds, will be responsible for the whole of the costs incurred before the Committee, or be responsible only for the costs incurred by the Minister himself and the counsel he employs? It is important that before we part with this Money Resolution that we should know that. If we are to pay for 70 counsel for an indefinite numbers of days it is not a prospect which will be warmly received in any quarter of the House, because no Member of Parliament can appear before the Committee nor shall we be able to have the assistance of the law officers. I should like the Minister to tell us what is the estimate

  1293
  of costs and whether in voting for paragraph (e) we are voting for the payment of the costs of his counsel and his experts or for the counsel and experts engaged by all the petitioners.
  Major GLYN: There is only one point to which I desire to draw the attention of the Minister, and it is in connection with the work of the Arbitration Tribunal. It may be that this tribunal will have heavy duties imposed upon it, much in excess of those contemplated in the Bill. That surely will mean that the expenditure of the tribunal will be heavy. I hope it was not to be considered that £35,000 will be the limit for two years of the possible scope of the proceedings of that tribunal. Should it be the recommendation of Parliament that it shall have other duties then obviously the costs will be great. Can it be done at a figure of £35,000. I imagine that that estimate has been based on the idea that the tribunal will not function beyond the scope outlined in the Bill. I hope it will be appreciated that the tribunal itself may have extended powers given to it, in which case its expenditure will be considerably higher. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accede to the request and give any indication as to the gentlemen to be appointed or whether they have in fact been appointed by the Lord Chancellor. It may he that £35,000 for two years is excessive pay for certain people unless they are of great merit, and it would be well for the House to know who will comprise this tribunal.
  Mr. HARRIS: It seems to me that this expenditure on the part of the Minister of Transport is necessary, and the right hon. Gentleman has told us how the money will be spent. At the same time we must assume the possibility of this Bill not becoming an Act of Parliament, to what Department would these charges be debited. I presume it would be the Ministry of Transport. We have to recognise this as a possible contingency. There are 70 petitions against the Bill, and the life of this Parliament is not sure. If the Bill does not become an Act of Parliament on whom will these charges fall?
  Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I should like information on one or two points. Hon. Members will agree with the wish that there were more Resolutions like this
  1294
  brought forward, which will not cost the country anything. As regards the £35,000, I see that in the Memorandum there is this sentence:
  "the expenses of the tribunal will be defrayed in the first instance out of moneys to be defrayed by Parliament but will be repaid on demand."
  I want to know exactly what "on demand" means. Does it mean that the Ministry will take upon itself the right to decide whether or not the board shall ultimately expend this sum of money, and when do they think they will be able to wipe out the liability of the taxpayer and put the estimated sum of £35,000 on to the board itself?
  Another point arises out of the Memorandum on the Financial Resolution and dealing with the Metropolitan Police Fund. It lays it down in the Memorandum that:
  "The main purpose of this Amendment is to transfer the duties connected with the licensing of omnibuses and tramcars and the drivers and conductors thereof, from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis to the Traffic Commissioner."
  It seems rather absurd that we should be asked to vote money to the Metropolitan Police Fund under the Financial Resolution when it is clearly laid down in the Act itself that the power is being taken away from the police of the Metropolis and given to the Traffic Commissioners. I think we might have a little more explanation of that.
  The other point I wanted to make is as to what liability we shall be under under paragraph (e) which seems to he very broad. The paragraph reads:
  "(e) the costs, charges and expenses preliminary to, of and incidental to the preparing, applying for, obtaining and passing of the said Act."
  Can the Minister give us any estimate I He has by now got a large number of petitions and knows to a great extent what sort of opposition he will have to the Bill, and it will be interesting to have from him what the expenditure is likely to be.
  Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) is quite right in saying that, even though this expenditure is ultimately recoverable, assuming that the Bill passes, which I always do, being an optimist and a cheerful soul in these matters, there is a responsibility on

  1295
  Parliament to see that the expenditure which we are now asked to authorise should be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. With regard to the limit of expenditure which is estimated for the Arbitration Tribunal, it will be appreciated that it is very difficult to give. It must depend on the measure of agreement that we are able to get meantime, and as to how far we are able to agree upon a whole body of facts which the arbitrator will have to consider, and how far those matters may be contentious. I am afraid the figure which we have given is the best we can give in the circumstances, and I can only express the hope that there will be such an agreement between the Government and the parties concerned that that expenditure will not be exceeded, and even that it may not be reached, but I cannot be altogether certain.
  With regard to the Arbitration Tribunal itself, and the right of criticism, if it would be in order to criticise the tribunal which it sets up and on which I do not express an opinion, that criticism should arise on the Vote of the Ministry of Transport, and, of course, that Vote is always arrived at after consultation with the Treasury, and that is the Vote upon which rests the entire responsibility for the whole of the expenses of the tribunal. I am sorry I cannot inform the Committee of the names of the commissioners, whom the Lord Chancellor appoints, because he in fact has not yet made up his own mind. We thought it right to get a little further with the progress of the Bill before we got to that business, but I hope that before the Bill passes, I shall be able to announce the names to the House, and indeed, if possible, to incorporate them in the Bill. I agree that two years sounds a long time to settle the arbitration, but hon. Members will realise that two years, unfortunately, can easily be spent, if they recall some previous arbitrations. It is a very complicated business and the two years might be taken. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if we can arrive at a just and equitable agreement with all the parties concerned it is better to negotiate and to agree than to go to arbitration, and I am sure that the parties outside take a similar view.
  1296
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me what was the probable cost of the passing of the Act. That is something like the problem with which we are faced with regard to the arbitration tribunal itself. It is true that 65 petitions have been presented, though I think that some of the parties will combine forces in the employment of counsel, and thereby economise in their expenditure; but the committee proceedings must depend on the degree of conflict. The money I spend will depend on how far it is a real fight, and how far we can agree as we go along and negotiate. The right hon. Gentleman asked two questions—first, approximately what we have spent so far; and, secondly, what so far as we can tell it is probable we shall spend.
  There is the expenditure of preparing the Bill, the publishing of notices in the Press—it is a hybrid Bill—and the expenses in connection with the retention Of an expert accountancy adviser, Sir William McLintock; and in other ways experts have been employed to advise us on the proper financial basis of the Bill and in the negotiations we are conducting with the parties concerned. Up to 31st March last, approximately £11,600 has been spent on fees and expenses of consulting accountants on various financial considerations arising out of the proposal for the transfer of the undertakings to the board, and additional expenditure on that must be incurred in the present financial year. With regard to future expenditure provision will be made in the Estimates of the Ministry of Transport for the current year. The nearest estimate we could get was in the region of £25,000. There is a very big proposition in the Bill. The undertakings run into many millions of pounds; and clearly the expenses of the promotion of such a Bill, the counsel and the experts one retains, must mean sums of substance. That is the information as soundly and accurately as I can give it.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Another question about paragraph (e). Whose costs have we to pay?
  Mr. MORRISON: The right hon. Gentleman asks whose costs we have to pay. They are only mine. The opponents of the Bill will fortunately pay their own. It would be a terrible position if they could spend all they liked and get it

  1297
  back from the promoters. That paragraph covers only the expenses of the promoters, who in this case are the Government.
  Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is no discretion in the Parliamentary Committee to award costs?
  Mr. MORRISON: Not to my knowledge. Another hon. Member said it might be that very extensive powers were given to the tribunal, and that the estimate might be wrong; but we shall see as the Committee proceeds. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), who is not as cheerful to-night as I could like him to be, asked me who would pay all this money if the Bill failed. I simply cannot contemplate that a Bill with which I am associated should fail. If that should happen to be the case it would be a great misfortune to the country. Then the expenses would fall upon the Vote of the Ministry of Transport, and it would be upon that Vote that it could be discussed. The best thing the House can do is to pass the Bill, and then the expenses will not fall on the Ministry of Transport. The hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain A. Hudson) asked a question about the police and the Traffic Commissioner. It is a small point. He is quite right that the licensing in the first instance passes from the police to the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner, but there is a discretion on the part of the Minister, whereby, after discussion with the Home Secretary, the licensing of drivers and conductors can go back to the police, if it is found mutually convenient. It is in that connection that the possible grant to the police out of the Road Fund arises. I think I have covered all the points that have been raised and I shall be grateful if the Committee will now agree to the Resolution.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next, 27th April.

  EXPIRING LAWS.
  Ordered,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider which, if any, of the Acts of
  1298
  Parliament included in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1930, or in Part II of the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1928, can with advantage be made permanent or be enacted for periods longer than one year from the dates on which, if not continued, they will expire."
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee consist of Fifteen Members."
  Sir Norman Angell, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Denman, Sir Patrick Ford, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Leif Jones, Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Sir Basil Peto, Major Graham Pole, Mr. Richards, Mr. Graham White, and Sir E. Hilton Young nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:
  That Five be the quorum."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Ordered,
  "That Mr. Westwood be discharged from the Select Committee on Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms and Mr. Tout be added to the Committee."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this Rouse do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
  In pursuance of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), Mr. SPEAKER has nominated Captain Sir Ernest Nathaniel Bennett to act during this Session as a temporary Chairman of Committees when requested by the Chairman of Ways and Means, in the room of Henry Snell, esquire, called up to the House of Peers.
  COAL INDUSTRY (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  COAL INDUSTRY (HOURS OF LABOUR).
  SURTAX.
  SURTAX.
  AFFORESTATION (SITKA SPRUCE, WALES).
  AFFORESTATION (SITKA SPRUCE, WALES).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS).
EDUCATION.
  SCHOLARSHIPS.
  SCHOLARSHIPS.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES (STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE).
  TEACHERS' SALARIES (STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE).
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, KINTBURY.
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, KINTBURY.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  MILK (SALE).
  MILK (SALE).
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  INDIA (CONFERENCE).
  INDIA (CONFERENCE).
  MURDER CHARGE (SOLICITOR'S ACTION).
  MURDER CHARGE (SOLICITOR'S ACTION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LOWER AVON NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Brighton Corporation Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Lower Avon Navigation Bill [H.L.]: Read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
TAMWORTH CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (EAST ELLOE JOINT WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (INVERNESS HARBOUR) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISA TION) BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order): Lord STANMORE in the Chair.
Clause 6:
Power of Minister to provide small holdings with financial assistance for unemployed persons.
6.—(1) If the Minister is satisfied that any person—
756

(a) is an unemployed person, that is to say a person who is unemployed and unable to obtain suitable employment;

(b) desires to lease a small holding and will himself cultivate the holding; and

(c) is able to cultivate the holding properly; and

(d) is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to obtain such a holding from the county council,

the Minister shall have power to provide a small holding, other than a cottage holding, for that person and lease it to him:
Provided that no compensation shall be payable under Section forty-three of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, or under the provisions of this Act relating to compensation for loss of employment, to any person for whom a small holding is provided under this section.
(2) Where under the powers conferred by this section the Minister provides a small holding for any unemployed person, the Minister may, in accordance with regulations made by him with the approval of the Treasury—

(a) grant to that person an allowance of such amount and for such period, not exceeding one year from the date on which he enters into possession of the small holding, as may be prescribed by the regulations;

(b) make or guarantee, or undertake to make or guarantee, grants by way of a loan to that person of such sums as the Minister considers necessary for enabling him to undertake the business of a small holder, including sums for the payment of any tenant right valuation or for the purchase of stock, feeding stuffs, fruit trees, seeds, fertilisers or implements required for the purpose of the holding:

Provided that the Minister may, in accordance with such regulations as aforesaid, in lieu of making a loan to any person under paragraph (b) of this subsection supply to that person any such stock, feeding stuffs, fruit trees, seeds, fertilisers or implements as aforesaid, and in that case the purchase price thereof shall be deemed to be a loan to him made under the said paragraph, and in the event of any difficulty in obtaining any stock required for the purpose aforesaid the Minister may arrange for the production thereof by any local authority, society, or person, and for the provision of the equipment necessary for that purpose upon such terms as may be agreed between him and the local authority, society, or person.
(3) The regulations made for the purpose of this section shall prescribe—

(a) such scale of allowances as will secure that the sums payable to any person shall not exceed fifty pounds in the aggregate and shall not exceed thirty shillings in any week, and that the amount of the allowance is proportionally reduced during the period in which the

757
allowance is payable having regard to the value of the benefit which he may reasonably be expected to derive from the small holding; and

(b) the rate of interest payable on any loans made or guaranteed, or undertaken to be made or guaranteed, under this section, and for such loans being free of interest during such period as may be prescribed.

(4) If it appears to the Minister that there are persons desirous of obtaining small holdings under this section who are otherwise suitable as tenants of such holdings but require for themselves or for their dependants training to enable them to cultivate such holdings properly, the Minister of Labour may, after consultation with him, make such arrangements by the establishment of training centres and otherwise as are necessary for securing that the required training is made available—

(a) for any person desirous of obtaining a small holding under this section who is, in the opinion of the Minister, likely to become suitable as a tenant of such a holding; and

(b) for not more than one dependant of any such person or of any person for whom a small holding has been provided under this section.

In this section the expression "dependant" means, in relation to any person, the husband, wife, son, or daughter (including a step-son or step-daughter and an adopted son or daughter) of that person.
LORD TREOWEN LORD TREOWEN had given Notice to move in subsection (1), after "If the Minister," to insert "in agreement with the council of the county or county borough as the case may be." The noble Lord said: I understand from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that he would like to consider this Amendment and therefore I shall not move it at this stage. I reserve my right, however, to move it on Report.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), after "satisfied," to insert "after agreement with the council of the county or county borough as the case may be in which the Minister proposes to exercise the powers of this subsection." The noble Lord said: It seems to me that it might be desirable if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would state some of the reasons why it is thought necessary to give the Minister the particular powers conferred by the clause. The clause gives power to the Minister to provide small holdings with financial assistance for unemployed persons. What are the powers? They are that the Minister shall provide small holdings with financial help if he is satisfied that the
758
persons comply with certain conditions. The conditions that he has to be satisfied about are four. The first is that the person is an unemployed person who is unable to obtain suitable employment. I suggest that in this and the other questions on which the Minister has to be satisfied he should have the advantage not only of consulting the county council but of being in agreement with that body. I should be very much surprised if an ordinary Minister would object to being able to consult an important body like the county council, which for years hag dealt with these great questions connected with small holdings and the putting of men on the land. One would have thought that the Minister would have been only too glad to have the assistance and to be in agreement with these public bodies.
Again, how is the Minister to find out when suitable employment can be found for these people in the particular area? He cannot do it himself; someone must do it for him. I saw last year that the number of officials had been increased by something like 9,000. If there is a wish further to increase the number of officials and to send them down to the districts to hold inquiries and find out whether men are able to get suitable employment or not and therefore ought to have small holdings, I can understand the clause being put into the Bill. But why go to the unnecessary expense of creating a large body of officials who must be highly paid, because they must be men who are capable of making independent inquiries, when you already have the county councils who would be able to satisfy themselves who were fit and proper persons to take up small holdings?
As to whether the person in question desires to lease a small holding and so on and is able to cultivate the holding properly, the county council would be able to say whether it was likely in the conditions existing in the district that the small holding would be successful. Those of your Lordships who have been members of county councils for many years will know very well that under the Small Holdings Act there are men in different areas who apply for small holdings, that the applications are most carefully gone into, and that the county councils are generally able to say from

759
personal knowledge or general experience whether the applications should be granted or not.
Under the Bill there is to be no local knowledge in this matter. All that is to take place is that the Minister himself is to be satisfied. I suppose he will send down officials to enquire. Why is it necessary to do that, when the county councils will, with great success, be able to enquire as to whether the men are qualified to have small holdings? The county councils have shown how well they can do this from the fact that, taking the country as a whole, there has been no loss upon their small holdings. Again, the Minister has to satisfy himself that the man has not sufficient means to get a small holding from the county council. There again it might be very likely that the man would go to the Minister or to some official and say: "I have no means, and I cannot go to the county council; they would not have me." I should not be surprised that he would do that, and that it would be more favourable for a man to go to the Minister or the officials under this provision when he was unemployed than to go to the county council, because under the Small Holdings Act, with the passing of which I had something to do in another place, we laid it down that there should be no such thing as charity rents and that a man must go on the holding and be self-supporting. He must have money and experience.
In this case there is to be nothing of that kind. A man may know nothing about farming, he may have no experience, he may not be a man of very good character, but he will go in and be allowed to have for one year 30 s. a week subsistence allowance, and receive other payments. There will be another great advantage which he cannot get under the county council. He will have the advantage that the Minister is to make him a loan—it may be quite a large sum—for equipping the holding with stock, buying implements and things of that kind, and also paying the tenant right valuation. He is to get all that from the Minister. I expect it will be a very bad bargain for the State. In a very large number of cases, unless there is proper inquiry beforehand, the loan will not be repaid, and at the end of the year, when the man finds he is no longer to
760
get the 30 s. a week, he will be tired of the small holding, and will think it would be better for him to go on the "dole" or upon out-relief, which is now given so liberally in these cases. If the taxpayer is to be protected, it seems to me that it must be done by having a local body like the county council, who are qualified to sift out all these men and decide which of them will make good or bad small holders.
I am told that there is another Amendment on the Paper, which some noble Lords prefer to mine. I refer to that in the name of my noble friend Lord Cranworth. With all respect to him, I say it is a milk-and-water Amendment. All it does is to say that the Minister has to get the opinion of the county council. Do you think it is likely the Labour Government will take the opinion of a county council in this matter? They will do nothing of the kind. They will say that their own opinion or that of their officials is very much better. They want to put these men on the land, and they will not consider whether they will make a success of it or not. In the same way, they want to have the experiment of large-scale farming, which your Lordships refused to accept. I say again that they would proceed without paying any regard to the kind of individual who is to go on the land and as to whether he would make a success of it. They will put upon the land men whom county councils, with their local knowledge, would reject, and the result will be that eventually these men will be a heavy charge upon the taxpayer.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 32, after ("satisfied") insert ("after agreement with the council of the county or county borough as the case may be in which the Minister proposes to exercise the powers of this subsection").—(Lord Strachie.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): Before I say anything on this Amendment, I am sure there was a misunderstanding on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Treowen, who withdrew his Amendment in order to have it considered before Report. I rather believe that the particular Amendment that we asked him to withdraw in order to discuss this comes later.
LORD TREOWEN: I apologise for coming in hurriedly. I thought your Lordships had got to the second Amendment in my name. My first Amendment was withdrawn, but the other one I wish to move.
EARL DE LA WARR: I thought I would clear up that. The purpose of this Amendment, as the noble Lord has said, is to provide that the Minister shall act with regard to Clause 6 only in agreement with the county council or the council of a county borough. The noble Lord spoke as though the clause was drafted so that the Minister was not even in a position to consult with the county councils. He said, "Surely the Minister would like to have the right to go down to a local area and take the advice of those on the spot." Of course in a large number of instances it will be desirable and useful for the Minister to go down and discuss matters with the county council. We have actually gone further in this Bill by taking power, in Clause 12, to come to an arrangement with county councils to act as agents for the management of small holdings estates.
We have quite a different question here. The point of the Amendment, if it is carried, is that the Minister will not be able to take action on a matter of national policy without the consent of the county councils. That is a very different proposition from consultation on matters of planning out details of policy. Obviously on the carrying out of a general national unemployment policy for which the Minister is accepting full financial responsibility, and for which he is accepting full responsibility as regards policy, it is out of the question that he should allow the county council, which is not concerned in the matter at all, to overcome his desire to settle unemployed people in certain districts. Moreover, I said the comity councils have no concern in this matter. It is a matter purely of national unemployment policy. The noble Lord said: "But you want the experience of county councils in telling you whether local candidates are suitable or not." It is most unlikely that the unemployed are living in the area of the county council, and the county councils will not be in a position to give us any local knowledge about them. The noble Lord also said that no doubt the
762
unemployed would be able to hoodwink the Minister as to their inability to obtain county council small holdings. These unemployed are not applicants for a county council small holding. That question does not come into it at all.
Finally, the noble Lord speaks as though it were only the Department that ever employs officials. How on earth does he imagine that the county councils work? We had a case the other day, to which I think a noble Lord referred yesterday, concerning livestock improvement. The noble Lord declaimed against the appointment of officials by the Ministry and the extravagant working of the scheme. When we examined the facts we found that, whereas the Ministry was going to carry out the work with between twenty-live and thirty officials, the county councils would use sixty-one for that particular job. I suggest that these considerations are totally irrelevant to the point that we are considering at this moment. This is a matter of a national policy to be decided by a Minister responsible to Parliament. I am afraid the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD BAYFORD: I should like to say a word on this Amendment from the point of view of a member of a county council who has consulted the members, not only of one council, but of the neighbouring councils as well. I find that the general feeling is that this Amendment seeks to throw upon the county councils a share of a responsibility which they do not want to undertake. I do not think you would find, if you consulted the members of any county council who had any experience in this matter of small holdings, that they are anxious to have, not only the responsibility for their own small holders, but also to have thrust upon them responsibility for what I can only describe as foreign small holders. The noble Earl opposite drew attention to the question of what county councils you are going to consult. It is quite possible that there might be three counties involved in the same matter. There may be miners out of employment in Glamorgan, they may be sent to be trained in Gloucestershire and then an endeavour may be made to settle them on small holdings in Devonshire. Which county council is going to be consulted

763
on the matter? It seems to me that the Amendment is unworkable; and, even if it were workable, it would be undesirable.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It may be unworkable and no doubt it is much to be regretted, but is not the Bill as it stands in a rather regrettable form? What is it that is going to be done? That is what I hoped the noble Earl would tell us, but I have not heard a word. Are you going to hold independent inquiries throughout the length and breadth of the country, wherever there is unemployment—and that is practically universal—in order to ascertain: (1) whether any of the unemployed desire small holdings; (2) if there is any place where the small holdings can be provided; and (3) whether the person who desires a small holding is able to cultivate it when it is provided? From the first I have been aghast at what may happen under this clause. Your Lordships realise that the only person to be satisfied is the Minister. Nobody suggests for a moment that he is going to wander through the country and enquire. He must have a very large number of officials to do it for him, and they must be set up all over the country. Although the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Strachie may throw some extra work upon the county councils, surely to some extent it does put this matter under some form of local control, and that seems to me to be much better than to leave it in the vague and unsatisfactory condition in which it stands as the Bill is now drawn.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: Before we go further I should like to ask the noble
Earl to make one point clear with regard to this Amendment. I understand that, quite apart from the merits of the question as to whether we should have the agreement of the county council, even if it is approved it will not apply to Scotland. I gather from Clause 25 that references to county councils, so far as Scotland is concerned, shall not apply. I am not quite sure what is the meaning of the words "shall not apply." Is it that in Scotland we have to rest content with the opinion of the Department of Agriculture, not even a Secretary of State? If this Amendment is approved by this Committee, and if the agreement with the county councils is to be desired, I must say that, so far as Scottish members are concerned, I do not think they can be satisfied with a position less than is provided for England. We ought to have the same approval, if it is given in England.
EARL DE LA WARR: If this Amendment is carried, it is, of course, for those who are interested in applying it to Scotland to draft an Amendment that will do so, but as the Amendment stands the noble Duke is perfectly right in his interpretation. I noticed, however, that he remarked that it was only the Department of Agriculture, and not the Secretary of State for Scotland, that would control these matters. Of course the Secretary of State for Scotland assumes full Ministerial responsibility for his Department.
On Question, Whether the said new words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 74.

CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Churchill, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Exeter, M.

Esher, V.

Dorchester, L.

Hereford, V. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Airlie, E.

Mersey, V.

Forester, L.

Cawdor, E.

Novar, V.

Gainford, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Hastings, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Annaly, L.

Lamington, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Middleton, L.

