Sitting of 30 April 1931

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Yorkshire (Woollen District) Transport Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next, at half-past Seven of the Clock.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Aylesbury Joint Hospital District and Stretford and District Gas Board) Bill,
"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Aylesbury Joint Hospital District and the Stretford and District Gas Board," presented by Mr. Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (BIRKENHEAD AND CHEPPING WYCOMBE BILL),
  "to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Birkenhead and Chepping Wycombe," presented by Mr. Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GREAT MARLOW WATER AND YEADON WATER) BILL,
  "to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Great Marlow Water and Yeadon Water," presented by Mr. Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HERNE BAY WATER AND SOUTHEND WATER) BILL,
  "to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Herne Bay Water and Southend Water," presented by Mr. Greenwood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  UNEMPLOYMEN.

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Labour if she will state how many people unemployed in the cotton industry have been found work by schemes initiated by the present Government?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.
    Mr. REMER: Are we to take it that no schemes have been initiated?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Not at all.

    MECHANISATION (DISPLACED WORKERS).
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Minister of Labour whether any statistics are collected which would indicate the number of persons displaced owing to the introduction of improved machinery or devices; and, if not, whether she will consider the possibility of such statistics being collected?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The question of collecting statistics of this kind is being carefully considered; it has not been found practicable to obtain comprehensive and reliable figures on the subject, but we are following up such facts as come to our notice.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will ally returns of that kind include schemes for which grants have been given by the Unemployment Grants Committee?
    Miss BONDFIELD: This is a question of the displacement of particular persons by machinery.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: As there are schemes for which grants are given, where such displacement of labour takes place, will these be included?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the information which the Minister of Labour is trying to collect include the reabsorption of such persons either in the same industry or in other industries?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That is what I am trying to do.

    STATISTICS.
    Captain BOURNEasked the Minister of Labour if she can give the estimated number of persons in employment on 1st April, 1931, or on the nearest convenient date, and the corresponding figures for 1930, 1929, and 1928?
    Miss BONDFIELD: It is estimated that the numbers of insured persons, aged 16 to 64, in employment in Great Britain were approximately as follow:

    23rd March, 1931

    …

    9,267,200

    24th March, 1930

    …

    9,981,000

    25th March, 1929

    …

    10,200,700

    26th March, 1928

    …

    10,100,800

    These figures have been obtained by deducting from the estimated numbers insured, the numbers recorded as unemployed and the numbers directly involved in trade disputes together with an allowance of 3½ per cent. of the numbers insured to cover absences from work through sickness, recognised holidays and other forms of unrecorded non-employment.
    Captain BOURNE: Will the right hon. Lady tell me if that includes both men and women?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour the number of married women signing the unemployment registers and the number in receipt of unemployment benefit, respectively, for the last week for which complete figures are available?
    Miss BONDFIELD: It is estimated on the basis of information derived from an inquiry by sample, that at 2nd February, 1931, there were approximately 284,000 married women on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, of whom 271,000 were claimants for benefit. The number actually in receipt of benefit is not available.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons signing the unemployment registers for the last week for which figures are available; and the number of such persons who drew benefit for such period?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at 20th April, 1931, was 2,513,856. The number actually
    1782
    in receipt of benefit is not available but the number with claims to benefit admitted or under consideration at that date was approximately 2,325,000.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Can the Minister of Labour give the number actually in receipt of benefit for the week mentioned in the question?
    Miss BONDFIELD: No, there is always overlapping, and we can never be quite sure whether a certain number of claims under consideration will or will not be granted, although we can state the number of claims at any given date.
    Mr. HAYDAY: My original question was how many received payment for that week, and surely the accounts at the Ministry will show how many received payment for that week.
    Miss BONDFIELD: But that would not have any relation to the number of claims.
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the right hon. Lady give the number disallowed during the month ending on that date?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, if I have notice.

    WORK SCHEME, PONTEFRACT.
    Mr. TOM SMITHasked the Minister of Labour if she can state the position with regard to schemes of work submitted by the Pontefract borough council for consideration by the Unemployment Grants Committee?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Of the two schemes which, as stated in my reply of 5th February to my hon. Friend, were then under consideration by the Unemployment Grants Committee, one small scheme to cost £169 was rejected as ineligible for grant. The other scheme, of an estimated cost of £9,630 has been withdrawn and I understand the Council propose to revise this scheme and submit it again.

    KINGSWAY, DUNDEE (EXTENSION SCHEME).
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that the conditions of grant given for extension of the Kingsway at Dundee have been infringed by the contractor utilising mechanical appliances whereby very few men are being employed; and if she will inquire into the matter?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am not aware of the precise facts in this case, but the conditions under which local authorities receive grants-in-aid of relief schemes do not preclude the use of mechanical appliances.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will the right hon. Lady ascertain whether it is correct that only about half-a-dozen men instead of 130 are employed on this scheme?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I certainly intend to make full inquiries.

    EXCHANCE FACILITIES, LOCHEE AND CLYDESIDE.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Minister of Labour whether it is now the intention of the Department to open a branch Exchange at Lochee, so as to obviate older people having to travel to the central Exchanges in Dundee?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The suggestion of providing special facilities for Lochee was only made to me last week, and my inquiries into the position locally are not yet completed. I will, however, communicate with my hon. Friend in due course.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Minister of Labour (1) if she is aware that the present Employment Exchanges in Kilbowie Street, together with the temporary premises at the Educational Rooms, are inadequate to deal with the 9,756 unemployed persons in Clydebank; and whether she will give consideration to the proposal to take over the Co-operative Hall in Hume Street as an auxiliary Exchange instead of the Educational Rooms as at present;
    (2) if she is aware that about 650 persons have to walk a distance of two miles from Duntocher and Hardgate to the Employment Exchange at Clydebank to sign the registers and to draw benefit; and whether she will take steps to open a new Employment Exchange in Duntocher?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am having the general position in the Clydebank area examined, and will communicate with my hon. Friend when my inquiries are completed.

    AIR MINISTRY STOKERS (INSURANCE).
    Mr. BEAUMONTasked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware of the
    1784
    hardships caused to certain stokers employed by the Air Ministry who have been declared uninsurable after having paid insurance for many years, as a result of the decision in the High Court on 15th April, 1930; and whether she proposes to take any action to remedy their grievance?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I have no power to take any action in this matter without fresh legislation.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: In view of the very grave facts which the right hon. Lady has stated, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Can the Minister of Labour say if there is any right to claim the contribution, assuming that the decision of the judge is upheld, or would that exclude them from unemployment insurance?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Would it not be an act of common justice to refund these contributions in the circumstances?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Those are points of law which have been settled by High Court decisions, and I have no power in the matter.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Will the right hon. Lady pursue the inquiries, seeing that these men are civilian stokers, and it is unfair that they should be charged contributions and afterwards placed outside the Statute.

    ADMINISTRATION.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Labour whether instructions have been given to the officials at Employment Exchanges to encourage unemployed men to look for work on their own account without waiting for vacancies to be notified to them?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am not sure what the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, but in addition to the offer of specific vacancies, written directions are in accordance with Section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, given to claimants for benefit in appropriate cases with a view to assisting them in finding suitable employment.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Have they been instructed to look for work on their own account somewhere else?
    Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that thousands of these people seek employment elsewhere before they go to the Employment Exchange?

    TIVERTON.
    Lieut-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in Tiverton at the present time and at this time last year?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At 20th April, 1931, there were 174 persons on the registers of the Tiverton Employment Exchange. Figures are not available for 21st April, 1930 (Easter Monday), but at 14th April, 1930, the number was 102.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Does not that show the foolishness of doing away with the Lace Duties?

    INSURANCE FUND (CONTRIBUTIONS).
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Minister of Labour what was the total contributed by employers and employés, respectively, in the form of contributions towards the Unemployment Insurance Fund during the year ended 31st March, 1931?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The contributions of employers and workpeople received by the Unemployment Fund during the year ended 31st March, 1931, amounted to approximately £15,970,000 and £13,660,000 respectively.

    DOMESTIC SERVICE.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Labour the estimated number of women who were engaged in domestic service in 1921, and the number at the latest convenient date?
    Miss BONDFIELD: At the population Census of 1921 the number of females enumerated as indoor private domestic servants in Great Britain was 1,270,777. A corresponding figure for a later date is not available.

    INSURANCE (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour the total number of prosecutions for fraud on the Unemployment Fund for the six months ended 31st March, 1931; and what was the number
    1786
    of frauds by direct claims and the number on associated claims, together with the number of convictions respectively?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The number of prosecutions was 502, and in 478 cases convictions were recorded. The statistics do not enable me to give separate figures for direct and association claims respectively.
    Mr. HAYDAY: In view of the fact that two years ago the figures could be given separately, is there any reason why they cannot be given separately now?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I will ascertain, if my hon. Friend will put down a question.

    CENSUS WORK.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Minister of Health what arrangements, if any, were made for providing work for unemployed persons of suitable capacity in connection with the taking of the Census; and whether any instructions on the subject were issued to managers of local Employment Exchanges?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): As I am anxious to give a full and somewhat long reply to this question I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. MILLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman also publish the instructions which were issued to Employment Exchanges?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. and learned Member is not satisfied with the answer which I have sent to him, and which is to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I shall be glad to answer any further questions.
    Mr. BROOKE: Will my right hon. Friend include in his return the number of unemployed people who were found employment?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I can tell my hon. Friend that a much larger proportion were found employment in urban areas than during any previous census—38 per cent.
    Following is the answer:
    As stated in the reply to a Parliamentary question on this subject on the 5th February last, all practicable steps were taken to see that full consideration

    1787
    was given to unemployed persons. The local Census officers charged with the initial selection of enumerators were instructed to give special consideration to unemployed persons who satisfied the necessary requirements; and subsequent detailed instructions were issued that in the case of all districts of an urban character within reach of an Employment Exchange the Census officer should obtain from the Exchange Manager particulars of unemployed candidates, if this had not already been done, and accept any such candidates as could be included without displacing enumerators of distinctly better quality. I understand that the Ministry of Labour, in consultation with the Registrar-General, issued instruction to local Exchange Managers to co-operate with Census officers in this procedure. In fact 12,250 unemployed persons were appointed out of a total of 40,000 enumerators. In urban areas, in which alone it was anticipated that any substantial use could be made of the services of the unemployed, the percentage was 38.
    I should add that the views expressed in the previous Parliamentary reply as to the necessity for caution have been fully justified by experience. The departure in the interests of the unemployed from the normal system of recruitment adopted on previous occasions has been marked by a very substantial number of withdrawals during the few weeks preceding the Census, and even of defaults during the actual course of the operations, notwithstanding the strictest assurances given by the individuals in question that they would serve without fail; and these withdrawals and defaults have involved the substitution on short notice of other persons with correspondingly little preparation. I am satisfied that the interests of the unemployed have been consulted up to the limits of the safety of the Census arrangements—if, indeed, those limits have not in some respects been exceeded.

  DOCK LABOURERS (WAGES).
  Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUELasked the Minister of Labour whether she will state the percentage increase of wages paid to dock labourers in the Port of London Authority area on the latest
  1788
  available date, as compared with pre-War rates; and will she state where this comparison appears in figures given by the Ministry from time to time to show and compare pre-War and post-War wage levels?
  Miss BONDFIELD: The particulars for London are not shown separately in any comparison of pre-War and present wages published by the Ministry of Labour, but they are included in the general figures given on pages 87 and 88 of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for March last, as to the relative levels of wages of dock labourers generally in August, 1914, and December, 1930. No information is available which would enable a statement to be made as regards piece-work earnings.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Is it possible to include in the figures for a future date some sort of dissection so that we should get the London area compared, say, with Liverpool or Newcastle?
  Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly, we will do that.
  Mr. JAMES HALL: Is it not a fact that the wages paid to dockers in London before the War were so low as to call for universal condemnation?

  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX FIGURE.
  Mr. J. HALLasked the Minister of Labour whether she can state the average increase in the rent of controlled working-class houses, and the average increase of working-class houses which have been decontrolled?
  Miss BONDFIELD: It is estimated that the average increase at 1st April over the level of July, 1914, in rents, including rates, was approximately 49 per cent. in the case of controlled working-class dwellings, and about 85 to 90 per cent. in the case of decontrolled working-class dwellings.
  Mr. BROCKWAY: Will the Minister of Labour say if she has any intention of dealing with this matter?
  Miss BONDFIELD: That is a question for another Department.
  Mr. HALLasked the Minister of Labour whether in ascertaining the cost-of-living index figure, account is taken

  1789
  of the rents of working-class houses which have become de-controlled; and whether the rents of post-War working-class houses are included in the calculations?
  Miss BONDFIELD: Rents of working-class houses which have become de-controlled are included in the calculation, but not rents of houses built since the War.

  ALIENS (RUSSIAN SINGERS).
  Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Labour whether any application has been made to her for permission to enter the country by a number of Russian singers to perform at a London theatre next month; and what action she has taken?
  Miss BONDFIELD: After careful consideration, I have decided to grant this application, for a season limited to six weeks, under arrangements which include engagements for between 30 and 40 British choristers, and the employment of about 120 British musicians, stage hands and others.
  Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Lady say how many Russians are to be admitted for this purpose?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I think somewhere about 120; they work in a team.
  Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that this is a highly specialised performance, and that no substitutes can be found in this country?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I understand that that is so.
  Lieut.-Colonel Stir FREDERICK HALL: Will the right hon. Lady draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to these people, in order that he may see that they pay their Income Tax?

  HABITUAL CRIMINALS.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the desirability of setting up a committee to inquire into the treatment and methods of dealing with the habitual criminal, particularly with a view to securing powers to review such cases periodically?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The appointment, composition and terms of reference of the Committee were announced in the Press on the 24th instant. The terms of reference are wide enough to enable the Committee, should it think fit, to rcommend the periodical reviewing of sentences on recidivists or habitual offenders. The question whether new powers would be required in order to enable such review would depend on the nature of the recommendation.
  Mr. FREEMAN: Will this inquiry cover all types of cases and prisoners, and will the public have an opportunity of submitting evidence?
  Mr. SHORT: With regard to the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, that is entirely a matter for the committee. As far as I am aware, the terms of reference are extremely wide.

  SCOTLAND YARD (PRESS BUREAU).
  Sir K. WOODasked the Home Secretary the functions of the Press Bureau at Scotland Yard; how many persons are employed in it; and what is the approximate annual cost of the bureau?
  Mr. SHORT: The Press Bureau staff have instructions to make every endeavour to meet the legitimate demands of the Press for news, so far as this can be done without divulging secret or confidential information, or information the publication of which would be improper on other grounds. The bureau is open from 6 p.m. to 2 a.m. on Sundays and 10 a.m. to 2 a.m. on weekdays. The staff numbers four, but these officers do not devote their whole time to this work. The total annual salaries of the four men amount to approximately £1,475, and though it is not possible to apportion their time precisely, it would be approximately correct to assign two-thirds of the amount, say £983, to their "news service" function. The only other expenditure is an amount which it would be difficult to assess, for accommodation, heat and light.
  Sir K. WOOD: As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's answer, dealing with functions, is the Home

  1791
  Secretary giving further consideration to the observations of the Lord Chief Justice on this matter?
  Mr. SHORT: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend is so doing. But I. might add that he is going to send a communication to the right hon. Gentleman, and also to the ex-Attorney-General, on that matter.
  Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say how long this bureau has been in existence?
  Mr. SHORT: Between 10 and 12 years.

  RONALD TRUE.
  Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary when the sentence on Ronald True, who was convicted of the murder of Gertrude Yates in a Fulham flat in 1922, was last reviewed; and whether this man is still detained in Broadmoor as a criminal lunatic?
  Mr. SHORT: True's case, like others, is reviewed at intervals. It was last reviewed last summer. He is still detained in Broadmoor as a criminal lunatic.

  RIGHT OF ASYLUM
  Mr. HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether, in any cases where asylum for any person or persons in this country is being considered by him, he will bring the matter to this House for decision?
  Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend does not think he could give any such promise.
  Mr. HARDIE: What would be the position of the Home Office in the case, say, of Mr. Bourbon, late of Madrid? Has the Home Office taken that into consideration?
  Mr. SPEAKER rose—
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. I would like to ask you what is your Ruling which forbids us raising questions like this—putting a question like this quite legitimately and calmly in the House of Commons? Where can we raise this question, if not here?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I allowed the question on the Paper; I did not rule it out of order.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Further on that point of Order. As to the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), I want to know what is your Ruling that forbids him putting that supplementary question? What is out of order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: My Ruling with regard to supplementary questions is, in the first place, that they can only be put in order to elucidate the answer to a question on the Paper; and, secondly, that they should be put in proper form.
  Mr. HARDIE rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to raise another point of Order?
  Mr. HARDIE: If you please, Sir. I desire for the time being and for the future to know this: When it comes to a question of names, when it is an ordinary, as we say, civil individual, any liberty is granted that may be asked in this House; but when it comes to a question of another individual, who is assumed by some people to be something superior, do we cease to have the same rights as in speaking of ordinary civil individuals? [Interruption.]
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Shut up, please; let the Speaker answer.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am not quite clear what the hon. Member means.
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: May we take it that this House is no respecter of persons in these matters?
  Mr. BROCKWAY: On the first point of Order. May I ask you whether your attention has been drawn to the fact that a number of questions relating to ex-King Alfonso have been ruled out of order by the Clerks at the Table? Is it not possible for an issue of this kind to be raised in this House?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly it is, but questions must be submitted to me first of all, and, according to the Rules of the House, I must rule them out, or not, as I think fit.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Further on that point of Order. If we put down a ques-

  1793
  tion and present it to the Clerks—and this question has got to be discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons—that here is a man who has been driven out from his country, without doubt—[Interruption]. I will allow the Speaker to put me down, but nothing else.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not want to deal severely with the hon. Member, but I shall have to do so if he misbehaves himself.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: You can deal as severely with me as you like—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Mander.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: —and you can put that in your pipe and smoke it.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must tell the hon. Member that he will have to leave the House if he does not behave himself.

  SEX EQUALITY.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Home Secretary if the Government are prepared to introduce a Measure giving equal rights to men and women with a view to facilitating the drawing up of a general treaty on the subject through the League of Nations?
  Mr. SHORT: The principle that no person shall be disqualified by sex or marriage from the exercise of any public function, from holding any civil or judicial post, or from carrying on any civil profession or vocation, has already been embodied in the law of this country by the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919. His Majesty's Government do not propose to introduce any further general legislation on the subject at present.
  Mr. MANDER: Do I understand from the hon. Gentleman's answer that the Government are not in favour of equal rights for men and women?
  Mr. SHORT: The hon. Member is not entitled to draw any such conclusion at all. My answer makes it clear that what he is asking is covered by the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919.
  Mr. MANDER: Does the hon. Gentleman say that there are no further disqualifications

  EDUCATION

    SENIOR SCHOOLS (STAFFING).
    Mr. MORLEYasked the President of the Board of Education if he will take steps to ensure that in all senior schools there shall be one teacher at least in excess of the number of classes, to enable class-teachers in such schools to have free periods for marking, etc.?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lees-Smith): I would remind my hon. Friend that the Board no longer prescribe a scale of staffing for individual public elementary schools, and that the teaching establishments of the local education authorities are settled on an area basis. It is, however, the practice of many authorities so to staff their senior schools in appropriate cases as to leave free time for the correction of work and preparation of lessons by the individual teachers, and this practice has the Board's approval.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: Will the hon. Gentleman, in his instructions to local education authorities, urge that practice upon them?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I think we take the most practical step towards encouraging local authorities by paying the greater part of the expenses.

    MILK SUPPLIES.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will state the amount paid by the Government and the local authorities towards the cost of providing free milk to necessitous children last year; and whether, in view of the fact that all school children would be benefited by this provision and the large surplus of fresh milk being produced in this country, he will consider the desirability of increasing the Government contribution to encourage local authorities to provide a daily supply of milk for every child?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH:I regret that I have no material for a reliable estimate of the cost to local authorities and to the Exchequer, during last year, of the provision of free milk as distinct from free meals of other kinds provided for necessitous children. At the present time approximately 50,000 children are being supplied daily with free milk at a cost which may be estimated at £2,000 to £3,000 per

    1795
    week. I do not contemplate any increase in the percentage of this expenditure to be borne by the Exchequer.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Is it not now recognised that all children would be benefited by a daily supply of free milk and, in view of the fact that only 10 per cent. are getting it, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to encourage local authorities to supply it to every child?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: I have encouraged local authorities in the most practical manner by regarding this as medical benefit and paying the special grant for medical purposes.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Is it not a fact that only 10 per cent. of the children are getting it?
    Mr. R. S. YOUNG: Is the hon. Gentleman encouraging local education authorities to establish milk clubs in the schools?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: That is another question.

  TRANSPORT.

    STREETS (CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE).
    Mr. E. D. SIMONasked the Minister of Health if he will state the cost per square yard of constructing streets taken over as public highways repairable by the inhabitants at large in Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, and Leeds, and the annual cost per square yard of maintenance of such streets?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The figures which the authorities have been able to give me are necessarily so qualified by various factors that to give them without a long explanation would be misleading. The cost of making up a street with a view to taking over depends not merely on the standard of construction adopted by the local authority and cost of materials but also on the amount of work which has already been done in the street by the private developer and on the relative widths of carriageway and footway. As regards cost of maintenance, I regret that I have not been able to obtain comparable figures.
    Mr. SIMON: Would it be possible for the Department to lay down any costing system that may be adopted by local
    1796
    authorities so that they may know how their costs compare with other authorities?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I should be prepared to consider that sympathetically.

