Sitting of 7 July 1931

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Grand Union Canal (Leicester Canals Purchase, & c.) Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with:—
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wareham Extension) Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Newport (Mon.) Corporation) Bill,
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Nottingham Corporation) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  COAL INDUSTRY.

    MINERS' WELFARE COMMITTEE.
    Mr. LAWTHERasked the Secretary for Mines if he is now in a position to state the names of the members of the committee to investigate the work of the Mining Industry Welfare Act?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): Yes, Sir. The Committee has now been constituted as follows:

    Viscount Chelmsford (Chairman).

    Lord Erskine, M.P.

    Mr. Gordon Macdonald, M.P.

    Mr. Geoffrey Mander, M.P.

    Mr. A. K. McCosh (nominated by the Mining Association of Great Britain).

    Mr. Alfred Smith (nominated by the Miners' Federation of Great Britain).

    The terms of reference will be:
    "To inquire haw far the objects of Section 20 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, have been met, what remains to be done, and whether the scope of the fund and the existing machinery for its administration as defined in that Section and as developed in practice are satisfactory for the future; and to report on all these matters with particular reference to the question of the amount and duration of the levy in the future."

    OVERTIME.
    Mr. LAWTHERasked the Secretary for Mines if he will take steps to require, where overtime is worked in a mine, that the time of leaving the mine shall be signed, in addition to the register, by the person or persons who have been working overtime?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion, which would require legislation, would add materially to the safeguards already provided. In any case, to give effect to it would involve practical difficulties out of all proportion to any improvements on the existing system which might result.
    Mr. LAWTHER: Having regard to the fact that, in every case when overtime is called into dispute, there is a discrepancy between the time stated on the register and the time at which the man

    1881
    left, does not my hon. Friend think that it could be done without any opposition, and then we should be able to arrive at a correct statement of the actual facts?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Yes, but there are practical difficulties, such as the holding up of men at the end of their shift.
    Mr. LAWTHER: Having regard to the fact that this usually only involves two or three men, and they have in any case to hand in their tokens to the register, would it not be possible for them at the same time to initial the time at which they came off?
    Mr. SHINWELL: If it only involves two or three men, it is possible by administration to deal with the problem.

    WORKING HOURS.
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary for Mines what is the present position of the negotiations in the coalmining industry as to hours of work; and whether he is yet in a position to state the policy of the Government?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The position was explained fully by the Prime Minister last night when he moved the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (POSTERS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can state the number of new posters that have been published by the Empire Marketing Board for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): During the 12 months ended 30th June, 1931, 16 new sets of posters have been displayed by the Empire Marketing Board on their special frames. In addition, one new poster for display on the commercial hoardings, and 12 new posters for display in shops, have been published.
    Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these designs are submitted
    1882
    for approval to the Dominions overseas and to the Colonies before they are published?
    Mr. THOMAS: I am not sure about that. My hon. Friend must remember that we find the money.
    Mr. HANNON: Does not my right hon. Friend contemplate an extension of this publicity?
    Mr. THOMAS: Within the limits of the grant for this year, the Board are compelled to consider where it is possible to curtail. They decided that it would be unwise to curtail on the scientific side, and, therefore, the advertisement side must of necessity suffer.
    Mr. HANNON: It is not a great pity that the publicity side should suffer as regards continually bringing to the notice of the people of this country the advantages of our Colonial productions?
    Mr. THOMAS: I agree, but the Board are faced with a maximum amount which they have to spend, and I am sure that the hon. Member will see that we were justified in economising within those limits.
    Mr. MANDER: Are the Dominions still making no contribution?

    DUMPING, BOUNTIES AND SUBSIDIES.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now received a report of the economic committee of the League of Nations in relation to dumping, bounties and subsidies?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The economic committee at its recent (35th) session resumed and amplified its studies of the question of dumping, with more particular reference to the various forms of this practice when encouraged by State intervention to which the assembly attached special importance. The committee will continue its investigations and submit its conclusions later.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is there any interim report available to Members of the House?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Not as far as I know at the moment, but I will make inquiries on the point.

    TARIFF REDUCTIONS (NEGOTIATIONS).
    Sir K. WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a further statement as to the replies he has now received to the communications he has made to various countries suggesting a reduction of tariffs; and if he can now indicate the purport of the reply he has received from the French Government?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The replies received from the foreign Governments concerned have not indicated fully the extent to which they are prepared to meet the proposals of His Majesty's Government for tariff reductions and further inquiries are therefore being made to this end, but it is obviously undesirable to indicate at this stage the nature of the confidential communications which are passing.
    Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to be getting on very well, does he?
    Mr. GRAHAM: On the contrary, I think that useful progress has been made.
    Mr. HANNON: Would it not be better to abandon this scheme altogether?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I should consider this effort justified if it did nothing more than prevent an upward movement in European tariffs.
    Mr. BENSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to press forward this highly important policy?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes. That is certainly the intention of the Government.

    CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to prevent co-operative societies selling their goods to the general public instead of only to their own members, in view of the fact that co-operative societies are, under the existing law, exempt from the payment of Income Tax?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The answer is in the negative.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a large number of co-operative stores no distinction
    1884
    is made with regard to sales to members and to the general public? Does he not recognise the great hardship to the private trader in that he has to pay 23 per cent. of his profits to the Revenue while the co-operator pays nothing to Income Tax?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I could not accept the statement in that form. There is a certain amount of outside sales, but this subject has been discussed over and over again and was considered at great length by the Royal Commission on Income Tax and the Government propose to adhere to the present law.

    IMPORTED MERCHANDISE.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade for the last year for which figures are available, what proportion of merchandise imported into the United Kingdom, and classified as articles wholly or mainly manufactured, consists in fact of goods which are worked upon or finished by British manufacturers?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The precise information for which the hon. Member asks is not available, but it is estimated that for the year 1929 articles manufactured but requiring adaptation or combination and articles partly manufactured represented rather more than 50 per cent. by value of the retained imports of articles classed as wholly or mainly manufactured. The figures on which this estimate is based are contained in Part I of "Statistical Tables relating to British and Foreign Trade and Industry" (Cmd. 3737, see page 15).
    Mr. WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state, for the last year for which figures are available, what proportion of merchandise imported into the United Kingdom and classified as articles wholly or mainly manufactured pays duty upon importation?
    Mr. GRAHAM: During the year 1930 the declared value of the imports of goods classed as wholly or mainly manufactured liable to duty on importation into the United Kingdom amounted to nearly a quarter of the total imports of such goods. The amount on which duty was actually paid is not available.

    PRISON-MADE GOODS (IMPORTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade what international treaties to which Great Britain is a party would be contravened by the passing of legislation to prohibit the importation into this country of products of convict labour or forced labour?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: Goods produced in a foreign prison or other penal institution can be refused admission to this country under existing legislation. Whether a proposal to extend this prohibition to goods produced by forced labour is consistent with our existing Treaty obligations, is a question raising complicated technical considerations with which I could not deal within the limits of a Parliamentary answer.
    Sir F. HALL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it must have a very injurious effect upon labour in this country if goods produced under forced labour are allowed to come in, and will he not consider whether it is not advisable that some steps should be taken by the Government?
    Mr. GRAHAM: We have from time to time expressed our view on that. I am quite unable to agree that the proper way to deal with such a situation is by excluding the goods.

    RUSSIAN BUTTER (IMPORTS).
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that butter has been removed from the food ration cards of adults and children in many parts of Russia and also in order to assist British agriculture, the Government will consider what steps should be taken to put a stop to the dumping of butter and other commodities which compete with our own produce?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) on 12th May.
    Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that butter is being dumped here and sold at prices at which British agriculturists cannot produce it, while it is sold in Russia at 20s. a lb.
    Mr. THORNE: Is not Argentine butter being sold cheaper than Russian?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot say, but the fact remains that for the first four months of this year, the imports were less than for the corresponding months of 1930.
    Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: Is it not a fact that there was less butter imported from Russia last year than in the year 1927?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I should require notice of that question.

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILM INDUSTRY (AMERICAN INTERESTS).
    Mr. MUGGERIDGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that companies controlled by American financial interests own many of the largest cinemas in London and the chief provincial cities, and are thereby enabled to prejudice the public against British films by filling the quota with inferior productions; and if he will introduce legislation to raise the quota for British films to a point that will better protect British enterprise?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: It is the case that a certain number of large cinemas are owned or leased by American-controlled concerns, but I have no reason to suppose that inferior British films are generally shown at such theatres. In reply to the second part of the question, as I have indicated on previous occasions, I can hold out no expectation of further legislation on this subject.
    Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman now made aware that the British National Films Company can produce very many more films than there are at present, and that those that they have produced, when shown, are being very successful?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am aware that many tributes may be paid to the development of British enterprise, but that, of course, does not alter the reply I have given.
    Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that foreign control by means of an indirect holding has rendered the provisions of the Act useless now?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid I could not take that view. It is a very complicated question.
    Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that exhibitors are only too pleased to take all the good British films produced by the British National or any other British company?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Substantially that is my information.
    Sir F. HALL: Do hon. Members opposite at last recognise the advantages to be obtained by protecting the interests of this country?

    CREDIT FACILITIES (RUSSIAN SHIPS).
    Major GLYNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have yet come to a decision to give credit facilities to the Soviet Government for the purpose of constructing merchant vessels in British yards?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I hope to make a statement on this matter at Question Time on Thursday.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Has any decision been come to?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have informed the House that I will deal with it on Thursday.
    Major GLYNasked the President of the Board of Trade how many vessels of 1,000 tons, and over, are registered as belonging to the mercantile marine fleet of Soviet Russia; and how do these figures compare with similar ships on the Russian register in 1913–14?
    Mr. GRAHAM: According to particulars published by Lloyd's Register of Shipping there were 177 steam and motor vessels of 1,000 tons gross and upwards belonging to the Soviet Union at midyear 1931; the corresponding figure in respect of the former Russian Empire at mid-year 1913 was 273.
    Major GLYNasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been notified of any inquiries made on behalf of the Russian Government to British shipbuilders for quotations of prices, etc., for the construction of oil-tanker ships or others in British shipyards?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am aware that approaches have from time to time been made to British shipbuilding firms on
    1888
    behalf of the Soviet Government for various classes of ships including oil tankers.
    Major GLYN: Does the right hon. Gentleman know of any detailed scheme on which the credits can be based?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. All sorts of proposals have been discussed, and I could not give particulars of any without notice from the hon. and gallant Gentleman as to which one he had in mind.

    CARPET FACTORY, BRIDGNORTH (SHORT TIME).
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the recent increase in the number of employés at the carpet factory at Bridgnorth who are working short time; and what steps the Government propose to take in order to deal with this situation?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but it is obviously impossible for any Government to deal with the cases of individual factories.
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: Have not the Government any plans to enable British workers to get regular employment in their own trade?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Oh, yes; many plans, but, if the hon. and gallant Member means by his question, as I think he does, protective tariffs, that is not one of the plans.
    Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that day after day during the past two years employés have been put out of employment in the carpet factories in this country, and is the carpet trade going to be allowed to go into disuse because of the inaction of the Government?