Leven and Melville, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Lindsay, E.

Berwick, L.

Phillimore, L.

Liverpool, E.

Biddulph, L.

Redesdale, L.

Malmesbury, E.

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

Sandhurst, L.

Midleton, E.

Sinclair, L.

Morton, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Poulett, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Radnor, E.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

Ypres, E.

Clinton, L.

Treowen, L.

Conyers, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Astor, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Elibank, V.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Hailsham, V.

Kirkley, L.

Marlborough, D.

Hood, V.

Lawrence, L.

Wellington, D.

Sidmouth, V.

Leigh, L.

Sumner, V.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Camden, M.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Abinger, L.

Olivier, L.

Ancaster, E.

Aldenham, L.

Ormathwaite, L.

Bradford, E.

Bayford, L.

Passfield, L.

Breadalbane and Holland, E.

Belper, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

De La Warr, E.

Chesham, L.

Queenborough, L.

Fortescue, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Cushendun, L.

Remnant, L.

Grey, E.

Danesfort, L.

Rochester, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Desart, L. (E. Desart..)

Saltoun, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Desborough, L.

Sanderson, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Dickinson, L.

Sandys, L.

Lindsey, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Snell, L.

Lucan, E.

Ernle, L.

Stanmore, L.

Peel, E.

Erskine, L.

Sudeley, L.

Selborne, E.

Fairhaven, L.

Templemore, L.

Spencer, E.

FitzWalter, L.

Trenchard, L.

Stanhope, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wargrave, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Wavertree, L.

Wharton, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, in subsection. (1) (c), after "able," to insert "and has the necessary practical experience to enable him." The noble Earl said: With the insertion of this Amendment, the paragraph would read as follows:
"(c) is able and has the necessary practical experience to enable him to cultivate the holding properly;. …"
It would be perfectly fatal if men of ignorance were put on the land in this way. With your Lordships' permission I will read an extract of a case which occurred in the Dornoch Sheriff Court last week. It is a case in which a small holder was charged with cruelty to a heifer—with causing unnecessary suffering to a heifer belonging to him between February 2 and March 16 last. It was stated by the prosecution that a heifer broke its foreleg below the knee. Accused bandaged it up with the hope, apparently, of its healing. Mortification set in, and on the accused observing this he took a saw and cut the affected limb off, with the idea still of the remaining part of the limb healing up. He was going to attach a stump to it. It was at this point that he was stopped. It only shows that men of inexperience, knowing nothing about farming, cannot be of any use on these holdings. I do not see anywhere in the Bill what process the
766
Minister is going to employ in transferring men from one county to another. Surely there should be some sort of certificate as to the qualifications of these men. My Amendment would add to the qualifications which these men must have, and the local authorities, who would have to deal with these cases, would no doubt benefit by knowing that they were getting men of some experience.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 33, after ("able") insert ("and has the necessary practical experience to enable him").—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think there is really any great objection to those words, but I should like, if I may, to consider the Amendment before Report.
LORD BUCKMASTER: While the noble Earl is considering suggestions will he also consider what I pointed out on the Second Reading—namely, that there are two totally distinct qualifications, one for unemployed persons applying for holdings, and another, in Clause 12, for ordinary persons applying for holdings who are not unemployed persons? I suggested that they should be made the same, and I fully expected to be told that it was a drafting matter and the qualifications were going to be made the

767
same. I suggest to the noble Earl that he should take steps to see that the qualification is the same in each case.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the usual way of getting consideration for a matter with which you are not satisfied on Second Reading is to put down an Amendment. Had that been done I should, of course, have dealt with the matter, but, as it has not been done, and the noble and learned Lord asks me to deal with it, I will certainly look into the matter, and try to find some suitable occasion for bringing it up on Report. With regard to the Amendment now before the Committee, I accept it, pending consideration.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, after paragraph (d) of subsection (1), to insert:
"and
(e) in the opinion of the council of the county concerned, expressed in a report made to the Minister as respects each case, may reasonably be expected to earn a livelihood on the holding proposed."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, in my opinion, is one of some importance. I bring it forward with one object only, and that is to improve this clause and to enable it to be satisfactorily worked. I assume I shall be right in thinking that what noble Lords opposite wish is to further the success of this clause; because there are some people who anticipate that many new small holders will first of all use up their allowance, then will eat their pigs and chickens, and finally will sell their implements and go back on the "dole." I am quite certain that that is not the intention of the Bill, but I would like to have a categorical acknowledgement from the noble Earl that my view is right.
Now, if it is the wish of the noble Earl that this Bill should be a success, surely one thing is necessary—namely, that these men who are going to be put on small holdings will, in fact, be able, with reasonable work, to gain a reasonable livelihood. Among other factors to that end are three. You must get the right men. The men must have determination and industry. Under present farming conditions I think there is no room for forty-hours-a-week men on this work. At the present time such small holders
768
as are making good are working on an average at least sixty hours a week. These new small holders must also have acquired knowledge for the job in hand. In the second place, you want the right land to put these men on. In my small experience the men who are doing best are usually those who are working in groups together on the best land, where they can usually assist one another. Thirdly, I suggest that they should be in the right locality. The best small holders, in my opinion, are those who are grouped together where they can pool their transport and take their produce to market under reasonable conditions. I think it is rare for an isolated small holding to be a success.
If your Lordships are agreed with me in that, where are the Government going to get their advice to obtain that result? I cannot but think that they must go to the county councils of the districts concerned. After all, the county councils have been working small holdings for a considerable number of years. I know there are certain people who say that they ought to have done more. But the reason why they have not done more is that they have found it difficult to get the right men who would be able to make a reasonable livelihood, and to get the right men who would make good with sufficient capital. Now, you are going to find the capital. You will produce a vast quantity of suitable candidates for this job. The county councils will then be in a position to put the men on the spots suitable for them.
I admit that there are two objections to my proposal. It will cause a considerable amount of trouble, and it will involve a certain amount of expense to the county councils. But, with regard to trouble, this Bill is causing a lot of trouble, and any of your Lordships who was giving or lending a man a thousand pounds to put into a business or a small holding would take infinite trouble to see that that man was put into such a position that he should, in fact, earn a living. And, if we do that with regard to our own personal money, we should be not less careful in doing it when we are helping that man out of the public purse. With regard to financial trouble for the county council, I can only presume that, as this is a national object, the county council will be helped, if this

769
Amendment is passed, out of the national purse. I think that is a presumption which I am entitled to make.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Cranworth.)
LORD HASTINGS: In addition to the advantages which my noble friend mentioned and recommended to your Lord-ships for his proposed Amendment, there is another that occurs to my mind—namely, that, unless this Amendment is inserted, it will be admitted that the whole of the administration of this vastly important clause will be entirely divorced from the county councils of the country. Even though it may be right to give to the Minister certain over-riding powers in what is admittedly a national scheme, it seems to be both improper and undesirable that the governing bodies of the various parts of England should have nothing whatever to do with the scheme, and should, in fact, be debarred from taking any interest in it. With very great respect to my noble friend Lord Bayford, it surely cannot be the wish of county councils generally to be completely divorced from this matter. It may be that they do not want to be overburdened with the administrative details which it may create, but that is quite a different matter from preventing them from interesting themselves in it at all.
After long experience, the county councils know exactly what are and what are not the proper areas to put small holders upon. They know exactly now where a small holder may be expected to succeed, and where he is absolutely certain to fail. The Minister does not know that; the Minister's officials do not know that—the existing officials do not know it, and the new officials clearly cannot. The county councils do know it. In the interests of the small holders themselves, I maintain that it would be extremely wise to permit the county councils to give to the Minister the benefit of the knowledge which they have and to enable him to take advantage of it, which he can do by my noble friend's Amendment, and which he could not do unless some such Amendment were inserted. I agree that the words "as respects each case" may create difficulties, but, as I am reminded, the probability is that a form will be introduced which will get over that difficulty. The
770
real point of interest is that the county councils should not be divorced from this scheme because it is a national scheme, but should be allowed to take part in it and make it a better scheme than it would be if left solely to the Minister.
LORD STRACHIE: As I understand, this Amendment would throw very heavy work on county councils without any real right of interference. It contemplates a report being made by the county council to the Minister in regard to each case, and therefore you would be throwing a great deal of work upon the county councils and at the same time they would have no power to say that a particular man is unsuitable. They merely have to express a pious opinion to the Minister, who can reject that opinion. Indeed, the opinion of the county council may not have any effect on the Minister.
EARL STANHOPE: The Amendment goes much further than my noble friend Lord Strachie appears to realise. The Minister has to be satisfied on the opinion of the county council, or, in other words, he has to accept the opinion of the county council. The reason why so many of us support this Amendment but were compelled to vote against Lord Strachie's Amendment is this. We do not wish to put on the county council the responsibility of selecting the individuals. We do not feel that the County Council of Hampshire should have to send all the way to Pembrokeshire and to judge whether individual miners are suitable. On the other hand, this is not a question of the individual but of the area. The area in our opinion is fundamental. If you put a small holder on to bad land, success would be impossible, but you may put him on thoroughly good land and success would be impossible. The reason is that the small holder has to find a market for what he grows.
If you put him near London, which is one of the worst markets for a small holder, because he has to meet competition from every foreign country, he is unlikely to get a price which will pay. On the other hand, there are in many parts of the country large towns with a good demand for poultry and other produce and there the small holder can make a success if he is properly trained. Who knows better than the county council where those places are? They have

771
placed a large number of small holders on the land in their areas, they know how far they are making a success, and how far, by placing further small holders, they may flood the market and ruin those there already and those brought in. Therefore, we should give to the Minister an opinion whether an average man, placed in a certain part of the country and given an average chance, is likely to make a success or not. No one wishes to take men out of the queues of unemployed, spend money in training them, place them on a farm at great cost to the State, and then realise only too late that the man never had a chance of making a success of his small holding. That is what the Amendment seeks to avoid. It will not succeed in making a success in every case, but it ensures that the Minister will have the best advice available as to whether those small holdings are likely to be a success.
There is a further reason why you should bring the county councils into this question. At the end of the maintenance granted by the Government, which extends to only £50 for a period of one year, that man has to make good and earn his own living on his holding. Supposing he fails, what happens to him then? He ceased to draw the "dole" from the moment he commenced on his small holding and so he becomes a charge on the county rate. You may have the Minister of Agriculture bringing people from another part of the country and dumping them down in Hampshire and Sussex, and at the end of twelve months the county council, who have had no say in the matter, find this large number of new inhabitants have become a charge on their county rate. The least you can do is to give the county council a chance of saying: "We believe this will be a success and agree to it," or "We see no chance whatever of these men making a success on these particular areas; we disapprove of their being brought in as small holders and have so informed the Minister," who will be unable to act. This is a very important Amendment which those of us, who believe in county councils being supported and who believe in supporting the local authority, which derives its authority from the local residents by democratic election, consider should be carried.
EARL DE LA WARR: With many of the remarks that have fallen from the noble
772
Lords opposite it is impossible to disagree, but, when one examines the wording of the Amendment and considers how it will work, your Lordships will see that it will really make the administrative machinery quite unworkable. If it is inserted, it will mean that the Minister will have to consult the county council with regard to every individual unemployed person who has to be settled on the land, and that he will have to receive a report from the county council on the subject of that application. It would go further than that because the county council would also have to consider in the report whether the man is likely to make a livelihood out of the particular holding on which he is to be settled. That obviously will impose a most cumbrous machinery on the administration of this scheme. Not only will the applicant have to be originally selected in his area, interviewed and approved by a local committee, finally approved by an official of the Ministry who is finally responsible to the Minister, who himself is finally responsible to Parliament, but, having gone through that, the applicant will have to travel up to the county council in whose area he is to be settled, in order once again to be interviewed as to his suitability.
The county councils have not asked for this power to be granted to them and we have no evidence whatever that they desire it. The noble Lord, Lord Strachie, who frequently speaks for the county councils, has by no means given the Amendment a welcome. I have here a report of the Committee of the County Councils' Association which considered this Bill, and I find not a single word in their resolutions on the Bill referring to this general power being given to county councils. This Amendment can do nothing but make for divided control and divided responsibility. The scheme has to be the Minister's, the decision as to finance has to be the Minister's, the decision as to policy has to be the Minister's, and now we are dragging in this divided responsibility, which will make the county council, which hitherto has been in no way responsible for the scheme, partly responsible for the selection of the applicant. I hope your Lordships will not insist on inserting this Amendment, which can only lead to difficulty in operating the Bill, which is most undesirable.
VISCOUNT SUMNER: The noble Earl greatly overrates what the county councils are expected to do in this case. The words of the Amendment are quite clear on the point and the opinion they have to express is that the man may reasonably be expected to earn a livelihood on the holding proposed. The proposed holding is to be one in their own district and, as they are the council of the county concerned, they are called upon to say whether or not any man could get a living on that holding, about which they probably know more than the Minister himself. But they are not called Upon to express their opinion on the laborious and controversial questions whether the man in question is unemployed, whether he desires to lease a small holding, whether he will, himself, cultivate the holding, whether he is able to cultivate the holding properly, except in so far as it is that particular holding with which they are acquainted. Nor need they enquire into his means. I should have thought there was nothing very unreasonable in saying that the Minister might well be fortified in this inquiry by getting, and having to get, the opinion of the council of the county as to whether on the holding which is proposed for the man any good is to be done by planting him upon it.
EARL DE LA WARR: If your Lordships will allow me to intervene again I really think this Amendment is moved under a misconception. Let me remind your Lordships of the words used by Lord Hastings and which I took down. He asked why should the county council be debarred from expressing their opinion upon the question of small holdings? Why should they be prevented really from having anything to do with this matter?
LORD HASTINGS: Quite.
EARL DE LA WARR: That is not at all the case. I have already said, and it must be apparent to the minds of all your Lordships, that it is perfectly obvious that any Minister who wants to make a workable scheme must avail himself of all the local knowledge he can get. This is not a question of whether or not he shall consult and avail himself of local knowledge; it is a question of responsibility and of who is to be responsible. I have already reminded
774
your Lordships that you have only to turn to Clause 12 to see what is the intention of the Minister in practice. He actually takes powers where a county council is willing without in any way imposing an obligation upon them. I notice in their resolution they particularly say that the county council should be under no obligation to act as agent for the Ministry. That refers to a slightly different matter, to demonstration holdings, but it is the same in principle. By negotiation between the Minister and themselves they can be brought voluntarily into this matter. They are in no way debarred at present and it is, of course, the intention of the Minister to utilise them in every way.
In fact I can tell your Lordships that even at the moment, of course quite unofficially because the Bill has not yet passed, and we have had expressions of friendliness from certain county councils with whom we have been able to work in the closest association. I can give your Lordships that definite and concrete assurance now that it is our policy wherever we can to avail ourselves of all the local knowledge and experience of the county councils. But that is a different matter altogether from the division of responsibility. The responsibility should be that of the Minister who is responsible to Parliament and should not he divided with any other body.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know whether I might make a suggestion at this point. My noble and learned friend Lord Summer has pointed out that the noble Earl seemed to be under a misapprehension as to what this Amendment purported to do. The noble Earl suggested that every applicant for a small holding, after having been passed by the Minister, would have to submit himself to the county council, and he pointed out that this would mean divided control and was a very onerous burden to place on the council. I agree with him, and I think it would be undesirable. But the answer, and as I believe the conclusive answer, which was given by my noble and learned friend, was that that is not the meaning or effect of the Amendment, and that when the Amendment says that the county council has to express as respects each case an opinion that the man concerned "may reasonably be expected to earn his livelihood on the holding proposed", it is

775
only intended to assert the right of the county council to report that the particular holding was not one on which a person who satisfies the conditions in (a), (b) and (c) could reasonably be expected to make a livelihood.
I am sure that nobody on either side of the House desires that people shall be taken from the ranks of the unemployed where they are drawing unemployment relief, shall be trained, if necessary, shall be put to the very arduous work which is involved in maintaining a small holding, when at the end of it there is no chance that the small holding can be a success. That cannot be the intention of the Government and I am sure it would not be the intention of any member of your Lordships' House. The suggestion which, as I understand it, my noble friend Lord Cranworth puts forward, is that when the Minister has satisfied himself that a particular person complies with conditions (a), (b) and (c), then, before he is established on a particular holding, the Minister shall have a report from the county council concerned that the particular holding is one upon which a person who satisfies those conditions can reasonably be expected to make a livelihood. If that be the intention, as I understand it, and I believe it is the effect of the Amendment, would it not make it clear beyond any possible doubt if instead of the words "as respects each case" my noble friend were to substitute the words "as respects each holding"? Then there could be no doubt as to what was intended.
I do not think it makes any difference in the meaning and it certainly does not, as I understand my noble friend, make any difference in what he intends to do. If that alteration be made surely the objection which the noble Earl has taken largely falls to the ground, and without that protection we are in the position that the Minister could place people on the land where they were bound to fail and where they could only ultimately become a charge on the county council which would have had no voice in their selection. I suggest, therefore, that the alteration of one word might meet the difficulty.
LORD CRANWORTH: I need hardly say that I would accede to that suggestion if the noble Earl would accept it. The noble and learned Viscount has put
776
much more clearly than I could the exact intention I had in regard to this Amendment. I thought it was fairly clear before but he has made it absolutely clear now. I think the alteration will make it even clearer to everyone.
EARL DE LA WARR: The change in wording makes a considerable difference, I am advised, in the meaning of the Amendment. Therefore, for the moment I suggest that it may go in, though I am in no wise committing the Government.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Hear, hear.
EARL DE LA WARR: I will consider the matter between now and Report stage.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I will put it in that form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, at end insert:
("and
(e) in the opinion of the council of the county concerned, expressed in a report made to the Minister as respects each holding, may reasonably be expected to earn a livelihood on the holding proposed").—(Lord Cranworth.)
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved to insert immediately before the proviso in subsection (1):
"and provided that the number of persons for whom the Minister may provide holdings shall not exceed ten thousand, until such time as experience of these holdings has proved by their capacity for production and subject to the amount of capital sunk are an economic proposition."
The noble Earl said: So many speeches have been made from this side of your Lordships' House dealing with the curtailment of expenditure and pointing out the colossal expenditure involved by this Bill that I feel that 10,000 holdings is not too small a limit. Without further comment I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
EARL DE LA WARR: On this point I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. At a later stage the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, has an Amendment which provides another means of limiting the number of holdings. I put it to your

777
Lordships whether it would be convenient that we should have a general discussion on the question of limitation now. I take it that is your Lordships' desire.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Very good.
EARL DE LA WARR: Would the noble Lord move—
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Earl will appreciate that we cannot have a second Motion made while there is one already before the Committee. But if it be for the convenience of the Committee, there is no difficulty in discussing generally the question of limitation, including that in my noble friend Lord Bayford's Amendment and other limitations which are put forward.
EARL DE LA WARR: I withdrew in order that your Lordships might have a discussion upon this.
LORD BAYFORD: I have been very anxious to get some assurance from the Government which I believe will carry out what is the general wish of the House; that is, that on this subject the Government should not have a blank cheque. We want some limit put on the amount of money that may be spent on small holdings under this Bill. There are various ways of doing it. There is this Amendment, which limits the number of tenants. There is the Amendment which I have down to Clause 11, which limits the acreage to 50,000 acres a year. There are two other Amendments, one of which I have down with another noble Lord to Clause 19, which limits the period during which the Act is to remain in force. Then there is the fourth alternative, and it is the one which I personally prefer—that is to Clause 22 which limits the amount of money which may be spent to £10,000,000. If we could get an assurance from the Government on any of these various forms of limitation, I believe it would materially aid the passage of the Bill.
I am only asking the Government to do what they have declared is their intention. There was a speech made on February 27, by the Minister of Agriculture. I have a report of it which is taken from the Daily Herald so perhaps its accuracy will not be denied on the other side of the House. It states that speaking of model farms Dr. Addison declared that these small model farms
778
would form vitality centres for the new small holdings, of which about 10,000 will be established during the next few years. That, I presume only applies to England, because Dr. Addison's jurisdiction does not extend to Scotland. We had a similar declaration by Mr. Adamson in the House of Commons on February 10, in which he said that if continued for a decade the number of small holders would come to 7,000. That would be 700 a year. I believe experience shows that the number of small holders put upon the land at various times under the operation of the present Act amounts to about 2,000 a year. My own impression is that the difficulties of settling a very large number are so great that they would by themselves form a limit without statutory force. But we do want to get some limit that is recognised by the Government. I have tried to show the various ways in which the Government could make a gesture towards meeting us. I have stated that I would prefer the limitation of expense, but if there is some other form in which the Government would be prepared to impose their limit, then I am sure the Committee would give it every possible consideration. But we all realise that this is where the question of Privilege comes in. If the Government will make us an offer on this question I hope it, will be a firm offer, and that it will be an offer which we can agree to here, and which they will be prepared to stand by in another place.
EARL STANHOPE: I venture to think that we shall be assisting the Minister by putting some safeguards into this Bill. He himself asked for it when he was in another place in Committee. My noble friend appears to be a little sceptical so I had better read him the quotation. It did not occur on this clause, I admit. It occurred on Clause 7. Clause 7 is the clause which allows agricultural workers to get small holdings on exactly the same conditions as Clause 6, and anything that we put into Clause 6 therefore affects Clause 7. Many of your Lordships feel that the temptation to "have a go," as it is put, at small holdings is going to be very considerable indeed in certain areas, and particularly in Eastern England, where farming conditions are at present deplorable, and where there is a very large amount of unemployment.

779
Nobody in this House is proposing to impose further restrictions on agricultural labourers who are not employed or upon unemployed workers who are in the least likely to make a success of small holdings.
In Committee in another place the Minister said:—
"By putting the matter in that unrestrained form you might practically denude some farms of the ordinary agricultural workers."
He went on:—
"It was not in the mind of the Government that we should facilitate that undue dislocation of country life. … You might easily have 200,000 applications from agricultural workers. They would be the best applicants, without a doubt,…and the most likely to succeed. … You might, therefore, have an immense multitude of applicants, and if you could meet them, you would certainly dislocate the whole economy of the countryside … Apart entirely from the prodigious financial commitment which this clause opens out, it would he physically impossible within a considerable term of years, if the applications were of that magnitude, to provide anything like the holdings which would be applied for."
The Minister added:—
"I cannot do more at this stage than point out to those of the Committee who propose to support it, the full and immense implications of this new clause, and reserve to myself the completest possible freedom to introduce safeguards into it."
He repeated that at a later stage, when he said:—
"It will be on the explicit and definite understanding that I am completely free to put in whatever safeguards I can, with the consent of my colleagues, and I will discuss those safeguards with those who are responsible for the clause."
The Bill has appeared before us, and not a single safeguard has been put in by the Minister, for the obvious reason that it is impossible to do so. You cannot put into Clause 7 any figures which at any rate in another place they would be prepared to support. Therefore the only way is to put in a safeguard for small holdings in general, both for Clause 6 and Clause 7. I am certain that the Minister, although he might not do so now, will in the end thank this House for putting in safeguards to enable him to say: "I cannot go at more than a certain speed. I cannot do more than a certain amount." If he has not got safeguards of that kind, agricultural
780
workers all over the country will be expecting to get small holdings this year or next year, and when they do not get them the feeling will run very high, and it will go against the Government and against the Minister.
Everybody realises that it is quite impossible, in the financial situation of the country at this moment, to spend something like £1,000 per holding, and to do that on a gigantic scale. Therefore I submit that, whichever one of these safeguards we take, and perhaps we may have to take more than one, we shall be doing something to assist the Minister, and to assist the Government, by stating quite clearly on the face of the Bill that we have to have a, limitation of some kind, either by the number of persons, by the acreage, or perhaps, best of all, by the amount of money that can be expended. I do not want to go into this question at length, because there are many of your Lordships more qualified to deal with it than I am. I merely want to put forward clearly that, even in the words of the Minister himself, there is a very obvious reason for safeguards being introduced into this Bill. I hope your Lordships will insist that they should be put there.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I should like to make a few remarks on this question of limitation. It seems to me that the only real limitation on this matter is your capacity to supply the need. After all, the agricultural population of this country to-day is being denuded, I under stand, at the rate of 10,000 per annum. We have had evidence during this debate of the conditions in all parts of the country and the fact that people are being forced off the land to-day in very large numbers. There is no dispute as to the circumstances in the towns, nor is there any dispute, I believe, that there are large numbers of people in the towns of this country, and still more in the mines, who have had agricultural experience in their youth and who are anxious and able to go back to the land. Are your Lordships going to agree to a form of limitation which says that, even if it is possible to provide for their needs, you are going to prevent them from getting their opportunity of deriving a livelihood of their own from the land£ I think it is a very serious and formidable thing to put a limitation of that kind in this Bill.