    LICENSED PREMISES (RATING ASSESSMENT).
    Mr. BROCKWAYasked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to secure an amendment of the procedure of arriving at the assessment of licensed premises for the purpose of requiring rated occupiers to produce to the rating authority their trade returns in order that a correct valuation of the property may be ascertained?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Rating authorities and assessment committees are already empowered to obtain from occupiers such particulars as may reasonably be required for determining the value of rateable hereditaments. What information may reasonably be required for that purpose in any particular case is in the last resort a matter for determination by the courts.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether he can now make a further general statement as to the results of the third valuation of approved societies, particularly so far as reserves and additional benefits are concerned?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: As soon as possible after the third valuation has been completed, a general report by the Government Actuary on the results of the valuation will be presented to Parliament. In the meantime I am not in a position to make a statement of the kind referred to by the right hon. Member.
  Sir K. WOOD: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive the Government Actuary's report?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I should not like to pin myself to a date.
  Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Health what are the future liabilities against which the sum of £127,000,000 to the credit of the National Health Insurance Fund has been accumulated; and by what sum, approximately, annually this credit is being added to?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The sum to which the hon. Member refers is represented, in the main, by the funds of the approved societies. It is required to supplement the contributions as the insured grow older and the claims for sickness and. disablement benefits increase, to meet the cost of additional benefits provided wholly out of surplus capital as ascertained on valuation, and to cover the cost of medical benefit after the age of 65 when contributions have ceased. In answer to the latter part of the question no general average can be given. The position varies from society to society, but taking all societies together a decrease of ½2½ millions was sustained in 1929 followed by an increase of £1,000,000 in 1930.
  Mr. REMER: Is it really necessary that this fund should go on increasing to this very huge sum year after year, and should not some steps be taken to deal with this serious charge upon industry?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the hon. Member is raising a question with the answer to which he would not agree if I gave it. The point is that this fund belongs to 7,000 societies.
  Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the cases which have been brought to his notice in which panel patients experience great difficulty in complying with the necessary formalities for appealing against a decision by the regional medical officer; and if he is taking any steps to remedy this state of affairs?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand the hon. Member to refer to cases in which an approved society has decided, after receiving a report from a Regional Medical Officer, that a member is not incapable of work, and the member has desired to appeal against that decision. The procedure in such cases is laid down in the rules of each society and I have no reason to think that such procedure ordinarily causes undue difficulty to the insured person, or that any general revision is called for; but, if the hon. Member will let me know of any particular case in which an insured person has had difficulty in complying with the requirements of the rules of his society, I will look into the matter.
  Mr. ALBERY: Has the right hon. Gentleman now had time to consider the urgent case of a lady in Northfleet, to which I have drawn his attention and in regard to which the only reply I have received so far consists of two circular letters bearing the lithographic signature of one of his assistants?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have the case in mind, and, if the hon. Member will write to me personally, I will see that the matter receives attention.
  Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Health what provision is made for the medical attendance and treatment of an insured person who, at the commencement of a quarter, feels he cannot any longer accept medical attendance and treatment from his insurance practitioner, and, when the consent to transfer by that practitioner is refused, is the insured person compelled to pay for his medical attendance and treatment by another doctor during the remainder of the quarter until the transfer is effected by giving one month's notice to the insurance committee?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: In the circumstances stated in the question the insured person would normally be expected to apply for any necessary treatment to the insurance doctor on whose list he remained; and if he applied for treatment to another doctor, any charges for such treatment would not be payable out of insurance funds. But in case of accident or other sudden emergency, application could be made by the insured person to another insurance doctor for treatment at the cost of insurance funds, if the doctor on whose list he remained, or his deputy, were not available.
  Mr. ALBERY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that persons desirous of changing their medical adviser are involved in expense during the period of notice, which is a considerable one?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes, but the approved societies have themselves agreed to the new arrangement made with regard to the choice of doctors. There has been no interference with regard to the change of doctors against which the approved societies made a protest.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    SMALL-OX AND VACCINATION.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether he can now state the number of children compulsorily vaccinated and the number for whom exemption was claimed; and the number of deaths of children from small-pox and the number of deaths of children associated with vaccination during 1930?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: As the answer is long and involves a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. FREEMAN: When is the right hon. Gentleman going into the whole question of the administration of the Vaccination Acts, as he said he was doing a year ago?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am still going into it.
    Mr. FREEMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any action in the matter, in view of his inquiries?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: That I must ask the hon. Member to put down on a later occasion.
    Mr. CAMPBELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman add the number of children whose lives are saved owing to vaccination?
    Following is the answer:
    During the year 1930, 280,075 certificates of successful primary vaccination of children under 14 years of age, and 293,176 statutory declarations of conscientious objection, were received by vaccination officers in England and Wales. These figures are exclusive of a few returns which have not yet been received. During the same period, among children under 14 years of age, 13 deaths occurred which were classified to smallpox, and three deaths in which the words "vaccination," "vaccinia" or "post-vaccinal encephalitis "appeared in the medical or coroner's certificate. One other death associated with vaccination has been brought to the notice of my Department.

    IMPORTED FRUIT PULP.
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the Minister of Health whether he has any information as to the percentage of
    1800
    chemical preservatives used in strawberry fruit pulp imported from Soviet Russia last year and the sanitary conditions under which this was produced?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Under the Public Health (Preservatives in Food) Regulations, strawberry fruit pulp must not contain more than 2,000 parts of sulphur dioxide per million, and I have no information to show that this proportion was exceeded in any consignment imported from Soviet Russia last year. As stated in the answer given to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) on the 27th instant, I have no information as to the sanitary conditions under which Russian fruit pulp is produced, but the pulp is subject to examination in this country under the Imported Food Regulations and may be destroyed if it is found to be unsound or otherwise unfit for human consumption.
    Sir B. PETO: During the last season, were steps regularly taken to ascertain what percentage of preservative there was in this imported food?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: A large number of samples were examined which might have come from Russia and all were found to contain less than 2,000 parts per million.
    Mr. HARDIE: What steps are taken by the Department to give a definite guarantee as to what is the period of time after the addition of the poison in which it is capable of being used as fit for consumption?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid we cannot go into that. We can only satisfy ourselves that, when it is imported, it is not in a state unfit for human consumption.
    Mr. HARDIE: The very fact that you have added a preservative and, on arrival at the port after a week or so in the ship, while you may examine it on arrival, the moment the examination takes place—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This appears to be information that is being given, and not a question.

    FLOUR ("IMPROVERS").
    Mr. LEESasked the Minister of Health whether his Department is satisfied that chemical substances of secret

    1801
    formula, known in the baking trade as improvers, and used for causing flour used for bread making to absorb more water, are not deleterious to public health?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the report made in 1927 by the Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Flour with Chemical Substances. The committee's view was that most of the substances known in the baking trade as improvers are unobjectionable on grounds of public health in the quantities in which they are used, but they expressed the opinion that the use of chlorine and nitrogen trichloride is undesirable. I may add that the committee did not accept the view that so-called improvers generally enable the flour to absorb more water than it otherwise would.
    Mr. LEES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week in reply to a question of mine he admitted that out of 280 lbs. of flour 100 4-lb loaves of bread could be made, and is he aware that according to an advertisement that I have, by adding 1 lb. of this improver to 280 lbs. of flour it produced 471 lbs. of bread?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot be responsible for public advertisements.
    Mr. BROCKWAY: Does this bread come from Russia?
    Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We have taken up a great deal of time over individual questions.
    Mr. LEES: On a point of Order. Are not supplementary questions to be allowed on a question like this?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has asked me a very unreasonable question, seeing he has already asked a supplementary question.
    Mr. LEES: On a point of Order. You have not given me an opportunity of asking a question, and you have no right to say that it is unreasonable.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow the hon. Member to address me in that manner.

    BEDDING.
    Mr. LANGasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the existence of impure filling in certain imported bed ticks and that some imported coloured cotton blankets contain wood and straw chippings; and, in view of the danger to health, Rill he cause inquiries to be made with the intention of taking action in the matter?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My attention has been drawn to a recent article in the Press which refers to this matter, but I am advised that there is no evidence that danger to health is involved. I should, however, be pleased to receive any further information on the subject which my hon. Friend is able to supply.

  HOUSING.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. PERRYasked the Minister of Health the number of houses built under the various Housing Acts during the period 1918 to 31st December, 1930, by the rural district councils of Kettering, Brixworth, Oxendon, and Northampton?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The numbers are 265, 218, 112 and 473 respectively.
    Mr. PERRYasked the Minister of Health the number of houses built under the various Housing Acts during the period 1918 to 31st December, 1930, by the urban district councils of Kettering, Desborough, Rothwell, and Burton Latimer (Northants)?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The numbers are 1,108, 218, 159 and 175 respectively.

    ISLINGTON.
    Mr. R. S. YOUNGasked the Minister of Health (1) if be has received any proposals or schemes, either from the London County Council or the Borough of Islington, for dealing with housing conditions in Islington under the Housing Act, 1930;
    (2) if at any time any proposals have been made to his Department, either from the London County Council or the Islington Borough Council, for dealing with the unsuitable housing conditions existing in Campbell Road, Finsbury Park, N.;

    1803
    (3) how many houses in the Borough of Islington 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, if any, he has received for dealing with such property?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The question of dealing with areas in the Borough of Islington under the Housing Act, 1930, is under the immediate consideration of the borough council, but no proposals have yet been made. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a memorandum dealing more fully with the present situation in the borough.

    AGED PEOPLE.
    Mr. HERRIOTTSasked the Minister of Health how many applications have been made by local authorities to build small houses for aged people and the number which have been sanctioned by his Department; and whether he can say what will be the average rent for these houses?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Twenty-four such applications have been made and 22 of them, covering 694 dwellings, have been approved. Two recently received applications covering 52 dwellings are under consideration. Complete information as to cost is not yet available, but the rents should not on the average exceed 3s. in agricultural parishes and 3s. 9d. in other areas. I hope, indeed, that the rents will be less than these figures.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does that include rates as well as rent?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir.
    Mr. SMITHERS: When considering these small houses, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the demonstration houses which have been built at St. Pauls Cray, Kent?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The model I have taken is the miner's cottage, but I shall be glad to look into those to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

    RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
    Commander SOUTHBYasked the Minister of Health whether the committee considering the question of the present working of the Rent Restrictions
    1804
    Acts has finished its investigations; and, if so, when it is anticipated that it will be in a position to issue a report?
    Mr. EDEasked the Minister of Health when he anticipates the report of the Departmental Committee on Rent Restriction will be presented?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The Committee has not finished its investigations, and I am, therefore, not in a position to give any precise indication when its report may be expected. I certainly hope, however, to receive it before the end of the Session.
    Mr. BROCKWAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the hardships which are being suffered by the working classes owing to high rents, expedite the delivery of this report?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The committee has had to receive a very large amount of evidence, and I understand that we shall before very long, within a few months perhaps, have the report.
    Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the difficulties are always on the side of the tenant and that the position of the landlord has not to be considered?

    RENTS.
    Mr. J. HALLasked the Minister of Health the average rent of working-class houses constructed since the War?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that the information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available, and could not be obtained without incurring an undue amount of trouble and expense in making the necessary inquiries of local authorities. I would, however, refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a previous question put by the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) of which I am sending him a copy.
    Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is really necessary to know what are the rents for working-class houses built under the various Acts?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The local authorities build them, and they are quite familiar with them. My point is, that it is putting an undue burden upon the local authorities and upon my Department to ask for a return in the matter.
    Sir W. BRASS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this House authorised those Acts?

    RIVERS BOARD (DEE).
    Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Minister of Health what was the result of the recent inquiry held in Chester by an inspector of his Department to determine whether or not a rivers board for the Dee should be set up?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not yet a position to give a decision, but I will decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities in England and Wales that have made application under Section 14 (3) of the Local Government Act, 1888, during the last two years, for the formation of a rivers board, and what action he contemplates taking in consequence of said applications?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: One application has been received, by the Cheshire County Council and the Chester Town Council, for the formation of a rivers board for the River Dee. A public inquiry into the application has recently been held. I am not yet in a position to give a decision, but I will decide the matter as expeditiously as possible.

  GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEasked the Prime Minister if he will state when an opportunity for discussion on the proposed subsidy to grand opera will be provided?
  Mr. SMITHERSasked the Prime Minister if he can now state when it is proposed to take the Estimate for the subsidy to grand opera?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave on 16th April in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Mr. R. S. Young).
  Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that
  1806
  many hon. Members wish to discuss, and vote against, this waste of money, and will he not give a definite date fairly soon for a discussion?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I gave information in answering a question as to how the discussion should take place and when it would be right for it to take place.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL.
  Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the recommendation of the unemployment committee of the International Labour Office with regard to the carrying out of joint public works through the League of Nations, he will reconsider the question of removing the Government veto on the construction of a Channel tunnel?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The recommendation to which the hon. Member refers must be read as applying to cases in which the obstacles to practical action can be removed by international action. This is not the case with the Channel Tunnel. I would also refer to the very full discussion in regard to the Channel Tunnel which took place on the 30th June last in which I drew attention to the fact that the proposed scheme would only provide employment for a very small number of men. As regards the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that the discussion on this matter was left to a free vote of the House.
  Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that it is notorious that great pressure was exercised during that Debate, will the Prime Minister allow the genuine feeling—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Remer.

  GOLD.
  Mr. SMITHERSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much gold is held by the central banks of the various countries in the world at the latest convenient date?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): Particulars for individual countries are to be found for the end of each month in the League of Nations' Monthly

  1807
  Bulletin of Statistics. The total gold holdings of the central banks and Governments of 45 countries at the end of January, 1931, are stated in the Federal Reserve Bulletin for March, 1931 (P.151) to have been $10,968,000,000 or £2,254,000,000.
  Mr. THORNE: Is that an increase in the gold holdings?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot say, without notice.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present position with regard to the International Committee on Gold which has been in session at Geneva; when a further report is expected from this committee; and what action is proposed in view of the continued fall in commodity prices?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I understand that a further meeting of the Gold delegation, to consider its final report, will be convened shortly, but that the precise date is not yet settled. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Farnham on the 5th November last.
  Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the committee considering the question of silver as well as the question of gold?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot say, without notice.

  BUDGET,

    WHITE SPIRIT AND TURPENTINE (DUTY).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state what revenue is anticipated this year from the proposed tariffs on white spirit and turpentine?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Approximately £500,000.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did my hon. Friend remark the condemnation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the principle of these revenue tariffs in his Budget statement?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
    1808
    what total revenue was raised by the tariffs on turpentine and white spirits during the last financial year; and how much was given in rebate on exports containing these commodities?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Information is not available as to the precise amount of duty collected on "white spirit," as this commodity is not separately classified in the accounts but is included under the import list heading "Petroleum spirit, other than motor spirit." The approximate amounts of revenue collected on turpentine and petroleum spirit other than motor spirit, and of duty repaid by way of export drawback, during the year ended 31st March, 1931, were as follow:

    —

    Net Revenue collected.

    Drawback.

    Net Receipt.

    £

    £

    £

    Turpentine

    101,500

    19,600

    81,900

    Petroleum spirit other than motor spirit.

    286,200

    27,900

    258,300

    Total

    387,700

    47,500

    340,200

    Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: In view of the very small amount raised by the tax, would it not be advisable to do away with it and thus relieve trade of this impost?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is a matter of argument which has been dealt with in the Debates on the Finance Bill.

    LAND DUTIES.
    The following question stood upon the Order Paper in, the name of Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN:
    "61. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield of each of the land taxes imposed by the Finance Act, 1909–10; the date of their imposition; the date of their repeal; and what was the cost of their collection during this period?"
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is a mistake in the wording of the question, possibly owing to my ad handwriting. I intended to ask the yield of each of the taxes from the date of their imposition to the date of their repeal.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The duties on Land Values under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, which was passed into law on 29th April, 1910, were the Increment Value Duty, the Reversion Duty, the Undeveloped Land Duty and the Mineral Rights Duty. The Mineral Rights Duty is still in force: the other duties were repealed by the Finance Act, 1920.
    The yield of the repealed duties, the greater part of which was repaid under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1920, was as follows:—

    £

    Increment Value Duty

    …

    648,000

    Reversion Duty

    …

    279,000

    Undeveloped Land Duty

    …

    412,000

    The net receipt from the Mineral Rights Duty up to 31st March last, was £5,816,000.
    I regret that I cannot give the cost of collection of the Land Value Duties as the cost of the Inland Revenue Department cannot be divided between expenditure in connection with the Land Values Duties and expenditure arising from the other functions of that Department.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: At the time of the repeal did not the Inland Revenue Department supply to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer an estimate of the cost of the collection, and could not that estimate be recovered from the archives of the Department?
    Mr. MacLAREN: Before a reply is made to the question—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better have the reply first.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot answer the question without notice.
    Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the Financial Secretary be good enough to see if he can obtain that information for me? My recollection is that it was supplied to me as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I believe it was given by me to the House.
    Mr. MacLAREN: If the Financial Secretary gives the information that is being asked for, will he clearly keep in mind the fact that the only real land tax in all these taxes was the Undeveloped Land Tax?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Frederick Hall.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL rose—
    HON. MEMBERS: Samuel!
    Sir F. HALL rose—
    HON. MEMBERS: Hall!
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) wants to ask a supplementary question, he can do so.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Can the Financial Secretary say whether there is any estimate in the Treasury of the additional yield in Death Duties through the more perfect valuation of land which has resulted?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the original question.
    Sir F. HALL: May I take it, Mr. Speaker, that you did call upon me to ask my question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, but I am foolish enough to go back sometimes.

  INCOME TAX.

    INCOME TAX PROFITS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the attitude taken up by the Inland Revenue authorities in a number of cases recently in refusing to allow trading companies to set off investment losses against trading profits is in accordance with established practice?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is settled law that in the computation of trading profits for Income Tax purposes no regard can be had either to capital losses or to capital gains.

    TRADE ASSOCIATIONS (APPEALS EXPENSES).
    Sir F. HALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the claim of the Inland Revenue Department that expenses incurred by trade associations on appeals against the removal of Safeguarding Duties or on applications under the Merchandise Marks Act should be subject to Income Tax has been unanimously disallowed by the City of London Commissioners for Income Tax; and, seeing that this claim was pressed by the Government after consideration of representations made to them by deputations from the National

    1811
    Union of Manufacturers and others, whether he will state if the Government propose to carry the matter further or whether the decision in the case of the City of London will be accepted for the rest of the country?
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the decision of the General Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the City of London allowing the appeal of the National Union of Manufacturers against the refusal of the Board of Inland Revenue to allow deduction from the Income Tax returns of companies and business firms of expenditure incurred by them in connection with applications under the Safeguarding of Industries Rules and the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926; and whether, in view of this decision and of similar previous decisions, he will give instructions to withdraw the claims for Income Tax and also for the refund of any Income Tax already paid on such expenditure?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The matters referred to are at present under consideration. If the questions are repeated in a fortnight's time I hope to be in a position to give a definite answer.
    Sir F. HALL: I beg to give notice that I will repeat the question this day fortnight.

    INCOME TAXPAYERS.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total number of Income Taxpayers on 1st April, 1931, and 1st April, 1930, respectively, together with the estimated amount of revenue lost during the past financial year, in consequence of the exemption limit for Income Tax on certain incomes being raised in the Budget of 1930?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The total number of Income Taxpayers is not known with accuracy, but is estimated to be about 2,250,000. The hon. Member is under some misapprehension in regard to the Income Tax provisions of last year's Finance Act, which in no way affected the exemption limit of the tax.

  DOCKYARD EX-SERVICE EMPLOYES (GRATUITY).
  Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that under the regulations the issue of civil pay was permitted in certain cases to men who were serving in His Majesty's Dockyards and were called up, or joined up, for the War, but that the Treasury has ruled that it would be contrary to the intention of the regulations that such mobilised service should reckon towards a gratuity under Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1887; and whether he will take steps to secure the grant of gratuity in these cases?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to certain exceptional cases in which men who joined the dockyard service immediately before the outbreak of War have been regarded as war entrants for the purpose indicated in the question. On further consideration I am prepared to allow these men's military or naval service to reckon for civil gratuity.

  SLOUGH DEPOT (SALE).
  Liuet.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in what form was the sale price of approximately £2,000,000 received by the Government from the Slough Trading Corporation, Limited, for the property comprising the Slough Depot?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The whole of the sale price referred to was received in cash.

  AGRICULTURE.

    DOMINION WHEAT SUPPLIES (EXPORTABLE SURPLUS).
    Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Agriculture the estimated exportable surplus of wheat available from Canada, Australia, and India for the present and two previous cereal years, and the import requirements of Great Britain for the like period?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): As the reply contains a table of figures I propose with the hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The following statement shows the exportable surplus of wheat from Canada,

    Season.

    Canada. (a)

    Australia.

    India.

    Total.

    Thousand tons.

    Thousand tons.

    Thousand tons.

    Thousand tons

    1928–29

    …

    …

    …

    …

    14,000

    2,980

    Nil

    16,980

    1929–30

    …

    …

    …

    …

    8,060

    2,230

    Nil

    10,290

    1930–31

    …

    …

    …

    …

    9,850

    3,880

    890

    14,620

    (a) Figures for Canada include the surplus from the previous crop.

    The net imports of wheat, including flour expressed in terms of wheat, into the United Kingdom were 5,457,000 tons in 1928–29, and 5,441,000 tons in 1929–30. With regard to the current year, it is probable that imports will be on a slightly higher scale owing to the smaller domestic crop, which was 200,000 tons less than in the two previous seasons, but the amount of the imports will partly depend on the extent to which stocks in this country are increased or diminished.