    COTTON EXPORTS (INDIA).
    Mr. MARCUSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state in detailed and tabular form the amount of exports of cotton piece goods of United Kingdom manufacture registered as consigned to British India during the first five months of 1930 and the first five months of 1931?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I will circulate the desired table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the table:

    The following Table shows the Total Quantities and Declared Values of the Domestic Exports from the United Kingdom of the undermentioned descriptions of Cotton Piece Goods registered during the five months ended the 30th May, 1930 and 1931, respectively, as consigned to British India.

    Description.

    Quantities.

    Declared Values.

    January to May, 1930.

    January to May, 1931.

    January to May, 1930.

    January to May, 1931.

    Piece goods of cotton, including flags, handkerchiefs and shawls in the piece:

    Square yards.

    Square yards.

    £

    £

    Grey, unbleached

    222,268,100

    32,428,900

    3,163,936

    349,029

    White, bleached

    224,823,600

    104,869,700

    3,853,693

    1,263,916

    Printed: Flags, handkerchiefs and shawls in the piece.

    37,500

    32,200

    1,021

    788

    Other sorts

    47,598,500

    16,985,400

    1,182,883

    377,420

    Dyed, in the piece

    52,183,600

    20,204,400

    1,424,918

    433,715

    Manufactured wholly or in part of dyed yarn and commonly known as coloured cottons.

    5,865,800

    1,106,000

    205,654

    33,776

    Total

    552,777,100

    175,626,600

    9,832,105

    2,458,644

    ARGENTINA.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade if negotiations are still in progress for the preferential treatment of British Empire products in the Argentine; and when he expects the completion of a definite agreement?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: His Majesty's Government have never been in negotiation with the Argentine Government for the accord to British goods of preferential treatment in the Argentine. The hon. Member may, however, have in mind the negotiations which took place last year with the object of obtaining a general reduction in the Argentine duties on artificial silk goods. Reductions in important descriptions of these goods were made last December and the possibility of obtaining some further concessions is not being overlooked.
    Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the strong position which the United States now occupy in the Argentine trade, and will he make some arrangements by which, in view of the number of our markets at the disposal of the Argentina, he will get some preferential treatment from the Argentine for our goods?
    Captain Sir BURTON CHADWICK: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that at the present time we have probably a greater opportunity in Argentina for
    1890
    our trade than in any other foreign country in the world; and, following up the British Exhibition, which has created such an intense interest in the Argentine in regard to this country and our people, is it not time that the Government took the opportunity of departing from the rigid line which they have adopted?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot deal with the question of preferences and tariffs in reply to a supplementary question, but I can assure the House that, following the recent reports and other efforts, we are doing everything in our power to maintain British trade interests in Argentina and other parts of South America.
    Mr. MANDER: How does that fit in with Empire free trade?

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade how the balance of trade has varied between this country and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics from the date of the resumption of diplomatic relations between them down to the latest date for which figures are available?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing quarter by quarter, our total imports and exports of merchandise in the trade

    1891
    with the Soviet Union from the 1st October, 1929, to the 31st March, 1931, inclusive.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the total for the year now?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No. It will be quite misleading to read out one set of figures
    Following is the statement:

    The following table shows the total declared value of merchandise imported into and exported from the United Kingdom registered during each of the undermentioned quarters as consigned from and to the Soviet Union.

    Period.

    Total Imports of Merchandise into U.K. consigned from the Soviet Union.

    Exports of Merchandise from the U.K. consigned to the Soviet Union.

    Excess of Imports over Exports.

    Produce Manufactures of the United Kingdom.

    Imported Merchandise.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    1929:

    October to December

    …

    9,221,548

    1,086,068

    799,558

    7,335,922

    1930:

    January to March

    …

    4,811,910

    1,127,258

    827,062

    2,857,590

    April to June

    …

    5,127,800

    1,450,871

    661,208

    3,015,721

    July to September

    …

    9,700,864

    2,451,469

    382,302

    6,867,093

    October to December

    …

    14,604,845

    1,760,246

    685,906

    12,158,693

    1931:

    January to March

    …

    6,433,886

    1,425,113

    472,590

    4,536,183

    The excess of imports over exports represents the visible balance of trade. Sufficient information is not available to enable any estimate to be formed regarding the amount of the invisible items in the balance of trade.

    FAR EAST (COMMERCIAL REPRESENTATIVES).
    Major BEAUMONT THOMASasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what recommendations were made by the British Economic Mission to the Far East with regard to the reorganisation of our commercial representatives abroad?
    Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to paragraphs 238 and 306 of the report of the British Economic Mission to the Far East, of which I am sending him a copy.

    BASIC INDUSTRIES (REORGANISATION).
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government is prepared to pledge the resources of the British taxpayer in any approved scheme for the rehabilitation of British basic industries?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him
    out of the innumerable figures in this statement?
    Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Would it be possible to get similar figures from the United States?
    Mr. GRAHAM: As far as I know. I would not like to make a promise regarding other countries, but I believe that figures are available.
    by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday as regards the cotton industry. It is not proposed to differentiate between the various basic industries in this matter.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Does that mean that in the reconstruction of basic industries Government assistance is ruled out?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, that is the position.

  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  Mr. McSHANEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of complaints received during the past year as to youths who have emigrated to Canada under the auspices of the British Immigration and Colonisation Association being left without any resources; and whether he will take steps to warn all prospective emigrants thereto of the hardships to be expected?
  Mr. THOMAS: Thirty-two specific complaints have been received by the Oversea Settlement Department during the past 12 months from or on behalf of boys who have migrated to Canada under the auspices of this association. The association has now come to an end, and its responsibilities were taken over in January last by the Dominion Government. No boys are being assisted to go to Canada at present. As regards the last part of the question, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Oversea Settlement Department always endeavour to give intending migrants the fullest possible information as to conditions obtaining overseas.
  Mr. McSHANE: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his kindness in individual cases, may I ask him whether, as regards men who were sent out under the Ministry of Labour training scheme and who now may be stranded, he will not give specific help to cases of that kind in these circumstances?
  Mr. THOMAS: I can only say that I have done my best to help in any cases which have been brought to my notice, but that must not be taken as in any sense committing the Government to any responsibility. In fact, I think I can go so far as to say that no Government in this country could accept that responsibility.
  Mr. McSHANE: Will my right hon. Friend at any rate give us a guarantee that lying documents like this one which I have here, as to Canada being the land of golden opportunities, shall not be circulated among our young men in conditions such as exist to-day?
  Mr. THOMAS: I hope that my hon. Friend will not condemn Canada or any other Dominion——[Interruption.]
  Mr. McSHANE: I am not condemning Canada.
  Mr. THOMAS: Let us be quite fair. While we hear very often of failures, and much publicity is given to failures, let us remember the millions that have left this country. I know there are hardships and injustices, which I will try to remedy, but do not let us lose our sense of proportion.
  Mr. HANNONasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether any figures are available, as at the latest convenient date, showing the number of persons who, having been assisted by Empire settlement schemes or other means to emigrate in the past three years to the Oversea Dominions, have returned to this country?
  Mr. THOMAS: The total number of British migrants proceeding to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in the three years ending 31st December, 1930, was 238,025, of whom 148,815 were assisted under various schemes. The total number of British subjects entering this country from those Dominions in the same period with the intention of residing here permanently was 98,242. It is not possible to state how many of these were returning migrants who had been assisted to go overseas.
  Mr. HANNON: As my right hon. Friend's answer raises a point of very great importance, may I ask whether he does not think that a reciprocal trade arrangement with our Dominions would mean a great deal to the development of this scheme, as against the failures of the past?
  Mr. THOMAS: I think I am correct in saying that an examination of the figures for, say, the last 10 years, would show that on the average approximately 200,000 have left these shores for the Dominions. For the first time, the balance is going the other way. That is not because they are not welcome, but the economic position in our Dominions is such that they have their responsibility. In other words, it is no use assuming that we can judge the future of this migration problem from the present abnormal situation. I do not think it would be fair.
  Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the £10 passage scheme to Canada is still in existence; and, if so, whether any migrants have recently gone out under that scheme?
  Mr. THOMAS: I do not think that any migrants have recently gone; a large number are returning.
  Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is the scheme in existence?
  Mr. THOMAS: I think it is in existence; I am not quite sure. All that I know is that, naturally, it is not being very freely availed of, but I think I am correct in saying that it is in existence.
  Mr. McSHANE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware——
  Mr. SPEAKER——
  Mr. McSHANE: I was going to refer to an urgent cablegram which I have received from Australia concerning migrants.

  CANADA (CROP PROSPECTS).
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any information as to the causes and probable economic effect of the Canadian crop failure?
  Mr. THOMAS: I am sure that the House generally will greatly regret that the recent drought is expected to have so serious an effect on the crop prospects in the Prairie Provinces of Canada. As to the position generally, L can only refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada in the Canadian House of Commons on the 1st July, an account of which has appeared in the Press.

  STOCKS AND SHARES (TRANSACTIONS).
  Sir JOHN FERGUSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will preserve detailed records relating to the promotion, financing, and flotation of public limited liability companies, and the purchase and sale of securities and of options on them, as disclosed in recent bankruptcy examinations and winding-up proceedings of companies floated during the 1928 boom, and request the Wilfrid Greene Committee to consider methods by which the governing bodies of the stock exchanges in London and the provinces may, by help of legislative sanctions, protect the public against abuse of confidence by unscrupulous persons in so far as they use stock exchanges to facilitate their operations?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The available information on the matters referred to in the first part of the question is contained in the companies' statements of affairs and the Official Receiver's reports, copies of which are filed with the court and also preserved by the Official Receiver. As regards the second part of the question, the Wilfrid Greene Committee is no longer in existence, having completed its work in 1926.
  Mr. MARCUSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to make it obligatory upon all classes of stock and share brokers to deliver to purchasers the new stock or share certificates, or other forms of scrip, immediately after completion of each transaction?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I fear that I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. I may remind him that Section 67 of the Companies Act allows two months for the delivery of a share certificate after the transfer has been lodged with the company.