781
I have been impressed during the discussion in Committee by the fact that the aspect of this problem which interests me most—its effect, on agriculture and its human side—has not been very strongly brought forward. Since this Bill was introduced I have travelled about and visited a considerable number of small holding schemes, and I confess that I am surprised and impressed by their success. There are failures, of course, and there are places where men have been badly selected, but the number of successful cases is very large indeed, and the number of instances I can give you of individuals who, in a very short space of time, have been able to make not only a living but a good competence, is very large indeed. In the Report of the Ministry on the work of the Land Division for the year 1926 some very striking figures were given as to the national effect of the small holding policy. In that Report evidence is given on two points: as to the additional population on the land which followed the creation of small holdings, and as to the additional production from that land. I think your Lordships will agree with me that both these things are extremely desirable at present. The more people you can get on to the land when you are facing a depopulation of considerable areas of arable land, the better from the national point of view. It means putting people into self-supporting positions, instead of leaving them on the "dole."
These are the figures as to the proportion of people per holding taken from page 57 of the Report. In holdings of from 1 to 5 acres, 357; 5 to 20 acres, 120; 20 to 50 acres, 60; 50 to 100 acres, 44; and when you get to holdings of 300 to 500 acres, the number of persons is only 30. The first figure is not really relevant, because it refers to people with other occupations but, if you look at the other figures, you will find that on the average the smaller the holding the more people are supported on the land. If you look at the following page of the Report, you will find that before the acquisition for small holdings the number of residents on the thirty-five schemes was 1,048, whereas after acquisition for small holdings the number of residents on these thirty-five schemes was 2,298, or more than double. If yon look at the Nairn Report on the experience of Scotland, you will find that the proportion is almost
782
the same—namely, 361 before acquisition and 567 afterwards. I was recently at the Sutton Bridge Settlement, which is perhaps a model settlement for the whole country and one which I believe has been created under the most favourable conditions. Here there are 180 small holders who have equipped holdings, and about 200 who work on the holdings and make a living. To-day they are employing more labour than was employed by the farmers of the larger farms before the 550 acres was converted into a small holding settlement. In addition to the 180 equipped smell holdings, more labour is being permanently employed on the land than before.
If we are going to do anything of this kind to help the agricultural situation in this country, surely we are not going to have a limitation which says we are not going to do as much as we can. I agree that the last thing we want to do is to waste public money, but if you can make provision—and I believe there is very considerable evidence that we can—for the people of this country on the land, if you can double the population per acre and largely increase production—I have a statement with which I will not trouble you showing that on the average production also increases—it would be a very shortsighted policy if your Lordships were to create a limitation of that kind and insert it in this Bill. It seems to me that, when you are faced with a situation in which your very system of agriculture is in danger and large numbers of people are being forced off the land whatever you do, and if it is true to say that you can provide opportunities by which these people can individually make a living, bring increased population on the land, increase production, and at the same time reduce "doles," it seems to me that this policy is a national economy and not a policy of waste. I would therefore urge your Lordships in the strongest way to put on no limitation which will restrict the effective operation of this scheme to the very maximum of its practical possibilities.
EARL DE LA WARR: I should like to add my voice to that of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, who has pleaded that we should not place a limit on these small holdings schemes. Two forms of limit have been proposed here, and per-

783
haps, before dealing with the general subject, we might just examine them. The first proposal is that the new small holders should not exceed 10,000—"until such time as experience of these holdings has proved by their capacity" that they "are an economic proposition." Really that Amendment implies that small holdings in this country are an entirely new idea and that it is necessary to try them out before we attempt any serious development. Having listened to the speech of the noble Marquess who has just sat down, and who has dealt very thoroughly with that point, I do not think there is very much for me to add, except to say that the figures of failures in regard to small holding settlements were before the War about 5 per cent., and after the War, under the State post War scheme with its very grave disadvantages which I will not enumerate now, about 12½ per cent. to 15 per cent. But even if the failures amount to from 12½ per cent. to 15 per cent., that means that in the most unfavourable circumstances the successes are over 85 per cent.
I put it to your Lordships: Why should you limit what has turned out to be a successful development? At the present moment we have men out of work who are being maintained at the Government expense, it is desirable to increase our production of food as much as we can, and we know that we have a great deal of land in this country rapidly going out of cultivation. Surely it is desirable, as far as possible, that the one limit placed on this scheme to bring the three great national demands together is one which can satisfy them all. The view of the Government is that there should only be one limit imposed upon development under this Bill, and that should be the need and the practicability.
Your Lordships only have to think for a moment to realise that practicability is in itself a very considerable limitation. That brings me to a portion of Lord Bayford's Amendment—I think it is after Clause 19—providing for a time-limit of three years. If your Lordships allow your minds to rest for a moment on these problems you will see how utterly hopeless it is to think of any limitation of a number of years such as three years. It is going to take some time to find the land and to acquire the land. Then it
784
will probably be necessary to give a year's notice to quit to the tenants. Then it will take some time to equip the holdings and get the men settled. The scheme will barely be started to any degree in three years' time, and therefore I suggest to your Lordships that such a limitation as that would be quite impossible.
To take it, however, on very much more general grounds, we take up the line that we cannot accept any limitation which will compel us to leave a suitable man standing at the street corners in the town, idle and living on the unemployment insurance benefit, when but for the limitations imposed in this Bill he might be settled on the land, producing wealth for the country and for himself and Ms family, and generally living as a self-respecting and self-supporting and prosperous member of the community. I suggest that any limitations that your Lordships impose on this Bill will be in the direction of making it impossible for the Government really to develop this Bill to its fullest extent, and it is to the fullest extent, limited only by need and practicability, that we intend to work the provisions of this Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The speech which has just been delivered by the noble Earl, I think, places a good many of us on this side in considerable difficulty. The clause is one which we were anxious to give the Government an opportunity of developing and of trying whether or not it would be a success. Of course your Lordships realise that whatever system of small holdings has existed in the past, and whatever powers the county councils have of settling people on small holdings when it is reasonably possible to do it, are unaffected by the existence of this Bill. This Bill does not touch any existing powers or take them away in any respect, and therefore all that the noble Earl said about our interfering with a policy which has proved successful seems to me to be somewhat beside the mark.
The object of this Bill is to create a new and different power of developing small holdings from anything which at present exists. It is avowedly an attempt to deal with the unemployment problem. I am sure that every member of this House is anxious, if he properly and conscientiously can do it, to give an

785
opportunity to the Government of developing any policy which they may think is calculated to alleviate that problem. Certainly their efforts so far have not been sufficiently successful to make us too sanguine of the future, but we are most anxious that anything which the Government think can help to meet the unemployment difficulty should be given the fullest opportunity of trial. With that object in view I at any rate, and I think a good many who think with me, were prepared—not without considerable misgivings but still prepared, since the Government desired it—to let them try this way of dealing with the problem, not because we were convinced that they would make a success of it, but because we were anxious that anything which they felt they could make successful, and to which the House of Commons had given consent, should be given a fair trial.
If, however, a trial is to be made of a scheme which necessarily involves a certain expenditure, at a time when our national finances are in so grave a position that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself warns us, reforms however desirable must be postponed if the present standard of living of our people is not to be permanently lowered—when we are in that position we have no right to allow unlimited experiments, without any sort of check upon the extravagance of a Ministry or of a particular Minister. I for one do not see how it is possible, consistently with the present financial position of the country as it is disclosed by His Majesty's Government themselves in recent speeches, to say to the Minister: "We will give you a blank cheque; you may spend as many millions as you like and go on as fast and as wildly as you please, with no limitations of time or of acreage or anything else; you may spend hundreds of millions," because, forsooth, the noble Earl can make an eloquent platform speech about taking people off the "dole" and settling them on the land, and turning them into prosperous citizens.
The question is whether we are satisfied that this scheme will do that. I doubt very much whether we should be willing to allow it to be done to an unlimited extent and without any check upon the amount of expenditure or the amount of loss to be incurred. The object, as I understood it, of the general discussion
786
suggested by the noble Earl was to ascertain which form of limitation the Government would prefer to accept, because I am quite sure we desire that in trying this experiment the form should be that which the Government thought was most useful and least irksome, and least likely to interfere with the success of the experiment. When, however, the Government state that they will accept no limitations at all, then it becomes a very grave question whether they should get any clause at all. I do not want at this stage, when we have not heard the last word from the Government, to pronounce any final view for myself, and still less for the Party for which, to some extent, I can speak, but I ask the noble Earl to reconsider very carefully the statement which he has made in the light of this possibility, that the alternative may not be between having an unlimited clause and a clause with limitations, but between having a clause with some limitation and getting no clause at all.
I do hope that the noble Earl will at any rate consider which of these alternatives he would prefer, and if he will consider the possibility I have mentioned he would help us, because we really want to be helped, by telling us what form of limitation the Government think would be most practical and most useful. I am not asking the noble Earl to say that he likes any limitation. I quite understand that he would like a blank cheque, but I cannot forget that the very Minister who is at present to be entrusted with these duties is the Minister whose extravagance when in charge of housing has saddled the country with a burden which it will have to bear for generations to come. To ask us, with that record behind him, to say to him: "You may spend what you like without any sort of check, and buy up as many hundreds of thousands of acres as you please, and people the country with inspectors looking for small holdings, and you may do it at any cost which to you seems adequate in the hope that some of them may make good"—that seems to me to be a request which is somewhat too audacious to be readily accepted at the hands of your Lordships' House.
I am very anxious—I do hope the Government will believe this—to give them a fair chance to try this experiment which

787
they believe they can make something of. But I do not believe I could bring myself or those who vote with me to agree to the unlimited power which the noble Earl says the Government would like, and I would really ask him very seriously to think over the question of what form of limitation he thinks would be the least irk-some to him, and the least likely to interfere with any plans which the Government may have. I do not ask him at this moment to be too definite. There are some other limitations which come a good deal further on in our proceedings. But I do ask him not to take up the attitude that no limitation will be accepted, lest he drive us into the position of saying that there is only one alternative in that event, and that is to say that there will be no Bill at all.
EARL DE LA WARR: Of course, if the noble and learned Viscount takes the responsibility of recommending that there should be no Bill at all, then that is an end of the whole matter. But I really think he rather misunderstood me in what I was saying, and I think he very much under-rated the amount of limitation that is imposed upon us by the words "need" and "practicability." I cannot myself see what more limitation is needed. I dispute entirely the view that the setting up of small holdings is an experiment. It has been done for the last twenty years now, and all Governments, belonging to all Parties, have made themselves responsible for this development, and, for the life of me I cannot see why we should go on assuming that this is what he calls an experiment.
Further, if it is desirable—and in the word "desirable" I presume we include the meaning "economic"—to allow the national public money to be spent on setting up a thousand or ten thousand small holdings, or the special number of holdings to fill up the 50,000 acres a year that Lord Bayford has proposed, then I submit that, if your Lordships are prepared to do that, it must be that you consider small holdings are an economic proposition and an economic investment, and that it is desirable to settle at least 10,000 men or 15,000 or 20,000 men—whatever number is understood in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford. And if it is desirable to settle 10,000 or 20,000 men, and if it is economic, why, then, is it uneconomic to allow the Government to settle as many unemployed
788
men as they can on the land, subject to the conditions about which you satisfy yourselves in this Bill?
It is for that reason that I ask your Lordships to realise that the limitations under which we do propose to work—the limitation of having to select only suitable men, the limitation of having to make a success of the scheme, the limitation which is imposed upon us by having to acquire the land and actually carry out the work of settlement itself—are very considerable, and they are the only limitations that you want. Because, if it is desirable to settle 1,000 or 10,000 men on the land, I cannot see why it is undesirable or uneconomic to settle a much larger number if it is possible so to do.
On the question of indicating what form of limitation the Government would accept, I think your Lordships will realise by what I have said that the noble and learned Viscount has placed me in a very difficult position. One thing I can say, that no Amendment that has been put on the Paper at the moment suggests any possible form of limitation. I have heard it suggested from other parts of the House that a limitation purely of time—the fifteen years programme—might be inserted in the Bill. That is a limitation which would need consideration, but for the moment I am afraid I cannot give the noble and learned Viscount any indication on that matter. Certainly a limitation such as that, which would enable the scheme to be given a full and fair trial for a period of years, until it could be got to work and be allowed to develop, might possibly prove a workable proposition. But I must say that no limitation that has hitherto been proposed would be in any way considered by His Majesty's Government.
LORD DANESFORT: The argument of the noble Earl appears to me to be a very remarkable one. This is admittedly an experiment, and it may be worth while to spend a certain amount of money upon it. The noble Earl said that because it may be worth while spending £5,000,000 or £10,000,000, therefore it is worth while giving this Government the power to spend £100,000,000 or £200,000,000. I doubt if in any circumstances, or with any Government in power, it would be desirable to give such an unlimited power of expenditure as that. But with a

789
Government such as we have in power to-day, notoriously extravagant and reckless in the expenditure of public money, and at a moment such as the present, when, by the admission of their own chief officers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others, the country has not got the money to indulge in that experiment, I think it would be perfectly mad for any Parliament to give the Government any such unlimited power of expenditure as they ask for.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (2), immediately before the proviso, to insert:
"Provided that in no case shall such loan exceed seventy-five per cent. of the cost of such tenant right stock, feeding stuffs, fruit trees, seeds, fertilisers or implements required for the purpose of such holding."
The noble Lord said: I appear to have put down an Amendment which is open to various obvious objections. The first objection is that it is totally devoid of sentiment. That, I realise, is a very serious objection indeed. When I think of the occupant of that street corner to which the noble Earl referred, the occupant who has been there off and on for the last forty years to my certain knowledge, and I reflect that this gentleman is going, with the connivance of the noble Earl, to be placed on the land as a small holder, without his or anybody else having put up a penny as a stake with which that man should play, I feel that the question of sentiment will probably be the ruin of my Amendment. The second objection is this, that my Amendment obviously raises the question of Privilege. The third objection is that my Amendment raises the question of economy, which seems a hopeless task in a House, which last night was quite cheerful in providing the Minister with £5,000,000 to reclaim land which it did not pay to farm.
For all that I think there are some more recondite merits in this Amendment; I think so the more after having heard the speeches of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and of my noble friend Lord Lothian, with whom I find myself in great sympathy on the question of limitation. The two noble Lords passed many enconiums on the success
790
of the small holders under previous Acts. I myself am of opinion that there is room for many more small holders in this country and we on this side of the House would welcome as many small holders as it was possible to put on the land provided they could make a success of their small holdings. What distinguishes the previous Acts from this Bill? It is that the men were carefully passed and to a certain extent—except in the case possibly of the 1919 Act, which was less of a success—they put up some stake for themselves. If you turn to the 1926 Act, you will find there are powers there to advance money for the equipment of small holdings in the shape of buildings up to 90 per cent. of the value secured by mortgage.
I believe that Act has been a great success, that the small holders under that Act has done exceedingly well on the whole, and that that Act could continue to be used where suitable. The great difference, however, between that Act and these proposals is to be found in the picking of the men and in the fact that the men themselves risked something before they undertook the small holdings, whereas here you are contemplating taking an indefinite number of unemployed men and agricultural labourers, subject to the qualifications of which we have heard, but subject to no qualification as to their loss if they fail or do not even try to succeed. Amongst so many there are bound to be a few black sheep. Nothing is easier than for them to get on a farm, however small, and rob it. Nothing is easier than for a man, who is provided free of all cost to himself with the whole of his equipment and of his farm, to take from that farm, during his first year of tenancy, more than he has any right to take. He may do it through inadvertence, through not knowing how much stock he ought to leave on the land, but he might also do it through dishonesty. That man suffers no penalties under this Bill. I do not suggest there will be many people who will meanly take advantage of this extremely generous offer. There will be a considerable number who will do this inadvertently.
The first recommendation of my Amendment is that it will act as a sieve for the limitation that we want amongst the candidates for small holdings. I have made

791
one mistake and put the percentage too high. I attach no importance to that percentage, nor in pounds, shillings and pence to the amount, but I suggest to your Lordships, who are really familiar with country life, with the agricultural labourer and with the unemployed in the town, that there are very few men, if they are what their friends call "good sorts," reliable men, whose friends, if they are suitable for this job, will not put up, say, £10. Supposing the man has not a penny, then there is a very British and very pleasant custom known as having a "whip round," which I know from personal experience usually takes place in a public-house but is none the less effective. No labourer I have ever known could fail to get £10 by a "whip round" in a public-house for a chance like this, provided his friends thought he was the right sort and would make a job of it. I therefore suggest that, although I may have put the percentage too high, the principle is valuable.
It does not follow that, because a man is unemployed, he is destitute. That is on a par with saying that, because he insured himself against unemployment, he is in the same position as a person who comes on the poor rates. Insurance is, in the first place, taken up by a man who is in work and it is supposed to supply him, when he is out of work, with the essentials of life. There is, therefore, on the face of it, no reason why he should have completely denuded himself of all capital because he is unemployed. As I understand that my noble friend Lord Banbury wishes to move the omission of the clause, I shall not detain the Committee any longer but will move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 30, at end insert:
("Provided that in no case shall such loan exceed seventy-five per cent. of the cost of such tenant right stock, feeding stuffs, fruit trees, seeds, fertilisers or implements required for the purpose of such holding").—(Lord Phillimore.)
EARL STANHOPE: I am very glad my noble friend has moved this Amendment because it raises a big question. Apart from the maintenance allowance of £50, it is proposed to advance working capital, which is a very large sum. In the Bill, as introduced in another place, it was put down as an average of £275 per
792
holder. What is to happen if that sum is advanced to a man who, instead of expending it on tools, seeds, and implements, expends it on amusements or in some other way? The noble Earl sees that point because his next Amendment provides that everything given to the man shall be registered, which will make it more difficult for him to dispose of it. In cases where it is given to him in cash—and under the Bill that can be done—there is a real danger the man may make away with £275. In some cases he may not do it deliberately, but, finding that the £1 a week is not enough to maintain his family and stock, he will have to draw on his working capital to an undue and illegitimate extent. It is a very real danger against which I suggest the Minister ought to guard. Although I do not go quite so far as my noble friend in thinking that this is, perhaps, the best way or even a possible way of dealing with it, I think that the Minister should say something to your Lordships as to how he proposes to protect this public money which is going to be issued on a very large scale to all these small holders.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord has certainly raised a very important point and one that I think we ought to discuss. He has expressed a number of opinions it is very difficult to disagree with. The fact that he has expressed his readiness to alter the percentage, because he is merely discussing the principle, shows, I think, that the Amendment has been put down very reasonably. At the same time, we are faced with the difficulty that the scheme in this Bill, so far as the scheme is worked out in Clause 6, is designed to deal with the settlement of the unemployed. We all know perfectly well that there are districts in this country that have been derelict for years, and men in those districts who have been out of work for years who, therefore, literally have nothing. Therefore it is necessary for the Minister to take this power. It is not compulsory that he should supply all the capital; he is at perfect liberty to supply a percentage; but it is necessary in the extreme case of a man who is right down and who, perhaps, has not sufficient public-house acquaintances to avail himself of the new form of Government

793
credit suggested by the noble Lord, for the Minister to have power to advance the full sum.
The noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has drawn my attention to another difficulty in the clause; that is as to the protection of the Minister in respect to the money which has been lent. It was partly because we visualised that difficulty, though it was for other reasons also, that the proviso in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) was inserted under which the Minister is given power to supply the actual stock. That was only one reason. The other was that it is most important to ensure that the small holder should start off with the best stock. At the same time, that is a very considerable point, and I think I can assure your Lordships that it will be the intention of the Minister, save in exceptional cases where he has some very good reason to believe that it is desirable and safe to advance the money in cash, that on the whole it is likely that we shall work and it is desirable that we should work under this proviso. Although there is certainly something in the principle of what the noble Lord put forward, I hope your Lordships will realise that this scheme is to deal with an emergency situation and must therefore make provision for cases of the most extreme poverty. For that reason I hope the noble Lord will permit the Bill to remain as it is and rest assured that it will be administered to the best advantage of the Exchequer.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but the noble Earl has put into my mind an idea which, perhaps, he would follow up. He has told us that in the great majority of cases there will be no necessity to advance the whole sum and that this is not the intention. In the case of the absolutely destitute man I take it the Poor Law authority would be aware of the position. Could not some reference, in the case of the man to whom the noble Earl wishes to make the full advance, be made to the Poor Law authority by way of investigation as some sort of protection against the State being imposed upon? I will leave that thought with the noble Earl and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think I can assure the noble Lord that every case
794
will be investigated and, naturally, the Poor Law authority, the labour exchange, and the various resources at our command will be consulted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert after subsection (3):
"(4) Upon making or guaranteeing or undertaking to make or guarantee under the powers conferred by this section a grant by way of a loan to any person, or upon supplying to any person any stock, feeding stuffs, fruit trees, seeds, fertilisers, or implements whereof the purchase price is deemed under this section to be a loan so made to him, the Minister shall notify to the Land Registrar particulars showing the name and address of that person and the fact that he is indebted to the Minister in respect of such a loan, and the Land Registrar shall cause a copy of the said particulars to be entered on the register of agricultural charges kept under Section nine of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, and to remain so entered until he receives from the Minister notice that the loan has been repaid, and any charge on any of the farming stock or other agricultural assets belonging to that person created (whether under that Act or otherwise) while such particulars as aforesaid remain entered in the said register shall be void unless created with the written consent of the Minister.
For the purposes of this section, 'farming stock' and 'other agricultural assets' have the same meaning as in the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, and the provisions of Section ten of that Act shall apply with respect to entries made under this subsection as they apply to entries relating to agricultural land charges."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment has been put down not quite with the object mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, but to prevent the credit which has been advanced to a tenant being pledged under the Agricultural Credits Act. The Amendment really explains itself, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 20, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I accept the Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Treowen. I think they are all consequential.
LORD TREOWEN: Yes. They are purely drafting.
EARL DE LA WARR: We accept them all.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 23, leave out from ("who") to ("require") in line 24.
Page 12, line 26, after ("properly") insert ("but otherwise possess the qualifications required by subsection (1) of this section")
Page 12, line 31, after ("any") insert ("such")
Page 12, line 31, leave out from ("person") to ("and") in line 34, and insert ("as aforesaid").—(Lord Treowen.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 6. The noble Lord said: I move to leave out this clause for these reasons. First of all, the clause is going to cost an enormous amount of money. As my noble friend Lord Hailsham said just now, however good a cause may be we are not at present in a sufficiently sound financial position to spend large sums of money on it. During the debate on the Second Reading it was stated by my noble friend Lord Dynevor that in order to put 100,000 unemployed into small holdings it would cost at least £100,000,000. There are at the present moment in round figures 2,600,000 unemployed. Therefore, to reduce it by 100,000 at a cost of £100,000,000 is evidently not a sound financial proposition.
There is also the question as to whether small holdings would pay, and I turn to the speech of my noble friend Lord Stanhope on the Second Reading of this Bill in which he stated that in England and Wales in 1909 there were 197,606 small holdings of from five to fifty acres. In 1919 that number had dropped to 191,375 and in 1929 the number had dropped to 184,145—a still greater reduction. That was a reduction in twenty years of 13,000 odd. And he said later in his speech that in twenty years there had been a reduction of 40,000 holdings, and that for every three holdings set up by local authorities four small holders had gone out of the business. Therefore, it does not look, whatever may be the case in Scotland, as if in England and Wales there was any very great opportunity for small holdings to be a success. My own idea was that it was not prudent to embark upon a large financial expenditure of this sort at this moment. That idea has been strengthened by the fact that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill a few moments ago, as your Lord-
796
ships know, refused to agree to any limitation of any kind being put upon the expenditure on this scheme.
As my noble friend Lord Hailsham has said, this leaves us face to face with a Minister whose sole recognition as to merits is that he was the most extravagant Minister in an extravagant Ministry after the War, and spent so much money, with so little result, on building houses that your Lordships had to throw out his Bill, and the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, had to get rid of him out of the Government. That is the man whom we are going to trust with a blank cheque. I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time on a matter which is so clear and so evident to anyone who has looked into it. I do not think it is necessary to say more. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 6.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
EARL FORTESCUE: I have listened to the debate on this clause, and, if I may say so without disrespect, I think there has been a certain amount of unreality about it. We have heard a great deal of the success of small holdings up to date, and it is taken for granted that therefore they are bound always to succeed. I believe in small holdings myself. I have had a certain amount to do with small holdings in my own county and with a good many on my own estate, but people in quoting the success of the movement up to date have ignored the fact that those who required training who went into small holdings were a comparatively small number, whereas under the scheme outlined in Clause 6 a very large number will require training, facilities for which are given under the Bill. Another matter about which I think there is some unreality is the discussion as to the amount of money that is to be spent. It will take at least twelve months after this Bill is passed, if it is passed, to put it into working order. There must be a General Election within not much more than twelve months at any rate, and if, as we all hope, a Unionist majority is returned, they will be able to put any limitation they think right on the proceedings under this Bill; whereas if, unfortunately, another Socialist Ministry comes in they will be in a position to ignore any limitations that may be put

797
in now, and to write themselves a blank cheque as often as they like. Believing, however, as I do, that small holdings are a good thing, I shall vote for the clause, although I do think it is a case in which any Government, whoever they may be, would make a great mistake if they tried to go too far and too fast.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: The discussion upon this clause has led to no real change in the character of the clause. I can conceive of nothing more reckless than to entrust a Minister who has already shown a capacity for spending money, to which my noble friend has referred, with a blank cheque to deal with this question. Therefore I support my noble friend beside me in his Motion for the rejection of the clause.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not wish to speak at any length, but I must say, for myself, I find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord Fortescue in thinking it would be a mistake to throw out this clause, at any rate at this stage of the Bill. The noble Earl has said that if we pass the clause at all it must be because we think it economic and desirable. Let me assure him at once, although I am voting in favour of the clause, it is not because I am satisfied it is either economic or desirable. The reason I am voting for the clause is that the Government, with the assent of

CONTENTS.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Morton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Bedford, D.