    NATIONAL MARK (JAM).
    Viscount ELMLEYasked the Minister of Agriculture when the scheme for establishing a National Mark for jam made of English fruits will come into effect?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am advised that an amendment of the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1928, will be necessary before a National Mark scheme for jam can be introduced. The proposals to be laid before Parliament in this connection are now under consideration.
    Viscount ELMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember how very important it is that this scheme should be brought into operation as soon as possible?
    Dr. ADDISON: Yes, and I will do my best to bring the matter forward as soon as possible.

    BEET-SUGAR COMPANIES (JUTE BAGS).
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMANasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is made a condition that the Anglo-Scottish Beet-Sugar Corporation, and similar companies, should stipulate, when buying jute bags, that both the bags, and the cloth from which they are
    Australia and India in the undermentioned years as estimated by the International Institute of Agriculture:
    made, should be manufactured in this country; and whether the cloth, from which the bags that are at present on contract are being made, is being made in this country?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have no power to impose upon beet-sugar factory companies a condition of the kind referred to in the hon. Baronet's question. I am, however, informed that the Anglo-Scottish Beet-Sugar Corporation has arranged for all their supplies of jute bags for the coming sugar campaign to be manufactured in this country as in past years, and that replies so far received to inquiries which they have made show that the cloth will be of British manufacture. I have no information regarding other companies.
    Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these orders have been placed with merchants in Dundee, and, as far as one can find out, none of them have arrived at the manufacturers, as the price was such that manufacturers in this country could not accept them. These orders therefore will go to the Continent. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman bring some influence to bear on the beet-sugar companies?
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. Member seems to be misinformed; and I shall be glad to give him further information about these supplies. At least 80 per cent. of these supplies are already assured to British manufacturers.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is it not the case that the 80 per cent. refers to Dundee, where these bags are made, and that the cloth is being made in Dundee to that extent?
    Dr. ADDISON: I think that is so.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a stipulation to prevent these orders going to the Continent?
    Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the other 20 per cent. is made in Dundee?

  POST OFFICE (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
  Mr. SHAKESPEAREasked the Postmaster-General whether the task of advising him on telephone development falls to the Post Office Advisory Committee; what is the composition of that committee and who is the chairman; how often it meets and when; and whether they have power to initiate discussion and introduce subjects on the agenda?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): The function of the Post Office Advisory Council is to advise the Postmaster-General on any matters referred to them, including that of telephone development, upon various aspects of which their opinion has been obtained. The council has no fixed dates of meeting but is summoned under the chairmanship of the Postmaster-General to consider specific questions on which their advice is desired. I am sending the hon. Member a list of the members. The reply to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
  Mr. SHAKESPEARE: May I ask the hon. Member whether he will consult with the Postmaster-General with a view to calling a special meeting of the Advisory Committee to examine the cause of the insufficient telephone service compared with other countries and suggest a scheme for a vigorous up-to-date policy?
  Mr. BEAUMONT: Has there been any resignation from the committee?

  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has any information as to whether the Royal Commission of inquiry into the position of overseas settlers in Victoria is sitting; and whether interim recommendations by the Commission are anticipated?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): I understand that the Royal Commission on Migrant Land Settlement in Victoria resumed their sessions on the 30th March. As regards the second part of the question, I have no information as to the intentions of the Commission.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the urgent needs of these settlers can the right hon. Gentleman do anything effective to help them?
  Mr. THOMAS: As I have told the House, it is a difficult subject, and we cannot in any way be held responsible for migrants in different parts of the Dominions, and, equally, I cannot anticipate the recommendations of the Commission.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: Have not the Government a moral responsibility for these settlers?
  Mr. THOMAS: I hope that suggestion is not going to be upheld in this House. The hon. Member will know where it leads.

  CRICKET AND FOOTBALL TEAMS (TRANSPORT FACILITIES).
  Vice-Admiral TAYLORasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the complaints relating to the operation of Section 61 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and of the extent to which conveyance by motor van or lorry has taken place for many years to carry teams to cricket, football, or other sports; and if the Regulations under the Section can be modified so that such vehicles may be freed from the operations of this Clause for the purposes indicated?
  Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the transport by lorries of village teams and works teams to play games all over the county of Kent is being hampered by the Road Traffic Act, Section 61 (3), which compels the registration of these vehicles as contract vehicles; and if he will consider an amendment of the Act to remedy this grievance?
  Duchess of ATHOLLasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that Section 61 (3) of the Road Traffic Act is prejudicing village cricket and football,

  1817
  inasmuch as the owners of lorries can no longer lend them for conveyance of the teams to matches without incurring an annual expense of about £6; and whether he will take action to remedy this?
  Mr. SMITHERSasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been directed to the difficulty under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act with regard to the transport of cricket and football teams in motor lorries which are now required to pay a licence duty of £6 before performing such work; and if he will introduce legislation to amend the Act in this respect?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday to a question by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman), of which I am sending them each a copy.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is the hon. Member aware that the question yesterday dealt with children and accidents which had occurred My question to-day deals with teams which are taken for the purpose of playing football and cricket and other amusements—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must understand that we cannot have speeches at Question Time.

  ROAD FUND.
  Mr. REMERasked the Minister of Transport the amount standing to the credit of the Road Fund on the 31st March, 1930, 31st March, 1929, 31st March, 1928, 31st March, 1927, 31st March, 1926, and 31st March, 1925?
  Mr. PARKINSON: The amount (investments and cash) standing to the credit of the Road Fund at the specified dates was as follows:

  £

  31st March, 1930

  …

  6,035,407

  31st March, 1929

  …

  4,489,413

  31st March, 1928

  …

  908,207

  31st March, 1927

  …

  12,276,601

  31st March, 1926

  …

  18,710,148

  31st March, 1925

  …

  17,218,705

  SOUTH WALES PORTS (COALING FACILITIES).
  Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the loss by breakage involved in tipping coal by ordinary methods at South Wales ports; and whether he is disposed to call upon dock authorities to provide escalators so that the large and sized coals may be lowered into the holds of loading vessels without damage or loss of value?
  Mr. PARKINSON: I am aware that complaints have been made on this subject. Arrangements have recently been made in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines, to set up committees representing the principal interests concerned both in South Wales and the other coal exporting districts for the purpose of determining what types of anti-breakage, appliances would be most effective and what steps should be taken to secure their installation at an early date.
  Mr. GRENFELL: Can the hon. Member say how this proposal would affect the question of bunker coal?
  Mr. PARKINSON: I cannot say, but I will make inquiries and let the hon. Member know.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what is the business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: In the event of the Motion on the Finance Bill (Procedure) on the Order Paper to-day being carried, the business for next week will be as follows:
Monday: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will move his Land Tax Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means.
Tuesday: Report stage of Budget Resolutions.
Wednesday: The Debate in Committee of Ways and Means on the Land Tax Resolution will be concluded.
Thursday: Land Tax Resolution, Report stage.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.
Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-day in the event of the Motion on the Finance Bill (Procedure) being carried, and whether the Government contemplates giving to the House any detailed information, by means of a White Paper, of the subject to be discussed on Monday. All we know at present is that there is to be a Land Tax Resolution, and it would make it much easier for hon. Members to take part in the Debate if we could have some further information before that day?
The PRIME. MINISTER: As regards the business for to-day, we propose to take the Orders down to and including the Ancient Monuments Bill, and the Electricity Supply Resolution, which is exempted business in any event. As regards the White Paper, it is not intended to publish a White Paper. A statement will be made on Monday.
Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask whether the details of the Land Tax Resolution have been communicated to the Liberal party?
HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
Mr. SMITHERS: May I press for a reply? It is hardly fair to the party on these benches if the details of the Land Tax Resolution have been communicated to the Liberal party. If we have not the advantage of knowing anything about them we are unable to take part, adequately, in the Debate.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That other Government Business leave precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 146.

Division No. 227.]

AYES.

[3.50 p.m.

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

Day, Harry

Isaacs, George

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Can nock)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Jenkins, Sir William

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Ede, James Chuter

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Edmunds, J. E.

Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

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

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Alpass, J. H.

Egan, W. H.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Ammon, Charles George

Elmley, Viscount

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Arnott, John

Foot, Isaac

Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)

Aske, Sir Robert

Freeman, Peter

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

Kelly, W. T.

Ayles, Walter

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

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

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

Barnes, Alfred John

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Kinley, J.

Barr, James

Gibbins, Joseph

Kirkwood, D.

Batey, Joseph

Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)

Knight, Holford

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Gill, T. H.

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

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Glassey, A. E.

Lang, Gordon

Benson, G.

Gossling, A. G.

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Gould, F.

Lathan, G.

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Bowen, J. W.

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

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

Lawrence, Susan

Broad, Francis Alfred

Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Lawson, John James

Bromfield, William

Groves, Thomas E.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Bromley, J.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Leach, W.

Brooke, W.

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)

Brothers, M.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Lees, J.

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

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

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Lindley, Fred W.

Buchanan, G.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Burgess, F. G.

Hardie, George D.

Longbottom, A. W.

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

Harris, Percy A.

Longden, F.

Cameron, A. G.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville-

Lunn, William

Cape, Thomas

Haycock, A. W.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

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

Hayday, Arthur

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

Chater, Daniel

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Church, Major A. G.

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

McElwee, A.

Clarke, J. S.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

McEntee, V. L.

Cluse, W. S.

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

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Harriotts, J.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Compton, Joseph

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

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

Cove, William G

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Manning, E. L.

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Hollins, A.

Mansfield, W.

Daggar, George

Hopkin, Daniel

March, S.

Dallas, George

Horrabin, J. F.

Marcus, M.

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Markham, S. F.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Marley, J.

Marshall, Fred

Romeril, H. G.

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

Mathers, George

Rosbotham, D, S. T.

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

Matters, L. W.

Rowson, Guy

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Maxton, James

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Thurtle, Ernest

Millar, J. D.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Tillett, Ben

Montague, Frederick

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

Tinker, John Joseph

Morley, Ralph

Sanders, W. S.

Tout, W. J.

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Sandham, E.

Townend, A. E.

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

Sawyer, G. F.

Vaughan, David

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

Scrymgeour, E.

Viant, S. P.

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Walkden, A. G.

Mort, D. L.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Walker, J.

Muff, G.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Wallace, H. W.

Muggeridge, H. T.

Shield, George William

Watkins, F. C.

Naylor, T. E.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Shillaker, J. F.

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

Noel-Buxton, Baronets (Norfolk, N.)

Shinwell, E.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Oldfield, J. R.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Wellock, Wilfred

Palin, John Henry

Simmons, C. J.

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Paling, Wilfrid

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

West, F. R.

Palmer, E. T.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Westwood, Joseph

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Sinkinson, George

White, H. G.

Perry, S. F.

Sitch, Charles H.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Pole, Major D. G.

Smith, Lees-, H. B.

Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Potts, John S.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Price, M. P.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Pybus, Percy John

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Raynes, W. R.

Sorensen, R.

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

Richards, R.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Stephen, Campbell

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Strauss, G. R.

Ritson, J.

Sullivan, J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

Sutton, J. E.

Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Albery, Irving James

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

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

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

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

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

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

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Makins, Brigadler-General E.

Atkinson, C.

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

Eden, Captain Anthony

Marjoribanks, Edward

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

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

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Milne, Wardlaw-. J. S.

Balniel, Lord

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

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

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Fade, Sir Bertram G.

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Beaumont, M. W.

Ferguson, Sir John

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

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Fielden, E. B.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Berry, Sir George

Ford, Sir P. J.

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

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

O'Neill, Sir H.

Birchall, Major sir John Dearman

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Bird, Ernest Roy

Ganzoni, Sir John

Penny, Sir George

Boothby, R. J. G.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

Peto, sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Rawton, Sir Cooper

Bracken, B.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Remer, John R.

Briscoe, Richard George

Gunston, Captain D. W.

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

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

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

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Buchan, John

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennall

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hanbury, C.

Ross, Ronald D.

Buckingham, Sir H.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Rugg es-Brise, Colonel E.

Builock, Captain Malcolm

Hartington, Marquess of

Russell, Alexander Watt (Tynemouth)

Butler, R. A.

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

Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham)

Campbell, E. T.

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

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

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

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Skelton, A. N.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

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

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

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Smithers, Waldron

Christie, J. A.

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

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Cobb. Sir Cyril

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

Inskip, Sir Thomas

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Colman, N. C. D.

Iveagh, Countess of

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Colville, Major D. J.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)

Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Thompson, Luke

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

1822

1823

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Warrender, Sir Victor

Wood, Rt. Hon. sir Kingsley

Turton, Robert Hugh

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Womersley, W. J.

Sir Frederick Thomson.

Question put, and agreed to.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.
Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Sir Hugh O'Neill to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Grey Seals Protection Bill [Lords], and the Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Bill).
Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS REPORTED.

  BRITISH MUSEUM AND NATIONAL GALLERY (OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

  SALVATION ARMY BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Public Offices (Sites) Amendment Bill,—That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution, communicated to them on the 21st instant, that it is expedient that the Public Offices (Sites) Amendment Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Pharmacy and Poisons." [Pharmacy and Poisons Bill [Lords].]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Bacup in regard to the running of public service vehicles; and to make further provision in relation to the tram-
1824
way and light railway, water, and electricity undertakings of the said Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses; and for other purposes. [Bacup Corporation [Lords].]

BACUP CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

FINANCE BILL (PROCEDURE).
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I beg to move,
"That, notwithstanding anything in the established practice of this House lo the contrary, provision may be made in the Finance Bill of the present Session for giving effect to any Resolution which may be passed in the Committee of Ways and Means, and agreed to by this House, for imposing a tax on Land Values although the tax is not to come into operation until a subsequent financial year."
4.0 p.m.
The Motion which I have to submit to the House can be explained quite adequately, I think, in a few sentences. In the Budget speech and in the answer which the Prime Minister gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) last Tuesday, an explanation has already been given of the circumstances in which it became necessary to frame this Resolution. But, perhaps, I may be allowed to recapitulate and amplify the information which I gave in Committee of Ways and Means. In 1909, an attempt was made to carry out land valuation and taxation simultaneously. In the light of what happened then, and on general grounds of practicability, I have come to the conclusion that it would be courting disaster to repeat that attempt, and I am, therefore, proposing that the first step should be that of making the necessary valuation, to be followed by the assessment and collection of the tax in a later year when that valuation has been substantially completed.
I, accordingly, propose to include the necessary provisions both for valuation and the imposition of the tax in the Finance Bill of this year. As a result, it will be possible to proceed with the work of valuation as soon as the Finance Bill passes into law, and as the work of valuation will occupy a considerable time, I intend that the tax should become chargeable for the first time, not in the current financial year, but in respect of the year 1933–34, by which time we hope the valuation will have been completed. Members will recall that last year I introduced a Bill designed to make the valuation provisions operative, but time did not permit of the consideration of that Bill by the House. Now that the pro-
1854
posal has been revived in conjunction with a scheme of taxation, it is obvious that it is of the utmost importance that the two matters, that is, valuation and the imposition of the tax, should be dealt with together as a whole. But it may be asked why not in a separate Bill? Well, many answers could be given to that. I see that some of the newspapers have assumed that the real purpose of this Resolution is to insure that these land proposals will have a safe passage to their destined haven. If that result is assured by this Resolution I should regard it as an additional recommendation. It is surely the duty of the Government, before they embark upon a Measure, to be quite sure that its course is clear, and that the Bill does not encounter rocks and shoals.
For the moment I will content myself with saying that the scheme is an integral part of our financial programme of the year; indeed, the most important part of our financial programme. Last year I intended to do what I now propose, that is, to include provisions for both valuation and taxation in the Finance Bill. But that Bill was long, and contained a considerable number of highly controversial subjects, and if I had added to the Bill another controversial issue, then what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) calls "the legitimate resources of Parliamentary obstruction" might have prevented the Finance Bill from passing this House within the dates prescribed by the Gibson Bowles Act. That would have resulted, of course, in complete financial chaos. Being prevented from including these proposals in the Finance Bill of last year, I expressed my intention of introducing a separate Valuation Bill, and, in the end, although the Bill was introduced, the pressure of Parliamentary time prevented it from being proceeded with. On further consideration it seems to me to have been rather a mistake to introduce a Valuation Bill, apart from the taxation proposals for which the Bill is required. You cannot dissociate the creation of machinery from the purpose for which the machinery has to be used, and it is entirely fitting that the Measure which sets up the machinery should also lay down and indicate the purpose for which that machinery has to be provided.

1855
Acoordingly, if the Finance Bill is the proper Measure in which to introduce proposals for the imposition of this taxation, it is unquestionably the proper place for the creation of the machinery for the purpose of the taxation which is to be imposed. Moreover, apart from this, it will be an obvious economy of Parliamentary time to include not only the two things, valuation and imposition of taxation, but the rest of our proposals in the same Bill. Here we are met with a difficulty of procedure. The practice of this House is that in any year the Finance Bill is regarded as the vehicle for the taxation of that year, and, therefore, in general it might be held that a tax should not be imposed in any year unless it becomes operative in that year. This practice is possibly in ordinary circumstances a prudent one, but it seems to me not to provide for a case in which, although the tax is not immediately operative, its indispensable preliminary machinery must be set at work at once, and the procedure now proposed is to meet this difficulty.
The Motion which I now propose is solely concerned with this point of procedure, and it would not, I imagine, be in order to go beyond this point, but if you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that if this Motion is passed by the House, there will appear on the Order Paper to-morrow the actual terms of the necessary Ways and Means Resolution. It will be of a wide and general character. When the actual proposals of the Government are before the House, it will be seen that this wideness is subject to certain qualifications. What those qualifications will be I shall set out in the exposition of the proposals which, if the House passes this Motion, I shall make in moving the Ways and Means Resolution on Monday next.
Sir DENNIS HERBERT: This is one of those happy occasions when we are debating a matter of some importance and some interest, and one which is not likely to raise any angry passions or become in any way, I hope, a party question. We cannot on this Resolution discuss the question of the proposed land values taxation. We are merely discussing the question of procedure. Of course, we on this side of the House regard the present Government as a set
1856
of highway robbers, and, although we do not know exactly what their proposals are, we have a shrewd suspicion that they may turn out to be a scheme of highway robbery. In the meantime it will be my duty—and I shall not shrink from it—to congratulate the Government and the right hon. Gentleman upon, the fact that on this occasion they are behaving like the high-class gentlemen of the road rather than the villains of the lower type. When those picturesque persons, mounted on swift horses, with masks and pistols, patrolled the roads, there was a standard of honour among some of them; they plied their trade according to certain codes of honour.
On this occasion, the Government have shown by their intention to found these proposals upon a Ways and Means Resolution this year, that they are—whether of their own free-will or under duress, I cannot say—at any rate, following a course which is the correct one, and correct in a very important manner in regard to the control of this House over expenditure. This has not always been followed on previous occasions. Speaking from the back benches I may, perhaps, say that in the past there have been highway robbers in this party as well as in other parties, and this is an occasion on which I am speaking, I hope, for private and unofficial Members of this House, rather than for any Front Bench Members on either side.
I hope that when I come to move the Amendment which stands in my name to the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution—at the end to add the words, "to be hereafter determined by Parliament"—I shall have the support of hon. Members on the back benches opposite as well as on this side. I know that I shall have the support of hon. Members on the Liberal benches because they are the purest of the pure and theirs is a party which contains no highway robbers—not having had any opportunity lately. I think that for the proper understanding of this Motion we must refer to the nature of the Resolution which it would affect, namely, a Financial Resolution in Ways and Means, for the purpose of sanctioning the machinery and imposition of a tax which is not to be levied in the current financial year. Three years ago when the change-over was made from Super-tax to Surtax, there was another occasion when it was necessary, if the