  EUROPE (ECONOMIC UNION).
  Sir K. WOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the present position of the proceedings of the Committee of Economic Experts set up by the Commission of Inquiry for European Union; and when their report may be anticipated?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The committee met at Geneva from 24th to 29th June and considered questions concerning commercial relations and the organisation of production and credit, but eventually came to the conclusion that since the creation of the committee important developments had taken place in the international economic situation which might modify the whole problem that they had been directed to examine. They therefore decided to adjourn until 18th August and meantime to postpone the presentation of their report.
  Sir K. WOOD: That also does not seem to be getting on very well, does it?
  Mr. GRAHAM: It is entirely different from the question mentioned a minute ago by my right hon. Friend. This adjournment was probably due entirely to the proposals of President Hoover.
  Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When will the Government make a statement of their policy in regard to this matter?
  Mr. GRAHAM: That is rather difficult for me to say. To some extent, it might be covered by a statement on the Board of Trade vote, but it is probably more a matter at the moment, in view of my supplementary reply, for the Treasury. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  COMPANIES ACT.
  Major HARVEYasked the President of the Board of Trade if, when amending the Companies Act, he will do so in such a manner that such reserves as are now called hidden reserves must be disclosed in future published accounts, unless all losses are disclosed, so that the proprietors in a public company may be informed as to the precise validity of the published and unpublished reserves?
  Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will, when amending the 1929 Companies Act, provide that the aggregate total of all reserves shall be stated in audited and published accounts of public companies so that the certified accounts shall in future disclose the whole truth of a company's position and show when hidden reserves have been used to meet hidden losses or for dividend purposes?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: The hon. and gallant Members' suggestions have been noted.
  Mr. MARCUSasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the present state of company law as revealed in recent cases, he intends to appoint a committee to formulate proposals designed to safeguard the interests of the public?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I do not know what provisions of company law my hon. Friend has in mind, and, as at present advised, I do not propose to appoint a committee. The Companies Acts were amended in 1928 following investigation by the Greene Committee, and the new Companies Act, which incorporated the Amendments, has been in operation less than two years.
  Sir J. FERGUSON: May I assume that the right hon. Gentleman will do his utmost to put this matter upon a proper footing, as there is a very great feeling of insecurity under the Companies Act at present?
  Mr. GRAHAM: In reply to the supplementary and other questions, I have already informed the House that many proposals have been noted for consideration if and when the Government are able to undertake amending legislation.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    SOUTHAMPTON PORT (DIRECTION-FINDING STATION).
    Sir BASIL PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has been arrived at as to the provision of a direction-finding station for the assistance of vessels entering and leaving the port of Southampton?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The question is still under the consideration of the Departments concerned.

    CREW ACCOMMODATION.
    Sir B. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to statements in the annual report of the medical officer of health of the Port of London Sanitary Committee to the effect that new ships are still designed and constructed without consideration for the welfare and comfort of the crew; whether he will take steps to ensure that proper provision is made for the crew when ships are under construction; and whether this is under consideration by the Standing Joint Committee of the Board of Trade and Ministry of Health on the hygiene of the mercantile marine?
    Dr. HASTINGSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a report from the joint committee of the Board of Trade, Ministry of Health, and Shipping Federation regarding crew spaces on merchant ships?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: The reports of the Shipping Federation Committee on Crew Accommodation have been considered by the joint committee of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Health and certain instructions to the Board's surveyors have been agreed by the Merehant

    1899
    Shipping Advisory Committee and will shortly be issued. In order that the House may be fully acquainted with the position in this matter, I am circulating a statement with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    CREWS' ACCOMMODATION ON BRITISH SHIPS.
    The Board of Trade have had the general question of crews' accommodation on British ships under consideration for some time. Since their Regulations as to crews' accommodation were last revised in 1923, the standard of accommodation has been gradually rising, especially in new ships, in many of which the accommodation provided is above the minimum requirements laid down in the Regulations.
    From time to time, however, complaints have been received that the accommodation provided for officers and men in British ships is unsatisfactory, and unfavourable comparisons are sometimes made between the standard of accommodation on British ships and that provided on certain foreign ships, especially Scandinavian ships. These complaints are always investigated individually, but in order that a true picture of the conditions prevailing throughout the British Mercantile Marine could be obtained, the Board of Trade arranged for a comprehensive survey to be made by their surveyors, who were instructed to pay special attention to the question of crew accommodation when visiting ships in the normal course of their duties, and to furnish particulars of the condition of the crew spaces on all ships, both British and foreign, visited by them during the period December, 1927, to March, 1928.
    In addition, the Shipping Federation appointed in May, 1929, a special committee to advise owners as to the best arrangements which could be made for the comfort and convenience of crews. This committee has made two reports relating to the accommodation of seamen other than lascars, one dealing with new cargo ships of 1,500 tons gross and upwards, and the other with new cargo ships below that tonnage. These two reports contain a number of valuable recommendations, many of which go beyond the existing Board of Trade Regulations. Model
    1900
    plans are appended to the reports showing arrangements for the crew, which would give a floor area and cubic capacity considerably in excess of the present statutory minimum, and indicating that, in the great majority of new ships, including even those of relatively small tonnage, it should be possible to provide a separate mess room for the crew. A special arrangement of the sleeping berths is suggested which avoids double tiers of bunks, and useful suggestions are made in connection with washing and sanitary accommodation. As an alternative to the usual methods of heating, a system of central heating by hot water is recommended for ordinary cargo ships, other than tankers; and the importance of adequate ventilation and heating is pointed out. The provision of an isolation hospital on all large foreign-going cargo vessels is also recommended. The committee, recognising that the provision of good accommodation will be of little avail unless it is kept clean and in good order, lay special stress on the proper supervision and cleansing of the crews' quarters, and suggest the imposition of penalties for failure to keep the accommodation clean. These recommendations, as originally made, applied particularly to new ships of 1,500 tons gross and over, but the Shipping Federation have agreed with the Board of Trade that they should be adopted wherever practicable, irrespective of the size of the ship.
    The reports have been examined in the Department and also by the Joint Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Health on the health of the mercantile marine, and the opinion, both of the Board and of the Joint Committee, is that if the recommendations are followed, a material improvement in the standard of accommodation will result.
    The recommendations have also been considered by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee who have expressed the opinion that the recommendations should be of great value in securing improvements in the accommodation provided in new ships.
    The Board of Trade have, therefore, decided to give their general approval to the recommendations, and to take such action as lies within their power to give effect to them. They are, accordingly,

    1901
    circulating to their surveyors particulars Of the recommendations of the Shipping Federation Committee, and at the same time are instructing them to ascertain, in the case of all new ships, the proposals as regards crew spaces as early as possible, so that, if necessary, they can approach the owners and builders and discuss with them the possibility of making improvements in design or in fittings, where these appear to be called for in the light of the recommendations.
    The reports do not deal in any great detail with existing ships, as there must, of necessity, be great difficulty in securing improvements involving structural alterations. It has, however, been agreed that much could be done to secure improvements on existing ships which fall below present day standards in such matters as the provision of lavatory and Washing accommodation, the substitution of metal bunks for wooden berths, and the proper lighting, ventilation, painting and cleaning of the crews' quarters; and the Board of Trade surveyors are being instructed to endeavour to secure improvements of this nature in those cases in which they can reasonably be expected, having regard to the age and condition of the ships and the particular trades in which they are engaged.

    TABLE showing Strength of Military Forces maintained by Great Britain in the Channel Islands in January, 1914, and January, 1931. respectively.

    Detail.

    Strength in January, 1914.

    Strength in January, 1931.

    Jersey District.

    Guernsey and Alderney District.

    Jersey District.

    Guernsey and Alderney District.

    Command and Staff.

    Lieutenant Governor and Commanding the Troops.

    1

    1

    1

    1

    Deputy Assistant Adjutant and Quartermaster General.

    1

    1

    —

    —

    Staff Captain

    —

    —

    1

    1

    All Ranks.

    Royal Artillery

    92

    230

    —

    —

    Royal Engineers

    4

    26

    3

    2

    Infantry

    720

    627

    —

    16

    Royal Army Service Corps

    5

    6

    4

    5

    Royal Army Medical Corps

    12

    10

    —

    6

    Royal Army Ordnance Corps

    5

    8

    —

    —

    Total

    840

    909

    9

    31

    Note,—This Table does not include the Channel Islands Militia, which is raised and paid by the Islands, nor the Assistant Adjutant General for Militia whose cost is not now borne on Army Estimates.

  DYESTUFFS (IMPORTATION REGULATION) ACT.
  Mr. DENMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will cause a select or other committee to examine the current working of the Dye-stuffs Act, with a view to the provision of authoritative advice on the question of the renewal of that Act?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to questions on this subject on the 20th January last.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CHANNEL ISLANDS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for War the military forces and staff maintained by Great Britain in the Channel Islands respectively, in January, 1914 and January, 1931?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a comparative table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:

    FLOUR SUPPLIES.
    Mr. EGANasked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider the revision of tender forms for Army flour supplies so as to enable millers from other districts than London to compete for such business?
    Mr. SHAW: My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. Millers from other districts than London can and do compete for Army flour supplies.
    Mr. EGAN: If representations are made to my right hon. Friend in order to show the handicap which exists, will he give the matter consideration?
    Mr. SHAW: I am willing to consider any representations that are made.

    MECHANISATION.
    Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any intention of extending mechanisation to other fighting units; whether the experimental stage of mechanisation in the Army is concluded: and whether it is now intended to fix the mechanised organisation on its present basis?
    Mr. SHAW: Invention and design follow each other so quickly at the present time that changes in equipment are constantly under investigation resulting in fresh developments in organisation. There is scarcely any arm or unit of the service which is not affected by mechanisation, and it is impossible at this stage to indicate the time when finality will be reached over the whole field.

  SCOTLAND.

    MORAY FIRTH (FOREIGN TRAWLERS).
    Major McKENZIE WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the progress made with the negotiations to find a solution of the difficulties created by the privileged position enjoyed by foreign over British trawlers in the Moray Firth?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to his question on the 23rd of June. Since that date my right hon. Friend has had further consultations
    1904
    with his colleagues in other Departments, but he is unable to make any further statement at present.
    Major WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman give an idea when his right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement; and is he aware that the fishermen are very desirous of knowing at the earliest possible moment what is likely to be their position?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that no undue delay will take place in coming to a conclusion upon what is a very complicated question.
    Major WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend has been considering this matter for over two years; and is it not now time that some definite statement was made?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Can the hon. Member tell the House which Department is the cause of the delay?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am afraid that I can add nothing to the answer that I have already given.

    ROYAL COMMISSION ON LICENSING.
    Major WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received the report of the Royal Commission appointed to investigate the question of the sale and supply of excisable liquor in Scotland; if so, when the report was received by him; and when it will be published?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: The report of the Royal Commission on Licensing (Scotland) reached my right hon. Friend last month and is now in the hands of the printers. I understand that it will be ready for issue at an early date.
    Major WOOD: Can the hon. Member say what has caused the delay in publication?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: All that I can say is that it is expected that it will be issued before the House rises.