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Wellington, D.

Peel, E.

Conyers, L.

Poulett, E.

Cranworth, L.

Camden, M.

Sandwich, E.

Cushendun, L.

Exeter, M.

Selborne, E.

Danesfort, L.

Spencer, E.

Daryngton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Stanhope, E.

Desborough, L.

Ancaster, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dickinson, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Digby, L.

Bradford, E.

Astor, V.

Dynevor, L.

Cawdor, E.

Churchill, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Elibank, V.

Ellenborough, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hailsham, V.

Ernle, L.

Denbigh, E.

Hood, V.

Erskine, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Mersey, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Fairhaven, L.

Fortescue, E.

FitzWalter, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Addington, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Grey, E.

Aldenham, L.

Gainford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Amulree, L.

Hastings, L.

Ilchester, E.

Annaly, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoll.) [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Bayford,

Lindsay, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Heneage, L.

Lucan, E.

Belper, L.

Howyard of Glossop, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Biddulph, L.

Illingworth, L.

Midleton, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

another place, say that by this means they can mitigate unemployment, and I am willing to give them the chance to try. Whether or not I should give them the chance to try on an unlimited scale is quite a different question, and, since the noble Earl was unable to give us any satisfactory assurance, I propose to ask those who agree with me to insert limitations both of time and of amount at this stage, and then the noble Earl will have an opportunity no doubt of considering and of letting us know on Report stage which of those he prefers, or if he prefers neither, and would rather have, as may happen, no clause at all.
This is a matter which he will consider, but, for the moment, it seems to me that here there is art effort to deal with the unemployment problems by putting people on to the land, an object which we all would like to see achieved, if it can be done successfully. Therefore, speaking for myself, I shall vote in favour of the clause with the Amendments which have been accepted, and which I think do improve its merits, and I hope very much that the majority of the Committee will take that view at this stage.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 111; Non-contents, 14.

Kinnaird, L.

Queenborough, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Kirkley, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Stanmore, L.

Lamington, L.

Remnant, L.

Strachie, L.

Leigh, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Strathcona and Mount Roval, L.

Middleton, L.

Rochester, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Roundway, L.

Swaythling, L.

Newton, L.

Saltoun, L.

Templemore, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Sanderson, L.

Trenchard, L.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Sandhurst, L.

Treowen, L.

Passfield, L.

Sandys, L.

Wargrave, L.

Polwarth, L.

Sinclair, L.

Wavertree, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Snell, L.

Wraxall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Airlie, E.

Berwick, L.

Phillimore, L.

Radnor, E.

Chesham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Novar, V. [Teller.]

Forester, L.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Wharton, L.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 6, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Clause 7:
Power of Minister to provide small holdings with financial assistance for agricultural workers.
7. The Minister shall have power to provide a small holding for an applicant who is an agricultural worker on the same conditions as are set out in Section six of this Act and to extend to such applicant the same facilities as are authorised by that section:
Provided that the condition set out in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of that section shall not apply in respect of such applicant.
EARL FOBTESCUE: Before my noble friend Viscount Astor moves his Amendment, may I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill a question? Have the Government formed any opinion as to the number of possible applicants they may get for small holdings under this clause? Does the phrase "agricultural worker" include a farmer's son? I think that, if it does, the Bill is likely to be exceedingly popular in the West of England, where it is very common for a farm to be worked by a family. The eldest son is apt to succeed his father in the farm in course of time, and the farmer has to save money to set his second son up. It may result, from this Bill that the second son will be able to apply to the Government to be equipped with capital and stock so as to carry on a small holding for himself.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not know if I am at all in order in answering these two questions. The first was whether
800
we have formed any estimate of the number of applicants. I think your Lordships will realise that it is quite impossible to know how many people are going to apply. The second question was whether a farmer's son ranks as a farm worker. I think the answer to that is that it depends whether the farmer's son is working on the farm or not.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, after "worker," to insert "or who is a member or ex-member of His Majesty's Forces, who has had a suitable course of training for agriculture." The noble Viscount said: As your Lordships know, by Clause 6 small holdings are made available for unemployed. The Bill was altered while going through the House of Commons and Clause 7 was added whereby small holdings were to be made available for agricultural labourers. I think that the object of my Amendment must have been forgotten when the Bill was being discussed in the House of Commons, because it seems to me so obvious that members of His Majesty's Forces should be treated at least as well as unemployed men or agricultural labourers in obtaining small holdings. Everybody knows that ex-Service men have always received special and favourable consideration. The Act of 1919 was passed in order to make small holdings available for the members of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, after they left His Majesty's Service, so that the precedents are all on my side.
At the present moment members of the Forces get vocational training at Chisledon and a certain number receive training for going upon the land. In the

801
past it has been training for going overseas to Canada, and those who have gone overseas to Canada have, on the whole, been extraordinarily successful as settlers. Now, unfortunately, Canada is unable to take them, and so these men have either to give up being trained or after being trained have to become unemployed, or else agricultural labourers, before they can acquire a small holding on the terms which I think should be available for them. These men are far better trained than the people whom it is contemplated by this Bill to place on the land. Not only the men but their wives also get training. It was my privilege to spend a day at Chisledon a short time ago and I found there special accommodation for the wives and proper care for the children. It is not contemplated that facilities equal to these provided under Clause 6 should be afforded to these men and their wives who are specially qualified to be small holders. It does seem a farce that men should go through such training and not know whether at the end they will get a small holding—in fact will know that their best, chance is to go on the "dole" or to take a job as an agricultural labourer.
It seems to me that it would be farcical not to give these men equal facilities. To do so will not be to overload the number of applicants. Only about 100 or 150 are being trained now. Obviously many who leave the Army do not want to go on small holdings, and the number who annually go through to the training centre at Chisledon is only something like 100 to 150. It will be far less risky to put on the land men who with their wives have been through this course of training than it would be to settle the unemployed, and the psychological effect upon these ex-Service men of knowing that when they leave the Army they can go upon the land and make a home for themselves and their families must be very great.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 3, at the beginning insert ("or who is a member or ex-member of His Majesty's Forces, who has had a suitable course of training for agriculture").— (Viscount Astor.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I would like to support the Amendment. I remember that when I was at the War Office I had a certain amount to do with this question
802
of vocational training, and the number of men who passed through every year is really a very small one. The cost of vocational training falls upon the State and it is very desirable that it should not be money wasted. In view of the very limited financial effect it would have, and in view of the fact that the noble Earl has stated that limitations to him are anathema, I venture to think that this very small addition might be made to the Bill. I do not think it would affect the ex-Service men who belong to the British Legion and so forth, but it would apply to those who are leaving the Army now and passing through vocational training. It would afford an opportunity to these men which otherwise they will lack, and otherwise the money spent upon them would be lost.
LORD TRENCHARD: May I add my voice in support of this Amendment? There are very few men who can be trained in agriculture in the Services, but the training given is really far ahead of what it was ten years ago. It is most excellent training, and it seems very rough, with this system of education for making men who join the Service into very useful citizens afterwards, and when they are really trying to become successful in citizen life, that they should be told that they cannot be given small holdings until they have either tried some other profession and failed, or gone on the "dole." I ask the Government to give favourable consideration to the Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I feel a certain diffidence in opposing this Amendment because I am not sure that it was not a small indiscretion of my own which started the whole thing. I think, however, when you consider the matter you will realise that Clause 6 is really quite inapplicable to the ordinary ex-Service man trained at Chisledon. Clause 6 is for unemployed men—for destitute men.
LORD HASTINGS: That is not so. The unemployed are not destitute men.
EARL DE LA WARR: I said for both. A great many are destitute, and as regards this Bill we are taking capital for equipment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The noble Earl assured me only about ten minutes ago

803
that only a small number were destitute and would require full advances for equipment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we are getting down rather to hypothetical questions. Let us get to a point where we can all agree. The terms comprised in Clauses 6 and 7 are very exceptional terms, and certainly there would be no good reason for applying them to members of His Majesty's Forces unless there was an absolute case of need. Now I do not think anybody would suggest that the men who are coming out of the Army are in a state where it is necessary to provide them with all capital, all equipment and facilities for living for at least one year to the extent of £50. Indeed, the case of Lord Astor really specifically denies that, because he tells us that these men up to a very short time ago have been going out to Canada after their period of training. On what terms did they go out to Canada? They went and settled in Canada, not on the terms of Clause 6, but far more on the terms under which they could get holdings from county councils or holdings provided by the Minister under Clause 10. It gives quite a wrong impression to suggest that these men with this admittedly first-class training—it would be the greatest national loss if it were not utilised—are without any facilities for obtaining small holdings. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
Clause 7, which was inserted in this Bill by general agreement in another place, has already imposed very considerable responsibilities on the Exchequer—responsibilities which the Government fully accepted. Nevertheless, I think it would be the greatest mistake to add to them without any good reason. I submit to your Lordships that the noble Lords, Lord Astor and Lord Onslow, have really made no case whatsoever for this special treatment for the ex-Service men.
EARL STANHOPE: I hope my noble friend will insist on this Amendment. After all, you have put in agricultural labourers. Does the noble Earl opposite say that agricultural labourers who apply for small holdings must necessarily be destitute? I see no reason why a privilege should be given because you are destitute. It is impossible to suggest
804
that a man who comes out of the ranks has been able to save so much money on the pay which the State gives him during his service that he is likely to be able to start a small holding by putting up the necessary capital for himself. The real truth of the matter is that the Labour Government object very strongly to any man in the Services having any privilege whatever. I hope your Lordships will insist on their having this privilege.
EARL DE LA WARR: Although your Lordships are usually such champions of economy, it is obvious that you are determined to put in this Amendment and as it is equally obvious that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is anxious to make political capital out of the matter if we do not, I will not accept the Amendment in the name of the Government, but if the Committee desires that it should be inserted I will not ask for a Division.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 7. The noble Lord said: The history of this clause is somewhat peculiar. I am sorry the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has gone out, but I would point out that his argument about unemployment does not hold good with this clause because this clause does not put unemployed people on the land. It puts on the land people who are at present employed. If this clause is left out, there is nothing whatever to prevent an agricultural labourer who is unemployed being put on the land under Clause 6. But if it is left in, not only will employed people be put upon the land, but the result naturally must be to make it more difficult for the unemployed people to be put on the land. It raises a further point. At present there is a considerable number of small holdings. These people have been put on the land and given these small holdings without any consideration in the form of money, such as will be given to the small holders under this clause, and now you are going to put on the land people who are not unemployed, and give them all sorts advantages which were denied to the small holders already on the land, and thus enable these people, with Government money, to compete with small holders who, out of their own resources, have taken up land.
The only reason I heard from our Front Bench against the omission of Clause 6 was that that dealt with unemployment, and His Majesty's Opposition do not wish to do anything which would hamper people in obtaining employment. Your Lordships should reject this clause because it does not deal with unemployment. As we go on, we keep putting in different people. First of all, in another place, this clause was put in—it was not in the original Bill. Now we are putting in ex-Service men. I do not know whom else we shall put in shortly, but it seems to me that the only people who will be ineligible for small holdings will be your Lordships. They evidently will not be put in by the present Government. I should like to know what my noble friend Lord Hailsham is going to do, because it is evident that it is no use my dividing the House if my noble and learned friend is going to vote against me. I am sorry that the Front Bench is denuded of his presence, but I suppose there is somebody there who can say what the Front Bench is going to do.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 7.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
EARL STANHOPE: I can tell my noble friend quite briefly what we propose to do. We propose to vote for this clause. I have already said something about what was said by the Minister in another place when it was first introduced. I think all of us realise that this Bill may encourage men to expect far more small holdings than the most energetic Minister can provide. The noble Earl said that small holdings were no longer an experiment. That is true. We have had small holdings debates over a long period of years. I think it was twenty years ago, when we were discussing this subject, that every kind of reason was advanced why agricultural labourers should be entitled to receive small holdings. The late Lord Wemyss, I think it was, who then produced a Bill which showed the absurdity of that argument by applying the same principle to another trade, and providing small shops for shop assistants. I commend that to the noble Marquess on the Liberal Benches, because every argument for giving a man a small holding at the public expense applies equally to giving a small shop to raise the shop assistant into the position of a shopkeeper.
LORD STRACHIE: I should like to ask what is the history of this clause, because when the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons the clause was not in. This Bill is simply a Bill to relieve unemployment; we are constantly told by Ministers that it will be of great service in preventing unemployment. But Clause 7 deals with people who are in employment, and who will have the right to say: "We do not like our present employment, we should like a small holding instead." I have looked up the debate in the Standing Committee and there is not a single word about Clause 7. I asked about this and was informed that very often the Reports of the Standing Committees of the House of Commons are not full or very detailed. Perhaps this clause slipped in without any particular notice being taken of it. In this clause, men in full employment are to be treated as unemployed, which means the State will give them 30 s. a week or not more than £50 and also land and a grant of a large sum of money. We ought to have some explanation why the Government suddenly made this change.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: We have passed one clause dealing with the unemployed and are now considering a clause dealing with agricultural labourers, but at no part of the Bill has it been explained to us how it is proposed to make these small holdings pay. The State is to spend some £1,200 per holding, which will mean from £10,000,000 to £12,000,000 for 10,000 holdings; yet we have not been told by the noble Earl that he is going to agree to any limitation of those holdings. We know that during the past year many small holders have been absolutely ruined. Small holders in the Midlands growing fruit and small holders growing oats, potatoes and other crops have not been able to make those crops pay. Yet we are asked to agree to a Bill which will expend large sums on creating more small holdings, although we have not heard a word as to how they are going to pay. Not long ago the noble Lord spent a day describing the Agricultural Marketing Bill, but he will not suggest that that Bill is going to make small holdings pay. There was nothing in its provisions to alleviate the conditions of existing small holders and still less those of small holders to be put

807
on the land in the future. I hope the noble Earl will give us some indication how the Government are going to meet that aspect of the question, which is more important than any issue we have yet discussed.
EARL DE LA WARR: I hasten to reassure the Committee that I do not intend either to describe our Marketing Bill or to give the Committee a cross between a Second Reading speech and an agricultural lecture on "How to make small holdings pay." I have been asked about the history of this clause. It is quite simple and I have a copy here of the eleventh day's proceedings of Standing Committee B, in which the proceedings are reported. There were two Amendments placed on the Paper, one standing in the name of Miss Lloyd George, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Gray and others, and the second standing in the name of Viscount Wolmer, Sir Joseph Lamb and Sir Ernest Shepperson. They were exactly the same in their general effect, but, for pure reasons of drafting, the Minister decided to accept the Amendment put down in the name of the Liberal Party and Miss Lloyd George. I am sure that name will carry with it the loyal and enthusiastic support of the noble Lord. On the general merits of the clause, I do not think your Lordships would wish to be detained, as Lord Stanhope has dealt with them. It was inserted in another place with the agreement of all Parties. The Minister at the time warned the Committee that it would increase the financial burden of the Bill, but it was agreed by all Parties that it should be inserted. I hope your Lordships will leave it in the Bill in the form in which it now stands.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I understand from the noble Earl that the reason why this clause was put into the Bill was that it was moved by Conservative members and by two so-called Liberal members, who really are identified with the Socialist Party. If the noble Earl thought he would gain anything by pointing out to me that the Amendment was put down by Conservative members, he is mistaken, because I have often found the Conservative Party to be mistaken, and I should not waive my own opinions merely because a Conservative member had thought
808
otherwise. I understand, however, that my noble friend Lord Hailsham is going to vote for the clause. I do not always agree with him and I think he very often makes mistakes, but I shall not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division inasmuch as there are a certain number of noble Lords who consider it their duty to go into the Lobby with him, no matter what the question at issue may be.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord will be pleased to hear that this was one of the few cases where a Conservative was right.
Clause 8:
Power of Minister to provide demonstration holdings.
8.—(1) In any district in which small holdings are provided under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, the Minister shall have power to provide, equip, and manage, demonstration holdings, that is to say, small holdings to be used for the purpose of affording instructional demonstration to the persons for whom the small holdings have been provided as to the cultivation thereof.
(2) Any land acquired by the Minister for the purpose of demonstration holdings shall be held by the Minister on behalf of His Majesty and may be occupied and managed by such local authorities, societies or persons as the Minister may appoint as his agents for that purpose in accordance with such directions as may be given by him.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I beg to move, in sub-section (1), after "cultivation," to insert "and management."
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 15, after ("cultivation") insert ("and management").—(Viscount Astor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I accept the Amendment.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Power of Minister to dispose of or utilise land not required for unemployed persons or demonstration holdings.
9. If in the opinion of the Minister any land which he has acquired for the purposes of any of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act is not needed for those purposes but is needed for the purposes of small holdings, he shall offer the land to the council of the county for the provision

809
of small holdings by the council, and, if that council do not acquire the land, he may himself provide small holdings thereon for any persons who desire to buy or lease them and satisfy him that they will themselves cultivate the holdings and are able to cultivate them properly.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved to leave out "but is needed for the purposes of small holdings." The noble Lord said: The Amendment standing in my name is a fairly commonsense one. It has, however, surprised me to find that this Bill, not content with the small holdings already suggested, proposes a new class of small holdings here. One would have thought that the noble Earl would have been content. He has over 2,000,000 unemployed to choose from; he has 800,000 agricultural labourers to choose from; I do not know how many ex-Service men to choose from, and I think he has farmers' sons to choose from. Is not that enough? Why should he want to have a new class of small holders as well? I think we are going to have small holdings enough without the new class. If the Minister is going to get more land than will supply this vast number of applicants and he cannot fill the applications from the 3,000,000 men he has available, surely the best thing he can do is to sell the land and to get on with the work under the other clauses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 26, leave out from ("purposes") to ("he") in line 27.—(Lord Cranworth.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Lord is moving his Amendment under a slight misapprehension. This is purely a machinery clause to enable the Minister to make the best use possible of the land which may be in his possession after forming a settlement for unemployed small holders, but is land which is not actually suitable for that form of small holding. I think the noble Lord knows perfectly well that it is necessary very often to buy a whole estate; indeed, it is the only fair thing to the landowner very often. Probably the vast majority of the land on the estate is suitable for five-acre small holdings for the unemployed. But, there may well be fifty or a hundred acres left over at the end which are more suitable for a larger type of holding than that mentioned in Clause 6. I think it is only reasonable that the
810
Minister should be given power to make the best possible use of that land. It may well be that it is in a district where the Minister is going to provide small holdings for agricultural workers which will probably be of a larger type than those for the unemployed or than the small holdings under Clause 10.
It is obviously better business that he should use the fifty or hundred acres that are left over for that type of small holding rather than that he should be forced to sell it for possibly, at the moment, a not very favourable price and then have to buy other land which may for all we know be left over. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no deep-seated scheme or plot here to establish a new class of small holdings. It is purely a question of efficient administration. It is very much the question that we settled on Clause 3 when your Lordships decided not to omit the power to the Minister to let land in his possession as well as to sell it. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: May I suggest for the sake of accuracy that the noble Earl is surely wrong in saying that this is not an independent class of small holding. It is definitely a new kind of small holding. Under this Bill he is going to provide a certain kind of small holding for the variegated collection referred to by my noble friend. Under previous Acts county councils have to provide, and are now providing, another kind of small holding. Here is an entirely new class of small holding to be provided by the Minister and not a gratuitous small holding as provided under Clause 6 of the Bill, nor is it a small holding taken up out of a man's resources as are those provided by the county council. It is a small holding provided by the Minister to the same type of man as takes up the small holding provided by the county council, yet without the advantage given under Clause 6, and yet he would be paying his rent to the Minister. For the sake of accuracy I say that that is what we are doing by this clause.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Lord is quite right. Whereas I said it could be a small holding for unemployed agricultural labourers or provided in default of the county council, it is perfectly true to say also that it can be a