1857
business was to be done properly, that what may be called the machinery Clause should be enacted a year before the tax came to be imposed. On that occasion the question was raised whether the proposal ought not to be supported by a Ways and Means Resolution. It was not so supported and the defence for not having a Ways and Means Resolution then was that such a Resolution would not be required until we came to consider the Finance Bill of the actual year in which the tax was to be levied.
It will be within the recollection of hon. Members who were in the House at that time and who took an interest in procedure that the matter was gone into carefully. The decision under which it was held that a Resolution was not necessary then, was based upon a prior Ruling given by the late Speaker of this House. I know I am not saying anything which is a breach of confidence or anything which one ought not to say in public, when I state that the late Speaker of this House, whose knowledge of Parliamentary procedure was very great, himself regretted the Ruling which he had given and the extent to which it had been applied. I think everybody who discussed the matter came to the conclusion that the practice of imposing a tax and setting up machinery for a tax, without a Financial Resolution, simply on the ground that the tax was not to be levied until a subsequent year, was a practice which could not be continued. Therefore I think one ought to congratulate the Government upon having taken a course which is calculated to maintain that control, which is so valuable, of the House of Commons over expenditure, and over the executive Government of the day.
The Resolution which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes is, as he says, intended to deal with the difficulty which has arisen through the practice, or the alleged practice of this House that the Finance Bill should only deal with the finances of the year. In my opinion, and I could quote many precedents to support it, that practice of late years has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. That rule or practice, whichever it may be called, is not based on our Standing Orders. It is not of the same importance as the question to which I have been referring
1858
hitherto of having a preliminary Financial Resolution, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognises, if I understood him aright, that, generally speaking, and within certain limits, it is right that the Finance Bill of the year should be confined to the finance of that year. On this occasion he says that these proposals, although they are not actually to levy a tax in this year, are an integral part of the Government's financial proposals for the year. In these complex days that is a position which is likely to recur over and over again, and, therefore, as far as the purpose of this Resolution is concerned, I think it is perfectly correct. Again, I say that the Government are to be congratulated upon doing their highway robbery, if that is how we regard it, according to a high code.
May I refer to the only two recent Rulings in support of this practice as to the Finance Bill applying only to the finance of the year? In 1914 there was a Ruling, not a very satisfactory one, but at least it amounted to the obiter dictum that the Finance Bill must not deal with anything outside the finance of the year. In 1927, however, a very definite Ruling was given from the Chair ruling out of order certain Amendments to the Finance Bill because they had nothing to do with the finance of that year but dealt with the imposition of taxation in future years. I said just now that I thought that this practice had recently been honoured more in the breach than the observance. It is a curious thing that in the case I have just mentioned, when the Ruling was given that those Amendments were out of order for the reason stated, the whole of one very large and important part of the Finance Bill, namely, all the provisions relating to the change over from Super-tax to Surtax and the imposition of the Surtax was not concerned with the imposition of a tax for that exact year. Yet that machinery was allowed to go without any Financial Resolution to support it, and in spite of the fact that it dealt with something outside the finances of that year. That, to my mind, proves that some procedure of this kind to enable the Finance Bill to go beyond dealing strictly with the finances of the year is necessary. I now come to the Amendment which stands in my name—
Mr. SPEAKER: I did not propose to take the hon. Member's Amendment. This does not seem to be the right place at which to move it. It would be more suitable to move it, either on the Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means or on the Finance Bill instead of on this Resolution.
Sir D. HERBERT: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that intimation. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer at any rate to the intention behind the Amendment, and, possibly, when you have heard my explanation, I may ask you even to go so far as to reconsider your decision upon that point. What I was going to say was that the Chancellor himself has recognised that the rune of confining the Finance Bill of the year to the finances of the year is, within certain limits, a very necessary and proper rule, and he is proposing this Resolution to enable the Committee of Ways and Means to pass a Resolution on which may be founded legislation for the imposition of a tax, and for setting up all the necessary machinery connected with a tax, not actually to be levied until two years hence. If this kind of practice is to be resorted to in future years, and I think that is likely to happen over and over again, it seems important that we should not depart more than is necessary from that principle of confining the Finance Bill to the finances of the year. If we decide this year to impose a tax, if we pass all the necessary legislation for the machinery of that tax, and if the tax is under the Act passed this year to be levied actually two years hence, it seems to me that inconvenience may be caused, both in Parliament, and in the country among the taxpayers, who will suddenly find the tax levied upon them, without any notice so to speak.
Legislation when it does not, at the moment, touch people's pockets or harm them, or make them feel it in any way, is apt to be quickly forgotten. If legislation of the kind I have indicated is passed this year, people will have forgotten all about it before the year comes round in which the tax is actually to be levied and the tax will be found an even more unpleasant surprise than it would have been if it had been discussed in Parliament in that particular year. My hope in putting down this Amend-
1860
ment was that the Resolution might be passed in such a form that it would be necessary, in the year when the tax came to be levied, for Parliament to be reminded of the tax and for something to be put into the Finance Bill of that year—just a line, if it were no more—to the effect, for instance, that the tax imposed by the Act of 1931, would be payable for the year 1934. I regarded my Amendment as such a harmless one and yet so beneficial that I ventured to hope that the Government would have accepted it, and have shown that they intended to continue to live up to that high standard of honour of Dick Turpin and his tribe to which I have already alluded.
I still think, as Resolutions of this kind are likely to be adopted in the future, it would be better, in this Resolution, to make quite certain that in any case of this kind, a tax imposed by legislation of a previous year should be referred to and brought to the notice of Parliament in the Finance Bill of the year in which it is first levied. It is with that object that I desired to move the Amendment, and I suggest that it would be more convenient that it should be attached to this Resolution, rather than to the Ways and Means Resolution in Committee. Of course, if it were attached to this Resolution, it would limit the Ways and Means Resolution in such a way that that Resolution also would have to contain some provision that the actual date of the levying of the tax should be determined by Parliament in the year in which the tax was to be levied.
No one will forget that this Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments, and indeed in practice cannot altogether bind the doings of this Parliament in future, and whatever may be in this Resolution with regard to the future determination that may he taken on any levying of a tax, it is beyond all question that Parliament could alter the date at any time. If this tax were imposed in this year for 1934, Parliament could next year anticipate it and levy it for 1933, or it could defer it in such a way that it should not be levied till 1935. Therefore, all that would be proposed by the Amendment standing in my name would be that this House, recognising that it had power to alter a date, should say that that

1861
date should be such as Parliament might hereafter decide. If I may do so on the point of Order, I would like to ask you, Sir, whether you would reconsider your decision as to my Amendment, and whether you would allow me to move it on this Resolution as being preferable to confining it entirely to the Ways and Means Resolution.
Mr. SPEAKER: It occurred to me that, if this Amendment were allowed or included, it should be either on the Ways and Means Resolution or preferably in the Finance Bill, which sets up the machinery for the levying of the tax. The hon. Member puts me in some difficulty, because neither of those cases will be under my control, and it is very far from my duty to interfere with the discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means as to what Amendments would or would not be in order. All that I can say at the moment is that it does not appear to me to be the proper place to put the Amendment into the Resolution now before the House.
Sir EL HERBERT: It was partly by reason of the difficulty to which you have referred that I thought it better to deal with the Amendment here, because the House is technically the superior body to the Committee, and therefore I thought it would be better that the matter should be dealt with by the House rather than by the Committee. Under the circumstances, I do not wish to dispute your Ruling, and I will close my remarks by saying again that I hope the conduct of the Government in this matter of procedure hitherto will be followed in future. On this occasion at any rate I do not shrink, however unpleasant it may be, from the duty of congratulating the Government on having for once taken the right course.
Captain BOURNE: I do not think anyone listening to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have quite realised that we are making, in the suggestion which he puts before us, a rather big variation of the procedure hitherto adopted. I realise that these questions of procedure appear to some hon. Members opposite to be matters of no importance, but they really are somewhat vital and should not be allowed to pass without comment, because they tend to broaden from one precedent to
1862
another, and there is on all of us, no matter which party is in office, a general responsibility to see that any new departures in the procedure of this House do not place hardships on an Opposition or put an undue and unnecessary power in the hands of the Government. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert), I welcome the proposal of the Government, and, as he has said, the old procedure, which is a customary procedure and not one arising out of the Standing Orders—though it is one which was strongly advocated by your predecessor, when he ruled certain Amendments out of order on the Report stage of a Ways and Means Resolution in 1927—is one which under modern conditions cannot always be enforced.
The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the necessity of valuing the land is an integral part of his scheme for imposing taxation on the land, and as we have no idea as to what will be in the Chancellor's scheme, I do not propose to touch on that subject. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. Until one has seen his scheme it is difficult to understand why he could not have included the valuation Clauses in this year's Finance Bill, and actually brought forward the tax in the year in which he desires to collect it. However, he assures us that that is not possible, and I accept that assurance. It seems to me that in many ways the Resolution of the Government goes far to strengthen the Ruling of Mr. Speaker Whitley in 1927 that a Finance Bill can only deal with taxes imposed for the year, because on this occasion the Government, desiring to include taxation which will not be collected till 1933, have put down this Resolution, which in fact acts as an Instruction to the Committee of Ways and Means enabling them to put in an unusual provision on a special occasion; and it would be very desirable if, whenever it became necessary for any future Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt a similar Measure, and include in his Finance Bill proposals which were not to be operative in the course of that financial year, a similar Resolution should be put on the Paper of the House, and that not only this House but the country should be fully warned as to what the proposals would be.

1863
I only hope that some Chancellor of the Exchequer in the far distant future, after we have agreed to this Resolution to-day and placed on the Journals of the House what must be a very strong precedent, will follow this precedent, and that the House and country will be warned by means of a Financial Resolution of precisely what they are undertaking and what future liabilities will fall on the taxpayer. There is another point, and that is the one raised at the close of his speech by the hon. Member for Watford. I am not certain whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any Member of the Government can at the moment answer this point, but I want to know whether in fact when, in 1933, the actual tax will come to be imposed, it will be necessary either to have a fresh Resolution that year in Ways and Means Committee imposing the tax, or whether it can be done merely by means of a Clause in that year's Finance Bill. I feel that if any case such as this, where this House is imposing taxation which will not fall on the shoulders of its victims for a period of two years, should arise, at least some reminder will be given both to the House and to the victims of that taxation that it will in fact come into operation at that period.
Finally, under this Resolution we are doing what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself frequently admitted to be undesirable. We are perhaps attempting to bind future Parliaments because we are now imposing a tax which will, as I read this Resolution, be operative in 1933 unless some future Parliament takes action. I am not certain whether that is altogether a good innovation in our financial procedure, but, weighing up the good as against the evil in this suggestion, I think that on the whole the Government should be congratulated. I think they have done much to strengthen the practice that the Finance Bill should only contain the taxation of the year, and that they have given special machinery to call attention to the fact that in one special case they are departing from it and asking the sanction of the House so to do.
Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to a word of congratulation on making a precedent. I do not think the precedents
1864
quoted by the previous speakers are really on all fours with what is happening now, because while it is true that there is a similarity, yet there actually was a tax in the cases quoted, and all that happened was that it assumed a different form; but in this case, I believe for the first time—at least, I can find no precedents—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking power to levy a tax not in the year in which he desires to collect it. Of course, the point about future Parliaments applies to everything. No House of Commons can bind a future House, and the question as to whether this is wise or otherwise will be determined by our successors in future Parliaments. But I am very pleased to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer making a revolution in our Parliamentary procedure, especially as this revolution is a form of words covering a fact, and that fact is an old-fashioned radical idea which has never yet had a fair chance to be worked out in the fiscal system of this country.
It is indeed a precedent. I do not think there is any ruling on all fours with it, and the House should understand that it is a precedent for which, I believe, there is no comparable record in the procedure of the House, and no ruling from the Chair to cover it. But the House exists to make precedents, and this precedent will be discussed in years to come; and I have no doubt whatever that it will be referred to not merely in its form but as to the fact that it will cover, and the terms of that fact the House will have to discuss on Monday and Wednesday next.
Sir HUGH O'NEILL: I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be feeling very pleasantly surprised at the reception which has been accorded to this Resolution on this side of the House, because I imagine that he probably thought that so extreme and revolutionary a suggestion as has been mentioned by the hon. Member who has just spoken would much more probably have been met with rather violent opposition from this side than by acquiescence. As regards the simple question of procedure, which my hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) and Oxford (Captain Bourne) have particularly dealt with, I quite agree with them that if you are going to impose taxation in the present Bill to operate

1865
in future years, then certainly a Financial Resolution is necessary and proper, and to that extent the Government have undoubtedly acted properly in proposing it. But I cannot help feeling that supposing the thing could have been done in the same way in which, I am told, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did it, without a Finance Resolution, surely this Government are not such great sticklers for Parliamentary procedure that they would have thought it necessary to put down a Resolution. Consequently, I cannot help feeling that the fact that they have thought it necessary to put down this Resolution seems to show that there must be something rather more in it than perhaps at first meets the eye.
I do not know whether this is exactly a point of Order, or whether it is one that I can properly ask you, Mr. Speaker, but it would greatly help the House to understand the position if we could be told this: Suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had desired to put the valuation proposals into ads Finance Bill without at the same time proposing a tax, would that have been in order? Could that have been done? I do not know whether that is a point you can answer on the spur of the moment, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. SPEAKER: I should deeline to give a definite Ruling on such a hypothetical case. It is a question that would open up considerable discussion.
Sir O'NEILL: I did not expect for a moment that yon would, without any notice, have been able to give a Ruling on that point. I feel that the position is rather this, that the Government have discovered that they cannot insert the valuation Clauses into this year's Finance Bill, unless at the same time they make provision for a tax, and that that is the reason why they are adopting this procedure. The Chancellor has given reasons why they did not do as last year, and bring in a separate valuation Bill. I think that that was a proper way of doing it. There should first have been a valuation Bill and then, when that was passed, and the machinery was ready, the Government could have imposed a tax operating for the year in which it was imposed. I cannot help feeling that it has been done in the way now suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order
1866
to facilitate something which the House of Commons would not be very willing, in ordinary circumstances, to help to get through.
A good deal has been said in previous speeches about the practice of confining the taxation proposals to the year to which they refer. It has been said that that practice has been departed from. Possibly it has, but I feel that that is a tremendously important principle in our financial procedure. If you look at the history of the financial procedure in the House of Commons and how it has grown up, you will find that the tendency has been to substitute annual taxes for fixed taxes. In the old days, for instance, the King used to be granted a civil list during the whole of his reign. That was the principle, and the whole constitutional struggle of Parliament has been to try to bring down the question of taxation to an annual question, and to make the taxes of the year operate for that year, and that year only. It is a good sound system of finance, but on the pure question of procedure, if the Government are determined to carry this thing through, I agree that it is the best way of doing it to put down this Motion. At the same time, I wish to enter a protest and a warning that the thing that they propose to do is not a good thing, and is contrary to the sound financial practice of the country.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I see no signs of activity on the bench opposite. The Government have shown such an extraordinary reticence in the Debates on the Budget, that I am rising for the purpose of asking that we may have some answer to the question which has been addressed with every courtesy to Ministers opposite by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). This is a point of some considerable interest, and it is a little discourteous of Ministers if they do not give us an answer to a very proper question. My hon. and gallant Friend asked whether under this proceeding it will be possible in the year in which the tax actually becomes operative to bring that tax into operation by a simple Clause in the Finance Bill, or whether a Financial Resolution will be necessary in that year? I hope that we may have an answer as to which course, in the opinion of the Govenment, is necessary.

1867
My right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) has been speculating as to the reasons why this particular procedure has been adopted. There is possibly one other explanation of the change in the Chancellor's view. I remember that last year, when he said that he was going to have a separate valuation Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at once got up and took exception to that course. He said, "I am afraid that if you have a separate valuation Bill, it will never get through; you ought to have the valuation Clauses as part of the Bill, and, as you cannot have a valuation without saying what you want it for, you should put in a token tax." There is so much agreement now between the Liberal Benches and the benches opposite, that possibly in the course of the conversations that havebeen taking place at Downing Street, this idea may have been pressed on the Chancellor of the Exchequer with such eloquence by the right hon. Gentleman, that he has not been able to resist it. If the Solicitor-General is to answer the question, perhaps he will answer another at the same time. I was a little intrigued to hear the Chancellor say just now that these proposals in regard to land valuation taxation formed an integral part of the finances of the present Budget—
Mr. SNOWDEN: Programme.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I misunderstood the Chancellor. I could not understand how the land taxation proposals could form any part of the finances of the Budget, seeing that they are not to produce any finance in this year.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): I am sorry if I appeared discourteous by not answering sooner, but I intended to answer. I feel, as a young Member of the House, that it is almost impudence to speak on any question of procedure. I understand, if the procedure proposed is adopted, that when the year comes for the tax to be levied, there will be no need of any Financial Resolution, and no need of any Clause in the Finance Act, because the date upon which the tax will be levied will be fixed by the Bill which will be passed this year. That will finally determine the
1868
matter, unless of course a subsequent Parliament at any time takes some steps to alter it.
Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I find in this House and other places that when the experts more or less agree, the position of the ordinary Member is probably in some danger. I wan confirmed in my opinion by the last statement that we have just heard. We are told that there will be no need to put this tax in the Budget or in a Financial Resolution. By passing this Motion, the House of Commons will lay down that on some future occasion a tax may be levied by the House without that tax being put into the Finance Bill or without a Financial Resolution—a tax about which we know nothing or how it will operate. This Motion is very bad practice from the point of view of the position of the ordinary Member. It is essential that the House of Commons should remember that they are representing the interests of the taxpayers of the country.
No precedent has been given for this Motion. Directly we set up a precedent of this kind, whatever the experts may say about it never being put into practice again, you invariably get a Government next year doing the same thing. Such a Motion will allow the imposition of a tax of the nature of which we know nothing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it will not be in operation until 1933, but this Motion will give power to a future Government to lay down a tax without anyone knowing any details about it. There is nothing in the Motion to tell us in which year the tax will be imposed. I am only an ordinary Member of Parliament, but the ordinary Member has the greatest right on these occasions to object to the rules of the House being altered in such a way that the taxpayers can. be burdened without knowing what the burdens are. I protest against this Motion, which I believe to be against the best interest of the House of Commons.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS: We have become very familiar with a phrase about the anticipation of Budget secrets. The whole point of the Budget is that it is an annual affair, and I suggest that the method proposed in this Motion is an anticipation of Budget secrets for at least two years ahead. I should like

1869
the learned Solicitor-General to express his view on that point. If we allow a procedure of this kind, we shall be able to lay out in advance, perhaps for 10 years, the line of future taxation. This is an entirely new form of tax, and it is against the precedents to allow an anticipation of Budget secrets to be included in this year's Budget. We know why this device is being resorted to, but it is contrary to practice to put future taxes into the Finance Bill of this year.
Resolved,
"That, notwithstanding anything in the established practice of this House to the contrary, provision may be made in the Finance Bill of the present Session for giving effect to any Resolution which may be passed in the Committee of Ways and Means, and agreed to by this House for imposing a tax on Land Values although the tax is not to come into operation until a subsequent financial year."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PALESTINE AND EAST AFRICA LOANS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  5.0 p.m.
  The special objects of this Bill were indicated in the White Paper which was circulated when the Financial Resolution was moved last week by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The point at issue is rather a technical one. Briefly, it is that under the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926, a loan raised by one of the East African Dependencies can only be guaranteed by the Treasury if the interest and sinking fund are charged on the revenues and assets of the Dependency, with priority over all charges not existing at the date when the Act was passed. In 1926, it was contemplated that most of the East African Dependencies would make use of the facilities provided by the Act, but since then certain of them have decided to borrow on their own credit in the open market, and their withdrawal has made
  1870
  it possible for those remaining to raise further loans. This has created a difficulty. The Government of Tanganyika proposes to raise such a further loan, but as it has already raised one loan of over £2,070,000 under the Act, which was duly made a first charge on the revenue's, any further loan cannot be a first charge with the same priority, as this would constitute a breach of contract with the stockholders of the first loan; and, for the same reason, it cannot rank equally with the first loan. On the other hand, if it ranks after the 1928 loan, it has nut the priority required by the Act, as at present worded, as a condition of guarantee.
  The Bill, therefore, amends the Act of 1926 so as to give power to the Treasury to give a guarantee to a loan which has not the priority required by that Act, provided that the charges which prevent it having that priority are themselves guaranteed under the Act. The new loan will be issued by the Government of Tanganyika itself, and no liability will fall on the Exchequer beyond the contingent liability already existing under the Act of 1926 to guarantee loans raised by the East African Governments up to a maximum of £10,000,000. This maximum, of course, could not be increased without the express authority of Parliament. The difficulty dealt with in the Bill is one which could hardly have been foreseen at the time the Act of 1926 was drafted, but it is, nevertheless, a very real one, which stands at present in the way of Tanganyika raising money to meet charges already incurred in connection with its development programme. The Bill will enable new money to be raised under the Act of 1926 to meet these charges, and also to meet the cost of further development already in contemplation, which must be delayed unless the necessary finance is assured.
  The House will wish me to give some information as to the development projects in Tanganyika for which money is to be borrowed. Before doing so, I would like to deal with one or two points which were raised in the Debate on the Financial Resolution. In the first place the hon. Baronet the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton) inquired why certain territories had decided not to raise loans under the Act of 1926 but to borrow under their own credit and without guarantee. The

  1871
  answer is that by taking this course they will be in a position to raise further loans, it necessity arises in the future, without such loans ranking after loans under the Guaranteed Loans Act, which must under the terms of that Act have priority over all subsequent loans. Also, a loan under the Act can only be applied to certain specified purposes, whereas money raised by the Colonies on their own credit can be devoted to wider purposes. It is, however, largely a matter in which the Territories concerned must determine which course they will adopt.
  The action of the territories concerned, Kenya, Uganda and Northern Rhodesia, in choosing to borrow on their own credit has benefited Tanganyika and Nyasaland by enabling them to make fuller use of the Act of 1926. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) referred to the fact that the only loan, so far as East Africa is concerned, which has been raised under the Act of 1926 is one of £2,070,000 raised by Tanganyika in 1928, before the present Government came into power. That is true as a statement of fact, but in addition, between the 1928 loan and the amending clauses of the Colonial Development Act, the Treasury had undertaken to guarantee further schemes in Tanganyika to the amount of £1,813,721. Further, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury informed the Noble Lord in answer to a question on 28th April, since the Act of 1926 was amended in 1929 by the Colonial Development Act the Treasury have agreed, subject to the fulfilment of the statutory conditions, that guarantees will be given in due course in respect of loans to be raised for schemes, including the Zambesi Bridge and associated schemes, totalling over £4,500,000. The total projects, therefore, recommended to date by the Advisory Committee appointed under the Act of 1926 now amount to £8,563,139. Of the work represented by this figure, which provides substantial employment in this country, practically the whole has been sanctioned and is in process of being carried out. Pending the actual issue of the loans, the money is being provided by temporary borrowings through the Crown Agents for the Colonies, and these will be repaid from the loans which will be issued at convenient times, as they become necessary,
  1872
  by the Territories concerned. These loans will largely exhaust the £10,000,000 available for East Africa under the Guaranteed Loans Act.
  The Noble Lord, in the discussion on the Financial Resolution, dwelt at some length on the statement made by the Dominions Secretary, when Lord Privy Seal, in the Debate on the Address in 1929, that there was £1,000,000 worth of schemes which could be got on with right away by an alteration in the Guaranteed Loans Act so as to allow of interest charges during the period of construction being paid out of the loan itself. The Colonial Development Act, in Section 4 (a) did, in fact, amend the Palestine and East African Loans Act in this way. It also provided, however, in Section 1(i) (n), for free grants to be made for the same purpose out of the Colonial Development Fund; and the Colonial Development Advisory Committee have, so far, felt justified in recommending that this provision should be utilised in connection with a number of the schemes in which assistance from the Fund has been sought. This has given Colonial Governments greater freedom to undertake at once works which they would have had to postpone if they had been obliged to add to their loan commitments the ultimate liability for the payment of interest daring the earlier years. The Noble Lord will have gathered from another answer by the Financial Secretary that of the total amount of £4,679,418 accepted for guarantee in respect of Tanganyika and Nyasaland since the Colonial Development Act became law, no less than £4,142,440 represents schemes which have been made possible by the alternative section of the Colonial Development Act to which I have already referred. These schemes cover projects in Nyasaland as well as in Tanganyika, to which the Noble Lord referred as the "one ewe lamb."
  The Nyasaland scheme is a very important one, the Zambesi. Bridge and the connected works, for which over £3,000,000 will be raised by a guaranteed loan with the assistance afforded by the Colonial Development Fund. In addition to the sum I have mentioned in connection with Tanganyika and Nyasaland, the Government of Northern Rhodesia has been enabled, through the payment