  REPARATIONS AND INTER-GOVERNMENTAL DEBTS.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Prime Minister whether the British Government has made any approach to

  1905
  the French Government with a view of finding a way out of the deadlock which had arisen between France and the United States of America on the question of debt and reparation postponement; if so, what was the nature of the suggestion made and what reply has been received?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As already announced in the Press, His Majesty's Government last week approached the French and United States Governments with the suggestion that in order to hasten agreement over President Hoover's proposal they were ready to hold a meeting of the representatives of the Powers chiefly concerned at an early date in London. Both the French and United States Governments expressed their willingness to attend a meeting if direct negotiations were not in the meanwhile successful. As hon. Members are aware, these negotiations have now resulted in an agreement in principle between the United States and France, but have left open several important points which will require to be discussed between the Governments chiefly concerned. His Majesty's Government are accordingly renewing their invitation for a Conference in London.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the various countries concerned are in substantial agreement, or only on small details?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That, I can not say. The hon. Member would do well to leave it where it is.
  Brigadier-General BROWN: In regard to the points that are left open, does it mean that we may have to spend more money?
  Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of the countries which have now accepted unconditionally the proposals of President Hoover with reference to reparations and inter-allied debts; those which have accepted them conditionally; and those with whom negotiations are still in progress?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): The attitude of His Majesty's Govern-
  1906
  ments in the United Kingdom and in the Dominions concerned and of the Government of India is already known to hon. Members. Austria, Bulgaria, Germany and Italy have, according to the information at present available to His Majesty's Government, accepted President Hoover's proposal unconditionally. Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Rumania and Yugoslavia have accepted in principle but have, in some cases, it is understood, attached reservations to their acceptance. Hungary has not yet replied. The negotiations which have been in progress with France have, as hon. Members will be aware, now resulted in the agreement between the French and United States Governments published this morning. No negotiations are in progress with other countries.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    INSPECTORATE.
    Major HERBERT EVANSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the increasing extent to which the inspectorial function of several Departments in enforcing laws and regulations governing industrial employment results in overlapping; and whether, with a view to efficiency and economy, he will submit the question of co-ordination to a Select Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of any such overlapping as my hon. Friend suggests, but if he will let me have a statement of what he has in mind I will have the matter looked into.

    REGRADING.
    Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the normal processes of investigation into departmental claims for re-grading of work are precluded by the fact that a Royal Commission is sitting to inquire into the Civil Service?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): No, Sir. But it would no doubt be proper in particular cases on which there is reason to assume that the findings of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service might have an important bearing, to await the report of that body before coming to a final decision.
    Mr. BROWN: Will the Financial Secretary inquire into the situation which exists in the Public Trustee's Office, which is quite inconsistent with the terms of the reply which he has given to-day?

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (HIGHER AND CLERICAL OFFICERS).
    Mr. W. J. BROWNasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of higher clerical officers employed as at the 1st April, 1931, and the number of higher clerical officers promoted to higher posts during the period 1st April, 1930, to 31st March, 1931, in the Department of Customs and Excise?
    Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The number of higher clerical officers (Treasury Class) employed in the Department of Customs and Excise on 1st April, 1931, was 68, and the number promoted to higher posts during the period 1st April, 1930, to 31st March, 1931, was one.
    Mr. BROWN: May I ask whether the Financial Secretary as regards the arrangements for promotion in that Department, as evidenced by the figures now given, is affording anything like a reasonable and adequate outlet by way of promotion for that class?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is not a matter which can be dealt with by question and answer.

    COMMERCIAL DIPLOMATIC AND TRADE COMMISSIONER SERVICES.
    Major THOMASasked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department how applicants for the posts of commercial councillors, secretaries, and trade commissioners are selected; and whether all applicants must have commercial qualifications other than a knowledge of commercial law?
    Mr. GILLETT: On the occasion when the Commercial Diplomatic and Trade Commissioner Services were inaugurated, and also in all cases of any considerable subsequent expansion, the appointments to the services have been made on the recommendations made by special selection boards composed of Government servants and representative business men. Other vacancies are filled depart-1908
    mentally. In addition to a knowledge of foreign languages where this is appropriate, all candidates are expected to possess some commercial experience which would fit them for these appointments, whether such experience is acquired in the course of their profession or in Government service.
    Mr. HANNON: Can the hon. Member indicate how these special selection boards are constituted? Are the people who constitute them competent to exercise the duties of selection?
    Mr. GILLETT: I only know of one board so constituted and in that case half are representatives of the Civil Service and half are business men, selected by myself.
    Mr. HANNON: Who nominates the board? Does the hon. Member nominate the board?
    Mr. GILLETT: I forget at the moment whether actually I made the nominations, or whether a former Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department suggested the names.

  BROADCAST ADDRESSES (RUSSIA).
  Mr. CULVERWELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Moscow trade union broadcasting station is transmitting addresses in English on the policy and achievements of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, he will arrange for the transmission from the Post Office station at Rugby of broadcast addresses in Russian on the economic and social conditions in the United Kingdom?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Mr. CULVERWELL: Does the Prime Minister not think that these Russian broadcasts constitute a most subtle and dangerous form of propaganda? If they are thought to be desirable by the Russian Government, does he not think that we ought to retaliate in some way?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Really, I do not think they make a farthing's worth of difference.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Would not the hon. Member's suggestion mean a great influx of Russian scientists and professors?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think that we ought to welcome to this country everybody who has done scientific work and historical research, in order that they may attend the international conference that will sit in a few days' time.
  Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Does the Prime Minister include M. Bukharin in that euphemism?
  The PRIME MINISTER indicated assent.

  INDIA (FINANCIAL STABILITY).
  Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the financial credit of India would be assured by stabilising the value of silver at a sufficiently high price, if he will now consider the calling of an international conference to effect this aim?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I must not be taken as agreeing to the hon. Member's premise. As I have frequently stated, I do not think His Majesty's Government is in a position to take the initiative as regards such a conference.
  Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In the event of some other nation taking the initiative, would His Majesty's Government send a representative to such conference?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I believe that we have already expressed an opinion to that effect. If such a conference was convened, I think it is likely that we should be represented.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Am I to understand that the League of Nations Committee on the gold standard are also directing attention to the question of silver?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: No.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the conditions under which the Government proposes to give financial support to the Government of India?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the question put to him on this subject yesterday.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the terms of the resolution passed by various old age pensions committees to the effect that, where a recipient of an old age pension can prove incapacity and requires the care of a relative or some other person, there should, for the purpose of assessing the income for such person, be deducted from the applicant's total means the sum of £39; and will he state what action he is prepared to take in the matter?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has received a copy of the resolution to which my hon. Friend refers. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to introduce the legislation which would be necessary to give effect to this proposal.
  Mr. BOWENasked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of old age pensions over the age of 65 years who have wives under that age not yet qualifying for pension; and whether he can give the number of the wives in age groups from 55 years upwards?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I regret that the information desired by my hon. Friend is not available.

  CURRENCY (INFLATION).
  Mr. MORLEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to take steps to substitute for the policy of deflation pursued over recent years a policy of moderate and controlled inflation?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It is not possible within the limits of a Parliamentary answer to deal with the implications raised by this question, the answer to which is in the negative.
  Mr. MORLEY: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to a statement made recently in the public Press, to the effect that the Bank of

  1911
  England is contemplating a change in its monetary policy? If so, has there been any consultation between the Bank and the Treasury on that matter? If such consultations have taken place, can the right hon. Gentleman state the result?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: That does not arise out of the question, and I am not aware of any such Press statements as those to which my hon. Friend refers.
  Mr. W. J. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that those statements appeared in Labour's own organ?
  Sir K. WOOD: Perhaps he does not read it.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    WORK SCHEMES.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Labour whether she will consider the desirability of providing the necessary facilities to enable unemployed, and other individuals who wish to do so, to organise schemes of work voluntarily along similar lines to those by which voluntary workers were organised during the late War with the object of providing the essential needs, such as food, clothing, houses, and similar requisites, of all those in the nation who lack them at present?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): Substantial assistance is already provided for organised efforts on housing, on allotments and smallholdings, and for work of economic value put in hand by local authorities and similar bodies in order to give employment. I am not clear in what particular direction the hon. Member considers it practicable that those efforts could be extended.

    WILLIAM JAMES MANUFACTURING COMPANY, WILLENHALL.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour if she will state whether the case with reference to the unemployment benefit of the men engaged in the dispute at the works of the William James Manufacturing Company, Willenhall, has yet been dealt with by the umpire, and the date when the appeal first reached him?
    Mr. LAWSON: I am informed that no appeal has yet been made to the umpire.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Member not aware that an appeal was entered at least four or five weeks ago? Will he make inquiries and ascertain why it has not reached the umpire?
    Mr. LAWSON: It is not a matter for the Department, but for the parties concerned.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. Member state whether the cause of the delay is due to his Department or to the umpire's department? Is it not a fact that the umpire's department acts with great expedition?
    Mr. LAWSON: In this case, the delay is due to the fact that, apparently, one of the parties has not taken steps to make the appeal.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Member not aware that these men, to my knowledge, put in an appeal to the umpire at the Willenhall Employment Exchange four or five weeks ago? Why has it not been received and dealt with?
    Mr. LAWSON: No, Sir. My information is definite. Although the court of referees disallowed the claim, an appeal is open to the union. In fact, the court of referees allowed the appeal voluntarily. Despite these facts, no appeal has yet been made.

    PRINTERS (PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour if she can state the total number of persons engaged in week-end printing and only working for this period, and the average weekly income?
    Mr. LAWSON: Statistics giving the information desired are not available.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that this question is to be discussed to-morrow and that the figures are very necessary for that discussion, cannot the hon. Member make an effort to give us some valuable guide on this question?
    Mr. LAWSON: It is one thing to have the statistics concerning temporary unemployment, but it is another matter to get the figures disentangled.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that this question is likely to involve a very important principle with regard

    1913
    to to-morrow's Debate, is it not necessary that the House should be informed of the figures relating to the question?
    Mr. LAWSON: I do not think that is at all necessary, but, as indicating that the Department is just as anxious to have these figures as the hon. Member, we are doing our best to disentangle them from the figures of the temporarily unemployed. That is not easy.

    BENEFIT (SHORT-TIME WORKERS).
    Mr. BUCHANANasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons now receiving benefit who are working short time; the number receiving benefit who are classified as intermittent workers; and the number receiving benefit known as seasonal workers?
    Mr. LAWSON: Statistics giving the information desired in the first two parts of this question are not available. At 19th January, 1931, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 12,461 seasonal workers on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, but I am unable to say how many were actually in receipt of benefit.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Again, may I ask, in view of the fact that the Government propose to deal with the first two classes of persons to-morrow in a Bill, if it is not right that we should know the number of intermittent workers affected and also the number of short-time workers receiving benefit?
    Mr. LAWSON: The Government are just as anxious as the hon. Member to know the full facts in this matter, and I must tell him again that it is not an easy matter to disentangle these two sets of figures.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Would it not have been as well for the Government to have had these figures before they introduced their Bill?
    Mr. LAWSON: It is not necessary to have had this information. Statements were made to the Royal Commission and specific cases were given. It was not necessary to have had these particular figures.

  CHILDREN BILL.
  Major Sir HERBERT CAYZERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes
  1914
  to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the departmental committee of inquiry into offences against young persons, appointed by his predecessor on 28th July, 1924, including such recommendations as necessitate amendments to the Criminal Law Amendment Acts?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): The recommendations will be borne in mind when time can be found for the Children Bill, but my right hon. Friend cannot promise to propose that effect sholl be given to them. Some of them would require separate legislation which is out of the question at the present time.
  Sir H. CAYZERasked the Home Secretary whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill to amend the Children Acts; and, if so, whether he can give an approximate date?
  Mr. SHORT: I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a question by the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth. (Viscountess Astor) on the 11th June last.

  JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
  Sir H. CAYZERasked the Home Secretary the number of young persons between the ages of 16 and 21 who were, on 30th June last, on remand in local prisons, awaiting trial, and serving sentences of imprisonment, respectively: and if he will give the number of such young prisoners serving sentences in each collecting centre and in any other local prison?
  Mr. SHORT: The number of young persons between 16 and 21 on remand was 66, awaiting trial 77 and serving sentences of imprisonment 342. Of the 342 there were 273 in seven prisons which are collecting centres for young prisoners, and the remaining 69 were scattered over 19 other prisons. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a table showing the number in each prison.

  VACCINATION (INFANTS' DEATHS, LEICESTER).
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether he is yet able to make a statement as a result of his inquiries

  1915
  into the death of the twin children of Councillor A. A. Furness, of Wigston, near Leicester, following vaccination; and whether he will consider the desirability of arranging for a public inquiry into the whole circumstances of this case?
  Miss LAWRENCE: Inquiries which were made locally by a medical officer of my Department during the life of one of these children, taken with the evidence now available from pathological examination of material obtained postmortem in each case, show that these deaths were both caused by post-vaccinal encephalitis, and were comparable to those cases which have been fully studied and described in the recent reports of the Committee on Vaccination. My right hon. Friend does not consider that a public inquiry could advance our knowledge of the circumstances in which this rare complication of vaccination developed, or that any useful purpose would be served by such an inquiry.
  Mr. FREEMAN: In view of the fact that vaccination is now discredited—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—by a large majority of the population, would not the holding of an inquiry into this case give the Government an opportunity of justifying a repeal of the compulsory clauses on vaccination?
  Miss LAWRENCE: The hon. Member is merely repeating the very important question on the Paper to which I have already given an answer.
  Sir K. WOOD: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary propose to make any statement in reply to the allegation which the hon. Member has made in regard to vaccination?
  Sir F. HALL: Do the Government subscribe to the statement made by the hon. Member?
  Miss LAWRENCE: I do not think that question arises.

  DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).
  Mr. LOUIS SMITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any potash has yet been produced and delivered by the company operating the Dead Sea concession which was given to Mr. Moses Novamesky?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I dealt with this point yesterday in the course of a reply which I gave to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury), to which I would refer the hon. Member.
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the Under-Secretary get hold of these figures? He says that he is not certain of them.
  Dr. SHIELS: Does the hon. and gallant Member mean the number of workers?
  Colonel HOWARD-BURY: No, the amount of potash produced.
  Dr. SHIELS: We have no information concerning that. We may get it later on, but at the present moment we have no information.

  IMAM OF YEMEN.
  Mr. DAYasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement as to the position of the outstanding matters requiring settlement between the Imam of Yemen and His Majesty's Government?
  Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir. I am not in a position to make any fresh statement. There has been no change in the position as regards the relations of His Majesty's Government with the Imam of the Yemen.
  Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Member say whether these conversations are taking place?
  Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir, I know of no conversations that are taking place.

  LOSS OF HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE "POSEIDON" (GALLANTRY).
  Captain W. G. HALL(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is yet in a position to make a further statement as to the disaster to one of His Majesty's Submarines in Eastern waters?
  Sir H. CAYZERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a report has yet been received from the Commander-in-

  1917
  Chief, China, in connection with the loss of His Majesty's Submarine "Poseidon"; and, if so, what reference, if any, is made therein to the senior rating who showed coolness and presence of mind in organising rescue work?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): In answer to this question and that standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South Portsmouth (Sir H. Cayzer) for written answer, I rise to inform the House that the Admiralty have received the following report from the Commander-in-Chief, China, respecting the recent loss of His Majesty's Submarine "Poseidon":
  "On the conclusion of the various inquiries into the loss of His Majesty's Ship 'Poseidon' some interesting facts have become available about the magnificent behaviour of the men who were cut off from their fellows in the fore part of the ship, most of whom eventually were saved. When the collision occurred and the order 'Close watertight doors' was given, Petty Officer Willis, the torpedo gunner's mate, took charge of those in the fore part, calling on them to close the door of the compartment with themselves inside, as this might mean saving the ship. The operation was difficult, as the bulkhead had buckled, but by their united efforts the door was eventually closed, leaving only a slight leak. Whilst this work was in progress the ship lurched to starboard and sank with heavy inclination by the bows. At the moment of the collision the electric light leads were all cut and from that time until the final evacuation the imprisoned men were working with the occasional illumination of an electric torch.
  Willis first said prayers for himself and his companions and then ordered them to put on their escape apparatus, making sure they all knew how to use it. He then explained he was going to flood the compartment in order to equalise the pressure with that outside the submarine, and how it was to be done, telling off each man to his station. He also rigged wire hawser across the hatchway to form a support for men to stand on whilst the compartment was flooding. While the compartment was slowly filling, Willis kept his companions in good heart, while one able seaman, Nagle, passed the time in instructing the Chinese boy in the use of his apparatus, and was undoubtedly instrumental in saving his life. The other men worked cheerfully at the various valves for flooding and rigging the platform. During this time oxygen was running low in some of the escape apparatus; one able seaman told Petty Officer Willis that his oxygen flask was exhausted, as he could not longer hear it bubbling. Willis then tested his own and found it also was empty, and told the man, 'That is all right, you can't hear
  1918
  anything in mine, and there is plenty left.' This statement reassured the man and maintained the atmosphere of coolness among the party, which was essential to success.
  After two hours and ten minutes the water was about up to the men's knees, and Willis considered the pressure might be sufficient to open the hatch. With considerable difficulty the hatch opened sufficiently for two men to shoot up, but the pressure then reclosed the hatch, and it was necessary to await further flooding to make the pressure more equal before a second attempt could be made. The two men who first escaped were Able Seaman Lovock and Able Seaman Holt. The former came to the surface unconscious and died immediately, but his body was supported by Able Seaman Holt, himself in a state of great exhaustion, until both were picked up by boats waiting on the scene. After a further hour, by which time the men in the compartment were nearly up to their necks in water and the air lock was becoming very small, a second effort was made. This was successful and the hatch opened, and four other men came to the surface, Petty Officer Willis, Leading Seaman Clark, Able Seaman Nagle, and Officer's Steward Ah Hai, all of whom were picked up by boats. From evidence it is abundantly clear that the courage and fortitude with which all these men in the practical darkness of the slowly flooding compartment faced a situation more than desperate was in accordance with the very highest traditions of the Service. The coolness, confidence, ability and power of command shown by Petty Officer Willis, which no doubt was principally responsible for the saving of so many valuable lives, is deserving of the very highest praise."
  The question of suitable recognition of those concerned is under consideration by the Admiralty.
  Mr. HANNON: In view of the very striking and exhilarating statement which the First Lord of the Admiralty has just given to the House, will he say what mark of consideration is going to be conferred on Petty Officer Willis?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: That is under consideration.
  Mr. THORNE: May I ask the First Lord whether, in consequence of these submarine disasters, affecting not only this country but other countries, he thinks that any useful purpose would be served by making representations in favour of the abolition of submarines?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The Government have indicated already their strong views on that question, last year.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: The object of the Motion on the Paper is to ensure that the Coal Mines Bill will be passed through all its further stages to-night, and that the Housing (Rural Authorities)
[Expenses] Money Resolution will be passed through the Committee stage.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 257; Noes, 127.

Division No. 379.]

AYES.

[3.45 p.m.

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

Glassey, A. E.

Longden, F.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Gossling, A. G.

Lunn, William

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

Gould, F.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Alpass, J. H.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

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

Ammon, Charles George

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

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Arnott, John

Gray, Milner

McElwee, A.

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

McEntee, V. L.

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

McKinlay, A.

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Barnes, Alfred John

Groves, Thomas E.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Barr, James

Grundy, Thomas W.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Batey, Joseph

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

McShane, John James

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Malone, C. L Estrange (N'thampton)

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

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

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

Manning, E. L.

Benson, G.

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Mansfield, W.

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

March, S.

Blindell, James

Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

Marcus, M.

Bowen, J. W.

Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

Marley, J.

Broad, Francis Alfred

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Marshall, Fred

Brockway, A. Fenner

Haycock, A. W.

Mathers, George

Bromfield, William

Hayes, John Henry

Matters, L. W.

Brothers, M.

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Maxton, James

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

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

Messer, Fred

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

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Middleton, G.

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Millar, J. D.

Buchanan, G.

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

Milner, Major J.

Burgess, F. G.

Herriotts, J.

Montague, Frederick

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

Hicks, Ernest George

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Cape, Thomas

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

Morley, Ralph

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

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Charleton, H. C.

Hoffman, P. C.

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

Chater, Daniel

Hollins, A.

Mort, D. L.

Clarke, J. S.

Hopkin, Daniel

Muff, G.

Cluse, W. S.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Muggeridge, H. T.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Horrabin, J. F.

Murnin, Hugh

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Naylor, T. E.

Compton, Joseph

Isaacs, George

Noel Baker, P. J.

Cove, William G.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Cowan, D. M.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Daggar, George

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Palin, John Henry.

Dallas, George

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Paling, Wilfrid

Dalton, Hugh

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Palmer, E. T.

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Perry, S. F.

Day, Harry

Kelly, W. T.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Phillips, Dr. Marlon

Dukes, C.

Kinley, J.

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Duncan, Charles

Kirkwood, D.

Pole, Major D. G.

Ede, James Chuter

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

Potts, John S.

Edmunds, J. E.

Lang, Gordon

Price, M. P.

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Egan, W. H.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Raynes, W. R.

Elmley, Viscount

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Richards, R.

England, Colonel A.

Lawrence, Susan

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Lawson, John James

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

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

Foot, Isaac

Leach, W.

Ritson, J.

Freeman, Peter

Lee, Frank (Derby. N. E.)

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

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

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Romeril, H. G.

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

Lees, J.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Gibbins, Joseph

Leonald, W.

Rowson, Guy

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Gill, T. H.

Logan, David Gilbert

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Gillett, George M.

Longbottom, A. W.

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

Sanders, W. S.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Sandham, E.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Wellock, Wilfred

Sawyer, G. F.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Seurr, John

Stamford, Thomas W.

West, F. R.

Sexton, Sir James

Stephen, Campbell

Westwood, Joseph

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Sullivan, J.

White, H. G.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Sutton, J. E.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Sherwood, G. H.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Shield, George William

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

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Shillaker, J. F.

Tillett, Ben

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Shinwell, E.

Tinker, John Joseph

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Toole, Joseph

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

Tout, W. J.

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

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Wise, E. F.

Sinkinson, George

Vaughan, David

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Sitch, Charles H.

Viant, S. P.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Wallace, H. W.

Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Watkins, F. C.

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Thurtie.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

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

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

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

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

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

Ferguson, Sir John

Muirhead, A. J.