811
small holding provided not in default of the county council. It is probably a very small matter and purely one of administration. It would be very unfortunate in many cases to compel the Minister to sell a small parcel of land possibly in the middle of a settlement because he could not make the best use of it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: May I call the attention of the noble Earl and my noble friend to the marginal note of Clause 9:
"Power of Minister to dispose of or utilise land not required for unemployed persons or demonstration holdings."
We have left out the clause dealing with demonstration holdings. Therefore, there must be some alteration of this clause to make it correspond with the Bill as it stands.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I rather agree with the noble Earl that it is administration, but I am a little puzzled in spite of his explanation. There is power under Clauses 6 and 7 to acquire land and create small holdings. There is existing, as my noble friend Lord Cranworth has pointed out, power to the county councils to create small holdings. Under Clause 10 there is power for the Minister under this Part of this Act to create small holdings where the county council does not do it. Now you have to deal with some land which the Minister has acquired for the purposes of this Bill—that is to say, either for Clauses 6, 7, 8 or 10, or whatever else it is—which is not needed for those purposes, and therefore is not needed for Clauses 6, 7, 8 or 10 and yet is needed for small holdings. What is that class of small holdings which is not small holdings provided in default of the county council, which is not provided by the county council itself or under Clause 6 for the unemployed, or for agricultural workers or ex-Service men under Clause 7? I do not quite understand why there should be the need for another class of small holdings.
If it is wanted for small holdings at all it seems to me that it must be wanted for one of those particular classes. If it is not wanted for small holdings at all what is the need for the clause? Is it not the right thing for the Minister to sell the land which is not wanted for
812
small holdings? As my noble friend Lord Banbury points out the marginal note says that the clause provides power for the Minister to dispose of or utilise that land. When we look to the operative part of the clause it does not give him any power to dispose of land except to the county council and only allows him to use it apparently for the purpose of settling some other class of small holders upon it. I should like to ask the noble Earl to look into the drafting and to see that he has power to sell the land to the county council—
EARL DE LA WARR: The power to sell land is in Clause 11.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know why that is not enough.
LORD CRANWORTH: I do not quite follow whether the noble Earl is going to accept or to look into the Amendment. I thought his explanation was not so very good.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think can accept it. The real point is that there are one or two small holdings which could be created by this method. The purpose of the clause is not to give the Minister power to create another kind of small holding, but simply to use up a small piece of land which has been left over from the creation of a group settlement and to use it in the most efficient way. An estate has been used for the purpose of five-acre holdings, but certain portions of it are not suitable for such holdings and it is, therefore, desirable that the Minister should have power to make the best economic use of that land.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps the noble Earl will look into it between now and the Report stage?
EARL DE LA WARR: I will look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Power of Minister to act in default of county councils who have not provided sufficient small holdings.
10.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, if the Minister is satisfied that the council of any county have not provided sufficient small holdings to satisfy the demand of persons who desire to buy or lease and will themselves cultivate the holdings and are

813
able to cultivate them properly, the Minister shall have power, without prejudice to the powers and duties of the county council, to provide small holdings for such persons:
Provided that, before exercising his-powers under this section, the Minister shall give to the county council notice of his intention to do so and, if within such period as may be specified in the notice the council represent to him that in their opinion sufficient small holdings have been provided to satisfy the demand aforesaid, shall hold a local inquiry and the county council and such other persons as the person holding the inquiry thinks fit to allow shall be entitled to appear and be heard at the inquiry.
(2) The person appointed to hold a local inquiry for the purpose of this section shall ho a person to be agreed upon between the Minister and the county council or, in default of such agreement, a barrister of not less than ten years' standing to be nominated by the President of the Law Society, and, in relation to the inquiry, the person so appointed shall be deemed for the purposes of Section fifty-seven of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, to be an officer of the Ministry.
(3) Every county council shall furnish to the Minister such information as he may require for the purposes of this section.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out Clause 10. The noble Lord said: We have now reached the Amendment to leave out Clause 10. I suggest to your Lordships that to insert this clause is merely to overload the Bill. It has really nothing whatever to do with any other part of the measure. It can he left in or taken out without reference to any other part of the Bill. That is one of the reasons why I suggest it is overloading an already extremely heavy Bill. It is doing a great deal more than that. It is really gratuitously antagonising the county councils of this country. The county councils of this country, taking them on the whole, have most loyally endeavoured to meet the requirements of sundry Acts of Parliament in the matter of providing a sufficiency of small holdings. Some of these counties, such as the one in which I live, are suffering now severely from their complacence in this matter. Although it was never expected that small holders as a body would find themselves so grievously reduced in circumstances as they are now, yet that fact has occurred, and the fact of its occurrence is going to entail a very heavy loss upon the ratepayers, and the county councils of this kingdom are bound to regard the interests of their ratepayers as paramount.
It occurs to me as being grossly improper that at the present time county councillors should be subjected to additional pressure by the Government, to do what in ninety-nine eases out of a hundred they have already done in full and ample measure. It is only necessary for noble Lords to look on the Order Paper to see the names of noble Lords by whom the rejection of this clause is suggested, to realise at once that the County Councils' Association of the kingdom is unanimously against the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. I have said it is gratuitously antagonising the county councils of the country. Imagine the feelings of county councils, whether they have done their very best or only part of their best in establishing small holdings, having the minatory finger held up at them, and this clause put into an already overloaded Bill compelling the provision of small holdings when they, in their much greater wisdom, have been unable to extend those small holdings for reasons which are invariably sufficient. We shall be told by the Minister—we are always told by the Ministry of Agriculture, especially when it is occupied by members of Parties to which we do not belong—that there is in every county a long waiting list of small holders. That is perfectly true. There always is a long waiting list of would-be small holders. They are people who have not long since become small holders for the simple and sufficient reason that, when they came up against the competent committees who select the small holders, they have been rejected because they have not been thought likely to make a success of small holdings. If they had been put on the land, it would have been as disastrous to themselves as to the land and to the ratepayers who would have to support them. That is the sole reason why there are these long waiting lists.
It will be of no avail for the noble Earl to get up and tell me that there are long lists of small holders waiting to be served, and that we ought to serve them. I deliberately say, to use a vulgarism, that that cuts no ice, and it is of no use the noble Earl making that statement. I do not propose to delay the Committee any longer except to say that if this clause is added to the Bill every county council of the kingdom will be up against the Minister, and if it is

815
added he will get no help from the county councils. In that event he will get no support from them for any part of the Bill, nor will he deserve it. I beg to move that this clause be not passed.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 10.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD STRACHIE: As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has said, the county councils are strongly opposed to this clause. It is true that my noble friend Lord Malmesbury and myself have, on behalf of the County Councils' Association, put down an Amendment for the rejection of this clause in the same way as Lord Hastings has done. It may interest the House to know the grounds upon which the County Councils' Association asks us to move in the matter of the rejection of this clause. The Agricultural Committee of the County Councils' Association passed a resolution, and the Executive Council of the Association agreed to it. This is the resolution:—
"That there is no justification for the proposal (see Clauses 10, 11 and 12 of the Bill) to empower the Minister to act in default of the county councils with regard to the provision of small holdings. The county authorities are not incapable of providing and managing holdings at least as economically and efficiently as can any Government Department, and it is reasonable to assume that more use would have been made of the provisions of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, had the county councils been able to provide holdings there under upon the same financial basis (i.e. at the sole cost of the Exchequer) as is now proposed in respect of such operations as the Minister may undertake in this connection. It is accordingly the considered view of the Council that the clauses in question should be deleted from the Bill and replaced by a clause to substitute 100 per cent. for 75 percent. in Section 2 (2) of the 1926 Act."
I think that shows what the opinion of the organised representative body of the County Councils' Association in England is. They entirely object to this clause. It is very unreasonable to declare that county councils would be in default in this matter. I think the Government cannot be aware of the way in which the county councils have met this very question of providing small holdings up to the time of the War, and even after the War. They have provided a certain number since the end of the War, although great difficulties have confronted them. The land has increased in value, the cost of equipment has doubled, and building is much more
816
expensive. In fact, the cost of everything provided by the county councils has doubled or trebled. There is no doubt that when things are better the county councils will provide more small holdings, or, if the Government will undertake any losses incurred in the provision of small holdings, then the county councils will, as they have done in the past, find a great number.
At the present moment the county councils have 26,733 small holders in the country, and an acreage of 431,961 acres. It cannot be said, therefore, that the county councils in the past have been in default in this matter. On the contrary, they have used every effort to provide these small holdings. The county councils are to be congratulated on what they have done, and a very great deal more would have been done if it had not meant that the county councils would have had to incur very considerable losses in putting men upon small holdings. But the Government could easily remedy that. They could easily induce the county councils to be more energetic in providing small holdings, if they would give the county councils an assurance that any loss upon their schemes will be made good. I can say on behalf of the County Councils' Association that if the Government will do that the county councils will increase the number of small holdings to the greatest possible extent.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: May I also on behalf of the County Councils' Association say a few words in support of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, with whom Lord Strachie and myself are associated in putting down an Amendment to reject this clause? I sincerely hope that your Lordships will be good enough to give your very serious consideration to the reasons which weigh with us in moving the rejection of Clause 10. As my noble friend Lord Strachie has said, the County Councils' Association have passed a resolution that there was no justification for the proposals contained in Clauses 10, 11 and 12 of this Bill to empower the Minister to act, in default of county councils, with regard to the provision of small holdings. The insertion of a clause of this sort implies that the county councils have not done their duty, and I must, on behalf of the county councils, solemnly protest against such an accusation.

817
In reply to a question that was asked in the House of Commons as recently as February, the Minister stated—and I think his reply was based on the latest return in his possession—that the county councils in England and Wales have purchased nearly 400,000 acres, and hired 72,000 acres and, as Lord Strachie has said, have over 26,000 holdings already established. I venture to think that this is a very good record for the counties. Only to-day I received a report, which I will not trouble your Lordships by quoting, from the land department of my own county council. I hardly dared to look at that report, because it gave a résumé of the different activities of that department, and it looked very much as if they were going to make an application for a larger staff. It all adds to the burden of the county. It is a curious thing that the report should have arrived at that moment, advocating further provision for small holdings. I have never heard of any case in my county or anywhere else where those who wanted holdings and allotments have not been provided with them.
It might be very easy to get up a case against the county councils because some shepherd of Dartmoor is alleged to be in need of an agricultural holding or is found to be unsuitable. This Bill disregards the county councils, which know the locality very much better than any Minister can know it. They are no longer to be the ultimate judge in this sort of case. In my own county we are a long way from a mining district, and yet there are a large number of unemployed miners in the area. Surely, if you are going to put these men on the land, you are not going to benefit the people for whom the county council is in the first place responsible. Since 1926, the county councils have had a very short time to prove how they have dealt with this question. Is it not a very retrograde step on the part of His Majesty's present Government to go behind the Act of 1926 before it has had a real opportunity of proving how it is being administered? In 1926 the county councils became the authority for providing small holdings; and this is only 1931. I do not think, considering the shortness of the time and the difficulties with which the county councils have been met, that anyone can accuse them of not fulfilling their duty to their utmost.
818
It must always be remembered—and I am sure this is a great inducement to county councils not to undertake this heavy financial responsibility—that they cannot receive more than 75 per cent. of the cost. If this clause is not struck out, there will be two kinds of tenant in the counties, and the county tenant will be under less favourable conditions than those holding direct from the Minister. We know that the great difficulty is the cost of equipment, though land has fallen in value. Surely the local authorities are the best judges of the price of land and equipment—better than the Minister, who is not on the spot. In my own county, we have established a farm school. Only the other day, the question was raised whether this school should be continued. When this came before the county council, they decided on its retention. For all these reasons I beg to support the proposal of my noble friend Lord Hastings to reject this clause.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I think we had better face this matter quite frankly. It is quite true that there are many county councils doing their work admirably. No one with any experience of them can doubt it. But I think it is also true to say that there are others which are doing little or nothing. There are 52 counties in England and Wales, and it is not in human nature that they should all be the same. You have only to look at the actual record of figures in the report of the Land Department to form some estimate—I admit it requires considerable study—as to those which are acting and those which are not. I do not want to trouble your Lordships with the figures, but there are some county councils which are doing very active work while others are doing very little. You may ask for a particular instance. One was given by the Minister in the Committee stage in another place. He said that the Holland division of Lincolnshire had 449 approved applicants on its list who were passed as suitable for small holdings. The settlements they made in the year 1927 were nil; in the year 1923, nil; in the year 1929, one; and in the year 1930, nil. I do not think that anybody can say that that is a record which suggests that there is no need to give effect to this clause.

819
Cases do arise in which it is desirable, seeing that you want to make provision for small holdings, that those capable of using them should be specially assisted to obtain them. I believe there is unfortunately more evidence on this point than has yet been produced in this House, and that the case for endowing the Minister with these powers is very strong. The powers are limited in the proviso of the clause, which says:
"Provided that, before exercising his powers under this section, the Minister shall give fro the county council notice of his intention to do so and, if within such period as may be specified in the notice the council represent to him that in their opinion sufficient small holdings have been provided to satisfy the demand aforesaid, shall hold a local inquiry and the county council and such other persons as the person holding the inquiry thinks fit to allow shall be entitled to appear and be heard at the inquiry."
The Minister is therefore given the power of acting on his own initiative only where there is clear evidence of inability to act. I think the facts that I have mentioned show that there is a strong case for this clause.
EARL STANHOPE: I hope that my noble friends will press their Amendment, but I can only describe Lord Lothian's speech as being an example of the mistrust which the Liberal Party always has for a popularly elected body. What is proposed under this clause? It is proposed that the county council should be summoned before an inspector and put in the pillory. Is that a proper way to support local government and to show that we trust the electors? It is saying that the elector who has elected his county councillor is not sufficiently intelligent to be trusted to choose somebody to represent his opinion, but you must send down an inspector from London to see that the county council, which he has himself elected, should be forced to do something that he does not require. The noble Marquess quoted cases from Lincolnshire. I am not an inhabitant of Lincolnshire, but I do know a little about it, though not very much, and my impression is that, if he goes further into the matter, he will find that there are very many small holders in Lincolnshire who are at the present moment in the gravest-financial difficulties. The outstanding amount of rent unpaid to the county council at this moment is, I believe,
820
enormous. The county council wonders what to do about it. They do not like to take action against these men. Is it surprising that they should refuse to place any more small holders in that area?
After all, perhaps the noble Marquess and I have two different objects. I want small holdings established where they will succeed. The noble Marquess wants them established anywhere, whether they will succeed or not. That is perhaps where we differ. My view is that having properly elected local bodies in the country we should trust them. The local authorities know more about the matter and know the people, and to hold them up to public inquiry such as is proposed in the Bill, and to enable the Minister to override them because they do not do something which he thinks they should do, is entirely opposed to the principle of democratic government.
EARL DE LA WARR: I can never understand why individuals who belong to bodies that are fulfilling their duties, such as the county council to which Lord Hastings belongs, and the county council to which Lord Strachie belongs, should yet defend those county councils which have not fulfilled their duties. Lord Lothian has put it perfectly clearly to your Lordships. We all of us know, and it is no good denying the fact, and if your Lordships do not know it you may read it in the figures issued by the Ministry of Agriculture.
EARL STANHOPE: Will the noble Earl define what he means by not doing their duty?
EARL DE LA WARR: I have here figures of ten county councils who have provided no small holdings, of eleven with under a hundred—I am talking about acreage and not numbers—and of six county councils that have purchased over a thousand acres.
EARL STANHOPE: Does he imply that county councils are not fulfilling their duty if they refuse to make small holdings where they know they will not succeed?
EARL DE LA WARR: I consider that if there is a large number of applicants and those applicants have actually been approved and the county council is making no provision for them, there is a very proper case for an inquiry.
EARL STANHOPE: That is quite a different thing. The noble Earl accused the county councils of not doing their duty.
EARL DE LA WARR: I should say that there is a very strong case for an inquiry, and we should then ascertain which county is and which county is not doing its duty. It is quite impossible, speaking from this Bench, before an inquiry, to say which counties are and which counties are not doing their duty, but it is evident that there are a large number of counties in which there are a large number of approved but unsatisfied applicants. Your Lordships may say, to use the expression of the noble Lord opposite, that it does not cut much ice to quote figures, but the figures are there, and it is quite definite that there are counties in which a large number of approved applicants are still unable to get small holdings; in their districts.
LORD HASTINGS: They might congratulate themselves.
EARL DE LA WARR: The figures of the small holdings do not justify that remark, and I do not see why the noble Lord should have anything to do with this part of the Bill if those are his feelings—if he is opposed to small holdings in his own county. I do not think he is.
LORD HASTINGS: I object strongly to pressure being put upon county councils at the present time to extend their commitments for small holdings, when already the small holdings which exist are there at great risk to the ratepayers.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not understand the meaning of that intervention, because Clause 10 does not give the Minister power to go into a county and provide holdings at the county's expense. Clause 10 most carefully recognises the fact that in many cases the reason why the county councils have not provided small holdings is not deliberate neglect, but financial. For that reason we have not exercised the powers of default which are in the Small Holdings Act 'and in the Housing Act brought in by the late Government. This Bill does not give us power to go as far as those powers for which the Government of the noble Lord
822
opposite was responsible in the Housing Act. It recognises that it may perfectly well not be the fault of the county council. We are not concerned with the question of fault or blame, but with the fact that there is a certain need which requires to be satisfied, and we have endeavoured to take powers to act in a manner as little embarrassing to the county councils as possible. It is for that reason that we take power, if we deal with small holdings by default, to pay for them ourselves.
It has been suggested that if this clause is passed the county councils will be put against the Minister, and that presumably the supply of small holdings by county councils will be held up in the future. That is not the indication which existing figures show at all. Since this Bill was introduced, and since it has been evident that we were taking concurrent powers with the county council for the provision of small holding, schemes promulgated by county councils have very nearly doubled. That does not look as if the county councils were so embittered about the Bill that they were not going to do anything more in the provision of small holdings. I may say that the Government place very considerable importance upon this clause. We consider it vital that this very large number of unsatisfied applicants, many of whom have been approved as suitable—over two thousand have been approved—should be given a chance of obtaining holdings, which at the present moment their county councils are not prepared to grant. For this reason we hope your Lordships will decide to leave the clause in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord has not answered the question put to him by noble Lords on this side. He seems to imply that what he calls "approved" applicants must be satisfied, whether these will be economic holdings or not. We have asked him whether that is what he means—that if a long list of candidates are approved the county council is wanting in its duty if it does not accede to the demand.
EARL DE LA WARR: I answered the noble Marquess's question during my speech. I said if there was a very long list of approved applicants in a county, and that county was not making provision for any small holdings, I thought there would be a very strong case for saying

823
that that county was not carrying out its duties, and if there was any demand at all for an inquiry that inquiry should be granted in order to see whether it is really impossible—as the noble Marquess implied—to find any land whatsoever in the whole of that county suitable for small holdings.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not know what grounds the noble Earl has for making these suggestions against county councils. The clause to which my noble friends have taken objection is for the purpose of applying "ginger" to county councils. I am inclined to think that the county councils do their duty, and, if they are wanting in what the noble Lord desires, it is because they have realised that the holdings are holdings which cannot be carried on economically.
EARL DE LA WARR: The county council will have full opportunity of making its case before a public local inquiry.
LORD HASTINGS: But surely, is not that a grave indignity in itself?
LORD GAINFORD: I have been a member of the County Councils' Association in past years, and I have served for fifteen years on a county council, though I am not now a member; and as a Minister I have had some experience of county government and I have realised that the administrations of counties vary and are not the same. The county councils, through their Association, are a little too touchy about their powers being interfered with by the Government. It is necessary to have a general system of administration in connection with small holdings, so that the individuals in one county who desire to secure small holdings, and can be placed upon them, shall be treated in exactly the same way as the applicants in another county. There are cases where one county is defective in one direction or another. I do not say that they are not doing their duty, according to their lights, but their lights are perhaps not the best lights.
When I was President of the Board of Education there were counties which did not have a sufficient number of certificated teachers. They thought they had, but really they had not, and their education was quite inefficient, as compared with the education in an adjacent county. Again, one county would have enormously large classes, and another classes of quite
824
a reasonable size. It is necessary sometimes for a Government Department to draw the attention of the county authorities to these points in which they do not quite reach the proper standard. In connection with small holdings, it is necessary for a Government Department to be able to make representations to the county. The proposals in this clause are that these representations would be made to the county in the first instance, and, in the event of their not being attended to in a reasonable way, an inquiry would take place. It is not an unreasonable proposal, and therefore, although I have supported my noble friends on many of their previous Amendments, I feel justified in supporting the clause in this case.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I should like to say a word, in support of the clause, and I should like to do so as one who believes in our system of local government, but who, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, has had to do with administration from the centre in Whitehall. I agree with him entirely that, whereas most of the elected authorities are very efficient, one cannot say that they all have the same standard of efficiency, or the same progressive outlook. I have in my hand a list showing the area of land hired and the total area of land owned by each county for the purpose of small holdings, and the number of small holders in each county. I think it is quite obvious that the standard of some counties is below the standard of the best. If that is the case, the question is whether anything should be done to provide the people who want small holdings in the areas which are not up to standard. We all know perfectly well, however much we may believe in elected authorities, that the electors sometimes make mistakes in the people whom they put into power. The result of that may be that during a period of years you may have in power people who are definitely opposed to small holdings, or who do not want to carry them out efficiently. And I think that in those cases—a limited number of cases only, I hope—there should be a power in some other authority to step in and provide the small holdings which may be required.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 60.
Resolved in the negative and Clause 10 disagreed to accordingly.
[The sitting was suspended at five minutes past eight o'clock and resumed at half past nine o'clock.]
Clause 11:
Application of Small Holdings and Allotments Acts to powers of Minister.
11. For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred on him by the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, the Minister shall have the like powers as may be exercised by a county council with respect to small holdings under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, and the provisions of those Acts relating to the acquisition, use or disposal of land by a county council and to small holdings provided by a county council shall apply with the necessary adaptations to the acquisition, use and disposal of land by the Minister and to small holdings provided by him under this Part of this Act, but subject to the modifications that the Minister may sell, or let for other purposes any land acquired by him for small holdings which is in his opinion not needed for the purposes of small holdings, or exchange any such land for land more suitable for small holdings, and may pay or receive money for equality of exchange, and paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of Section twelve of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, shall not apply with respect to any such land.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD had given Notice to move, after "the Minister shall," to in-
826
sert "subject as in this section provided." The noble Lord said: As I explained before I shall move on the time and on the money, but not on the amount of land. Therefore I am not moving this Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out "may sell or let for other purposes" and insert "shall offer." The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Clinton, who is unavoidably absent, has asked me to request your Lordships to permit me to move the Amendment that stands in his name. It will be obvious, I think, that it is almost impossible to address your Lordships on the subject of this Amendment without making reference to the Amendment to line 37 on page 14, as the two hold together. It might be convenient if I read to your Lordships how the clause will stand if these Amendments are accepted. It will run in this way:—
".…the Minister shall offer any land acquired by him for small holdings which is in his opinion not needed for the purpose of small holdings to the council of the county for the provision of small holdings and if that council do not acquire the land, sell the said land for purposes prescribed by regulations under this Part of the Act.…"
The purpose of the Amendment is one to which the noble Earl objected earlier