  1873
  of interest from the Colonial Development Fund in the early years, to include amongst its capital works additional schemes to the value of £425,375. Quite recently it has been decided that the money for these Northern Rhodesia schemes should be raised not under the Guaranteed Loans Act but by a loan on the Protectorate's own credit, but the fact remains that those schemes have all been expedited through the additional facilities afforded by the Act of 1929.
  The total value of the schemes which have thus been expedited by the special provisions of the Act of 1929 is, therefore, £4,567,815. This is well above the figure of £1,000,000 which the then Lord Privy Seal had in mind at the time of the Debate on the Address in 1929. It can fairly be stated that the only fault of his speech, as it has been the greatest fault of this Government, is that it was too modest, since more than four times what he promised has actually been accomplished. I hope, therefore, that the Noble Lord, who was mildly humorous about the promise of the Secretary of State for the Dominions, will be willing to admit that that promise has been amply fulfilled, and that the Government has, in fact, provided opportunities for these East African territories to develop their resources which were not theirs previously.
  As requested, I will give a brief indication of the objects for which Tanganyika now desires to raise a loan. In the first place, of the loan of £2,000,000 odd raised in 1928, £1,736,000 was spent on railways, including the completion of a branch line from Tabora to Mwanza on Lake Victoria, the extension of the Moshi line to Arusha, and general improvements to the main line. A further £100,000 was spent on port and harbour construction and improvements at Dar-es-Salaam and Mwanza, and £75,000 on roads. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary explained the other evening, the Tanganyika Government has now passed a Loan Ordinance authorising the raising of a further £2,850,000. I should like to make it clear to hon. Members, however, that this sum does not represent the limit of Tanganyika's development programme, but that other projects are in contemplation for which further borrowings will be necessary at the appropriate time.
  1874
  There is another point about these borrowings under the Act of 1926 which I should like to emphasise, and that is that every scheme has to be thoroughly examined by an advisory committee of business men appointed under the Act before it can be accepted as an item in a loan which is to receive a guarantee. The personnel of this Committee is the same as that of the Colonial Development Advisory Committee. As in the case of the earlier loan, the schemes represented in the total of £2,850,000 authorised in the recent Tanganyika Ordinance have all received the approval of that committee, and they are all, in fact, in process of being carried out, the money having been provided pending the floating of a loan by temporary borrowing. The sum of £1,870,991 is being spent on railways, the chief items being the construction of a branch from Manyoni on the central line to Kinyangiri, which will tap productive native areas, from which it is expected that the export of grain and ghee and other products will be largely increased on the completion of the line.
  Another line which is being built will run from the Moshi-Arusha line to Engare-Nairobi, on the western slope of Mount Kilimanjaro, and will tap a fertile area in which coffee, sisal, maize and wheat show signs of promise. Provision is also made for new rolling stock, new stations, etc., and for an extensive realignment of the central railway, which is necessitated by the fact that the original German line was built across the bed of a dry lake, and was last year almost entirely washed away at that point owing to floods. A sum of £388,528 is included for ports, harbours and shipping services. This covers the purchase of a new steamer for Lake Tanganyika, wharf extensions and improvements at Dar-es-Salaam, Tanga, and Mwanza, and also the purchase of tugs and moorings. A sum of £153,417 is included for various Public Works, including water supply schemes, and £247,878 for roads and bridges. A copy of the local Ordinance showing the details of all these services has been placed in the Library of the House.
  I mentioned just now that other projects are already in contemplation for which further borrowings will in due

  1875
  course be necessary. In this connection the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. A. Somerville) referred in the course of the previous Debate to the recommendation of the recent Henn Railway Commission as to railway construction in Southern Tanganyika. The immediate recommendation of this Commission was that a line about 124 miles long should be constructed from Kilosa to Ifakara, and two parties are at present undertaking the technical survey of this route and an economic survey is being begun. The Governor has stated that if it is shown by the economic survey that this line is likely to pay at the end of five years, and if a free grant of interest can be obtained for that period from the Colonial Development Fund, he agrees that the line should be begun at once.
  The Railway Commission also suggested that the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should be approached at an early date regarding further projects for railway development in Southern Tanganyika, which are of interest to all three Territories. On this point the Secretary of State is awaiting the views of the Governor of Northern Rhodesia which are now in the post, and the Government will then consider what statement of policy can be made. The Commission also made recommendations for effecting a junction between the central line and the Tanga Railway, and the Governor has stated that a Survey Party will examine the route from Kilosa to Korogwe which they advocated. An economic survey will also be made as soon as that of the Kilosa-Ifakara line has been completed.
  The House will see that if all these proposals are to be carried out considerable further borrowing by Tanganyika will be necessary at some date; a fact which emphasises the desirability of removing as is proposed in the present Bill, an obstacle which at present stands in the way of such borrowing. I hope I have satisfied the House that a very great amount of work is being undertaken under the Guaranteed Loan Act in these dependencies. We hear a great deal from the other side of the House as to the importance of developing our Imperial heritage, and I can assure hon. Members that the present Government yield to no one in their desire to see the
  1876
  resources of these territories utilised to the fullest possible advantage, and in their anxiety to promote the welfare of all sections of the inhabitants. At the same time our efforts to expedite this development have created substantial employment in this country, and I invite the House to assist the Government in this work by agreeing to the removal of an unforeseen technical difficulty which has arisen in providing the necessary finance.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I am sure the House will be only too willing to grant the hon. Gentleman his Bill. I merely confine myself to dealing with some of the points which he raised with reference to the discussion we had the other night. The hon. Member has given figures to show that the plan of 1925 has produced good results, and that schemes are being prepared and promises have been made by the Treasury under the Colonial Development Act, 1929, that when that work eventuates they will be prepared to act. On all these points I never had any doubts. The other night I was addressing myself to the particular point which, I think, is of some interest, as to whether the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, as amended by the Colonial Development Act, was a method which produced the results anticipated either by the late Government or by the present Government., and in this matter from what the Dominion Secretary said in 1929 I should like to remind the hon. Member that he made the same distinction in 1929 as the Under-Secretary has made this afternoon. It is a perfectly correct distinction in respect of two things; first, that the interest might be paid out of capital; and, secondly, that the period of the loan might be extended from 40 to 60 years. The Dominions Secretary drew a clear distinction between that Amendment and the provision to which the Under-Secretary referred, in the Colonial Development Act in making grants out of the Colonial Development Fund in aid of the payment of interest during the construction period. He made that distinction in the Debate on the Address on 3rd July, 1929, by saying:
  "I am announcing to the House that I shall be asking power in this Parliament, in this Session, before July ends, to alter and amend the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act. The first object of altering that Act is because there is £1,000,000 worth of

  1877
  schemes that can be got on with right away by allowing us to pay the interest on capital during the construction period …. Secondly, we are altering the period of loans to 60 years; but in addition to that, we shall be taking power that in the Budget each year, as a charge not to be raided, there will be set aside a sum of £1,000,000 annually to be used to make grants of interest for a limited period on loans raised for Colonial development."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1929; cols. 107–3, Vol. 229.]
  That is the distinction between the two things. On 12th July, 1929, the Dominion Secretary said:
  "We are altering the Act, so that during the period of construction the interest charges can be paid out of capital. That, again, is something that the Colonial Office has been pressing for years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1929; col. 1261, Vol. 229.]
  It was in respect of the Amendment of the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act that the Dominion Secretary said that £1,000,000 of schemes could be got on with right away. What are the facts? Instead of £1,0100,000 in the year and three-quarters which have passed since then, instead of the Colonial Office clamouring for this Amendment so that loans might be raised, not one loan has been raised under that Act in that time, but instead, until Tanganyika comes along again, every Colonial Government concerned is prepared to borrow on its own credit in the open market. Why? The Under-Secretary has given one obvious reason, that the trouble about this kind of Act is that it will be used by a Colonial Government only in extremis. It will be used only when it cannot raise the money in any other way, because it will make it so much more difficult for the Colonial Government to raise money subsequently, as the guaranteed loan would be a first charge and, therefore, their credit would be so much worse. That is the first reason.
  The second reason is that the Colonial Government have no cause to love the Treasury. They know the sort of conditions and trouble any Colonial Government has, whatever the Government in power, in dealing with the Treasury. It is that niggardly and over-cautious attitude on the part of the Treasury in little matters which is holding up development. I want to point out that it is not in the interest of any party in the State, but simply in the interest of getting on with the job, that up to the
  1878
  present the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act has been very little utilised for the actual borrowing of money, and it has not been speeded up since this Government came into power. The Amendment which this Government made under the Act has, in a large measure, completely failed. If we want to speed up development under guaranteed loans, it is far more important to adopt more energetic methods of administration, and to avoid the risk of those small difficulties which Treasuries are always inclined to raise. Energetic administrative action is far more important than all these Amendments of the original Act in small points.
  From that point, which is a serious one, I should like to pass to the other point made by the Under-Secretary, that, although it is true that no loans have yet been raised under this Act, various promises have been given, and the Treasury have agreed that, when the time comes for raising the Zambesi loan, they will be prepared to give a guarantee. That, however, has been going on, as the Under-Secretary pointed out, ever since the passage of the Act of 1926, when schemes of this kind, including the Zambesi scheme, were being considered and approved by the East African Guaranteed Loan Committee, which is now merged in the Colonial Development Fund. I would only point out that all these approved projects were lumped together by the Dominions Secretary, in the debate in 1929, under the general statement that he had found schemes held up for months and years—schemes that would give employment, schemes that were necessary, schemes that would develop and benefit our Colonies. For a hundred and one reasons they were all in the pigeon-holes, that is to say, they had only been considered and approved, and exploration was still in progress—the same kind of exploration and preliminary work which the Under-Secretary has detailed here.
  Dr. SHIELS: I should like to point out that, in the case of the amounts to which I referred, the work is actually going on, with the approval of the Treasury. The loan has not actually been floated, but is awaiting a suitable time, and the work is actually proceeding under the contemplated borrowing.
  Lord E. PERCY: That does not apply to all of the cases mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. For instance, there is one railway scheme in regard to which only a preliminary survey is being carried out, and, so far as it does apply to these schemes, it includes that very large body of schemes—considerably over £4,000,000, in addition to the £2,000,000 for Tanganyika—which has been approved by the East African Loan Committee before 1929. The fact of the matter is that most of this work, of which we are very glad to hear, is still in a preliminary stage.
  Now I come to the other provisions of the Colonial Development Act, which enable grants to be paid out of the Colonial Development Fund to defray interests during the construction period. The hon. Gentleman has told us that promises have been made that interest will be defrayed when eventually the loans are borrowed, but up to date, as the Financial Secretary very kindly informed me in reply to a question, in the last year and nine months the total sum of money that has been paid out of the Colonial Development Fund to defray interest during the construction period is £11,777. I point this out to the House because the truth of the matter is that this Colonial development, so far as the actual getting to grips with it is concerned, is proceeding at, a leisurely pace. It may be that it cannot be proceeded with more quickly; it may be that it is proceeding at a slightly quicker rate than in the three years between 1926 and 1929.
  There is no doubt that the Government are entitled to take credit for having asked the House for larger expenditure. The Colonial Development Fund has been used, and I do not underrate the effects of its existence in encouraging Colonial Governments to get on with their work long before any actual liability falls upon the Fund; but, taking all that into account, these development schemes are not proceeding at anything like the rate that the Dominions Secretary led the House to expect when he came before it a year and nine months ago, and, in particular, the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act has produced nothing at all in that year and nine months. If we had never amended the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act in that respect, the amount of money borrowed would have
  1880
  been precisely the same, and, in that respect at any rate, our expectations have been deplorably disappointed.
  I do not wish it to be thought that I make these remarks in any carping spirit, but I think it is desirable that the House should know that all this tremendous burgeoning and blossoming of schemes all over the country, which we were led to expect as the result of a few little things like the Colonial Development Fund and amendments of the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, is out of the picture, that it is not so, and that the only Colonial development we are getting is a slow and steady and growing volume, I admit, but still not one that is likely to bring any material assistance to the unemployment situation in this country.
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: The proposal which the Under-Secretary has brought before the House seems to me to be extremely reasonable, and I think it will help to develop at any rate our Colonies in East Africa. My Noble Friend has spoken of the doubts on this side of the House as to the reality of the wish of the Government and their supporters to develop the Colonies and the Empire generally. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those of us on this side, and there are many of them, who know his work and the earnestness with which he is carrying it out, have no doubts with regard to him; but one has some little doubt with regard to the amount of work that the development, is bringing to our factories, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman, in his earnestness in the cause of native development, not to forget our factories in this country, but to do his best to increase the amount of exports from this country to the Colonies and to the Empire generally.
  It was very interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman speak of the proposed railway in Tanganyika, from Kilosa or some neighbouring point on the central railway round the Southern Highlands. I am very glad to hear that the survey is being concluded, and that there is a possibility of that railway being constructed shortly. That will lead to a very large development, in the fertile area of the Kilombero Valley, and will also develp the Southern Highlands. The question of white settlement in the Southern Highlands is, of course, to a

  1881
  certain extent a matter of controversy, or at any rate of discussion, but, as far as one can judge from one's small personal knowledge, there is a considerable possibility of white settlement in the Southern Highlands, where the native population is extremely sparse and the climate is very suitable for white settlement. The construction of that railway would undoubtedly tend to favour such settlement.
  It was very interesting also to hear the hon. Gentleman speak of an additional steamer on Lake Tanganyika. There is at present on the Lake a steamer which was originally German, and which is now plying up and down the Lake, and to hear that a second steamer is required seems to indicate that trade is being developed in that district. The story of the steamer that now exists is rather curious. When it was obvious that our Forces were going to occupy Kigoma during the War, the Germans, who thought they were sure to return, took this steamer some three or four miles out of the harbour of Kigoma, carefully oiled and greased the machinery, and sank her. Later the Belgians raised the steamer and brought her hack into Kigoma harbour, and there was great rejoicing on their part at having salved the steamer. During the rejoicings, however, one of the Belgians looked out of a window and said, "Where is the ship?" She had sunk again in the harbour. Then, later, we raised her, and she is now plying up and down the Lake. It is very satisfactory to hear that trade is being developed there.
  With regard to the Zambesi bridge, to which reference was made by my Noble Friend, that bridge is being constructed in order to develop the trade of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, but it is being constructed on Portuguese territory. Undoubtedly, the Portuguese district on both sides of the bridge will benefit very greatly, and our money is being used for the purpose of developing Portuguese territory. I would ask the hon. Gentleman, what control have we over the railway running on both sides of the Zambesi bridge? I understand that the bridge is being constructed with materials from this country, and one hopes that both our Colonies and this country will get a full return for the outlay that we are making on this bridge. I congratulate
  1882
  the hon. Gentleman on introducing a useful Measure, and hope that its effect will be successful.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): This subject is a very important one, but it is also very complicated and technical in its details, and I am sure that those Members of the House who are interested in its details recognise that on both sides of the House there is a desire to prosecute the work and to get forward as much as possible with the development in which we are all interested. I do not think that there is very much interest in the House in any slight difference of opinion that there may have been between the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) and myself on a previous occasion, and, therefore, I only propose to say one or two words in answer to his speech; and those will not be words of an unfriendly character, but rather an attempt to settle the slight difference between us in an amicable fashion.
  If it is any satisfaction to the Noble Lord I will give him this, that on a literal, meticulous and narrow interpretation of the words of the former Lord Privy Seal, the exact point that he was making has not been carried out exactly in the way that he anticipated. But, having said that, I think it is necessary to add that really there is not a great deal of substance in the distinction. The former Lord Privy Seal was not speaking, on the occasion to which the Noble Lord referred, in a Debate on a Bill, but in the Debate on the Address, and, therefore, I think his words ought to be construed in a somewhat wider way. He was talking about an alteration and extension of the Palestine and East Africa. Loans Act, and it is quite true that, when he made his remarks, he was envisaging two things—first of all, something that was technically an Amendment of the Act, and also something that was an extension of the principle lying behind the Act, that the British Treasury should assist in Colonial development.
  There were those two methods. When it came to the Colonial Development Act, those were embodied in different Sections of the new Act. What has actually happened since the Lord Privy Seal's speech is this: At the time he made his speech, he thought, and it was the intention of

  1883
  the Colonial Office, that the Zambesi Bridge scheme would be financed through the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, and that an Amendment of that Act would enable the work to be got under way. There is every reason to think that that would have been the case but for the fact that the scheme had to be extended and a greater loan had to be raised than had been anticipated. In consequence of that, the assistance was transferred from the one name to the other, and the Government, instead of proceeding through Section 5 of the Act, has proceeded through the other part.
  Lord E. PERCY: Am I right in saying that the loan is to be raised under the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is being provided under the Act, but the additional assistance that the Government are giving is not taking the shape that is implied in Section 5 of the Colonial Development Act, but is taking the more generous shape that is implied by the earlier Sections of the Act. The scheme, although no money has yet been issued from the Treasury, is already under way. There is a distinction which the Noble Lord does not fully appreciate between the scheme being proceeded with in general and further particulars being discussed with regard to it, and a scheme which has actually started and with regard to which men are actually being employed in this country. I think the Noble Lord has been a little misled by the fact that no money has actually been paid, but the position is that there is a considerable time-lag, just as there is with regard to development schemes at home. The money that we are called upon to pay is interest, and it is not until that interest is called from us that any disbursement takes place from the British Treasury. But a great deal of money has already been expended and work has already been given out to workmen in this country, and employment thereby created, even though actual sums have not been forthcoming from the British Treasury.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Dr. Shiels.]

  WIDOWS', ORPHANS', AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS [Money].
  Resolution reported,
  "That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend Section one of the Widow's, Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums which are payable by virtue of the said Act on account of old age pensions payable under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924."

  WIDOWS', ORPHANS', AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.
  [Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
  Considered in Committee.