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

Fermoy, Lord

Nail-Cain, A. R. N.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Flson, F. G. Clavering

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

Balniel, Lord

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Beaumont, M. W.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Peake, Capt. Osbert

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Penny, Sir George

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Boyce, Leslie

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Briscoe, Richard George

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Broadbent, Colonel J.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

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

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Buchan, John

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

Salmon, Major I

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farnham)

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Hammersley, S. S.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Burton, Colonel H. W.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Skelton, A. N.

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hartington, Marquess of

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Campbell, E. T.

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

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Carver, Major W. H.

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

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

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

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton

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

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

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

Hurd, Percy A.

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

Colvllie, Major D. J.

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

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

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Cooper, A. Duff

Iveagh, Countess of

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Train, J.

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Lamb, Sir J. O.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Cranborne, Viscount

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Wells, Sydney R.

Cunliffe-Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

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

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Lockwood, Captain J. H.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

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

Womersley, W. J.

Dawson, Sir Philip

Macquisten, F. A.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

Marjoribanks, Edward

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Eden, Captain Anthony

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Captain Margesson and Captain

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

Wallace.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Mauritius Loan (Guarantee) Bill, without Amendment.
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Great Western Railway) Confirmation Bill,
London and North Eastern Railway Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Romford Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to give effect to an International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, signed in London on the thirty-first day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, to give effect to an In-

1923
ternational Load Line Convention signed in London on the fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty, and to amend the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1928, relating to passenger steamers, life-saving appliances, wireless telegraphy, load lines, timber cargoes, and other matters affected by the said Conventions."[Merchant Shipping (Safety and Load Line Conventions) Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Rhymney Valley Joint Sewerage District." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Rhymney Valley Joint Sewerage District) Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to the Ports-lade and Southwick Outfall Sewerage District and Seaton Burn Valley Joint Sewerage District." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Ports-lade and Southwick Outfall Sewerage District and Seaton Burn Valley Joint Sewerage District) Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of St. Helens and the city of York." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (St. Helens and York) Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Godalming and Scunthorpe and Frodingham." [Minister of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Godalming and Scunthorpe and Frodingham] Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Bristol and Leicester." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Bristol and Leicester) Bill [Lords.]
Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to the Abertillery and District Water District and Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board." [Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abertillery and District Water District and Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board) Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the sale of the site of the Ebenezer Chapel and the burial ground and schoolrooms attached thereto (all in the City of Birmingham) and the application of the proceeds of sale thereof; and for other purposes." [Ebenezer Chapel Birmingham Bill [Lords.]

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (RHYMNEY VALLEY JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (PORTSLADE AND SOUTHWICK OUTFALL SEWERAGE DISTRICT AND SEATON BURN VALLEY JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ST. HELENS AND YORK) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (GODALMING AND SCUNTHORPE AND FRODINGHAM) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 194.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL AND LEICESTER) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 195.]
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ABERTILLERY AND DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT AND WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD) BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed. [Bill 196.]
EBENEZER CHAPEL BIRMINGHAM BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  COAL MINES BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

  COAL MINES BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Temporary amendment of 8 Edw. 7, c. 57, s. 3.)
    The following Amendment stood upon, the Order Paper in the name of Major COLVILLE:
    In page 1, line 11, at the end, to add the words:
    "Provided that, if an application, by agreement between representative organisations of the owners and the workers employed in or about the coal mines in any district, is made to the Board of Trade in that behalf, the Board of Trade shall make an order, which shall become effective forthwith, that the substitution of the words 'half an hour' for the words 'one hour' in the said Section three of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall not apply as respects any mine in such district at which the daily hours below ground on an average taken over the twelve weekdays in any fortnight do not exceed the daily hours permissible under this Section."
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is outside the Title and scope of the Bill, and I must therefore rule it out of order.
    Mr. SKELTON: I appreciate that the test whether this Amendment is in order or not is the Title, but, if you would be so good as to look at the last three lines of the Title, you will find that the last matter dealt with is:
    "to provide for the maintenance during the period aforesaid of minimum percentage additions to basis rates of wages and of subsistence rates of wages."
    I would like to put before you for your consideration that the object of this Amendment is to try in districts where there are not wage arrangements in terms of the Bill, that is to say, such a district as Scotland, to make provision for the maintenance of the minimum percentage additions. I submit that there is no other way except by the method suggested in the Amendment by which this can be done in districts where arrangements are not already made in terms of the Bill.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Because an Amendment is not within the Title
    1934
    of the Bill, it does not necessarily follow that it is out of order, because the Title of a Bill can be amended to include something that is germane to the subject matter of the Bill. But the object and purpose of this Bill is clearly to restrict the extension to half-an-hour a day, that is to seven and a-half hours. This Amendment would permit an extension beyond the seven and a-half hours for an unlimited number of days. Consequently, it is outside the scope of the Bill, quite apart from the Title.
    Major COLVILLE: In the Title of the Bill it is also stated that the object is to maintain the present rates of wages, and the only method of doing that in Scotland is to move this Amendment in order to work a spread-over arrangement.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is purely argumentative. The Title and purpose of the Bill definitely restricts the extension to half-an-hour a day, The Amendment would negative that, and on that ground I must rule it out of order.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Those who remember the passage of previous Bills of this character will remember that this extra half-hour was considered by mining Members as an abominable imposition on the miners. I do not think that the Government are justified in coming to the House of Commons this afternoon and asking the House to force an extra half-hour a day upon these miners unless any real reason is given for the decision. I know that we had a series of excuses given by the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon, and for that reason we were compelled at the time to give a Second Reading to the Bill. But, on the Committee stage of any Bill, it is open to any Member to go closely into the details, and when I remember some of the things which have been said about Conservative Members and Conservative candidates on platforms in this country for voting 7½ hours, and when I see the Government themselves this afternoon asking the House to vote the 7½ hours, we have a right to demand from the Government the fullest explanation to justify a Measure in regard to which,

    1935
    not very long ago, we were abused up and down the country, as well as in the House of Commons. The vast majority of the Conservative party will agree with me when I say that we do not wish to see long hours in industry. We do not desire to see miners work long hours underground, and on an occasion when you are using this opportunity to extend the hours of work once again, it is only right that at least one Member of my party should say that we realise that this extension of hours is brought about by the utter impossibility at the present time of doing anything better for the men concerned. I hope the time will come when, by the Geneva Conference, you will be able to better that position.
    It is a pity that this particular point has not been explained more adequately by the Government. I can understand why two or three Members of the Government who are present are looking so ashamed in this matter, because they must be having considerable difficulty with their conscience to reconcile their present position with what they said in the past. The Prime Minister avails himself, as he invariably does, of the first opportunity for absenting himself from the House, because if there is any Member of this House who is strongly and definitely pledged on this matter, it is the Prime Minister. I have no intention of voting against the Clause, but I have every intention of pointing out, whenever there is an opportunity—of course, never repeating myself—that, so far as I am concerned, I think that it is a remarkable commentary on the position of the Government that they have to come back to this 7½ hours.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Calculation of wages.)
    Miss LEE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the words "the appointed day," and to insert instead thereof the words
    "thirty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and thirty."
    I am asking the Committee to support this Amendment because we believe that the miner is at least entitled to any reduction there may be given to him in the length of his working day without a corresponding reduction in his wages,
    1936
    and we see that, if the Bill stands in its present form, the miner himself will be called upon to pay for the reduction in time which he is getting in many parts of the country. Those of us who come from Scotland are particularly concerned because, unless the Amendment I now move is accepted in Scotland, where wages are already low, further sacrifices are going to be forced on the miners In Wales, there were reductions of wages in November. The men felt that they were being unjustly treated. They held out for a certain period, but felt that it was useless to go on, and that they would have a truce until July, when they would be fighting a common battle with the whole of the minefields of the country. But I am certain that the miners of South Wales never expected, and never desired, that the legislation in this House should be so unable to protect them, that we should leave them fixed after the reduction imposed upon them.
    The Miners' Federation of Great Britain has been in negotiation with the mine owners on wages, trying to come to a common agreement in order to avoid strikes, lock-outs and stoppages in this difficulty. None of us wants a stoppage. All of us, particularly those in mining areas, know the calamity that that brings about, and also know that miners have been in the firing line since 1920. We also know that in their repeated stoppages and troubles their funds and their membership have been depleted, and they are not able at the present moment to force their maximum demands, unless the political strength of our movement is added to the trade union strength of our movement in stating their case and asking that their demands should be met. Can any of us expect that the miners can get in this Measure the maximum which the industry should give them? If anyone believed that this was the best possible thing to be got for the miners with 100 per cent. trade union movement, there would be very little cause for us in this House urging additional demands. But the men's forces have been weakened, and, because of that, they have been compelled to accept less than the industry should give them.
    I am now hoping that the House of Commons is going to be generous—perhaps "generous" is the wrong word—I

    1937
    hope that, at any rate, this House is going to be just, and is not once more going to ask the miner to pay for every fault, for every failing and for every loss inside the mining industry. Last year some of us in this House sought to get an Amendment accepted, the object of which was identical with the object we are now trying to further, that is, that in any alteration of hours, if we cannot improve the wage position of the miner, at least we should see that it should not be worsened. On that occasion, a year ago, we were assured that there was no reason for anxiety, that there was no ease for pressing our Amendment, because if we would only leave those factors to the industry, to the forces at work inside the industry, we should soon find the coal mines again working in such a way that it would be possible for the miner to get the reduction of working time without any threat to his wages. But now we have the Secretary for Mines deploring in the House of Commons the fact that the coal owners have not made as much use of the facilities presented to them in the Coal Mines Act as they might, and because they have not done so, because they have neglected many of their opportunities and many of their responsibilities, we find the industry in greater difficulty than it ought to be.
    I hope that I am not in any way twisting the statement of the Secretary for Mines, but, as I understood him, he rebuked a Conservative Member of this House, who spoke on the assumption that a reduction in hours must mean a reduction in wages. The Secretary for Mines led me, at least, to understand that that did not inevitably follow. I also understand that the whole weight of the trade union case has been that, even with the shortcomings of the mine-owners, they could get better terms than are in this Bill. I hope that a temporary phase of weakness in a body of men, to whom the country owes so much, will not be taken as a reason for further attacks on their standard of life. In any case, how could we justify an attack on their standard of life from any point of view? Anyone associated with the mining industry is well aware that since 1920 the miners of this country have had their wages practically halved. They have had a reduction of 49 per cent. in
    1938
    their wages. Every time an attack is made on his wages, he is told that if only he will concede this further demand, the industry will be put on a proper economic basis. Not only has the miner had his wages halved, but the output per man per shift has increased 40 per cent. What more can the miner do? He has already accepted lower wages and increased his output. It is unnecessary in this discussion to remind the House that, from 1920 onwards, besides reduction in wages and increase in output, there have been in the mining industry 1,743,086 men injured and 11,452 men killed in the pits during that period.
    It is not only a disagreeable, and an underpaid, but it is a dangerous occupation, and the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville) paid a tribute to the miners yesterday when he said that during the War there was no more gallant body of men to be found than the miners who went into the trenches and gave of their very best to the country, and now, in 1931, the hon. and gallant Member himself said the reason for the Amendment which preceded my own was that he wanted to find some means of avoiding a reduction in wages. If that is the case, I am infinitely encouraged, because I hope that it will mean that I am going to have support from all quarters of this Committee that the miners must not be again attacked, and that we have no right to give them this supposed advantage of a reduction of hours, and then make them pay for it. When the hon. and gallant Member talks about the gallantry of the miners I would ask him to remember that those same men are now being forced into the front line industrial trenches, and they are not going in the lighthearted way in which they went into the other trenches, because it is the women and children in their homes who are being exposed at the present time.
    I do not think even hon. Members opposite can say that we in this country have sunk so low, that our resources have become so entirely exhausted, that there is no way of meeting this difficulty save by once again attacking the miners. If the Secretary for Mines and the miners' trade union representatives believe there is no economic reason why the miners should not get their reduction in hours without a reduction in wages—and I take it that