827
in the debate; that is of inducing the Minister not to hold but to part with any land which he has acquired for the purposes specified in the Bill and which he finds surplus to his requirements. Lord Clinton's object was to provide statutory inducements to the Minister to part with that land rather than to hold it or to dispose of it in the way prescribed by the Bill. I think there is nothing I can add to what I have said already except to emphasise the fact that this is a matter of principle, and that those of your Lordships who object to the Minister holding land which is surplus to the immediate requirements of the Act of Parliament concerned will, of course, support the Amendment, and those who think there is no objection to his holding such land will not support it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 35, leave out ("may sell or let for other purposes") and insert ("shall offer").—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Lord is quite right in saying that this is a matter of principle.
LORD HASTINGS: Yes.
EARL DE LA WARR: From one point of view. If we look at it from that point of view, we have to realise that the principle has already been discussed by your Lordships on Clause 3 with regard to letting and on Clause 9 just before the adjournment for dinner. That principle is whether you shall allow-any prejudices which you may possess against the Minister holding property to persuade you to insert an Amendment which shall make it obligatory on the Minister to sell property, it may be at a loss, when it is possible that he might be able to let it on a good lease. The point is, as I said on Clause 9, that it is really almost obligatory on a Minister when he is buying a large amount of property for the purpose of a small holdings settlement to buy an estate. I think we are all agreed that the large small holding is probably on the whole a better system of settlement than a lot of separate units. It is always obligatory on him to buy an estate and frequently there are other parcels of land—that we discussed on Clause 9—or possibly licensed premises, a mansion house, or perhaps an
828
area of woodland, which he has had to take over, which really is not essential to the scheme. The question is whether we shall compel him by Statute to dispose of those properties.
From one point of view I agree with the noble Lord that it is a matter of principle, but from another point of view I suggest we should not treat it as a matter of principle. It is really a matter of expediency. The question is whether the Exchequer will most benefit from the Minister selling that property or from his letting it, and it will be the duty of the Minister obviously to make the best bargain he can. If he is offered a good sale and there is nobody prepared to give him a good rent, then obviously it is his duty to sell. If on the other hand—I think the noble Lord will agree here—he is offered a good rent, his duty towards the Exchequer obviously is to accept that good rent rather than risk possibly a bad sale, and very often a forced sale does mean a bad price for property. I hope purely on grounds of expediency, and not on the ground of principle, the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Earl has answered that part of the Amendment which sought to debar the Minister from letting, which is a point already dealt with in debate, and I did not press it when I moved the Amendment. But he has not answered that part which sought to cut out the words "for other purposes." If I have not made myself clear, I should like to do so. Under the wording of this clause it would be possible for the Minister to dispose of that land in a fashion which would undoubtedly destroy the amenity of the remainder of the estate, part of which he had bought. There is nothing in this clause to prevent the Minister from selling the land which is surplus to his own requirements to a factory, which would destroy the amenity of the whole of the surrounding property. It is conceivable that the Minister, without any kind of restriction whatever, would feel himself almost obliged, under an obligation to the Treasury, to dispose of the land to the best advantage, and whereas he bought the land for one specific purpose, he is under no restriction as to how he shall sell it. It might react with great unfairness to the owners of neighbouring

829
properties. The words "other purposes" have not been replied to by the noble Earl.
EARL STANHOPE: I think there is something in what my noble friend says, but, after all, the Minister might sell for any purposes. He might sell it for a factory just as well as let it for a factory. I think there is a good deal in what the noble Earl opposite said. In cases where the Minister buys a whole property it would be a fairly large estate, and there would be woodlands and various things of that kind, which certainly could not be used for small holdings, and would, therefore, have to be used for other purposes. In the case of sale, if it was known by Act of Parliament the Minister was compelled to sell, in effect that becomes a forced sale and therefore the Minister—in effect the public—would not get the price that might have been got if it was known the Minister could use it for other purposes—letting it and so on. I think we on this side of the House feel very strongly about the Minister getting property in his own possession and using it for his own purpose. We agree with the Government that it may be right in some cases that the Minister should have the right to let, but it is really already provided in the Bill that he should have to let or dispose of property in this way. I venture to hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not think the point is one that is worth troubling your Lordships to go to a Division on, and, with your Lordships' leave, I would withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR had given Notice to move to leave out "other purposes' and to insert "purposes proscribed in regulations under this Part of this Act." The noble Lord said: My Amendment has been more than covered by that which we have just been discussing.
LORD HASTINGS: The next Amendment that stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, to insert certain new-words has already been covered by a previous Amendment, and therefore I shall not move it on his behalf. This will not debar me from moving the next Amendment that stands in his name.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to add to the clause:
"Provided that in all cases in which the Minister proposes to acquire under this section lands an order for the acquisition of which by a county council would under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts require to be confirmed or made by the Minister and in which any objection made to the order for the compulsory acquisition of the land has not been withdrawn, the Minister shall not acquire the land compulsorily unless authorised to do so by means of a Provisional Order made by him and confirmed by Parliament, and for that purpose the Minister may submit a Bill to Parliament for the confirmation of any such Provisional Order. If while any such Bill is pending in either House of Parliament a Petition, is presented against the Provisional Order the Bill so far as it relates to the Provisional Order may be referred to a Select Committee and a Petitioner shall be allowed to appear and oppose as in the case of a Bill for a Special Act."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment that stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Clinton and, if you will allow me, I wish to move it in his name. This was a matter that was debated in another place, and I understood that the Minister of Agriculture then recognised the difficulties which the clause presented and rather gave an undertaking that he would propose words to meet them. We have not received any Amendment, but my noble friend Lord Clinton has put this down. The facts are that the object of the proviso is to give the landowner a right of appeal against the decision of the Minister to purchase land otherwise than by agreement. Under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, 1908 and 1926, an order by the county council for this purpose is of no effect unless confirmed by the Minister after public inquiry. Under Clause 11 of the present Bill, the Minister is given the same powers as are exercised by the county councils, and consequently there is no appeal except from the Minister to the Minister.
Some form of appeal is required, and it is proposed that, on objection made, the compulsory power shall not be exercised save by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament. That does not seem unreasonable. It asks that the Minister should not appeal from himself to himself, which does not provide very much protection to the subject. This proviso would give the subject some form of appeal from the Minister to some other

831
person. This is really a very important matter. It does not affect the operation of the Bill in any way, but it may easily affect the rights of the subject, and legislation ought to provide protection by way of appeal. This seems to provide it in a reasonable way, and I very much hope that the noble Earl will see his way to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 42, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord has stated the case very clearly. The position is that, under the existing Small Holding and Allotment Acts, it is the Minister who approves the county council's act. Under this clause the Minister will have the powers of the county council, and he will have to approve of his own act. But I do not think the matter really ends there. The trouble is that, if you provide the type of machinery suggested in this Amendment—namely, a Provisional Order—it will mean a very long, tedious and expensive procedure, as your Lordships know.
LORD HASTINGS: Yes, it is.
EARL DE LA WARR: And it has very many objections, but I will be frank with your Lordships. Recognising the position, we have tried to think of some alternative method and have been quite unable to do so. The question is whether we should be satisfied with the machinery that is in the existing Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, which provides for a public local inquiry before which the Minister by his representative will have to appear and justify himself, or whether in the interest of what I might call rather abstract and technical justice we should provide for the more cumbersome machinery which is in this Amendment. I suggest really that this power, as between the county council and the Minister, has been in operation for a great many years—something like twenty-two years—and there has never been any complaint about the powers as exercised by the Minister on an appeal against the county council.
LORD HASTINGS: Quite.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is true that that is not a complete parallel, but from the year 1922 we have a complete parallel, because at that time the
832
Minister had the same powers virtually as are propounded in this Bill, and during those years although there was considerable activity there was no complaint whatever. In fact I can go further and say that the powers actually never had to be operated. You may say that that is an example which is not of very much value, but I for one think it shows what lies behind these compulsory powers, and that the very fact of their existing in a readily usable form, shows that they are not likely to be used. Those who have studied the history of this matter recognise that the majority of these matters in dispute are not matters of willingness or of neglect to take action, but are really questions of price, and questions of disagreement on price are not questions justifying the machinery of a Provisional Order. I submit that the machinery of arbitration and public local inquiry is in these circumstances in fact quite sufficient, and for that reason I would ask your Lordships seriously to consider not pressing this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: On the question of price, in the Land Clauses Consolidation Act I think there is an appeal either to the police court or to the county court.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the appeal is to the official arbitrator.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Having that example surely we might follow it in this case and not make an aggrieved party appeal from the Minister to the Minister.
EARL DE LA WARR: If on a question of that kind we could find a method to which we could all agree I should be perfectly willing to discuss it on Report. What I am not willing to do is to insert this cumbersome machinery when we are mainly dealing with questions of price. I am quite prepared to give an assurance to the noble Lord, particularly on this question of price, that if he feels there is another method of dealing with the matter we will discuss it on Report.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I would suggest that the noble Earl should go a little further. As I understand, Lord Hastings puts forward the case that here is a power given to the Minister, without any appeal except to the Minister himself, which, of course, is no appeal at

833
all. He is, therefore, in a sense, the judge in his own cause. The noble Earl says, "That is quite true, and we recognise that that is an inconvenient case, and may be productive of hardship." "But," he says, "although we have done our best, we cannot think of a satisfactory method, and this one is a clumsy one." I am not sure that Lord Hastings would differ from the view that this is rather a clumsy method, but he has not been able to think of a better one. The difference between the two sides, therefore, is that, both being agreed that there is an inconvenience and a possible hardship, one thinks it better to have a clumsy method than none at all, and the other thinks it better to face the inconvenience, and hope it will not happen, because the method is clumsy.
Perhaps it is a legal instinct, but I very much dislike the feeling that we may be inflicting a hardship, or indeed an injustice, on an individual subject, and that we will not, take any steps to remedy it because the steps would be inconvenient. It seems to me that we ought not to allow the matter to rest where it is without some provision for an appeal. If the noble Earl and those advising him are stimulated by the consciousness that there must be some form of appeal, and that, if no better form can be devised, then we shall have to fall back upon this, they should then, between now and Report, be able to find some suggestion, and possibly my noble friend might see fit to withdraw his Amendment for the lime being, on the distinct intimation that, unless some alternative plan is brought forward by the Government, he would be compelled to move it again on Report.
EARL DE LA WARR: I will certainly say that we will give the most earnest consideration to this problem. Perhaps I did not stress sufficiently the importance we attach to the public local inquiry. The noble and learned Viscount said there was no appeal at all, but I think your Lordships will realise that a public local inquiry in opposition to the view of the Minister is a very severe demand. I would ask your Lordships to remember the difficulty the Minister would be in if he went against a local inquiry unless he were able to make out his case.
LORD BAYFORD: I should like to have this made clear: if there is a difference of opinion, there is a public local inquiry, and also an arbitrator to fix the price—is not that so?
EARL DE LA WARR: That is the position.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Earl will have realised from my first remark that it is not felt that there is likely to be a stream of grievances against the decision of the Minister. If there were only one a year or one a decade it would still be a sufficient reason for inserting into a Statute protection for the subject. It cannot be right that there should be no appeal from the Minister except to the Minister, and, cumbersome as this machinery is, it is preferable to no procedure for appeal at all. I am perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment, subject not only to the noble Earl's consideration, but to his production of some alternative agreeable to the House. It is a matter of principle. Something has to be inserted in the Bill, and, if we cannot find anything better than what is now suggested, it will have to be the proposal on the Amendment Paper.
EARL LA WARR: The noble Lord is free to take what action he likes on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Clause 11. The noble Earl said: When I put this Amendment down many of my friends and myself were under the impression that it applied to the powers of a Minister which he would require under Clause 10. Clause 10 has now gone and I understand that the powers, which the Minister is seeking under Clause 11, apply to his activities in other parts of the Bill and that, if this clause were deleted, he would have no power to carry out his duties. I therefore do not move my Amendment.
Clause 11 agreed to.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE THE DUKE OF MONTROSE had given Notice to move to insert the following new clause after Clause 11:
". Empower the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, to accept land under paragraph 56, Part III, Finance Act (1909–

835
1910), in satisfaction of Estate Duty, Settlement Estate Duty, or Succession Duty."
The noble Duke said: In rising to move this clause, I would draw attention to a misprint in the first line. It should read "empower the Minister" and not "empower the directors" because, of course, there are no directors. The connection of this clause with the Bill may not be very obvious, but I shall endeavour to show that it has a very close connection. Earl De La Warr said this afternoon that he anticipated that the Government would take some time to find and to acquire their land. If my new clause is accepted, he will not have to wait very long before he gets all the land he wants.
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps I can be of assistance to the noble Duke by telling him that it is perfectly possible for this to be done under the existing law and that this clause is not necessary.
THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: If it can be done already without an Amendment, I am quite ready not to move.
Clause 12:
Power to arrange for management by local authorities of small holdings and allotments provided by Minister or for the transfer thereof to such authorities.
12.—(1) Any small holdings or allotments provided by the Minister and any land acquired by him for the purposes of small holdings or allotments in exercise of the powers conferred on him by this Part of this Act may, by arrangement between him and the local authority, be either—

(a) controlled and managed by the authority as agents for the Minister; or

(b) transferred to the authority on such terms as may be agreed between the Minister and the authority and approved by the Treasury.

(2) Any small holdings, allotments, or land transferred to a local authority under this section shall be deemed to have been acquired by the authority under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts.
(3) In this section the expression "local authority" means, in relation to a small holding or to land acquired for a small holding, the council of the county, and, in relation to any allotment or to land acquired for allotments, the council of the borough, urban district, or parish or any county council acting in default of such a council as aforesaid.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1), after "this Part of this Act" to insert "(a)." The noble Lord said: I have several Amendments which
836
deal in principle with the same subject. The Amendment to insert "(a)" hangs together with the Amendments at the bottom of the same page and belongs to what I may call the weaker dose, whereas the Amendment to leave out "may" and insert "shall" belongs to the stronger dose of the same physic. I hope that the noble Earl will this time swallow this physic gracefully and not dispose of it again when he comes to answer the question on the next clause. There is nothing the Government seem so shy of as the popularly elected assembly, in particular the county council. Both these Amendments suggest that the county councils are the best bodies to work these small holdings when they are created. There is nothing in either Amendment antagonistic to the principle of small holdings being created. These Amendments merely deal with the working of those small holdings after they have been created.
In my view the only logical thing to do is to have one small holdings body working the small holdings in each county. Small holdings, let us say, for the people engaged in dairying in the county of X do not differ greatly in character one from the other. X is a dairying county, and the small holdings are of that nature. The same organiser, the same instructor and so on, with the same staff can more adequately deal with all the small holdings in the county than two experts possibly preaching different methods of rationing cattle for milk. Not only is it better probably for the small holders that they should have one set of officials, but it puts at their disposal the whole organisation of the county council agricultural committee. It also prevents the creation of a number of new officials who emanate from Whitehall but erupt in the counties. Why special officials should be created when there is already the cadre and the whole staff established in the county passes my comprehension.
One word as to another difficulty which I might have because the dose to leave out "may" and insert "shall" tells the county council to take over the working of small holdings. It may be said by my noble friend Lord Bayford that he objects to the county councils being forced to do the dirty work of the Ministry. With great respect, I think that would not be the correct attitude

837
for the county councils to adopt. It has already been pointed out in these debates that the county councils have never refused, or shown any signs of refusing to carry out what has been laid down as a national policy. If it is made clear to them when the Bill is passed that the national policy is to extend small holdings on these lines I am perfectly certain that they will all co-operate. If they do not co-operate I think they will be at fault. To say, "We do not like the principle of the Bill as a county council and, therefore, we will not play" is, to my mind, a little infra dig., and a little below the level which county councils have always attained. I sincerely hope I shall not be attacked from any quarter on those lines. After again pointing out that to leave out "may" and insert "shall" is the most logical way of treating the principle at stake, I should like to elicit from the noble Earl whether he is prepared to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 1, after ("Act") insert ("a").—(Lord Phillimore.)
EARL DE LA WARR: As the noble Lord has said, the effect of his Amendments is to convert Clause 12 from a voluntary agreement between the Minister and the county into a compulsory provision. The first thing that strikes me, and I say this in spite of the fact that the noble Lord most sincerely hoped that it would not be said, is his total disregard for the wishes of the county council. As far as we have had any discussion with the county councils or their representatives, we have certainly gathered that they have not the slightest desire to be made in any way responsible for the policy of the "unemployed" small holdings. I think a great number of them will be prepared to assist us by their advice, and possibly even by assistance in local administration. But they certainly show not the slightest desire to have any responsibility for the policy of setting them up, or for the finance. It is all very well the noble Lord saying that if they do not want to co-operate they are at fault, but we are dealing with human institutions, with human desires, and if the county councils are not very anxious to carry on these works I think it very much better to leave things as they are.
838
The main form of compulsion here is on the Minister. The Minister is to be compelled. No matter what he thinks about it, although he is responsible for the whole policy of finance, although it is his policy that has set them up, he has, if the county council so desire, to hand over the holdings to them. Let us consider this position. Let us suppose the Minister sets up two settlements in a county, and it becomes obvious from near the beginning that in one case the settlement is going to be successful, and in the other it is going to be less successful. Under this clause it would be possible for the county council to say: "We are going to take over the settlement, but we are only going to act as agents for you. We will assume responsibility for the one that is doing well, but we are going to assume no responsibility for the other." That is ridiculous. If this is the policy of the Minister, and if it is the national policy, surely it is for the Minister to have the responsibility. If, as a result of discussions with county councils and local authorities, it is found to be easier for the actual administration to be carried out locally, then let them come to a purely voluntary arrangement.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Is the noble Earl sure he is correct on that point—that it leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the county council to decide which leg they will stand on? The clause tells us that it will be by arrangement between him, the Minister, and the local authority, so the Minister also is a party to any arrangement.
EARL DE LA WARR: I certainly understood that the word "shall" was displacing the word "may," and that the intention therefore of the Amendment was to make it compulsory on the Minister rather than voluntary. That is my interpretation of those words, and it is the interpretation of my legal advisers.
LORD PHILLIMORE: But he can come to an arrangement on one of those two legs.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am suggesting we might have the position reduced to the absurd by the county council deciding to stand on two legs, accept full responsibility for a settlement that is going to be prosperous, but only accept

839
the responsibility of agency in another case. I think your Lordships will agree that is absurd.
LORD BAYFORD: To the mover of the Amendment, I can only say exactly what the noble Lord said I should say, and that is I think the county councils would resent it if the Ministry pounced on a county council that was trying to get all the land that it possibly could for small holdings in its own county. The settling of "foreigners" from another county will be resented, but it will be adding insult to injury if, after doing that, the Ministry says that the county council must take over these small holdings, with the immigrants from other counties, and must be responsible for their management. That would be very much resented by the county councils. Simply as a matter of drafting and legal interpretation, I do not see how you can say that the Minister "shall" do a thing by arrangement between him and the local authority. Suppose the local authority objects, how are you going to enforce it? There is no arrangement possible.
EARL STANHOPE: I only rise to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Bayford. I admit frankly that I look forward to the day when the county council will be managing and responsible for these small holdings, but I think that day will arrive all the quicker if we do not force matters. As I have indicated earlier, I am one of those who believe in trusting local authorities rather than ordering them about, and I rejoice to see that the noble Earl opposite has at last come round to my opinion. I hope he will continue in that state of mind for the rest of the debate.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am sorry to say that I could not hear what the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, said, but I would point out that under this Amendment the county council is not forced to come in. It acts only if it wishes. That meets the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, and also disposes of the argument borrowed from me by the noble Earl opposite—the only argument brought forward against my Amendment. I should like, therefore, to move the first of my two Amendments to line 1, those that follow in my name being consequential Amendments, of which the principal
840
is to add the words: "on request by the authority made in accordance with regulations … shall be."
EARL DE LA WARR: I must confess to feeling very confused by all this, but I would suggest to the noble Lord that, if he wants a voluntary arrangement, that is what we have drafted in the clause as it stands. It would be very much better to leave it as it is instead of trying to redraft it on our feet.
LORD PHILLIMORE: It has not that effect. The effect of my Amendment is that, if the council wish it, they act for the Minister. If they do not wish to do so, they do not, whereas the Bill as it stands does not leave it in the hands of the council—a very distinct difference.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in subsection (1), after "may," to insert "be controlled and managed by a Land Settlement Board of independent persons possessed of agricultural, business and scientific experience appointed by him, or." The noble Marquess said: This is to make it possible for the Minister to depute the management of a developed or developing small holdings estate to an independent body. It does not restrict in any way the power to negotiate arangements with the county council. In my view, if this programme succeeds and if any large development takes place, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Minister are not the desirable parties to administer it. I do not think that the handling of a very large administrative function of this kind by the Minister is desirable, nor is a Ministerial bureaucratic body the ideal one for the purpose. In the second place, I think that the existence of a large number of holdings of this kind, nationally managed, does open the way to a very great deal of undesirable pressure, and I think both in the interest of the Minister, who does not want to be subjected to this pressure, and in the interests of the administration of the scheme, it is far better to make it possible to entrust it to a body of men independent, experienced and not subject to that kind of pressure.
In the third place I think that if you are going to make a success of a large small holdings scheme of this kind you are far more likely to do so by entrust-

841
ing it to well-selected men, who will stand or fall by the success that they achieve. The case of the Forestry Commissioners may appeal to some of your Lordships and the precedent of the London traffic is another, and therefore I hope that this Amendment will receive support from both sides. It is solely designed to make it permissive for the Minister to entrust the management of the scheme to an outside body, free from political influence, which will stand or fall by its success in working the scheme. I hope the Government will feel their way to give it a favourable answer.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 1, after ("may") insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
EARL STANHOPE: I had hoped that the noble Marquess was going to explain to the Committee whether the body in question would consist of paid or unpaid members, because after all that is a matter which I think requires some explanation. Their duties would undoubtedly be whole-time duties, and it appears to me you would have to have a considerable number of them to effect their purpose. Personally, I, and I think many of those who sit on this side, are opposed to this Amendment, and I will tell your Lordships why. In the first place we have already the county councils responsible for small holdings, and a certain number of small holdings will inevitably come under the Minister. It is now proposed to set up a third body, with a third set of officials. Surely we have enough officials already in this country, and we have quite sufficient to pay for them, without having yet a third body with all the scales of salaries running through a completely independent body.
Further, I think many of us have this feeling, that although we frankly admit that the management of this large number of small holdings is going to be a heavy burden upon the Minister, we rather rejoice at that, because it will encourage him to hand over the management to the proper body, the local authority, in the shape of the county council. I think most of us feel that there are quite enough bodies of this kind already in the country. We may have been justified in the past in setting up some of these independent bodies, like the Port
842
of London Authority or the Electricity Commissioners. They were there for a special purpose—either to run a particular business, in a particular and comparatively small area, or to co-ordinate such things as electric current throughout the country. Here is an entirely different question. We all agree that small holdings will differ in size, type, and character, and therefore to have one central body to run them is, if anything, likely rather to crystallize them into one particular kind instead of giving them a real chance of success by adapting them to local conditions. For all these reasons we hope that nothing will be put in the way of seeing that small holdings are eventually handed over by the Minister to the county councils.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am glad the noble Earl rose to speak before I did, because one cannot help feeling that, before it is possible to set up a Commission of this type, it really is necessary to have a pretty well unanimous opinion among the Parties in favour of it. Indeed, I think that is the purpose of handing over a matter of this kind to a Commission—that you should divorce the management from the sphere of Party control. As the noble Earl has spoken for his Party, it certainly looks as if it would be difficult to arrange this. At the same time, I cannot help feeling friendly towards this Amendment, because it does provide for an independent control of a very complicated administrative machinery, and it does also provide machinery for giving a permanent basis to small holding developments in this country. On the other hand, there is no doubt that this Amendment as it stands certainly could not be accepted, and I do not think the matter has really been sufficiently thought out. If, between now and Report, or a later stage of the Bill, it were possible to have any discussion on this matter among the various Parties, certainly from this side of the House we should be prepared to discuss the matter in a very friendly way. But it would require a certain amount of agreement among all Parties before we could agree to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY had an Amendment on the Paper, to insert the following new clause after Clause 12:

843
"Subsection (2) of Section two of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, shall have effect as if the words 'one hundred per cent.' were therein substituted for the words 'seventy-five per cent.' and the said subsection shall be read and construed accordingly."
The noble Earl said: When this clause was put on the Paper it was for the protection of the county councils, who, at an annual meeting the other day, unanimously passed a resolution resisting the placing of further burdens on them by Parliament. I do not, however, intend to move the Amendment.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Power of Minister to provide allotments not exceeding one acre fur unemployed persons.
14.—(1) The Minister shall have power, without prejudice to the powers and duties of the council of any borough, urban district, or parish, or of any county council acting in default of such a council as aforesaid, to provide allotments not exceeding one acre in extent for unemployed persons, and for that purpose the Minister shall have the like powers as may be exercised by any such council with respect to allotments under the Small Holdings and Allotments Acts, and the provisions of those Acts relating to the acquisition, use or disposal of land by any such council and to allotments provided by any such council (except subsections (1) and (2) of Section sixteen of the Allotments Act, 1922, and Section four of the Allotments Act, 1925), shall apply with the necessary adaptations to the acquisition, use and disposal of land by the Minister and to allotments provided by him under this section, but subject to the modifications that the Minister may sell or let for other purposes any land acquired by him for allotments which is in his opinion not needed for the purposes of allotments, or exchange any such land for land more suitable for allotments, and may pay or receive money for equality of exchange, and Section thirty-two of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and Section eight of the Allotments Act, 1925, shall not apply with respect to any such land.
(2) The powers conferred on the Minister by the last foregoing subsection shall include power to provide allotment gardens for persons who are not in full time employment as well as for those who are wholly unemployed.
(5) Any of the powers and duties conferred on the Minister by this section, except the power of acquiring land or of disposing of it otherwise than for use as allotments, may, by arrangement between him and the council of any county, or of any borough, urban district or parish, or with any society having as its object or one of its objects the provision or the profitable working of allotments, he exercised and per-
844
formed by the council or society as agents for the Minister.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "allotments not exceeding one acre in extent" and insert "allotment gardens." The noble Lord said: The purpose of putting down this Amendment is two-fold and both reasons are of real importance both to allotment holders and to the Committee. The first reason is that a curious confusion appears to have existed in the mind of the Minister of Agriculture as to what will happen to the individual who takes an allotment not exceeding one acre in extent. The Minister appears to have imagined in the early stages that he was dealing with allotment gardens and not with allotments not exceeding one acre, although there is a great difference between them. On Thursday, December 4, explaining the constitution of the Central Allotments Committee, he said:
"The Committee has been set up for the following purposes:—(1) to promote generally the cultivation of allotment gardens by unemployed persons or persons not in full time employment."
At a much later date he was asked a very pertinent question in the House of Commons on March 23, which was as follows:
"Mr. Thomas Lewis asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will circularise all county councils to make it clear that no men who cultivate allotments under the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill will be deprived of their unemployment insurance benefit?
"The Minister of Agriculture (Dr. Addison): Circulars have already been issued to the allotment authorities by the Central Allotments Committee, calling attention to the point to which my hon. friend refers. I am sending him a copy of the most recent circular from which he will see that special prominence is given to the fact that unemployment benefit will not be affected by the cultivation of an allotment garden. I hope that my hon. friend's question and my answer will receive the greatest publicity."
Here is the circular, which says:
"If you are unemployed, or working part time, why not cultivate an allotment garden? You can grow fresh vegetables for your family and have an interesting and healthy occupation. Your unemployment benefit will not be affected provided you remain ready to accept any offer of suitable employment"
That might be regarded as correct if the words of the Bill had confined them-

845
selves to the expression "allotment gardens," but the phrase in the Bill is "allotments not exceeding one acre in extent." When an individual takes an allotment not exceeding one acre in extent he enters in any case on whole-time employment for himself, and it would be for the properly constituted authorities to say whether or not he is still entitled to benefit. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred he would be declared ineligible for benefit. He would no longer be employed on a part-time job growing vegetables for himself and his family; he would be to all intents and purposes on whole time work. So far as those well qualified to judge can do so, an allotment holder who takes up an allotment of not more than an acre would not be entitled to any unemployment benefit.
EARL DE LA WARR: By whom was the circular issued? By the Department?
LORD HASTINGS: By the Central Allotments Committee, Princes House, Kingsway, W.C.2. The noble Earl is welcome to look at it. While he is seeking advice outside I shall proceed to develop the second part of the case. The noble Lord will realise that I am as keenly anxious as he is for the establishment of allotment gardens on a large scale. He will realise that when an individual takes up an allotment as large as one acre he obviously ceases merely to provide for himself and his family. Under the Allotments Act, 1922, the definition of allotment garden is made perfectly clear. It says in Section 22 (no doubt the noble Earl is just as familiar with it as I am)—
"The expression 'allotment garden' means an allotment not exceeding forty poles in extent which is wholly or mainly cultivated by the occupier for the production of vegetable or fruit crops for consumption by himself or his family."
For a number of years that has been understood to be the definition of "allotment garden." It has never been altered by any other Act of Parliament and is a perfectly reasonable definition.
When a man starts to cultivate with his own hands or with the aid of his children an allotment of the size of an acre, it ceases merely to fulfil the function of being an allotment for the production of foodstuffs for his family
846
and himself. He becomes a market gardener. Directly he becomes a market gardener he clearly comes into competition with market gardeners who are already in situ and who are working for their living. They acquired their market gardens by the sweat of their brows and the savings they have been able to put into their own trouser pockets. By their own hard work they have done what they have done and nobody else has helped them. When you establish allotment holders of an acre with the aid of State subsidies, is it right to put them into direct competition with market gardeners who have acquired their position by their own hard work?
This is felt somewhat strongly by associations of allotment holders up and down England. They feel that if the whole clause touching allotments had been confined to allotment gardens as defined in the Act of 1922 they would have had no grievance at all. If allotments are to be spread in the area of the market gardens (which is what an allotment of one acre is) they have a very definite grievance because the market gardeners are asked to compete with State-aided market gardeners and that, surely, must be an improper position to place them in. There is only a limited number of areas in England where the cultivation of market gardens and allotments of one acre can be made to pay. You must put these people into that area. You can choose the whole length and breadth of England if you put down allotments of only 40 poles. If you create market gardens you must put them in that part of the country where it will pay and to do that you have to bring them into competition with those already existing. I think that is a strong point. I know it is held extremely strongly by the representatives of the market gardeners in various parts of the country which I need not specify because it would be invidious. The noble Earl is familiar with them.
I put to the noble Earl these two points. The first, to which I hope he will give careful attention, is as to why it is said that the allotment garden holder will not lose his unemployment benefit when it is known that there was a definition in the Bill which enables him to become a market gardener and that ho will lose his unemployment benefit. The other point is whether the noble Earl

847
thinks it would not be in the interests of the Bill to reduce the allotment garden to 40 poles. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 6, leave out ("allotments not exceeding one acre in extent") and insert ("allotment gardens").—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I am sorry that at first I did not appear to understand what the noble Lord wanted. I think I see now. His first point was the distinction between the allotment garden and the allotment not exceeding one acre in extent. I thought at first he was worrying about the question of unemployment insurance.
LORD HASTINGS: Yes, there is that point.
EARL DE LA WARR: With regard to the allotment gardener, it is clear from the beginning that there is no question of risk of losing his unemployment insurance benefit. With an allotment there may be a possible risk. The question of whether the cultivation of such an area of land would disqualify the holder would be a matter for decision as a question of fact by the Umpire. Therefore there would be some risk which the man who chooses to take that area would have to meet.
The noble Lord suggests that for this reason and for the reason of possible competition with other market gardeners we should omit from this Bill that particular sized area of land—that is the one acre allotment. I do not know why, if they were prepared to provide an allotment garden and if, on the other hand—to go to the other extreme—we are prepared to provide a five-acre small holding which may be devoted to market gardening, we should have this gap between the allotment garden and the market garden small holding. Our view is that this one-acre allotment may very well prove to be a most important training ground for the small holders and also a most important testing ground for the small holders. I think therefore it would be a pity to omit that area from the Bill and it would also be illogical to do so as long as we leave in the Bill the five-acre market garden holding. I hope therefore the noble Lord will not ask us to take out those words which will leave a gap in the Bill.
LORD HASTINGS: May I remind the noble Earl that there is nothing to pre-
848
vent him describing a one-acre holding as a small holding. If he feels it to be necessary to be able to provide holdings of one acre he can do so under the small holdings clause of the Bill. There is nothing limiting the size of his small holding to five acres. But it has been represented very strongly in the country that it is desirable to give access to the land to these persons who through no fault of their own have become unemployed, particularly in the mining areas, in order that they may be able to keep themselves physically fit and partly to enable them to eke out a livelihood by growing certain foodstuffs. This allotment not exceeding an acre does not come into that category at all. All you do is to put it into competition with existing market gardeners a large number of people who had much better be confined to the allotment gardens as defined in the Act of 1922.
I think the noble Earl will recognise that this matter of insurance benefit is rather more important than he seemed to think. It is quite true the owner of an allotment garden is, in the terms of the circular, obviously not debarred from enjoying his insurance benefit. It is equally true, if he takes a larger area he will be, we will not say at the mercy of the Umpire, but subject to the decision of the Umpire, as to whether or not he has to draw his insurance benefit. The circular of the Central Allotment Committee would lead him to suppose that any man who takes up an allotment, whether described as a garden or in some other way, is to be entitled to draw his insurance benefit. He will run grave risks of being deprived of it. It does not seem fair. I suggest it would be better if the noble Earl would agree to my Amendment. He will lose nothing, because he can still give small holdings of one acre, and he will gain clarity of expression.
EARL DE LA WARR: It comes down to a question of definition—whether we call one acre an allotment or a small holding. If the noble Lord will forgive me, on that point of the use of words I prefer to discuss the matter with my legal advisers and deal with it on Report. The alteration might have more significance that I can see at the moment. Would that satisfy the noble Lord?
LORD HASTINGS: Subject to my right to bring it up on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Are the noble Lord's other Amendments in this place consequential?
LORD HASTINGS: No, I wish they were. The first two are.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "subsections (1) and (2) of Section sixteen of the allotments Act, 1922, and." The noble Lord said: The relevant words will then read:
"the provisions of those Acts relating to the acquisition, use or disposal of land by any such council and to allotments provided by any such council (except Section four of the Allotments Act, 1925)."
The subsections to which reference is deleted read:
"(1) A council hall not take any proceedings under the provisions of the Allotments Acts relating to allotments, unless in the opinion of the council the expenses of the council incurred under those provisions (other than such expenses as are hereinafter specified) may reasonably be expected, after the proceedings are taken, to be defrayed out of the receipts of the council under those provisions.
(2) For the purposes of this section, expenses and receipts shall be calculated in such manner as the Minister of Health may direct, and shall include expenses and receipts in respect of land acquired whether before or after the passing of this Act."
Under the 1922 Act heavy expenses involved in establishing allotments are fully provided for as capital expenditure. They do not fall on the administrative expenses of the scheme. The Minister here seeks to get away from this reasonable restriction. I and those who think with me think there can be no valid reason for maintaining an allotment scheme which is not self-supporting. This is not a question of grouped allotments which may fail owing to weather or circumstances over which they have no control. A garden scheme does not fail far such reasons as that and there is no reason why it should not be self-supporting. I am not proposing to forbid the Minister to claim the provision of the other section mentioned—power to charge a penny rate. But why should he "get away with" any charge he cares to make? If these two subsections are included in the reference there is nothing to prevent him if he likes—I do not suppose he would—letting
850
these allotments at one-quarter or less of the rental value of the land. There is nothing to prevent him from doing that. That cannot be right. There is nothing to prevent him from excusing any man from the payment of rent. Under existing schemes if one man defaults the scheme as a whole has to bear the loss; but under this scheme all those deterrents will be removed. The Minister is not restricted in any way and whereas these subsections look perfectly harmless they are really the only dangerous part of the clause and ought in my judgment to be excised.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 13, leave out from ("except") to ("section") in line 14.—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: On the question of rent I can reassure the noble Lord by saying that the Act provides that the full fair rent shall be paid.
LORD HASTINGS: The Act of 1922 does.
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes, and nothing in this Bill repeals that; but we have been advised that one of the obstacles to the provision of allotments and allotment gardens for the unemployed has been the restrictions imposed quite rightly for the provision of normal allotments under the Acts of 1922 and 1925, when the limit was raised from 1d. to 1¼d. The present Bill proposes to remove those restrictions from local authorities in Clause 15, and in Clause 14 power is given to the Minister to act concurrently and also to have these restrictions removed. It has been found that it is necessary for the purpose of running this admittedly emergency scheme—a scheme on which in the opinion of the Government it is worth while possibly to lose a certain sum of money—at once to remove these restrictions, and for that reason I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment because undoubtedly it must have the effect of very much hampering the development of the scheme.
LORD HASTINGS: I cannot say I like withdrawing this Amendment because it seems to me to encourage the Minister to spend money when he ought not to spend it. Is that all the noble Earl can say in justification for the clause? Why should not the Minister be as capable

851
as anybody else of running a self-contained and self-supporting scheme?
EARL STANHOPE: I should be prepared to support the Amendment if it imposed a restriction upon the Minister in the acquisition of land. I have heard of a case where the Minister himself thinks of taking for allotments building land of high value. That is not the purpose of the Amendment which only seeks to restrict the Minister in losing money on the running of allotments. I fully sympathise with my noble friend in wishing to make the Minister run these things economically and on sound business lines, but we have to realise that he is going to deal with men who have been out of employment for a very long period—for instance in the mining areas—and I should be sorry to do anything in the way of restricting allotments for that type of men and giving them some chance of work which at present they are unable to find.
LORD HASTINGS: I am very much disinclined to withdraw. I think I will stick to my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD HASTINGS: Lord Clinton's Amendment to insert a proviso at the end of subsection (1) deals with exactly the same point as the previous Amendment of the same character, and therefore will not be moved. As to my Amendment to leave out subsection (2), I feel that, it must be of some importance as it stands in my name, though it does not seem to fit in with any of my views, and I do not intend to move it. I feel that somebody put it there who knows more about it than I do. Perhaps I may be allowed to move it on Report, if necessary.
THE EARL OF LINDSAY THE EARL OF LINDSAY moved, in subsection (5) after "its" ["one of its objects"] to insert "main." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is of a certain amount of importance. In Clause 14 the Minister has power to acquire land for allotment purposes not exceeding an acre. He cannot delegate those powers to any society or any local authority, but—and this is the point—he can delegate his powers for equipping them and providing them with fertilisers and so on. The Minister, I contend, should only be entitled to delegate those powers to
852
societies which exist for furthering profitable promotion of allotments and garden allotments. The Amendment is all the more necessary when you come to Clause 17, where the Minister is empowered to make grants for assisting the provision of seeds, fertilisers and equipment. If grants of public money are to be made to these so-called societies it should be most carefully ascertained that they are confined to bona fide allotment societies formed for the sole purpose of providing allotments. In Clause 20 your Lordships will find that societies include "any body of persons whether incorporated or unincorporated." I maintain that the definition is all too lax, and that something of the kind I suggest should be inserted to ensure that these people who have the handling of public funds are proper persons to whom to delegate these powers.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 1, after ("its") insert ("main").—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I really do not think any advantage would be gained by inserting this word. The effect would be to knock out, for instance, the Society of Friends, who are really responsible for having started this work. They started the work and then received assistance from the Mansion House Fund, and as a result of seeing what they did the Minister decided to take up this work. But if we were to insert this word no one could pretend that the main work of the Society of Friends is the provision of allotments. It would be to knock out the most important body at present responsible.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: Is there any other society that deals with allotments like the Society of Friends? Is it not the most important?
EARL DE LA WARR: Speaking off-hand, I think it is the main one. It is the most important voluntary body.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My noble friend's idea is that any society might ask the Government for a grant. A society as a rule has articles of association and, if one of those articles stated that the provision of allotments was one of its main objects, then it could get grants, but not any society that asked.
EARL DE LA WARR: Any body can ask for it, but that does not say they will get it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Power of Minister to defray losses incurred by local authorities in providing allotment gardens for unemployed persons.
(2) If the Minister approves the proposals and estimates of the council, either without modifications or with such modifications as he may require, the Minister may, subject to such conditions as to records, certificates, audit or otherwise, as with the approval of the Treasury he may determine, undertake to defray in any year the loss shown in the approved estimates as likely to be incurred in that year by the council in providing allotment gardens for such persons as aforesaid in accordance with the proposals.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, in subsection (2), before "loss," to insert "whole or such part as he thinks fit of the." The noble Lord said: I think my Amendment will commend itself to the noble Earl. It only intensifies the power given to the Minister to defray the possible loss, and it would be an inducement to the local authorities to frame good proposals and to frame them more precisely, while it would also be an inducement to the Minister because he need not pay the whole of the loss but only part of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 23, after the first ("the") insert ("whole or such part as he thinks fit of the").—(Lord Lamington.)
EARL DE LA WARR: If the noble Lord will look at subsection (2) on page 17, lines 18 and 19, he will sec that the Minister has Already power to approve estimates without modifications, or with such modifications as he may require. That covers in different words the point he raises.
LORD LAMINGTON: Then, if my proposal is superfluous, I shall withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Power of Minister to make grants for assisting in the provision of seeds, fertilisers and equipment for unemployed persons.
(2) The Minister may constitute a committee for the purpose of advising him as to the exercise and performance of his powers and duties under this section and for the purpose of performing such other functions in connection with those powers and duties as he may direct, and the expenses of the committee (including the remuneration of any officers of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries appointed to assist the committee) shall, up to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury, be defrayed as part of the expenses of the Minister under this Act.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (2), after "committee," to insert "of whose members at least one shall be a woman." The noble Viscount said: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 40, after ("committee") insert ("of whose members at least one shall be a woman").—(Viscount Astor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I will accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERNIE OF THAME: I object on the ground that it is not compulsory to have any man at all. If Lord Astor were Minister of Agriculture he might appoint all women and have no men at all.
EARL DE LA WARR: If the noble Lord likes to put down an Amendment I will consider it favourably.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to insert after Clause 17:
". Before proceeding with the erection of any dwelling-houses or buildings under this Act or approving the erection of any such dwelling-houses or buildings, the Minister or appropriate local authority shall be satisfied that the design of the proposed buildings and the materials to be used for their construction are such as will be appropriate for the site and harmonious with the surroundings. For this purpose the Minister or appropriate local authority shall consult a properly qualified architect or panel of architects approved for the purpose by the President for the time being of the Royal Institute of British Architects."
The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will be aware that if and when

855
this Bill passes there will be a great development of small holdings up and down the country. Individual small holdings may be created or estates taken and developed for that purpose. I think it is most important that we should take every step we can to see that when these estates are developed and the houses and buildings are erected in the different parts of the country, the amenities of the countryside are considered. It is possible that buildings which would be most suitable in Surrey would spoil the landscape and appearance of the countryside if put up in Worcestershire or Gloucestershire. I think it is desirable that we should keep the local characteristics of the houses. We ought also to avoid any stereotyped form of buildings being put up all over the country.
There are three precedents for this Amendment. The first is contained in a circular issued by the Minister of Health in 1928. In that circular the Minister calls the attention of local authorities to the fact that panels of architects have been set up by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England in connection with the Royal Institute of British Architects and urges all local authorities to consult those panels. In a Private Act, the Malvern Hills Act, 1930, there is a section making it necessary for persons erecting stalls to work in consultation with an advisory panel set up by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England in connection with the Royal Institute of British Architects. Lastly, Section 60 of the Housing Act, 1925, provides that in order to secure that the houses proposed to be built shall be of suitable architecture and the natural amenities of the locality shall not be unnecessarily injured, the Minister may
"in any case where it appears to him that the character of the locality renders such a course expedient, require as a condition of his approval the employment by the local authority of an architect to be selected from a panel of architects nominated for the purpose by the Royal Institute of British Architects."
I claim there are ample precedents for drafting a clause on the lines of my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 17 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Astor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: On the general merits of what lies behind this Amendment I do not think any member of the House could possibly disagree with it. The only question is how to deal with this matter. I submit that by putting such an Amendment into the land settlement portion of the Bill we deal with a very small part of the problem in a very piecemeal way. It is a national question and it must be dealt with on national lines. If legislation is necessary on the matter, I suggest that the noble Viscount should turn his attention to the Town Planning Bill where the Amendment would be much more appropriate. Moreover, with regard to our own building operations all our plans at the Ministry are done by qualified architects, who are members of the Institute. It is unnecessary to single out the Minister of Agriculture for this special treatment. I admit, of course, that there is a general national question that has to he settled at some time. I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I think there is a good deal in what the noble Earl has said. A noble Lord referred to a circular. I do not think a circular would be of any use. Many things spoil the countryside and no one has done anything like the amount of harm caused by the by-laws of the local authorities with the houses they have built and by the Electricity Commissioners with the erections that they have put up. Therefore, when the noble Earl opposite says we are to have complete confidence in his Department I hope he is correct, but I am afraid I have no confidence in any Government Department.
LORD POLWARTH: I hope the noble Earl opposite will not discourage the suggestion altogether. An important point was made by the noble Viscount of the danger of having a uniform type of house for this vast number of small holdings which are to be established all over the country. I should ask that some application suitable to Scotland should be made. Further, in regard to house building by different local authorities, they at least have their discretion, but at present throughout Scotland we are suffering from a particularly hideous type of small holding erected by the Department of Agriculture, not in one county, but in many counties in Scot-