  WIDOWS', ORPHANS', AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amendments in Section 1 of 20 Geo. 5. c. 10.)
    Major McKENZIE WOOD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out from the word "if" to the word "he" in line 12, and to insert instead thereof the word "when."
    When the Second Reading was being taken, I put a point before the Minister and promised to bring it up again in the form of an Amendment in Committee. I have put down two Amendments which raise the point. The Act of 1929 provided that pensions were payable to widows whose husbands were in insurable occupations at some time during the last three years of their lives, but the Courts have held that, where men were ill for the last three years of their lives, they may have had no occupation at all. The result has been that a number of widows who were intended to receive pensions have been denied them, and this Bill is meant to put that right. The point I raised on Second Reading was that there are many men who have more than one normal occupation, and I instanced the special case of a man who might be a salmon fisher in the summer time, and in the winter worked at something else which might not be insurable. I said there was a great danger that, if a man in respect of whom a pension was claimed by his widow became ill in the winter

    1885
    time, the widow might not get a pension, whereas had the illness started in the summer she would. In other words, a man might have two normal occupations, and it was desirable that it should be made quite clear that that was so. If the two Amendments are taken together the Bill will read:
    "shall if when he became incapable of work or ceased to be employed, his normal occupation or, in the case of a man having more than one normal occupation, any one of his normal occupations."
    I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us an assurance that the Amendments, if passed in that form, will cover the cases I have in view, because I am very much afraid that even now it may be alleged that if a man who is a salmon fisher in the summer time becomes ill in the winter, when engaged as a shopkeeper or a hawker, or something of that kind, he would not be in insurable occupation at the time he became ill. I take it that the insurable occupation is dormant, and I am informed that, according to the decisions already given, a man's occupation may be dormant and may be carried on in that form for a few months. If I have an assurance that the Amendment will cover cases of that kind, it would satisfy me and would remove the danger which I fear.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): My right hon. Friend asked me to say that he accepts the Amendment. The object has been clearly explained. I have only to add that we were informed by our advisers that the original words of the Act would be so construed as to meet the case the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made. The Amendment makes it, abundantly clear that a man who is in the position described is a man of two occupations, one of which is insurable, and in virtue of the insurable occupation he will receive the benefit of the widows' pension.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 13, after the word "employed," insert the words:
    "his normal occupation or, in the case of a man having more than one normal occupation, any one of his normal occupations "—[Major Wood.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    6.0 p.m.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I wish to address a question to the Attorney-General, and I am very much obliged to him for his courtesy in being present. Members of the Committee will recollect the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health when he introduced this Measure in which he stated that a considerable portion of the Bill was due to a mistake in the original drafting of the main Act. There have been several letters in the "Times" during the last few months from the referees, principally from Sir Benjamin Cohen, one of the principal referees and a very able and distinguished man, condemning in very rigorous terms indeed the drafting of the original Measure. The occasion for the main part of this Clause is an attempt to put right the mistake in the drafting of the original Act. Sir Benjamin Cohen, I believe, took up a very strong line as regards the exact interpretation of the original proposal. The matter was referred to the Divisional Court in the hope that some definite and expressed opinion would be given by the Court which would allow the Act to be properly interpret ed by the referees and by the Minister. No doubt for good and sufficient reasons, the judgment of the High Court was not of such a character as to be particularly helpful from the point of view of the administrators of the Measure, and, consequently, the Minister of Health had to bring in the present Bill.
    I hold strongly the view, and I think it is the view also of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), that one of the duties of the Attorney-General is to assist the House in connection with the drafting of Bills. I could give many reasons why we expect that of the Attorney-General. We expect assistance from him, and I know that he will be very glad indeed to give it. I address my question to the Attorney-General with more confidence because I recollect that when he started off upon his new career, he went to the City of London and expressed his determination to put on to the Statute Book, not only laws which were understood by

    1887
    the legal profession, but laws which would be understood by common men like the First Commissioner of Works and myself. He was so full of zeal on that occasion—it was at a dinner party in the City—and so interested in his new office, that he said he was going to attend to that matter. I am not asking him to go as far as that, but to assure the House, as far as he is able—we all err, and no one can say what interpretation judges may adopt—that the proposed amendment of the law will carry out the intentions of the House and the Minister, and that we are not likely to have a repetition of the previous action. As the Chief Law Officer of the Crown, can the hon. and learned Gentleman assure us, now that we have gone to the trouble and expense of further proceedings in this House, that what is embodied in this Clause of the Bill carries out the intention and desire of the House of Commons?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): Of course, I am glad to be here to expound the law as best I can, even to such common people as the First Commissioner of Works and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I am afraid that I had higher hopes in regard to drafting than I have been able to bring about. To be candid, it seems to me that the necessary method we pursue in this House is very much against the possibility of getting Bills through in simple language easily understood by the people. The complication of the subject, too, is such that it is very difficult. I sometimes think that the chief point in codifying Measures afterwards is, that; having got your Bills, you may try to remove obscurities and imperfections. The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether I can advise the House that this matter has now been put right, and though I certainly do not give a guarantee—that is impossible—having looked into it, I think the matter is now in order.
    Captain CAZALET: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how many cases have been turned down by her Department because of the misinterpretation of the Act or the rendering by the court of a certain decision in regard to this matter, and how many individuals will be affected by the alteration in the law?
    Miss LAWRENCE: About 5,000 cases are in suspense at the present time, and Members of the House have no doubt had cases brought forcibly to their attention. In addition, there are about 5,000 cases which have been awarded by the Minister, and we are given to understand that there has been since that time a certain balance. There will not be more than 10,000 cases altogether, speaking very generally.
    Captain CAZALET: Will the pension be retrospective?
    Miss LAWRENCE: Oh, yes, that is expressly provided for in the Bill.
    Clause 2 (Short title, construction, citation and extent), ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended. considered; read the Third time, and passed.

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL [Lords].
  As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 10.—(Service of documents).
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): I beg to move, in page 9, line 8, to leave out the word "notice," and to insert instead thereof, the word "document."
    There are altogether three small Amendments which I wish to move. With regard to the present Amendment. hon. Members who have the Bill in front of them will see that in the first line of the Clause we use the word "document." It would be absurd to have the word "document" in one part of the Clause and the word "notice" in another part, and that is why I move the deletion of the word "notice" in order to insert the word "document."
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: There is a good deal of difference between the meaning of the words "notice" and "document," but I understand that the word "document" in this case is meant to imply that it is a notice of a particular kind to the "owner" or "occupier" of a monument. I take it that that is the position.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Yes.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I think we ought to have a formal legal opinion on the matter in order to clarify the position.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The learned Attorney-General agrees that that is so.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE: 16.—(Special provisions as to Scotland.)
    Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to move in page 13, line 8, after the word "applies," to insert the words:
    "and the provisions of the principal Act and of this Act shall apply to such subsequent owner."
    Hon. Members will see that the words which I propose to insert at this point appear at the end of the Sub-section. We think that they make better sense in the middle where we propose now to put them, and I shall propose to move to leave out those words at the end of the Sub-section.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I see that the word "owner" is used. I take it that the intention is to include subsequent owhers?
    Mr. LANSBURY: Subsequent owners.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I think it means all owners in future. It is a technical point, and I assume that it is all right.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am advised that it is all right.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not always believe in your advice.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 10, leave out from the word "made," to the end of the Sub-section.—[Mr. Lansbury.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The whole of my party welcome this Bill, but I would draw attention to one very serious omission which affects an ancient monument in this country. There is one very important and very ancient monument which is in the process of crumbling into decay, and there is nothing in the Bill to protect that ancient monument. I refer to an ancient monument which is
    1890
    disappearing and that is the Liberal party, which ought to have been included in the Bill.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the rural district of Lancaster, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 12th day of March, 1931, be approved."—[Mr. Parkinson.]
  The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

  IRISH SWEEPSTAKE TICKETS (CUSTOMS SEIZURE).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Kennedy.]
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I wish to raise a question of great interest to many Members of this House, and that is the action that has been taken by the Government in various ports with regard to the bringing into this country of what are known as Irish Sweepstake tickets. What has happened in the past? In this country sweepstakes are forbidden by law, but the Irish Free State Government have passed laws which enable certain sweepstakes to be held in that country. Those sweepstakes are most carefully governed and regulated, and before one can be held it has to be permitted by the Irish Free State Government. Irish citizens who come over to this country, or it may be American citizens who land in Ireland and who come over to this country, are to-day being subjected by the Treasury to an inquisition which ought not to happen. Any Irish subject is entitled to buy a ticket in his own country. That action is perfectly legal. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury bases his action in seizing tickets on the Revenue Act, 1898, Section 1. I have looked into that

  1891
  Act carefully, and I have asked lawyers for their opinion with regard to the action that is being taken. I am glad to see that the Attorney-General is here. Perhaps he can give me certain advice. I am sure that other lawyers would be prepared equally to argue the matter. Section 1 of the Revenue Act, 189S, prohibits
  "Any advertisement or other notice of, or relating to, the drawing or intended drawing of any lottery, which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs, is imported for the purpose of publication in the United Kingdom.…"
  Does the Financial Secretary mean to say that a person who has legally in his possession the counterfoil of an Irish sweepstake ticket is bringing it into this country for the purpose of publication? Are his Customs officials entitled to demand and take away that document from that person? The Act does not give his officials power to do that. The Section further quotes the Lotteries Act of 1836. That Act forbids a person to
  "print or publish or cause to be printed or published any advertisement or any other notice of, or relating to, the drawing or intended drawing of any lottery not authorised by Parliament."
  A person who brings in a ticket which he has bought legally is not advertising it. It is his own possession. The Financial Secretary in answer to a question which I put to him said that he was advised that such tickets are lottery advertisements. When he buys a railway ticket, is that an advertisement of that railway? When he goes to the theatre and buys a ticket, is that an advertisement of that theatre? I have never heard of such a ticket being called an advertisement. He is shutting his eyes to the Danish lotteries whose tickets and advertisements are coming in by thousands. What we ask for is to be entitled to bring our own possessions in. We say that they are not advertisements and that the Financial Secretary is acting beyond his powers.
  In this country we are not entitled to have sweepstakes for the benefit of our hospitals, and the hon. Member is determined that the Irish Free State shall not have sweepstakes for its hospitals, if he can help it. He has adopted a dog-in-the-manger attitude. He says: "We cannot benefit therefore you shall
  1892
  not, and we are going to take every step to prevent you." On that he is basing his action. The Postmaster-General was told by the Home Office to open letters, but they found that that was not sufficient. The tickets are coming into this country. There is hardly a Member of this House who has not one of these illegal, or supposed to be illegal, documents.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Speak for yourself.
  Mr. MILLS: Or a member of the Press Gallery.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Probably nearly every Member has them. I suggest that the action of the Financial Secretary is mere bluff, and that his action is not legal. I wish some rich citizen from America or the Irish Free State, who has sufficient money, or some of the leagues for freedom that we have in this country would test the case in a court of law, because it is an attack on the liberty of the subject. It needs a rich man to be able to attack the Treasury. If the point were argued in a court of law it could be proved that the action taken by the Financial Secretary is illegal. It is not doing us any good in this country, and I ask him to stop this inquisition which is going on to-day in all the ports adjacent to Ireland.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and gallant Member professes to take the view that the action of the Customs is illegal. What is his ground for taking that view He says that a ticket is not a notice or an advertisement, and in the second place he says that even if it were a person is not importing it fur the purpose of publication.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: It is a receipt.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. and gallant Member suggests that the ticket is not a notice or advertisement but merely a receipt. In any event he suggests that the ticket is not brought in for the purpose of publication. Those are two points that I can deal with very simply. There are tickets for certain

  1893
  things which certainly are not notices or advertisement, but anyone who has seen one of the Irish Free State Hospital Subscribers' Fund tickets, as I have—I have one in my possession at the present time—can have no doubt—
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: May I ask how the Financial Secretary got the ticket?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As the Minister in charge of the Customs I have been given a ticket, but I should have no right to claim any benefit, because I got it in my representative capacity.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: What if it wins?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Any one who has seen one of these tickets can have no possible doubt that it is not like an ordinary ticket. It is, in fact, an advertisement and a notice of the lottery. It describes what the lottery is about. It gives particulars of the prizes. It tells how other tickets are to be obtained, and it gives all those particulars and descriptions which one would expect a notice and advertisement to give. Therefore, while it may be argued that it is not a notice or advertisement, any one who has seen one of these tickets can have no doubt that they do come within the meaning of Section 1 of the Revenue Act of 1898. In order that there might be no question on the matter, legal opinion was taken and it confirmed the view of the Customs in the matter. If any member of the public chooses to dispute that view it is open for them to take the matter to the Courts and test it for themselves. We shall be very happy for the test to be taken. We have not the smallest doubt, and I do not think that anyone who impartially views the question could have the smallest doubt, as to what the result would be. The Section says:
  "any advertisement or other notice of, or relating to, the drawing or intended drawing of any lottery which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs, is imported for the purpose of publication in the United Kingdom, in contravention or the Lotteries Act, 1836, or any other Act relating to foreign lotteries."
  I will explain to the hon. and gallant Member how the Customs have interpreted the phrase
  "which, in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs, is imported for the purpose of publication."
  1894
  It has not been their practice to confiscate single tickets in the possession of passengers which they have, presumably, purchased for themselves and not for publication. What they have confiscated, and what there can be no possible doubt have been imported for the purpose of publication, are books of tickets, which have been imported quite clearly for resale and distribution and for other methods of advertising the lottery. In view of these facts, the Customs are perfectly justified in taking the course that they have done. They are bound to do it in pursuance of the law. In view of the nature of the tickets, the action of the Customs is not merely justified but it would be entirely reprehensible if we did not see that the law was carried out.
  The hon. and gallant Member at Question Time put forward the point of discourtesy on the part of the Customs officials, but he has not referred to that to-night. He has not done what I asked him to do. I said that if he had any instance to which he wished to direct my attention, I should be happy to deal with it. That was last Tuesday. He has not given particulars of any case, therefore I can only conclude that in regard to that part of his accusation he has no evidence whatever and that I have nothing to answer. I have made such inquiries as I could in the absence of any particular case and I can find no trace of any discourtesy, but I am quite willing, if the hon. and gallant Member furnishes me with any proofs of any alleged discourtesy on the part of Customs officials, to make it my duty to look into the charges and see whether there is any foundation whatever for them.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I will give the hon. Member a case.
  Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I am convinced, with the utmost respect for this House, that this is really and truly nothing more or less than a simple question of law, and I have risen for the purpose of saying, with the utmost respect to those who have advised the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that I have the gravest doubt whether this action is justified by the section to which he has referred. I speak with considerable hesitation because I have

  1895
  not had an opportunity of considering this legislation for some time past, but I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Section, in express language, is aimed at the prohibition of advertisements or notices, or literature, relating to lotteries which are published in the British Empire. The language of the Section is quite precise. It says that it is to give—
  "power to prohibit the introduction of advertisements or other notices"
  and so on, and then follow the words—
  "imported for the purposes of publication in the United Kingdom in contravention of the Lotteries Act, 1836, or any other Act relating to"—
  what?—
  "to foreign lotteries."
  I do not think that this point has received the attention it deserves. I am far from expressing an opinion upon this section, or upon any other section in an Act of Parliament, without having a fuller opportunity than I have had to-day to consider this particular section, but I think the Act of 1898 was passed at a time when considerable scandal was occasioned by this country being flooded, through the Post Office, with literature in connection with foreign lotteries largely from Holland, and it was aimed at giving the Customs officials powers to intercept such documents, and to see that they were not used against the spirit of our Lottery Acts. I thought it right to let the Financial Secretary have this opinion because it may well be that, if this course of conduct is persisted in, someone who really cherishes his liberty—apparently there are not many people in this country who do so any longer—will take appropriate proceedings against officers who deprive him of that for which he has paid.
  I should like to add that I have had an opportunity of seeing these tickets, and lest there may be any misconception about the mater it is well that I should state that I did not make any use of the ticket which was offered to me by making it my personal property and that I returned it to the gentleman who sent it to me. But it is quite obvious that there is behind this a very serious question indeed of public liberty, and that we should be perfectly certain of our ground before we intercept documents coming
  1896
  from a country which is still an integral part of the British Empire and which are published in circumstances which are perfectly lawful in the country of origin. The real truth is that the whole position with regard to lotteries and gaming, and the like, is one of incomprehensible confusion, and some of us think that this House might be usefully occupied if we had an opportunity of making some real attempt to try and reduce the welter of legislation which exists upon this subject to a somewhat reasonable, simple, and comprehensive single Act of Parliament.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I only rise to make one or two comments upon the Debate which has been initiated by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury). In the first place, I have for some years travelled pretty frequently between this country and Ireland and I was astonished to hear the hon. and gallant Member speak of discourtesy on the part of the Customs officials. I have always found the Customs officials on both sides of the English Channel most helpful in difficult circumstances, with crowded mail trains, and late at night. I have not crossed the Irish Channel since this recent traffic has grown up, but I am surprised to hear that there has been any deterioration in the courtesy of Customs officials. If there has been it is simply because of this fact. It is notorious that there has been growing up a regular traffic in sweepstake tickets between the Irish Free State and this country.
  I am not going into the ethics of the matter, but there is no doubt that professional dealers have been going over to Ireland and bringing back tickets to sell on commission. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury could not possibly turn a blind eye to proceedings of that nature. If there is any complaint to make against the Government it is that they have been a little tardy in taking steps to stop it; it is an illegal traffic. The only other criticism that can be levelled against the Government is that perhaps they are not as strict as they might be in enforcing the existing law in regard to the Danish sweepstake and the Danzic Lottery, and in turning a blind eye to the blatant advertisements in this country of the results of these sweepstake lotteries, the Irish sweepstake, the Stock Exchange sweepstake,

  1897
  the Calcutta sweepstake and the Otley Club. It is, I know, a most difficult question and I do not want to be censorious, but, obviously, the law being what it is it must be applied, and I am glad that the Financial Secretary is standing firm on this matter.
  Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I desire to associate myself with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) as to the grave infringement of the liberty of the subject which has been occasioned. The Section of the Act is quite clear in its terms. It says:
  "imported for the purpose of publication in the United Kingdom."
  By a curious coincidence I happen to have in my pocket a copy of the Irish Free State Act authorising this lottery, and Section 7 of that Act definitely provides that certain information is to be given on the ticket. That information is:
  "Every book of tickets in a sweepstake held under this Act shall have clearly printed thereon:

  (a) where such sweepstake is held by the governing body of one hospital only, the name of such hospital, or where such sweepstake is held by the governing bodies of two or more hospitals, the names of such hospitals and the proportion in which the funds raised by means of such sweepstake will be divided amongst such hospitals, and,

  (b) a statement to the effect that such sweepstake is held under this Act."

  The Act also states that if these announcements are not made on the ticket the person issuing the tickets will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50. It is idle to say that these tickets are imported for the purpose of publication as an advertisement. That is not the case at all. This statement on the ticket is issued under the precise provisions of the Act of Parliament of the Irish Free State, and any person who did not put this information on the ticket would be liable to a penalty of £50. The suggestion made by the Financial Secretary that these tickets are meant to be advertisements of a lottery is not accurate. The reason this information is printed on the ticket is because the Irish Free State Parliament, for the protection of the public, insists that every person buying a ticket shall have this information provided thereon. Before individuals coming from the Irish
  1898
  Free State are harassed by having their pockets turned inside out, on the suggestion that they are bringing advertisements to this country because particulars of the lottery are printed on the ticket, the Financial Secretary had better make further inquiries into the law on the subject.
  It only shows how essential it is that the whole question of lotteries and sweepstakes should be dealt with by the Government. The law on the subject is in a state of chaos. It is not in the interest of the community that the law should be openly and flagrantly broken in this respect by all sections of the community with general approval, and it is high time that there was an inquiry into the subject and the law made to conform with public opinion. Having failed to get the Government to move in the matter, I am hoping at an early date to bring in a small Measure which will at any rate focus public opinion on the subject and show the Government how urgent is the need for a clarification of the law.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I must tell the House that I have not considered this matter before this Debate, and the advice to which the Financial Secretary referred is not my advice. I have listened with interest to the arguments which have been advanced in the Debate. I have seen a, type-written copy of Section 1 of the Revenue Act, 1898, which I presume is accurate, and I have also seen a document which I have never seen before, and that is a ticket, or a counterfoil, which the Financial Secretary had in his hand just now and which I shall presently hand back to him. I do not think that anyone will doubt that this document is a notice relating to a draw or intended draw of a lottery; that is beyond doubt. It tells you all about the draw, where it is to take place, and so on. The next question is: Is it imported for the purposes of publication? The test words are:
  "which in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs is imported for the purposes of publication."
  Publication in law does not mean the putting up of a billposter on a hoarding. Publication is a well-known phrase, and may include the showing of a. letter by one individual to another. That is publication. I think it is quite obvious

  1899
  that if a man brings in, not one single lottery ticket, but a book of tickets, he is going to try to sell them to someone; and, if he does that, that is publication. Then comes a much more difficult question which was raised by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson). I am bound to say that when I heard him put the point it seemed to me a very important one. I sent for the Lotteries Act of 1836. I think the answer to the hon. Member's question is that the Act was not an Act which related exclusively to foreign lotteries. It is thus described:
  "An Act to prevent the advertising of foreign and other illegal lotteries."
  I argued a case myself before the courts only a week or so ago—a case in which we were dealing with the question of the legality of the sale in England of tickets in the Irish lottery, and the courts decided that that was illegal. It is illegal to sell in England a ticket in the Irish lottery. Consequently, it seems to me that the importation for the purpose of publication in the United Kingdom is in contravention of the Lotteries Act of 1836. It is unnecessary to consider whether the words "Foreign and other" in the Act relating to foreign lotteries would in this context be accepted by the Irish Free State. Ofcourse, the Irish Free State is entitled to enact what laws it likes for its own territory. It is not entitled to pass laws to govern us, any more than we are entitled to pass laws that will govern the Irish Free State. The sale of lottery tickets of the Irish Free State in this country is illegal, and I think that so long as that is the state of the law, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary would be wanting in his duty if he did not take proper steps to see that the law was enforced.
  Mr. FOOT: I do not want to intervene on the legal points raised as between the learned Attorney-General and other hon. Members; but in relation to the warning given by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), that he intends to bring in a Bill to enable public opinion to be canvassed upon this question of sweepstakes, I wish to say that if the Bill is introduced he must, expect very strong opposition from certain Members of this House. I have seen an intimation already as to the character of the Bill to be introduced. I think
  1900
  there would be general sympathy with a demand that there should be an inquiry into this matter, as there was in the year 1923 when a Select Committee was set up on the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to consider a proposal for a tax upon betting. I hope it may be possible, before we commit ourselves to any legislation upon this very vexed and difficult subject, for us to have an inquiry in which there can be put strong evidence as to the social effects of betting and gambling, a canker which is eating into our national life very much more extensively than is generally appreciated. If the inquiry did give an opportunity for the ascertainment of the extent of the evil, many of us on this side would he prepared to support that proposal. If the Bill of the hon. Member is on the lines indicated in the Press, that is, on the lines of legalising sweepstakes in this country and going back to the conditions of many years ago, when public lotteries were generally allowed and gave rise to very grave and widespread evils, that proposal will meet with unrelenting opposition.
  Sir D. HERBERT: My hon. and gallant Friend who raised this question has done some good if he has drawn from the Attorney-General one perfectly definite admission, and that is that there is no right to seize these tickets unless the Government can prove that. they are being imported for the purpose of sale. I gathered that from the Attorney-General's remarks.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: "Unless in the opinion of the Commissioners."
  Sir D. HERBERT: Unless in the opinion of the Commissioners they are intended for sale?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Unless in the opinion of the Commissioners the tickets are imported for the purpose of publication.
  Sir D. HERBERT: The hon. and learned Gentleman is now referring to a different part of his speech from that to which I was referring. I understand that he quoted a Section from the Act of 1836, to the effect that these tickets could be seized under that Act if they were imported for the purpose of sale. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to be driven back from his first