    1939
    is the case on which the negotiations have been based—I hope they will have the support of the whole House. It was the coalowners who during the last year refused to take the maximum advantage of the Coal Mines Act; there are things the coalowners ought to have done and have not done. I see in yesterday's paper that the best coal in Lanarkshire is priced at 15s. per ton f.o.b. in Glasgow, and yet that same coal is selling in Glasgow at more than twice that price. Surely that indicates that, apart from the production of coal, things have been left undone which ought to have been done in the marketing of coal and in various other aspects of this industry. It is the responsibility of this House to see that we get the maximum organisation and the maximum efficiency into our mining industry, and that, above all, the last thing to be attacked, and not the first, should be the conditions of the miners. I notice that in 1925, when the Conservative party were in a dilemma rather similar to ours at the moment, when they saw all the complications of the mining problem and were not exactly definite as to what——
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going far beyond the scope of her Amendment, which is to put back the appointed day for a year.
    Miss LEE: I do not want to go beyond your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, but I am very anxious that the Committee should understand that those of us who are working to protect at least the present standard of living of the miners, if we cannot do better than that, should not turn away saying, "This is a nice sentimental appeal, and if it were possible we would gladly grant it, but the economic circumstances are impossible." I have been striving to show that there are other practical approaches to this problem which ought to be tried. I wanted to show, and I do not think it would be altogether out of order, that in 1925 a subsidy of £23,000,000 was given to the owners in order that they should carry on during the interim period until a final solution could be made. We are told that we are patching up only a temporary truce, and I am asking the Government that we should not confine ourselves to the resources within the industry, but be prepared to go beyond
    1940
    that, that we should be prepared to come, if need be, to the Exchequer, although I do not think that course will be necessary if we use properly the industry's own resources. At any rate, the one thing we should not do is to ask the miners to accept reductions in wages, or ask the miners who have had reductions in wages since October to accept those reductions as permanent.
    A few weeks ago I was staying in the home of a miner in Cumberland, another of the areas where the men are threatened with a further reduction. This miner did not smoke, did not drink, was not spending money on gambling or in any other way which we could possibly criticise. Every penny of his earnings was going into his home in the attempt to maintain a clean, comfortable home, and to give proper nourishment to his family. I stayed in that house overnight. I waited for my host to come home on Saturday, expecting that he was going to accompany me to a conference in a neighbouring town, but I found that my miner friend, after he had been working underground all the week, had to come home on Saturday afternoon, wash his face and hands, but not properly change himself, and then get a bag on his back and go down to the foreshore in order to pick up scraps of coal to keep his own fire burning. I do not think any incident could put in a more concrete form the state of poverty to which the miners in this country are reduced. It is not their fault. They have made their sacrifices, they have done their best and are doing their best.
    I believe that if the trade unions were strong enough they could force this protection of wages, and I am asking the Committee not to take advantage of this body of men, who have been weakened through successive attacks, attacks which they have resisted not only in defence of themselves, but in defence of the whole of the working class, but to use the collective wisdom of Parliament to devise other means of assisting them. I have already suggested other means, and further suggestions can be made from other quarters of the House. I am not tied to the wording of this Amendment. It may be possible to prove that for some reason or other the wording is inadequate for the purpose. I am only concerned that the Committee should

    1941
    understand that the Scottish miners are living in dread just now, that they have been kicked now that they are prostrate. If we allow a reduction in wages we are allowing prostrate men to be kicked. When we are needing their help they are the very first men to be praised for their gallantry, for their courage, and for all the other fine qualities which we know they possess. In moving my Amendment I do so with the hope that in no quarter of this Committee will there be an attempt to shelter behind what are called economic facts. The economic facts are on the side of the miner and not of the mineowner. The blame is on the side of the mineowner and not the miner. Why we should expect the miner to have to suffer for sins of which he is not guilty I do not understand. I believe it is the function of the political representatives in this House to join hands with the trade union representatives, not merely to accept the bargain which the miners have been forced to make, but to accept it only as a basis for further discussion in Parliament, We ought to put forward as a settlement, not what the miners have been forced to accept at the point of the bayonet, but the absolutely irreducible minimum which they are entitled to get.
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): With the substance of the speech of the hon. Lady I am in complete agreement. In the negotiations of the past few weeks the Government gave to this question what consideration they could, but they discovered that the existence of agreements in many of the districts made it impossible to provide this means of adjusting wage rates. The object of the Amendment, as I understand it, is to provide that the minimum percentage on basis rates and subsistence wages should be similar to the rates paid in October of last year.
    Miss LEE: Yes.
    Mr. SHINWELL: The scheme of this Bill recognises the existence of agreements in the districts, and clearly it is impossible for the Government to ride roughshod over those agreements, which were reached as a result of negotiations between the parties concerned, and have been honourably maintained since they were come to. But it must not be
    1942
    assumed that all the districts are affected by the provisions of this Bill with regard to wages on the appointed day. It is true that the rates in operation on the appointed day are, under the terms of this Bill, to be guaranteed for 12 months, but many districts—I shall specify them in a moment—have had no reduction whatever since October of last year, and clearly they would not be affected. Those districts are: Lancashire and Cheshire—a very large district—Somerset, Forest of Dean, Shropshire, Durham and Northumberland, Yorkshire, Notts, North Derbyshire and Kent. The majority of the districts, certainly the districts with a preponderating number of men employed, are not affected by the terms of this Amendment. I should not like it to go forth that all the districts have been the subject of reductions in wages since the operation of the Coal Mines Act—at all events as regards the hours' provisions of that legislation. The districts likely to be affected by this Amendment are South Wales, Bristol, North Staffordshire, South Derbyshire, South Staffordshire, Leicester, Cannock Chase and Warwick; but in every one of those districts, since October of last year, agreements have been reached either as the result of the normal conciliation proceedings in the district, that is to say, by the conciliation machinery long established and long recognised, or as the result of new machinery superimposed since October of last year. In the opinion of the Government it would be grossly improper—and certainly no claim has been made by the Miners' Federation in this regard—to scrap the whole of these agreements and thus set at nought the whole of the conciliation machinery which is part of the normal method of negotiations as between the miners on the one hand and the mineowners on the other.
    May I direct attention to a further point of substance? It has been assumed that Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the stabilisation of certain wage rates. That is not so. No stabilisation is intended. All the Clause proposes is to put a bottom into wages. There is nothing in the Clause which prevents the miners in any district, under the terms of present agreements, from asking for increases in wages—for an increase in the minimum percentage on basis rates and

    1943
    subsistence wages. No stabilisation is intended, and therefore I ask the Committee not to assume for a moment that there is anything in the Bill which interferes with the normal right of the miners to ask for increases in wages. If an improvement is manifest in the industry in the course of the next few months, certainly in the next 12 months, we assume that the miners can, through the ordinary conciliation machinery, present their claim for increase in wage rates.
    What is the position as regards the special cases of Scotland, North Wales and Cumberland, which are neither in the first category of districts, nor in the second? So far as Scotland and North Wales are concerned, they are affected by the change over from the spread-over arrangement to the 7½-hour basis, and in the case of Cumberland by a recommendation, which was described yesterday as an award but which, strictly speaking, is only a recommendation of the National Industrial Board in regard to wages. Let me take the position of Scotland and North Wales. It is true that the employers in both districts, when the question of changing over from the spread-over method to the 7½-hour day was discussed some months ago, did lay it down that there must inevitably follow a reduction in wages. But as the hon. Lady properly said, a wage reduction is not inevitable. There is nothing in the Clause now under review which lays it down that a reduction in wages must inevitably follow from the operation of the 7½-hour day. What does follow is expressly provided for in Clause 2 of the Bill, for wages are fixed, not under the provisions of the Bill, but as a result of the normal conciliation machinery in each of the districts concerned.
    In Scotland, North Wales and Cumberland, where no agreement at present exists, the provisions of this Bill as regards wages can only apply if and when such agreements are reached. When Scotland reaches an agreement, as a result of the normal operation of the conciliation machinery of that country—and we have nothing whatever to do with that agreement any more than we have anything to do with the agreements in other districts—the wage rates agreed upon are safeguarded for a period of 12 months, precisely in the same fashion
    1944
    as in other districts where agreements have been reached; also in regard to North Wales. Perhaps I ought to say that the period might not be 12 months, because we cannot say when an agreement will be reached in Scotland and in North Wales. It might take a week or two, but, as from the day of the agreement, there will be a safeguarding of the minimum percentage on the basic rates and subsistence wages until July, 1932.
    Major COLVILLE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if the spread-over may be worked and the present rates of wages maintained until that agreement is reached?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows full well that that is really impossible. The spread-over is distinctly excluded from the provisions of the Bill. We are not now considering the fixing of wage rates. That is not the intention. The wage rates are fixed in the majority of the districts. They are being fixed, it is presumed, in three of the districts, in the course of the next few days, certainly within the next few weeks. This Bill provides that, where agreements exist, no change, at all events in a downward direction, can take place for a period of 12 months. That is the only object of Clause 2.
    I have only to say this before sitting down: Every hon. and right hon. Member on this side, and I daresay on the other side, is anxious not only to maintain existing rates in the mining industry, but to improve them. I do not require to be told about the appalling wage conditions in the industry; they are a constant source of anxiety to the Mines Department, to the Government, and to myself personally; but it is not within the power of the Government, if I may be forgiven for this observation, within the present economic limits of the industry, to improve the wage position, much as we desire to do so. I am not ashamed to say, in the presence of hon. Members who have postulated claims for higher wages for miners, and rightly so, that we have had to consider the information in our possession, most impressive information and we regret it and deplore it. We are confronted with facts in regard to the falling off of our export trade and of the closing down of mines, and it is impossible for us to go beyond the provisions of this Bill.