857
land. That is the danger which may arise if the Ministry of Agriculture consult their own architect and he adopts one type and plants it all over the country, from the South of England, possibly, to the extreme North of Scotland. That is a real danger which requires to be guarded against.
EARL DE LA WARR: On the point of uniformity I will give an undertaking that we will take into consideration the idiosyncracies of particular districts. In the matter of Scotland, your Lordships will realise that I am not personally responsible, but I will convey your Lordships' message to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am glad to hear that assurance from the noble Earl, but I remember that when housing was introduced a similar assurance was given on behalf of the Government of the day. I think it was a Coalition Government, but it does not matter; they are all the same. I know that in Scotland no houses were allowed to get the grant unless they were of the usual type which appealed to the architect who happened to be appointed by the Local Government Board of that time.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I hope the noble Earl will not reject this Amendment. It is quite true a similar Amendment might be moved in the Town Planning Bill, and when it comes here I dare say we shall do so, but if we do it then it will not prevent us from doing it in this Bill. If we do not put it on the Statute Book now it will be too late to do anything. I think it is desirable for the Town Planning Bill and also for this Bill. A similar Amendment is in the Housing Act of 1925. I hope therefore the Minister in this or some other form will be prepared to accept it.
LORD DANESFORT: I hope the noble Earl will consider this matter before Report stage. No doubt a great many hideous buildings of different sorts have been put up by local bodies or others in different parts of the country, and they have very greatly spoiled the beauties and amenities of places. The Ministry propose under this to put up an enormous number of buildings for the purpose of small holdings. The only object of this Amendment is the desirable
858
one of ensuring that the countryside shall not be defiled. The noble Earl says we have architects. But how are we too control those architects? If they put up horrible buildings you cannot turn the Ministry out, but, if there is a clause in the Bill that they must consult a responsible body of architects before they put up a building, then there is some assurance the countryside will not suffer.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I ask the noble Earl to try to find a form of words to meet the point? Nothing has done more against small holdings than the type of dwelling often provided. I would draw the noble Earl's attention to the admirable system adopted in the Minister's scheme at Sutton Bridge, where the lay out and the type of building are extremely good. It is important, if we are going to develop small holdings, to satisfy the public and the countryside on this point.
EARL DE LA WARR: I cannot but feel that this onslaught on the architecture of the Ministry of Agriculture is rather unfair. The noble Marquess mentioned Sutton Bridge. I have seen many settlements and buildings and most of our plans, and I think they reach an exceptionally high standard. But that is not the point. There are many things we should like to do. The question is, where is the most appropriate place? The question of rural amenities and planning does not come in here. It is inappropriate. I just mention the question of legislation affecting the Crown, which will have to come up when this provision can be appropriately made. I hope I shall not be asked to go any further except to assure your Lordships that we have this matter very closely in mind in regard both to small holdings and to allotments. We shall certainly safeguard the principle.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I do not intend to insult the Ministry's architecture. I am more afraid of that of the local authorities. It is very desirable that something should be clone to prevent them having a completely free hand. Perhaps I may see if I can provide some better wording on Report. I am, in any case, ready to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 18:
Procedure as to validity of orders.
19. Subsection (3) of Section thirty-nine of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908 (which relates to the procedure for compulsory acquisition of land) is hereby repealed and the following provisions shall be substituted therefor:—
(3)—(a) An order under this section shall be of no force unless and until it is confirmed by the Minister, and the Minister may, subject to the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, confirm the order either without modification or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit.
(b) So soon as may be after an order has effect the Minister shall publish in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as he thinks best adapted for informing persons affected, a notice stating that the order has come into force, and naming a place where a copy thereof may be seen at all reasonable hours.
(c) If any person aggrieved by an order made by the Minister under this section, desires to question its validity on the ground that it is not within the powers of this Act or that any requirement of this Act has not been complied with, he may, within six weeks after the publication of the notice mentioned in paragraph (b) hereof, make an application for the purpose to the High Court, and if any such application is duly made, the Court, if satisfied that the order is not within the powers of this Act or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of this Act not having been complied with, may quash the order either generally or in so far as it affects the applicant.
(d) Subject to the provisions of the last preceding paragraph an order shall not at any time be questioned by prohibition or certiorari or in any legal proceedings whatsoever.
(e) Except by leave of the Court of Appeal no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal in proceedings under this section.
The noble Lord said: This looks rather formidable, but I think I can explain it in a few sentences. The Amendment raises the whole question of the power of the Minister, which has often been discussed in this House, and the Lord Chief Justice has, I believe, written a book on it. I believe there is a Royal Commission enquiring into the matter. The subsection that I wish to repeal runs as follows. The sting is in the last part:
"An order under this section shall be of no force unless and until it is confirmed by the Board, and the Board may, subject to the provisions of the First Schedule to this
860
Act, confirm the order either without modification or subject to such modifications as they think fit"—
here is the sting—
"and an order when so confirmed shall become final and have effect as if enacted in this Act; and the confirmation by the Board shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the order has been duly made and is within the powers of this Act."
Your Lordships have on more than one occasion refused to give these powers to a Minister. No Minister should be above the law. This Act of 1908 hardly reads democratically. It seems much more like the power of a Tsar or a Lenin. I am suggesting words in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) which I can explain very briefly, and the reason why I have chosen those words is that they are the exact words taken out of the Land Drainage Act of 1930, put in, I believe, by tile present Government. Paragraph (b) provides that the Minister shall publish in the London Gazette as soon as may be after an order has effect a notice stating that the order has come into force and stating where a copy may be seen. Paragraph (c) shows a person aggrieved how to appeal. I hope I have made clear what my intentions are, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 18, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Dynevor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The object of this Amendment is to give an owner of land in respect of which an order for compulsory acquisition has been made for the purpose of small holdings or allotments, a right to apply to the High Court if he desires to question the validity of the order on the ground that it is not within the powers of the Acts or that any requirement of the Acts has not been complied with. It will be realised by your Lordships that a power by an owner to apply to the High Court as proposed will give unlimited opportunities for obstruction and delay in regard to the acquisition of land. For example, Section 41 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, provides that
"a council in making, and the Minister in confirming, an order for the compulsory acquisition of land, shall, so far as practicable, avoid taking an undue or inconvenient quantity of land from any one tenant, and shall have regard to the convenience of other property belonging to or occupied by the same owner or tenant."

861
These requirements would give any obstructive landowner opportunity for holding up an order by questioning its validity in the High Court on the ground that the requirements of the Act quoted above have not been complied with.
Apart from the merits of the case as argued by the noble Lord, let me remind your Lordships that these powers have been in existence and have worked quite satisfactorily for twenty-two years, and during that period amending legislation has been introduced by Governments representing all the different Parties in the State. On no occasion has any Minister of Agriculture or any Government of whatever complexion thought it necessary to alter these powers. I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord moved this same Amendment to the Act of 1926 when the question of small holdings came up. I do not know why the Labour Government should be met with Amendments on small holdings, when a Government of another complexion is not. At any rate, for the last twenty-two years no Government has found any cause for saying that these powers are unsatisfactory in their operation. The noble Lord referred to the fact that these powers are mentioned in the book of the Lord Chief Justice. We are all perfectly aware that the principle which was raised in that book is at the present moment under investigation by a Committee presided over by Lord Donoughmore, and I cannot help feeling that it would be a mistake to anticipate the Report of that Committee by changing powers such as those that are being investigated. I suggest therefore that, as these powers have been

CONTENTS.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Morton, E.

Bayford, L.

Wellington, D.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Onslow, E.

Berwick, L.

Exeter, M.

Peel, E.

Biddulph, L.

Poulett, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Airlie, E.

Radnor, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Albemarle, E.

Sandwich, E.

Bradford, E.

Stanhope, E.

Danesfort, L.

Cawdor, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Ellenborough, L.

Astor, V.

Erskine, L.

Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Lauderdale, E.

Hailsham, V.

Hastings, L.

Lindsay, E.

Hereford, V.

Heneage, L.

Lindsey, E.

Hood, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Liverpool, E.

Sidmouth, V.

Lamington, L.

Lucan, E.

Lawrence, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Addington, L.

Middleton, L.

in operation for a very long time without any criticism, and as also they are under general investigation, the right thing to do would be to leave this Bill as it is, and then, if later the whole general policy is to be altered as a result of the Report of this Committee, the matter will have to be dealt with on a general basis as affecting all legislation.
LORD DYNEVOR: The Government put this Amendment in because, if I remember rightly, there were some very objectionable words in their Land Drainage Bill. I put down an Amendment, and Lord Bayford also put down an Amendment, and then, to our great delight, we found that the Government were willing to go much further than we were, and put down this excellent Amendment to the Land Drainage Bill. The, noble Earl says it has stood the test of time. But surely the noble Earl is; not suggesting that the powers given in this Bill are not comparable to the powers given to the county councils in 1908. Surely under this Bill the Minister is going to be his own arbitrator, and there should be some appeal from the decision of the Minister.
EARL DE LA WARR: A comparison with the Land Drainage Act is not really applicable, because, in the only case where this alteration was inserted, it was a question of dealing with other owners. It is a very different situation here.
On Question, Whether the said new clause shall be here inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 10.

Oriel, L. (V.Massereene.)

Redesdale, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Polwarth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)

Wavertree, L.

Queenborough, L.

Wraxall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

De La Warr, E.

Gainford, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Rochester, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Sanderson, L.

Amulree, L.

Snell, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 19 agreed to.
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD had given Notice to move to insert a new clause after Clause 19. The noble Lord said: If I may be allowed to do so, I would like to move the Amendment in the form of Lord Clinton's Amendment. The only difference is that in line 3 the period is put down as four years instead of three. We have already had a discussion on the general subject, and all I need say is that those on this side of the House regard some such limitation as of primary importance. We feel that, if the Bill is to go through, it is necessary that some such clause should be inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 19 insert the following new clause:
Duration of powers of Minister.
The powers conferred on the Minister by this Part of this Act may be exercised by him during the period of four years from the commencement of this Act and no longer:
Provided that the expiry of such powers shall not—

(a) affect the previous exercise thereof or of anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

(b) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred thereunder; or

(c) affect any legal proceeding, arbitration, remedy or investigation in respect of such right, privilege, obligation or liability as aforesaid;

and any such legal proceeding, arbitration, remedy or investigation may be instituted, enforced or continued as if the powers aforesaid had not expired.—(Lord Bayford.)
EARL DE LA WARR: As we have already had a general debate on the subject, it is unnecessary for me to say more than that the Government do not accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Financial provisions.
22.—(1) The Treasury may, subject to such conditions as they may determine, issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof—
(a) such sums as may be required for the purpose of financing the operations of the Agricultural Land Corporation not exceeding in the aggregate one million pounds;
(d) such sums as may be required by the Minister for the purchase of land or the erection of buildings for the provision of small holdings and for such other expenses in connection with the provision of small holdings as may be agreed by the Treasury and the Minister to be capital expenditure;
(e) such sums as may be required by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for the purchase of land or the erection of buildings for the provision of holdings for unemployed persons and for such other expenses in connection with such provision as may be agreed by the Treasury and the said Department to be capital expenditure.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: This is merely consequential on what the House did yesterday. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 38, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: The next two Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, line 3, leave out ("Sections two and") and insert ("Section")
line 11, leave out ("Sections two and") and insert ("Section").—Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD DYNEVOR LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (1) (d), after "sums," to insert "not exceeding in the aggregate ten million

865
pounds." The noble Lord said: This is an important Amendment to move at this late hour, but I will be brief. My proposal is to put some limit in the capital expenditure by the Minister for the provision of allotments and small holdings. It seems to me most desirable there should be some limit put into the Bill. There is no limit in the Bill of the amount of capital expenditure that the Minister can incur in the provision of small holdings and allotments. It may be said that my Amendment is a Privilege one, but I would point out that it is a limiting one—limiting the expenditure and taxation to be paid. The Financial Memorandum which accompanied this Bill says:
"It is impossible to foresee with any precision what expenditure will be necessary for the Minister to incur in the provision of small holdings and allotments."
Since I put the Amendment on the Paper the situation has changed a little, because your Lordships have taken out Clause 10, under which the Minister meant to make a very big capital expenditure in what we called coercing the county councils who it was thought were not providing enough small holdings. For the time being we have put an end to that, but that clause may come back again into the Bill, so I must argue as though it were still in it. It is quite clear that if the Minister attempts to create anything like 100,000 small holdings that would cost at the very least £100,000,000. When we remember that there are 2,500,000 unemployed, and 800,000 to 900,000 agricultural labourers, all of whom have a right to ask the Minister for small holdings, and your Lordships have added another category of applicants this afternoon in the ex-Service men, I do not think it is at all an exaggerated figure to state the Minister will try to provide 100,000 small holdings at a capital cost of at least £100,000,000. I am not certain that the right figure would not be nearer £200,000,000. For that reason I think we ought to limit the capital expenditure, and I suggest the figure of £10,000,000.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 18, after ("sums") insert ("not exceeding in the aggregate ten million pounds").—(Lord Dynevor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the position is the same here as with the noble Lord, Lord Bayford's Amendment. We
866
had the statement of the Government then. The Government do not accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, in subsection (1) (e), after "sums" to insert "not exceeding in the aggregate seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds." The noble Earl said: My Amendment is on all fours with that moved by my noble friend Lord Dynevor, except that it applies simply to Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 25, after ("sums") insert ("not exceeding in the aggregate seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds").—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Amendment to omit this clause is consequential on the Land Corporation having been eliminated.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 23.—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Clause 23 disagreed to.
Clause 24 [Treasury concurrence]:
LORD HASTINGS: My Amendment to this clause also is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 1, leave out ("two").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25:
Application to Scotland.
25. In the application of this Act to Scotland the following provisions shall have effect:—
(a) Except for the purposes of Sections one, twenty-two and twenty-three a reference to the Minister shall be construed as a reference to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland (hereinafter in this section referred to as the Department) provided that any reference to the Minister in the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act regarding the making and submission to Parliament of Provisional Orders shall be construed as a reference to the Secretary of State; a reference to the council of a borough, urban district, or parish, shall be construed, as a reference to a town or a district council, and a reference to a borough, urban district, or parish, shall be construed accordingly; any reference in Part II of this Act to a county council shall not apply, and the expression "easement" means servitude.
(e) The powers conferred by Section three in regard to the acquisition of land shall, notwithstanding anything in the proviso to subsection (1) of that section, be without prejudice to the power of the Department under any Act for the time being in force to acquire land compulsorily for reclamation or drainage, and any land acquired under the last mentioned power shall be deemed to have been acquired under the said Section three, and in the application of the said section the expression "owner" in the case of land held under an entail means the institute or heir of entail in possession, in the case of land subject to a life rent, means the liferenter and in any other case means the person entitled to the fee; the expression "agricultural buildings" means buildings which are included in any agricultural land and heritages as defined in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928; the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution shall be substituted for the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution, and any reference to consultation with the council of the county shall be omitted.
(h) Subsection (3) of Section sixteen of this Act shall apply with the substitution of a reference to the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund for any reference to the Small Holdings Account.
(i) Section one of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919, which relates to the compulsory acquisition of land for the purposes of the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918, shall have effect as if the limitation of the period, during which the powers thereby conferred may be exercised, were omitted, and any provision in any Act in force at the passing of this Act which limits the period for which that section is to remain in operation shall cease to have effect.
(k) Subsections (8) and (9) of Section three, and Sections eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, and eighteen, and paragraph (c) of Part I of the First Schedule shall not apply.
LORD HASTINGS: My first two Amendments to this clause are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 7, leave out ("Sections one") and insert ("Section")
line 8, leave out ("and twenty-three").—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Amendment also is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 8, at end insert ("or to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 15, leave out paragraph (d).—(Lord Hastings.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE moved, after paragraph (d), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(e) There shall be added to the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section four the following words 'or which lies within a burgh or which forms part of a feuing estate, or which can be reasonably shown to have a prospective feuing values'"
The noble Earl said: By Clause 3 (2) the Minister—or, in Scotland, the Department of Agriculture—if it appears to him that any piece of land suitable for agricultural purposes cannot be satisfactorily so used by reason of its being in a seriously neglected condition caused by the failure of the owner to execute any works of maintenance, may after certain procedure require the execution of those works. If his requirements are not complied with, he may acquire the land compulsorily. The first point to be noted is that the decision whether a piece can be used for agricultural purposes by reason of its condition lies with the Minister. He may, it is true, obtain a report on the condition of the land, but the ultimate decision after receiving the report rests with him.
The next point to notice is that Clause 3 applies to "any piece of land suitable for agricultural purposes," and the only lands now excluded from the scope of the Bill are those mentioned in Clause 4 (1) (b)—namely, land which is the property of any local authority; land acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water or public undertaking; land which forms part of any common or town or village green; any land used as a public park, garden or pleasure ground; land used for public recreation; or land to which the National Trust Act, 1907, applies. There are many areas of land in private ownership in towns or adjacent to towns which could conceivably be used for agricultural purposes, but which for good reasons are not so used because they are in a transitional stage. The areas are so small that there is no hope of working them conveniently or even economically. Therefore it should be recognised that there are

869
many areas of land in this transitional period; they have reached a stage at which it is no longer expedient, convenient or economically profitable to work them for agricultural purposes.
But on the other hand such lands may not yet have reached the stage of being appropriated for building purposes. Manifestly it would be unfair if the owners of such lands were to be forced to surrender them on a compulsory basis for agricultural purposes and at an agricultural value. Unless the Bill is amended great injustice will undoubtedly result; and I submit that such owners are quite as much entitled to be protected as local authorities are by Clause 4 (1) (b). That can only be secured by an Amendment which places outside the scope of the Bill any piece of land "which lies within a burgh or which forms part of a feuing estate, or which can be reasonably shown to have a prospective feuing value." Your Lordships are aware that a familiar way of disposing of land in Scotland is by feuing. Instead of paying cash down the disponee acquires the dominium utile by paying a perpetual feu duty to his superior, and so long as he does not fail to implement the conditions under which the feu was granted he retains undisturbed possession.
Amendment moved:
Page 24, line 16, at end, insert the said new paragraph (e).—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
EARL DE LA WARR: The purpose of this Amendment appears to be to prevent the compulsory acquisition by the Department of Agriculture of any land which has or may eventually have special value as a building site. Although the Amendment applies only to Scotland, because of the fact that feuing is a tenure peculiar to Scotland, I think the principle should apply equally to any land taken in England; but in the view of the Department the Amendment as it stands would provide very great material for obstruction or contention, and in any case it does constitute quite an unnecessary limitation on land which might be taken. There are certain sites in Scotland to which are attached very considerable areas of rural land which might well without any justification be excepted by this Amendment, but the noble Earl must realise that naturally it would not
870
be the desire of anybody responsible for the expenditure of this money to be tied up by purchasing at an unnecessarily high value building sites which are quite unnecessary for the purpose of this Bill. I think the noble Earl can rest assured that whether the Amendment is carried or not the purpose which he has in mind will really be carried out under the Bill. On the other hand, there is no doubt that this Amendment would cause great and unnecessary obstruction.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: It appears to me that this is not so much a question of the acquisition of land as the compulsory acquisition of land which would be assessed at its agricultural and not at its building value.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Earl is under a misapprehension. There would have to be arbitration, and it would be assessed at its real value.
LORD POLWARTH: I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment in the form in which it appears on the Paper, because the words "in a burgh" would certainly in many cases include purely agricultural land, which is evidently not the intention of the noble Earl. Some burghs in Scotland have taken in ordinary farm land for four or five miles round. Take the case of the City of Edinburgh, which comprises purely agricultural land which is not likely to become building land.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON moved, in paragraph (e), to leave out "the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution shall be substituted for the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution" and insert "for the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution there shall be substituted the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution in consultation with the President of the Scottish Estate Factors' Society" The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put down because it is very doubtful if the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution is the person to select an arbitrator to deal with disputes arising under Clause 3 of the Bill. A person

871
to be appointed arbiter should have very extensive experience in the management of an agricultural estate. It is generally believed that a large portion of the Scottish Committee are surveyors practising in Glasgow, with an urban, rather than an agricultural experience. I believe there has only been one member of the Scottish Committee who has ever been President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution—namely, Sir James Inglis Davidson, who is a very outstanding person.
It is probably a debatable and delicate matter to suggest altering this Part of the Bill inasmuch as the Reference Committee, who appoint arbiters for the purpose of the acquisition of land under this Bill, consist of the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk, and the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution. This Amendment, however, does not seek to eliminate the Chairman of the Scottish Committee, but simply provides that he Shall consult with the President of the Scottish Estate Factors' Society, as it is the members of that society who are principally concerned with the management of agricultural estates. A further argument in support of this Amendment is that negotiations are now proceeding between the Factors' Society and the Surveyors' Institution to amalgamate. In the Factors' Magazine of last February there occurs a report of what took place in this respect at the meeting of the Factors' Society on December 2 last, and if the amalgamation of which I have spoken should take place the co-operation which is suggested by this Amendment would seem very appropriate. I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 36, leave out from ("1928") to ("and") in line 39 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I am informed that the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution is the representative body in Scotland just as the Surveyors' Institution is in England of our surveying profession and that, therefore, the Chairman of that Committee is the appropriate person in Scotland for making this nomination. As regards the question of amalgamation, that is something for the future and we do not know
872
what form it would take. No doubt, if it does take place, it might be necessary to make some alteration in the Bill. As things are, I am informed very definitely that the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution is the official body and it would, therefore, be wise to let the Bill remain as it is.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I hope my noble friend will press this to a Division, as the noble Earl does not understand these Scottish matters. There are very few people on the Surveyors' Institution who know anything about agricultural land and, therefore, they are not the right people to select. The Bill says the President of the Surveyors' Institution, an Englishman living in London, and he cannot possibly know—
EARL DE LA WARR: The Bill definitely says the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: It does not alter my argument very much. He is not a person who has much to do with agricultural land.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 40, after ("county") insert ("or county borough").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON moved, in paragraph (f), to leave out "either." The noble Lord said: It is very desirable that, in accordance with the practice that has obtained in England,, the Minister should only create small holdings on land he has already acquired. That practice should he pursued in Scotland too. The system of small holdings is an experiment and it would be hard if landlords were to have their land taken for purposes not too good. The Land Committee reported about the establishment of these extensive small holdings in the Lowlands of Scotland, and distinctly said that the practice of small holdings on privately owned estates should be discontinued in the Lowlands and in other districts of Scotland where the conditions are akin to those in the Lowlands. That was a very authoritative Committee and that was their opinion. It is very

873
hard, indeed, that this system should be put into practice on land which has not been acquired by the State.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 3, leave out ("either").—(Lord Lamington.)
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I beg to support the Amendment. The provision of small holdings for the unemployed no doubt is experimental. Therefore, it is rather bad that an experiment should be tried on land in private ownership as against land held by the State.
EARL DE LA WARR: At present the Department have this power to form holdings of land purchased by them or on private holdings. They have had the power, I think, for 19 or 20 years.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Not for the unemployed.
EARL DE LA WARR: No; but they have had this power in regard to small holdings, and in this particular matter there is no vital difference in principle.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: But the class of person put on the land is so different. You are going to put a lot of tyros on the land who do not know anything about farming.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think that is begging the question. To say the least of it, I think it is rather regrettable that these unemployed men, whom we hope to give another start in life, should be described as tyros. I see no difference at all in principle between having one class of small holder on the land or another. The question of principle is whether they should have small holdings on private land or not and that is the point of the Amendment.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: Why not in England?
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Duke will have an opportunity of speaking, so, perhaps, he will permit me to finish. As I have said, this power has been in existence, I gather, for between nineteen and twenty years. I really do not think that any noble Lord has given any sufficient reason for suddenly seeking to take this power away from the Department. They have given no particular reason for what is a very revolutionary change in policy. I hope therefore the Depart-
874
ment will be left in full possession of its existing powers for settling small holders on the land. After all, this primarily is a Bill for increasing the supply of small holdings in Great Britain and not to decrease them.
LORD LAMINGTON: I have had some experience on my own estate of land being taken for small holdings. A farm was taken, lines were cut through the farm buildings and two families are now living where one family and farm servants lived before. I do not know what benefit has accrued to anybody: I do not think any at all. If you extend that system to the unemployed who probably know nothing about the cultivation of land, I think it will he very disastrous and hard on any landowner who is subject to it.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am very disappointed with the answer of the noble Earl. His argument is that because an injustice has been going on for nineteen or twenty years it ought to be continued for ever or be accentuated. No reason whatever has been given for doing this. I hope the experiment may be successful in England though many people doubt it. The whole of this land is going to be purchased by the Ministry in England and these people put on. In Scotland no land is to be purchased nor is the Department given power to take land. The unfortunate landowner will have to stand the racket of any failure. On some small holdings buildings are erected which as a rule are not very good. If by any means a holding becomes derelict and the small holder gives it up and no one will take it, after him, the landlord is responsible for the balance. The sinking fund is a very low one. All the expenditure will be put up against his wishes but without any approval of his and probably in an uneconomic way. I hope the Government will see we are not making an outrageous claim.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. I rather think the noble Lord has a majority and if so I will not ask your Lordships to divide while making it clear the Government do not accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton I beg to move the Amend-

875
ment standing in his name. It is merely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 24, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("seventeen").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: The next Amendments in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, line 10, leave out ("twelve"
line 11, after ("eighteen") insert ("and Section twelve in so far as it
876
relates to small holdings").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past twelve o'clock, midnight.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the petitions for additional provision in the following Bills ought to be dispensed with:

London County Council (General Powers).

London Midland and Scottish Railway.

Read, and agreed to.
ROTHERHAM RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
BACUP CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

TAMWORTH CORPORATION BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
DAGENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
ROMFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
FELIXSTOWE AND DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]
LOWER AVON NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl Cawdor be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Auckland: Read and agreed to.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection That the Viscount Hood be proposed to the House as a member of the Joint Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Monteagle (M. Sligo): Read, and agreed to.