  1901
  line of defence, the Act of 1898, to the Act of 1836. In falling back upon the Act of 1836, he could only defend his position so far as these tickets were for the purpose of sale. I think I am right in regard to that?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sorry to interrupt, but there appears to be a complete misapprehension of my argument. What I did was to quote a Section of the Act of 1898, which prohibits the importation of any notice relating to the drawing of a lottery, which in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs is imported for the purpose of publication in the United Kingdom in contravention of the Lotteries Act of 1836. I pointed out, first of all, that the words were "in the opinion of the Commissioners"—they are the judges—and I pointed out what the meaning of the word "publication" was, and I said it was unnecessary to consider anything about foreign lotteries, and that the Act of 1836 applies to "foreign or other" lotteries.
  Sir D. HERBERT: The question here is the question of publication. Surely it is quite clear that people who bring over these tickets, which they regard as valuable things, and which they are not going to post on a hoarding or anything of that sort, are not bringing them over for the purpose of publication. There is another point which I mention with very great deference to the hon, and learned Gentleman. He referred to the advertisement or other notice. He said that these documents were notices. But he knows better than I do the importance of that word "other," if they are ejusdem generis. If the Attorney-Genenral is going to rely upon these documents being notices, he has a very weak case. It is certain that anyone who has one of these tickets takes very great care of it, and, if he does not keep it in his pocket, at least he locks it up in a safe or some secure place, and it is not used for the purpose of advertisement. It seems fairly clear that it is at least doubtful whether there is any right—indeed I do not understand that the Attorney-General or the Financial Secretary holds that there is any right—to seize tickets when a man brings them over—tickets which he has bought either for himself or for other people, so long as they are tickets which have been bought and which are not being imported into this country for the purpose of sale.
  Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: I do not want to pursue the legal argument, but it seems to me that the learned Attorney-General, having given a legal opinion, has hastened to withdraw it as soon as someone promised to act upon it. I wished rather to refer to the speech of the Financial Secretary. Whether it is bluff or not on the part of the Government, it appears that, if they have a legal right to stop the entry of these tickets, it rests largely with the Commissioners of Customs to decide various questions. I understood from the Financial Secretary that he has laid it down for everyone to know that it is not and will not be the practice of the Commissioners of Customs to inquire after or stop or confiscate a single ticket or a few tickets in the possession of a man who obviously intends them for his own use. That, I gather, has been the practtice in the past, and that there are no cases where the Commissioners have exercised their discretion to confiscate single tickets in the possession of the man, and that that will continue to be their practice in future. I understand, therefore, that the traveller from Ireland will not be under the necessity of declaring a single ticket which he may have for his own use, nor will the Customs officers, if they should find such a ticket, be able, without prejudice to the Financial Secretary's pledge, to confiscate that ticket.
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not giving any pledge. What I said was that these tickets are clearly advertisements or notices within the meaning of that Section. The point of the Section is whether "in the opinion of the Commissioners of Customs" they are being imported for the purpose of publication. All I said was—and I do not go beyond it—that it has not been the practice, and it is not the practice at the present time, to seize single tickets. I make no pledge for the future. I think it is likely, unless there are special reasons, that the Commissioners will continue the line that they follow now. But I make no pledge. I simply said what has been and is the practice of the Commissioners in this respect.
  Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes before Seven o'Clock.

  BASIC INDUSTRIES (REORGANISATION).
  BASIC INDUSTRIES (REORGANISATION).
EDUCATION.
  HEAD TEACHERS, MIXED SCHOOLS.
  HEAD TEACHERS, MIXED SCHOOLS.
  SCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS (HOLIDAYS).
  SCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS (HOLIDAYS).
  SCHOLARSHIPS.
  SCHOLARSHIPS.
  COMMISSION OF THE PEACE (REMOVALS).
  COMMISSION OF THE PEACE (REMOVALS).
ROYAL NAVY.
  TROPICAL ALLOWANCE.
  TROPICAL ALLOWANCE.
  LIEUTENANT-COMMANDERS.
  LIEUTENANT-COMMANDERS.
  SPECIALIST COURSES.
  SPECIALIST COURSES.
  H.M.S. "TIGER."
  H.M.S. "TIGER."
  SPECIAL RETIREMENT SCHEME.
  SPECIAL RETIREMENT SCHEME.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  WESTHOUGHTON DIVISION.
  WESTHOUGHTON DIVISION.
  WORK SCHEMES, CARDIFF.
  WORK SCHEMES, CARDIFF.
AGRICULTURE.
  WHEAT AND BREAD (STATISTICS).
  WHEAT AND BREAD (STATISTICS).
  DISEASED PLANTS AND TREES (IMPORT).
  DISEASED PLANTS AND TREES (IMPORT).
  POULTRY FEEDING.
  POULTRY FEEDING.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  GREY SQUIRRELS.
  GREY SQUIRRELS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  ROOFING SLATES (IMPORT).
  ROOFING SLATES (IMPORT).
  GERMANY AND RUSSIA.
  GERMANY AND RUSSIA.
  LIGHT DUES.
  LIGHT DUES.
HOUSING.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
  RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.
  BUILDING BY-LAWS.
  BUILDING BY-LAWS.
  CRICKET AND FOOTBALL CLUBS (TRANSPORT FACILITIES).
  CRICKET AND FOOTBALL CLUBS (TRANSPORT FACILITIES).
  CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (PROMOTION).
  CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (PROMOTION).
  EXHUMATION (FEE).
  EXHUMATION (FEE).
  MURDER CHARGE (LEGAL AID).
  MURDER CHARGE (LEGAL AID).
  COAL INDUSTRY (RATES AND ROYALTIES).
  COAL INDUSTRY (RATES AND ROYALTIES).
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE CIVIL SERVICE.
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE CIVIL SERVICE.
  BRITISH SCHOOL, ATHENS.
  BRITISH SCHOOL, ATHENS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a.
BACUP CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MORECAMBE AND HEYSHAM ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1931.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved. —(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EAST ELLOE JOINT WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

PUBLIC OFFICES (SITES) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Message of Tuesday, April 21.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I beg to move,
992
That this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons—namely, "That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons." I think this is a purely formal Motion, and I am not called upon at this stage to go into the details of the measure at all. The Bill has two operative clauses: first, the question of the rate of interest payable to His Majesty on the vesting of certain Crown Lands, on the site chosen for the erection of new Government offices, in the Commissioner of Works; and, secondly, the removal of the restriction placed by the principal Act of 1912 on the building line at the part of the Embankment proposed for the site of the offices. The first point is merely a matter of adjustment between two Government Departments. On the second point I think there is a certain amount of opposition from the London County Council and the Westminster City Council. But I think at this stage all that it is necessary for me to say is that this is the most appropriate body before which this Bill could be placed, and I beg to move that we agree with the Message from the Commons.
Moved, That this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons—namely, "That it is expedient that the Bill be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, on the distinct understanding that I shall have the full right to move the rejection of the Bill on its Second Reading in this House, I shall not make any comments on the Motion before the House. The House will, of course, have the full right to reject the Bill when it comes back from the Committee, I understand.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Yes. The Bill, when it emerges from the Committee, will go through all its stages in this House, and your Lordships will have full opportunity to criticise it and to make Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, rather more than two years ago you were good enough, at my instance, to pass through all its stages a Bill dealing with the registration of architects. That was in the autumn of 1928. The Bill in due course went to another place, but was crowded out by congestion of business. Last October, the Bill was again introduced in the House of Commons substantially in the form in which it left this House two years previously, and after a very long and laborious scrutiny in Grand Committee of the House of Commons the Bill passed and ultimately received its Third Reading in the House of Commons without a Division. In your Lordships' House two years ago likewise nobody thought it necessary to provoke a Division at any stage of the Bill.
This measure is based upon the same principle—namely, a fundamentally educational object—which underlay the previous Bill. Our desire is to improve the status and the training of architects and in doing so to raise the status and the standard and practice of architecture. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to run through the principal clauses of the Bill. The first duty that Parliament imposes upon the architectural profession is to set up a Council which is to form and to maintain a register of architects. The second is to form what is called an Admission Committee, which will have to satisfy itself that the qualifications laid down in the Statute are adequately fulfilled. Thirdly, in Clause 7 a Board of Architectural Education is established, which will lay down the qualifications, including examinations, upon which the Admission Committee is to act. Finally, there is what is called a Discipline Committee, described in Clause 10 and in the Third Schedule, which deals with the removal of names from the register, their restoration to the register and other incidental matters of penalties, regulations, appeal and so forth.
Briefly, that is the structure of the Bill. The measure itself is drawn upon very broad and generous lines. It is extremely catholic in its acceptance of candidates for registration. The Council,
994
the central executive body, is based largely upon representation by proportionate numbers of the chief societies interested. Every 500 members of certain specified societies have the right to nominate one member to the Council. Others are nominated as laid down by the terms of the Statute itself. Finally, the Education Board, which of course has long existed though without Parliamentary and statutory sanction, is carefully defined in the Second Schedule, and it will in effect be the first recognition by the State of the importance to the country as a whole of education in architecture as such. I submit the Bill to your Lordships' favourable consideration.
I must admit that your Lordships will be asked to make a variety of drafting Amendments, though I hope it will not be necessary to alter anything of substance in the Bill itself. Here and there there may be disparities and even contradictions, which I hope your Lordships will assist me and any others in correcting; but I may add in conclusion that the architectural profession as a whole is united in thinking that a measure of this kind is desirable, and I hope that, now the Bill has passed through one House of Parliament already, and we have considerable time available in this House, we shall be able to pass it through all its stages and place it ultimately on the Statute Book.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Earl of Crawford.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I think it might save time if I rose at once to say that, in reference to the basic principles of the Bill, the Government desire to give it all the assistance and encouragement in their power. We are not, of course, responsible for the Bill, but, so far as we can give any assistance, the noble Earl can rely upon it. I notice that, as regards the Bill of 1928, it fell to my lot to speak on that occasion after the noble Earl, and I spoke entirely in support of the opinions which he expressed. There is one matter upon which I should like to say a word. I think the Bill does want a very considerable amount of redrafting in order that it may be made clear, and that no difficulties may arise in the future. But I think the way to deal with it is undoubtedly what I under

995
stand is the noble Earl's suggestion—namely, that Amendments to that extent should be put down and the Committee stage should be taken, not directly, but after a sufficient interval, so that when these Amendments are on the Paper they may be considered. I do not apprehend that there will be any difficulty whatever in arranging them with the noble Earl opposite.
The Department I am particularly interested in is the Privy Council, because the Privy Council always have considerable duties, even in statutory charters, as regards the reasonableness of what it is proposed to do, and in the ordinary course regulations made have to go before the Privy Council for approval. I want to be quite sure that it is not suggested that the Privy Council would on any occasion act as a judge or in a judicial capacity. Their duty is to approve of regulations, and whether a regulation has been complied with or not is a matter, not for the Privy Council, but for the Courts. If your Lordships will look at Clause 15 (2) (3) (4), you will allow that in each of those subsections the Privy Council is mentioned and has to perform certain duties. I think they are quite satisfactory as far as I have read them and in accordance with precedent. The noble Earl knows my views, and if anything occurs which I think may improve the Bill, not in the sense of putting difficulties in its way, but of improving it and making it effective in every sense he will have our co-operation and assent. I do not think I need say more now because I agree so fully with the principles of the Bill as explained by the noble Earl opposite.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, will you permit me to thank my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House for his remarks. I merely have to assure him that my friends and I will pay every attention to the Amendments he indicates, and I will put myself in communication with him and settle a day convenient to himself and your Lordships for Committee.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I will put the Bill down pro forma for
996
Tuesday next in Committee to be deferred from that day according to your convenience.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, may I say that at the present time there is no business upon the Order Paper for Tuesday next. Except for judicial business, which of course would go on in the ordinary course, I would hope it would be unnecessary for your Lordships to come here on Tuesday because there is no business upon the Order Paper. Therefore, if another day would be equally convenient to the noble Earl I think it would be more convenient to many members of the House.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I did not contemplate taking the Bill actually on Tuesday, but of putting it down pro forma with a view to postponing it to a date to suit the general convenience of your Lordships. If the noble and learned Lord is agreeable I will put it down for this day week.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Earl; but if it was put down pro forma it would bring the House together. If he will put it on the Paper for Thursday next it will not take any time.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Very well, I will put it down for this day week.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS AND AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a Second time. Perhaps I may preface my remarks by craving your indulgence in dealing with this measure, particularly that part of it which is concerned with landholders' tenure; because that is a form of tenure which is peculiar to Scotland and the code of Acts dealing with it makes it peculiarly complex for a Southerner like myself to understand. Many of your Lordships have knowledge and experience of the subject to which I certainly cannot pretend, and the Government would like to have the

997
benefit of your views on the various clauses of the Bill, while hoping of course that your views will coincide in the main with the principles on which the Bill is based.
It is rather difficult to present this Bill to your Lordships on Second Reading because it is really a series of amendments to a great many Acts, and there is no general principle running through the Bill to expound. There are a number of clauses, nearly forty, in the Bill, many of them without any very close relation to each other. It is, therefore, really a Bill which will receive more thorough discussion in Committee than at its present stage. For that reason I do not propose to give your Lordships a detailed account of each of the various clauses. Most of them, I think, are self explanatory, and if the intention of any of them is not clear to your Lordships I will certainly do my best to clear up any difficulty which is stated in the course of the debate either now or at a later stage, as may be the more appropriate.
Part I of the Bill which deals with the landholder's tenure, provides for an important modification of the law in regard to a landholder's rights to compensation for improvements, which will enable the Department of Agriculture to continue loans to an incoming tenant in cases of change of tenancy. It amends the existing statutory procedure in regard to vacant holdings with a view to facilitating re-letting, and it makes other useful amendments in regard to procedure for the enlargement of holdings, the law of bequest and assignation, the simplification of machinery for removing unsatisfactory tenants, and power to the Department to make loans for the purposes of stock.
With regard to Part II, in the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act of 1908 a long step forward was taken in adjusting the relationship of landlord and tenant and in securing for the tenant certain rights, amongst others, to compensation for improvements made by himself on the holding to which in equity he was obviously entitled. Experience of the working of that Act has shown that certain modifications are desirable. The last comprehensive Act on the subject was that passed in 1923, which embodies the law as it stands at present. It has been claimed by organisations represent-
998
ing tenant farmers, and I think it is fairly generally admitted in some measure by the landowning interests, that the Act of 1923 does not in all respects deal adequately with some of the more important questions that may come up as between landlord and tenant.
The purpose of Part II of the Bill is to improve the law in certain particulars. But it does not profess to deal in any drastic or far-reaching way with the whole system of Scottish land tenure. The objects chiefly in view are to remove certain limitations on what are reasonable claims to compensation, to improve in some respects the machinery of arbitration, and to meet new developments; as, for example, the need for providing for compensation in respect of electrical installations on farms. On these and on other matters I may fairly claim that Part II of this Bill goes a good way to satisfy the legitimate wishes at any rate of the tenant without any undue trespass on the existing rights and privileges of the landlord. If this claim be a just one, as I maintain it is, the proposed amendments of the Agricultural Holdings Acts cannot but aid materially in improving the conditions tinder which our agriculture is carried on and thus in benefiting not only the various agricultural classes but many other sections of the community.
In conclusion, I would only say that all the provisions of the measure have been considered with great care and in considerable detail in another place. His Majesty's Government are glad to acknowledge the helpful and constructive criticism that was offered by all Parties. The Bill was read a second and a third time in another place without a Division. At the Third Reading the spokesmen of the two Parties in Opposition said respectively:
" The Bill embodies many useful amendments to the law and we do not propose to divide against it,"
and
" I support the Third Reading. The Bill does not go so far as some would like, but it remedies a great many grievances and it deserves support."
I beg, therefore, to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, the noble Earl need not worry himself over principle in the Scottish small landholders' legislation, because it is hard to find any trace of it; but in response to his invitation it may be well to supplement the statement which he has just made. In the absence of Lord Lovat there is little first-hand knowledge in your Lordships' House or in another place of a land policy which, originating in obscure districts of a limited Highland area half a century ago, has been spread like a upas tree by uninformed politicians all over the land. As an outcome the State breaks contracts, takes land, fixes rents and landlords' liabilities, by its agents, in all districts of Scotland and under all circumstances.
There are only two or three clauses in this Part of the Bill which are of much importance, but it adds to the meshwork of legislation which should by now have been codified, and one of the recommendations I would make to His Majesty's Government is that as soon as possible it should be codified. Small holdings are dealt with all over Scotland under an elaborate and costly State machinery resembling that of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, but going far beyond it in many respects. These operations are conducted at great loss to the Exchequer. The original Crofters' Act of 1885, which also went far beyond the more just recommendations of Lord Napier's admirable Report on the crofter system, was confined to Highland counties and townships, where the tenants made such buildings and fixtures as were then appropriate to their holdings. Some such legislation was equitable and much needed, because no landowner could execute such works on masses of crofts rented at £2 or £3 a year. Therefore the tenant needed security for what he had to erect himself.
Even in this restricted area, and under the original Act, there have been extraordinary results. Notorious cases, in which the owner, with no say in the tenants' expenditure, and often none in the selections of tenants, finds himself called upon to pay, upon the nail, hundreds of pounds by way of compensation for any building or equipment the tenant has seen fit to erect whenever the crofter takes a notion to quit his £2 or £3 a year croft. The latter is then left on
1000
the owner's hands, and he is forced to pay rates on it, even though he can find no tenant. A good deal more might be said of the plunder of the unfortunate owner under this Act. It is indeed beyond question that if the Act were to be made a just one it is the so-called owner, not the tenant, who is of the two far more entitled to protection. It is this Act of 1885, embellished by several of subsequent date, which has been extended to the whole of Scotland.
Great agricultural farms, with equipment worth many thousands of pounds, are taken by the Board of Agriculture, on terms fixed by a Land Court, which I may describe as a quasi-judicial body presided over by a person who, pace Lord Hailsham, I may describe as a "duly qualified person," and sometimes under the guidance of what may be described as a person of the M.P. species. The owner's equipment is commonly scrapped, and fresh tenants, not always competent, are forced upon him. I know of a case in which three out of five of the Board's candidates had to be withdrawn because of the very unfavourable records the owner was able to prove against them. The owner, therefore, becomes a sort of agent for the Board in this compulsory partnership, to which heavy liabilities are attached as part and parcel of this iniquitous system of forced co-partnery. If the State elects to create small holdings, it should do so on its own land and not at the cost of an individual.
Your Lordships will also bear in mind the injustice borne by all ordinary ratepayers through the non-liability to rates of the buildings and equipment of small holdings, with the result that this deficiency has to be made good by the ordinary ratepayers who, in the villages especially, and in the small houses, are taxed up to their chimney pots. In consequence the crofter or small holder actually profits by the rates when the owner has to hand on most of his rating relief, on the bare land, to him. That legacy from the original Crofters' Act, devised to meet opposite conditions of agriculture, has now upset the whole rating system of Scotland. The Nairne Inquiry into small holdings and the Dunedin Commission on local taxation alike recommended that small holders should be rated like anyone else. That reform is far more urgent than anything

1001
contained in this Bill, but it has been ignored by the past and present Governments.
I will only deal with Part I of the Bill, since other noble Lords are so well qualified to deal with Part II, of which I will only observe that it should have been introduced as a separate measure and along with any alterations required in England, for the nearer the agricultural law of the two countries is assimilated the better. Some clauses of Part I are drawn from the Nairne Report and will be quite useful. On the other hand, there are two or three clauses that should be taken out, and some minor Amendments inserted. These clauses are examples of the tendency in this kind of legislation to spy out as with a microscope any possible hard cases against the landlord that can be urged on behalf of a tenant, and to turn a blind eye to any hardship or loss that may be inflicted on the landlord. Yet I am confident that the tenants in nine cases out of ten are more contented and not less prosperous than those controlled by the Board of Agriculture.
Clause 8 of the Bill is one example. Right of resumption by an owner for his own occupation often is his last resource to protect the amenity of his home from an adjacent and undesirable neighbour. Such cases are very rare indeed. I think there have only been eighteen that can be enumerated within the past three years. The tenant is amply protected and it is only in a fraction of such few cases that any possible hardship can be suffered by the tenant. The fact is that, to a handful of politicians in another place, no landlord should be allowed to sit by his own hearthstone and the effect of this clause is to tend to make country homes and estates not only uninhabitable but unsaleable.
What I have just said on Clause 8 applies equally to Clause 14. It turns the statutory small tenancy into that of a small land holder. I have only to quote the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place on the Committee stage of Clause 14, which should certainly be rejected. He said:
" I have no letter of recommendation from a solitary statutory small tenant in Scotland. I have no evidence and I know no hon. Member has any evidence that they desire this change. Last year when the previous Bill was going through, we did
1002
have letters, about fifteen or so, from statutory small tenants who took the trouble to write and say they did not want this change which would not be beneficial and which they did not desire."
I have nothing to add to that. That is sufficient reason for the excision of this clause. Yet the clause was put in on Report, although the statutory small tenant is protected by a valued rent, if he should elect to go into Court, which he does not always do, and although the landlord has spent from fifteen to twenty years purchase of the rent in buildings and equipment and has to maintain them as he would on any large farm. It is unnecessary indeed to say more on Clause 14 as anything more can be said in Committee, if necessary, as also in the case of certain other minor Amendments.
There is one rather important point which I do not think is quite clear in the Bill, and that is with respect to the requirements of the Board of Health in reference to buildings not erected by the landlord but by the Board of Agriculture or the tenant. It would be obviously unfair in that case that the landlord should incur any liability for the requirements of the health Department. I knew a case at one time where there was an order for a water supply to be put into a group of five pendicles. They were rented at £18 a year and the cost of introducing the water would be £400. Two of the pendicles were sold and nothing more was heard about bringing in the water. The Schedules of the Bill have to be examined so that the right of the owner to decide the purposes to which the farms shall be adapted shall be made clear. Otherwise there might be constant changes in the equipment to meet the requirements of any of the three or four systems of agriculture that are practised, each of which might be favoured by successive tenants, which is not possible because the cost would be ruinous.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill because the noble Earl who introduced it introduced it in a very reasonable way, and because I realise that there is an intention underlying the Bill on the part of His Majesty's Government to try to be fair in the matter. Whether the Bill in itself is fair to both parties I am doubtful. But I hope that when it gets to Committee the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading will

1003
adhere to what he said and try to meet us—I will not say half way, that is too much to expect, but perhaps twenty-five per cent. There are some points in it that are necessary for the correction of defects in similar legislation in the past. This is by no means intended to convey that there are not, in my humble opinion, many clauses which will have to be very radically altered before the Bill can be agreed upon in this House.
There are two great basic industries in this country and both of them, thanks to perpetual political interference, are in a state of chaos. I mean agriculture and coal mining. I am convinced that subject to seeing that there was no exploitation of labour in both cases, and subject to the necessary rules regarding safety in the one and health in the other, and subject, of course, to safeguarding their markets, had it not been for Government interference both those industries would have been in a very much better condition to-day. I am not talking particularly of one Party or another. Ever since I took an interest in politics, that is to say since I was first returned to another place in 1911, I have had to deal with Bill after Bill for small landholders and attempts, for political purposes, to introduce the crofter system, which has not proved a success in the Highlands, into the Lowlands of Scotland where no one but the politicians want it. If they had been left alone I am quite convinced that the three people concerned—the proprietors, the farmers and the labourers—would have come to a better solution of their problems by now than the Government is to-day trying to effect.
There is far more friendship, due to common interest, between the three parties than people who live in the towns are led to understand. But professional agitators on the one hand have led to what I may call professional opposition on the other. In the old days when I was a boy matters would have been settled at what to-day is called a roundtable conference, but which we used to call "over a glass of whisky," when the three parties went away morally and physically satisfied. At all events, they said they were. But nowadays on large estates one has to keep experts for the interpretation of Bills for the safeguarding of the landlord, and legal advice has
1004
to be taken almost daily. On the other side we now have professional secretaries of societies advising farmers as to so-called and fancied rights, for, of course, professional secretaries have to justify their existence and sometimes to qualify for a seat in another place. In every town in Scotland to-day there is what is termed a farmers' lawyer who is an expert in finding out where trouble lies. That is about all we have got out of this political interference. The land to-day is producing, not more but rather less. I am not suggesting that that is altogether the result of political interference, but at the same time it is one of the effects. In any case, having had so much of this deleterious medicine, it seems necessary that we should have some more in order to get rid of the evil effects of the last dose.
I would like to say that I agree with the noble Viscount who has just spoken that it would be of great benefit to everybody if the law on the subject could be codified and simplified so that all could understand it. The present Bill is one of those abominations which deal to a very great extent in cross references with two Acts on two perfectly different subjects which, because they are two perfectly different subjects, one has to approach from an entirely different point of view. That makes it very difficult to discuss in this House. It is absolutely impossible to talk in the same breath about the crofter in the Isle of Skye and about the great farms with high cultivation in the Lowlands. The reason why we have got the whole thing in one Bill and not in two Bills seems apparent. If we look at Clause 14 of the Bill, we see that the political protagonists of what are known as "the flochter spade" in the North are trying to introduce that weapon and its results in the great agricultural areas of the South, which have made the methods of Scottish farming an example to the whole world.
I am far from saying that there are not several good points in the Bill; I am far from saying that there is not more common sense in some of the suggestions of the present Labour Government than some of their predecessors' proposals. I am glad to see one of another Party here and hope that he will give us his views. There are certainly many points about it which I advise your Lordships to examine when, the

1005
Bill goes to Committee. Although it is the present Government that are speaking, there are certain parts of the Bill which seem to re-echo their master's voice. I have not seen any part of the Bill which comes under the latter category which can be acceptable to your Lordships' House or to the agriculturists of Scotland in general. In order to see the ideas underlying the Bill and how it is not in the least far the benefit of small holders but is really for political purposes, we have only to look at one of the Liberal Amendments in another place, when it was suggested that this Bill should be extended to holdings of £100 or 100 acres. If that were passed—and I must say it was opposed by the Labour Party—it might have meant that small holdings in the Highlands might have extended to a holding with an outrun of something like 4,000 acres and I have yet to learn that a holding of that size is a small holding.
The points to which I specially object include Clause 8, in which resumption is refused to the landlord of a small holding, although it may be the only bit of land he has got in the world, and although he is prepared to treat it as an agricultural subject and with probably higher cultivation than it attains when in the hands of the small holder, and with an increased wages bill. I would strongly recommend your Lordships to resist such an obvious injustice. The case is not likely to occur often, but there it is. The second clause, to which I have a main objection, is Clause 14. I need say no more than that it means extending the crofter system to the South of Scotland. There are lots of ways of protecting the small tenant. Most of them are in practice already, but, if more are required, this is not the way to do it. And, if it were passed, it would mean a hopeless agricultural wrangle just at the time when things are worst and when we are trying to pull together so that all may get out of the Slough of Despond in which agriculture is plunged in the whole of Scotland. The proprietors do not want it. The farmers do not want it. The ploughmen do not want it. So why should the politicians want it? Although there are many such points in which I hope we may be able to help the Government to arrive at an agreed Bill, I would still recommend your Lordships to examine
1006
very closely the Schedules to the Bill. Schedules are always apparently innocent things at the end of the Bill, but, on being examined, are found, like the proverbial wasp, to have the sting in the tail.
The Bill is a, bundle of Bills. Much of it is by reference to other Acts, and I have not had time to go through the small library that it is necessary to examine. But it does occur to me that in the 1923 Act we had just the same argument on the same subject as we have today. Those who were opposing the Bill then used probably just the same arguments as those who are opposing it today. But, generally speaking, we came to an agreement, and we hoped that this would be the last of it. History repeats itself, and we find ourselves with former understandings forgotten, previous agreements invalid—so there is no end to it.
We find in the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1923, that the First Schedule, which contains the improvements to which the consent of the landlord is required, consist of eighteen points. These points may be roughly summed up as expenditure of a capital nature by the landlord. Part II—improvements regarding which notice to the landlord is required: in other words the opportunity for the landlord to object—contains only one point. We find in Part III, where no consent of or notice to the landlord is required, which concerns only upkeep and maintenance, ten clauses. To-day, in the new Bill, we find that Part I, that part to which the consent of the landlord is required, is reduced from eighteen, to eight points, most of which hardly affect the small holder, while Part II, which consists of improvements which the tenant can do after giving notice to the landlord, has increased from one to nine. When you realise that this covers everything from drainage and the formation of silos to the making of bridges, to the improvement of watercourses, ponds or wells, the application of water power, the removal of fences,, the reclaiming of waste land, the making of embankments and sluices against floods, the provision of sheep dipping accommodation for temporary pasture, and the provision of electrical equipment, which almost moved the noble Lord who moved the Bill to rhetoric, all of which the landlord will

1007
have to pay for, even if any of these things prove a failure and the tenant leaves, it does seem to me that there is some excuse for the most careful examination of the Bill, to say the least of it.
Part III, "improvements in respect of which consent of or notice to the landlord is not required," includes the eradication of bracken, whins or gorse growing on the farm at the commencement of the tenancy. In so far as the bracken, etc., complained of is not serious in extent, the farmer should carry out such eradication as a natural part of good husbandry. So far as bracken, whips, etc., are a serious trouble to the farmer, then in that case the rent is obviously based on the fact, and, if he removes them, he gets the benefit himself, and that benefit should fall to be calculated when assessing the cost of eradication. I cannot imagine a farmer doing such work at the end of his tenancy and so getting no benefit from it. In other words, it would probably be much wiser to leave the question alone for agreement between the landlord and tenant. I do not for one moment venture to suggest that the eradication of bracken is not a good thing, but I wonder what the small holder or any other farmer would think if a clause were put in to the effect that farmers or small holders should pay compensation to the landlord for the increase of bracken on their farms during their tenancy. If farmers were prepared to accept such a clause, in the interests of agriculture generally, no one would be more glad to move it than myself, but I do not think that is likely to happen.
I have said what I have said because the industry of agriculture is vital to the welfare of Scotland, and we cannot go lightly into measures which may upset it. It would not be honest not to point out what we consider, rightly or wrongly, to be the defects of the Bill. Equally so it would be wrong to oppose in its entirety a Bill which we must look upon as an honest effort, and no doubt contains some points which on examination in Committee may be found to be for the general good.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, the noble Earl opposite, in introducing this measure, said he was not going to make a long Second Reading
1008
speech as the matter was largely one for Committee stage, in which I think he is correct. Also I think he was very wise, because there is such a great amount of reference in the first Part, at any rate, that it is a somewhat difficult Bill to explain in detail. As my two noble friends have said, if only we could get the Government to codify these Acts dealing with small holdings it would be of great advantage to everybody concerned. One point on the Bill which I would like to put to the noble Earl is that this Bill really consists of two distinct measures, and I cannot help thinking that the Government might seriously consider whether it would not be of advantage to divide them, so as to have one measure for small holdings and the other for agricultural holdings. I can quite see that in another place it was desirable, for convenience, to have one Bill, but as it has now reached this House I think it is a matter on which the noble Earl might consult with his advisers, and see whether there would not be considerable advantage for anyone who in the future has to refer to them to have two separate Bills.
This Bill is very different from what it was when it was introduced. Since its introduction in the House of Commons no fewer than six new clauses have been put into Part I, which now consists of 24 Clauses. Six clauses, or one-fourth of the whole, are new, and they were all of them, I think, put in on the Report stage. In Part II, which only consists now of fourteen clauses, no fewer than six whole clauses and three-fourths of another clause are new. In other words, in the agricultural holdings part, leaving out the Schedule, half of it consists of new clauses. I think that as there have been such very large alterations in another place the Government cannot complain at all if we move a considerable number of Amendments, and I hope they will give them favourable consideration and really consider them on their merits. I might also put before your Lordships that, as regards these new clauses and Amendments, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in another place, during the Committee stage, which lasted no less than fourteen days, resisted nearly all these Amendments. These new clauses were almost entirely put in on the Report stage, and after a

1009
comparatively short discussion on two Friday afternoons, on one of which there was other business. It was, therefore, done after little more than one afternoon's debate. I think that shows that we have considerable claims to have our Amendments considered, and I hope accepted, because, these new clauses having been put in in that way, showing that the form of the Bill was not fixed in the mind of the Government when they introduced it, it is only reasonable to think that sonic of these changes require to be modified.
On Part I of the Bill I would only like to say one word, and that is on the clause enabling any statutory small tenant to become a landholder. In the South, in my part of the country, there are, of course, a considerable number of statutory small tenants. At present these are all equipped by the landowner and in most cases, I believe, satisfactorily equipped, and if they are turned into landholders the landowner would, of course, not spend any more money on them. Another matter is that the equipment of these holdings is provided by the landowner. As soon as he was turned into a small landholder there would be no interest in him to keep them up, and therefore probably he would let them go down. It would be a serious matter indeed not only for the landholder but for any man who succeeds in the tenancy of the holding. Therefore, I cannot see that there is any advantage in this proposal, and I believe there is no demand for it at all. The Land Commission said:
" We are of opinion that the experiment initiated by the Act of 1911 to extend crofting tenure to the Lowlands has not been a success."
The Government, I am glad to see, in other clauses of the Bill have taken advice to a considerable extent from the Land Commission, and as they were not particularly keen on this clause in the House of Commons I hope that in this House they will accept an Amendment to exclude it.
Now I come to the agricultural part, and although in all these Bills compensation of the sitting tenant is always considered, as far as I can see three people are not considered. The first is the landowner, the second is any future tenant, and the third, and very important, is the farm servant. I have on my own estate
1010
many men who have risen from the position of ploughman or shepherd, or who are the sons of such, and from many of these causes, such for instance as this very large compensation in the last Agricultural Bill, it is almost impossible at the present time for any landowner to get rid of a man who is farming his land badly and allowing the land to get dirtier and worse, month by month and almost day by day. The people who resent this more than anybody else are the farm servants, whose grievance it is that a great many farmers are not putting enough into their land and their labour is wasted. In both this Bill and the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill the existence of these farm servants seems to be almost ignored.
There is another thing too. When, some years ago, they had an agricultural conference in Edinburgh, which was attended by landowners, tenant farmers, farm servants, and small holders, the one thing they were very strong against was having any increase of security of tenure because, they said, they saw by their own experience that it simply led in many cases to bad farming and lazy farming. I remember one man, a farm servant who was a very strong Liberal, who related the case of a farmer who had deteriorated his land by some pounds per acre, and yet in the end he got money for so-called unexhausted improvements. You must consider the farm servants in all these matters; their interests and those of indifferent farmers are absolutely opposite.
There are two clauses to which I must allude, Clauses 27 and 28. Clause 28 relates to the case of a man who has deteriorated his land and has to pay compensation on leaving, but provides that there must be a record of the condition of the holding made. That practically means that any bad fanner who has deteriorated his land, probably by not having enough labour, is practically immune from ever being brought to book. It is difficult enough now to claim for the deterioration of land, and there is one Amendment which I hope to move in Committee and which I hope your Lordships will accept. Another provision, which is certainly against the interests of farm servants, is to be found in Clause 27. It is distinctly against the interests of farm servants, because it means that

1011
more land will go out of cultivation. I think it wants very careful scrutiny in Committee. After all, if no compensation is paid for temporary pasture it would not be such a great hardship. The only time it would occur would be when a man was leaving his farm, either voluntarily or by expulsion by the owner. But in the latter case he would get such very large compensation for quitting his farm that this provision could very well be done without. Another point is as to how such compensation would be valued. That is a point which wants very careful consideration in Committee, and chiefly from the point of view of the farm servants, and especially the ploughmen.
Many years ago Great Britain and, considering the poor class of land, especially Scotland, were an example to the world in agriculture. To what was that owing? At the present time everyone condemns the landlord and tenant system in this country, but that system brought this country miles ahead of any other country in the world, and it remained so until the Legislature began to interfere. I do not think there is any doubt that with each Act of Parliament passed in the supposed interests of improving the condition of farming, farming on the whole has gone back. No legislation is required really for a good farmer. I know a very large number of my tenants, and the number of real disputes we have is very few indeed. But, this legislation is undoubtedly generally in the interests of the bad farmer, and not the good farmer.
There is a great deal said about tenants having their rent raised because of their improvements, and perhaps I might tell you a story that was told by a minister of the Church of Scotland, who is a very able man. He was talking about a farmer whom I knew quite well, and said: "When I was young and did not know, I went to this farmer and said to him, 'I hear you have to pay an increased rent at the end of your lease.' The farmer said: 'Yes.'" The minister said: "Well, I think that is very unfair. You are having your rent raised on your improvements." This was the farmer's answer: "You are a young man, and you do not know what you are talking about. The landlord laid out so much money in improving his farm and draining it at the beginning of my lease that he cannot have got any return, or more than
1012
a very small one, on that money during my tenancy. Without that expenditure I could never have done what I have done, and it is only reasonable and fair that he should get some return for the money he spent, I suppose twenty years ago." I think you will find a great many cases of that kind.
What is really wanted in agriculture, as with other businesses, is to have a flow of capital into it. At the present time there is very little, if any, inducement for people to put capital into land. Formerly, a man took an extraordinary interest in his land. If you frighten people from placing capital into land, who suffers by it? The farmer to a large extent, but still more the farm labourer. I say without fear of contradiction that I do not suppose there is a single arable farm, either in England or Scotland, that pays in rent—leaving out the land altogether—as much as 3 per cent. on capital expenditure. In many cases it is very much less. At the present time, therefore, the farmer is getting his buildings,. drains, roads and so forth—capital invested in the farm—at the very low rate of interest of, say, 2, or possibly (though I doubt if there is a single case) 3 per cent. There is not another person in the whole community who is so well off in that respect. Before you interfere and make it almost impossible for any owner to put money into the improvement of his land with any sense of security, you should think very hard.
Under the Schedules of this Bill tenants are enabled to put up certain buildings themselves. Whether they would do so or not I do not know. As many landowners are now very much impoverished owing to penal taxation, it may be desirable for your Lordships to look very carefully and see that safeguards are made so that no farmer can ruin a farm by putting up works and then claiming compensation for them. I hope that your Lordships will follow that course. There are certain people, I do not say they are many, who may take a farm and do foolish things and farm it not very successfully. I think that the landowner ought to be protected against such things as well in his own interest as in the interest of future tenants. In considering this Bill in Committee I hope that your Lordships will not only consider the position of the sitting tenant, who, I

1013
think, is very well protected at present, but of the landowner if you wish him to lay out more money in improving his land. I hope you will consider in particular the tenant of the future under whom we hope that our agriculture will revive. Still more I hope you will consider the farm servant.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the Bill has been the subject of severe but not unduly severe criticism both by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, and has been blessed more or less by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, although he did point out how much land was subjected to penal taxation. May I in that connection make one point which is not strictly germane to the Bill? I am called upon under the system of grants for rural housing to spend £700 or £800 in providing water supplies for the cottages on one farm only. The walls of those cottages might want repairing, but they are not insanitary. I asked the farmer himself whether the people living in them were unhealthy and he said "No." That is a case in which the landlord has to spend a large capital sum on one farm only from which he will get no increment at all; in fact, the expenditure is really a liability because water pipes sometimes burst and the landlord has in this case to repair them. Neither the farmer nor the cottager will do that.
I would like to ask the noble Earl what has been the result of the small holdings which have been created? It seems to me that the Government ought to publish a clear statement of the cost of establishing small holdings and the amount of the returns from them. I know that an annual return is published by the Ministry of Agriculture but that only gives jejune figures from which one cannot learn anything. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill in another place the Secretary of State for Scotland claimed that the area of land in Scotland which had been acquired by the Government and on which small holdings were established amounted to 800,000 acres. Surely, then, the public who, after all, occupy the position of landlord in regard to those holdings, ought to know what return they are getting from them. I believe that they are a dead loss.
1014
In most cases I fancy these holdings are not worked by those for whom they are supposed to have been made. Some years ago I visited a farm which belonged at one time to the estate of the late Lord Linlithgow, and I found that the small holdings there had been sublet for the most part to Edinburgh weekenders. Certainly, the land was not farmed half so well and I do not think it produced half as much as it had done under the previous owner. In another case the examination of a farm showed that the holders of the small holdings were a large cartage contractor in Musselburgh, the owner of a large fruit and potato business in Edinburgh, and a motor hirer and engineer in Musselburgh. Other numbers had been purchased and sub-let. I think, therefore, it will be found in most cases that those who are farming the holdings which have been created are not the original occupiers. Having regard to those facts it would be interesting to ascertain clearly what the nation is committed to as the result of the establishment of small holdings.
The Secretary of State for Scotland said on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place that only 5.6 had been failures. That depends, of course, on what is meant by failure. If the holdings were not occupied by the original holders I should regard that as more or less a failure myself; in other words, they have not carried out the purpose for which they were set up. I mentioned the other day to your Lordships my own experience of the buildings on a farm of over 160 acres being cut in two for the purpose of small holdings. I do not believe that there are more people working on those holdings to-day than worked on the farm when it was occupied by a single tenant. I had in that instance to meet a Government representative and I found that one of those concerned had already failed as a poultry farmer.
I am not asking that the information should be given in every instance, as I understand that the amount of property held by the Government now is enormous, but some instances ought to be taken as showing the result of establishing small holdings. Not only under this Bill but under another which is before Parliament the nation may be committed to an ex-

1015
penditure of several hundred thousand pounds. Therefore, I think it is very desirable that the noble Earl should make representations to the Government that the profit and loss should be carefully ascertained, as would be done by an ordinary landowner, of the working of the small holdings.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, a great number of most important points have been raised to-day and I am sure your Lordships will not expect me to try to reply to them at the moment. I will certainly have them considered before the Committee stage, for which your Lordships will doubtless be putting down Amendments. I would only point out to your Lordships that this Bill does not in any way raise the general question as to whether or not there shall be small holdings or whether or not there shall be legislation as between landlord and tenant. That has already been dealt with by Parliament as a matter of principle. This Bill is solely and simply an attempt to deal with certain matters which have
1016
not been found to work entirely smoothly in the past, and to make minor adjustments in the existing law the principle of which has already been settled by Parliament.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PHARMACY AND POISONS BILL. [H.L.]
Bill read 3a (according to Order): Amendments (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I think it is understood by your Lordships that the House, as stated by the Lord President, will not sit on Tuesday, but will meet on Wednesday.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The King's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
LOWER AVON NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Lawrence be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Rathcreedan: Read, and agreed to.
SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on the 10th of February and the 26th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.

ASTON - UNDER - LYNE, STALY BRIDGE AND DUKINFIELD (DIS TRICT) WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Monteagle (M.
1018
Sligo) be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Alvingham: Read, and agreed to.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

DUMFRIESSHIRE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1931.
Special Order in respect of part of the County of Dumfries:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

PRESTON CORPORATION ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1931.
Special Order in respect of the urban district of Longridge and parts of the rural districts of Preston and Garstang in the County Palatine of Lancaster:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.