    1945
    As to who must accept the blame for this position of things, I shall say no more than this: The time for recrimination has gone, and we must concentrate on some constructive solution of the problem that confronts us. I honestly say to the Committee that, in the terms of the existing coal mines legislation, while there do not exist all the elements of a complete solution, there is the possibility of at least a partial solution, which may help to tide us over existing difficulties. Lastly, we have had to consider, in face of the exceptional unemployment in the coal mining industry, whether this is the time to impose wage conditions on that industry. Whatever our opinions may be as to the moral and social advantage of such imposition, we have had to consider whether this is a time to throw more mines out of production.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the point raised in the Amendment is a very narrow one, namely, as to whether, instead of "the appointed day" we shall substitute the day mentioned in the Amendment. If we go outside that, we may raise a discussion over the entire mining industry.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I accept your Ruling. I am sorry that I was led away, quite naturally, by one of the observations of the hon. Lady. I wanted to say that, much as we desire to improve the wage position of the miners, the economic conditions and the implications involved stand in our way. I content myself with the brief explanation that I have given. I can assure my hon. Friends that all these matters have been taken fully into consideration, and I am unable therefore, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: The Minister has not really made a very adequate answer to the argument that was put by the hon. Lady. He says that he told us there was nothing in the Bill which would cause the wages of the Scottish miner to be reduced, and of course there is nothing in the Bill which would cause those wages to be reduced; but there is a great deal in the existing economic situation, as the Secretary for Mines knows very well. The hon. Lady made a speech which I think sincerely impressed the Committee. With her argument we must all be in the
    1946
    very greatest sympathy. In one passage she appealed to the Minister not to plead the economic facts of the situation. "Do not," she said to the Minister, "ride off by pleading the economic facts of the situation as an excuse for still further reducing the wages of Scottish miners."
    Miss LEE: Will the hon. Member allow me to intervene? What I said, or what I meant to say, and I think this was the whole tenor of my remarks, was in relation to distortion of what is supposed to be the economic facts. Many things have been left undone. I even went to the length of suggesting that we might resort to a subsidy. What the Conservative Government did in 1925 was a very bad thing to do and quite a temporary thing, but it was a temporary safeguard.
    The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order! We cannot discuss that matter on this Amendment.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: I will not follow the hon. Lady into that very interesting topic. The fact remains that the position in the Scottish coal mining industry at the present time is very well known, and the Minister knows it as well as the hon. Lady. The miner gets an ascertained amount of the profits made; an agreed proportion. There is no industry about which the facts are more clearly known. There has been a great reluctance on the part of everybody concerned, miners, mine owners politicians and economists, to face up to the facts of the economic situation in general. It is no good blinking facts on this question, any more than it is upon any other question. The Secretary for Mines knows perfectly well, although he did not say so in so many words, that the agreement that is now about to be negotiated between the miners and the mineowners in Scotland as the result of this Bill will, in fact, involve a reduction in wages. He knows that the owners, on the existing facts of the situation, cannot possibly afford to abandon the spread-over and, at the same time, reduce the hours of work per day and maintain the present wages standard. He also knows that they have not the slightest intention of doing so. The result of this Bill is that reductions will be asked of the miners, and the hon. Lady was quite right in pointing that out. She said that the miners have been the subject of successive attacks in the last few years, and

    1947
    that their strength is weakened. It is not so much the miners as Scotland that has been weakened. The conditions of Scotland are fundamentally different from the conditions which prevail elsewhere; for example, from those which prevail in Yorkshire.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I would like to ask the hon. Member if he is aware that every man and boy who worked in the Scottish mines last year, and the same in the Yorkshire mines, received over £18 less per year in wages than on the previous year.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: I do not see how that fact relates to the argument which I am endeavouring to address to the Committee, I am not comparing the wages of the Scottish miners with those of the Yorkshire miners. I was saying that conditions in Scotland are fundamentally different from those which prevail in Yorkshire. During last year the spread-over system was, on the whole, working satisfactorily in Scotland. The Minister admitted in his speech that as soon as the Bill is passed, the spread-over must stop at once. That is a most dangerous position, so far as Scotland is concerned. Our position is the one we have taken up all through, and which we take up now. It was expressed yesterday by the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee). We do not want to see the wages of the miners of Scotland reduced. We think that they must be reduced as the result of this Bill, and we would much rather——
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind hon. Members of the Committee again of the Amendment and the limits within which discussion may take place. The question is as between the appointed day named in this Bill and a day a year ago.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: I bow to your Ruling, and with greater enthusiasm because I have managed to state my argument with regard to the spread-over. From the point of view of the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) and our point of view, the Secretary for Mines has failed to make any substantial case in his reply. What we say is that this is yet another instance of the Government having let down Scotland and Scottish interests.
    Mr. MAXTON: I wish to support the Amendment. Here are we with certain views about what the miners' conditions ought to be and what kind of life the miners ought to be able to live, having regard to the danger of their trade and its essential nature. We have come to such a pass that although in this Amendment we make such a very modest request—a request that I am rather ashamed to make—the Committee proposes to reject that miserable Amendment. I am very sorry indeed that the Minister should be in the position of having to resist the Amendment. Indeed, I am very sorry that he is in the position of having to introduce the Bill. If he had taken my advice he would never have been there. Therefore, he will perhaps excuse me if I do not have complete and unlimited sympathy with him. For nine years I have been in this House, and every year mining questions have come up in some form or other. The House has never been clear of them, and it has always done exactly what it i3 doing to-day—adopted some collection of devices to keep itself out of the immediate situation. The first of these temporary devices was that of the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin). At this point I must say that I wish the devices the right hon. Gentleman had adopted temporarily, of subsidising miners' wages, had been maintained permanently.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would be in order to argue that on the Second Heading of the Bill, but not on this very narrow Amendment. My sympathy allowed the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) to go a little beyond what she ought to have gone on the Amendment she moved.
    Mr. MAXTON: I was not basing my expectation of liberty on the amount that the hon. Lady got, but rather on the Minister's attitude, and on the hope that he held out to us in the course of his speech that this Amendment is to be rendered unnecessary because if the coalmining industry improves in the months immediately ahead the miners themselves, through their ordinary conciliation channels will be able to get decent improvement of their wages by ordinary negotiation. Then in his peroration the Minister told us of the very depressing

    1949
    condition of things, which indicated to any intelligent person that the conditions are not going to be such as to enable the Scottish and other miners, with their internal resources and their own fighting strength, to make a better position for themselves or to make better agreements, and that what this Bill is offering quite definitely to the miners in Scotland and other districts is this: That when, arising out of the depressed condition of the industry, they have to submit to an agreement that is worse than the one they have to-day, the protection that they are getting under this Bill is, that that will be secured statutorily for 12 months. I ask the Minister, can either he or I, with the political philosophy that we hold, attempt to justify such a thing? I do not intend to attempt to justify it. Here are we unable, with the best brains in Britain, presumably, collected in this House, unable to prevent the continued deterioration of British industry, including the coal industry.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really going far beyond where he is entitled to go on this Amendment. I called the Minister to order for the reason that he introduced matter not germane, to the Amendment.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am trying to argue that, having regard to the situation that we are likely to be facing six months hence——
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the general situation. He is entitled only to discuss whether the wages to be paid should be those fixed on the appointed day mentioned in the Bill, or upon a day mentioned in the Amendment. That is the only issue before the Committee.
    Mr. MAXTON: I am arguing that 30th October last should be the date for the establishment of minimum wages. The Bill makes an agreement entered into after the passing of the Bill have statutory effect. The Minister hopes that such an agreement will be a better agreement. I say that in his general statement of the position and of the economic condition of the country, and from our experience of the economic condition of the country, the position is likely to be worse, and therefore I am arguing that we should take a date back-
    1950
    ward rather than a date forward; and I am surely entitled to adduce general arguments in support of that demand that the previous date should be taken rather than a future date. I take it, from your more benevolent expression, Mr. Dunnico that——
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am glad the hon. Member now appreciates what is and what is not in order in this discussion.
    Mr. MAXTON: I was arguing that if it is the collective view of this House that conditions generally are going to be worse in the near future in this and other industries, and if no one in this Committee can bring forward immediately practical devices to prevent that taking place, at least the Committee ought to be honourable enough to say that this general depression shall not be borne on the backs of the miners, who already are bearing a big enough burden. Therefore, I urge that we at least use our power here to protect them to the miserable extent suggested in the Amendment, by giving them the conditions statutorily on the date mentioned in the Amendment.
    Sir ROBERT HORNE: It appears to me that the Amendment has some considerable merits, but its value to the Committee is that it exposes the complete futility of the Government's legislation with regard to Scotland. The hon. Lady who moved the Amendment is quite right in pointing out the extraordinary differentiation between what is being done for England and Wales and what is being done for Scotland. In England and Wales the rate of wages as at present existing is to be stereotyped during the next 12 months by Act of Parliament, but the Scottish rate of wages is not to be so stereotyped, and the hon. Lady very naturally asks why it is that the Government are doing for England what they are not doing for Scotland; and she proposes an Amendment whereby there shall be done for Scotland what is being done for England and Wales. What is the answer of the Minister? It is that it cannot be done. Why cannot it he done? Because this Bill is taking away from Scotland the very conditions upon which Scotland is able to maintain its present wage scale. That is the whole point.

    1951
    The only answer that the Minister can give is that, while the spread-over has been in operation in Scotland during the last six months and has maintained this wage scale, this Bill destroys it.
    The Scottish miners are no longer to be able to work on the spread-over principle, and while I am not, of course, entitled to discuss any view about the spread-over at this particular stage of the Debate, I say that the Government have proclaimed to Scotland this fact: "We know that your scale of wages can only be maintained by a system which you at present are working with complete harmony as between the miners and the employers. We know that you would prefer to have your wages kept at their present level rather than have any alteration, but nevertheless, against the will of the whole community in Scotland, we are going to enact a Measure which will destroy the basis upon which your wages are kept up, and we announce to you that we know your wages cannot possibly be kept up, and therefore in this Measure we shall differentiate between you and England; and while we are maintaining the wage scale for England because we believe that the conditions of trade will allow it to be done, we are sure in our minds that we dare not attempt by Act of Parliament to keep up your scale, because we are destroying the foundation on which it is built."
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I am not surprised that there should be such an affinity of feeling between those on the Tory benches and some of my friends on this side of the Committee, for both of them appear to have the same object. It does not matter what agreement the Miners' Federation enters into; it meets with opposition from both sides. I am somewhat chary about entering into a discussion in which so many experts regarding mining conditions are taking part. We are asked to go back to October. The miners having discussed the matter among themselves came to the conclusion that the spread-over was a fraudulent proposal. As one who knows something about mining conditions and who represents a mining constituency, I say that if the miners were to get their will they would go back to the 7-hour day. The question of wages we will settle ourselves
    1952
    in time. But the miners of Scotland worked the spread-over illegally.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot discuss that question now. If the hon. Member makes statements on that subject, hon. Members on the other side will be entitled to controvert them, and I cannot admit it. The question before us is which shall be the appointed date for fixing the basis of wages.
    Mr. GRAHAM: I can surely make a reference to statements which you have already allowed. I am seeking to show that it is untrue to say that the miners in Scotland are in favour of the spread-over. They are not. There is not a single colliery and there is not a single district where they have not decided to accept this Bill. Anyone who attempts to amend the Bill with the object of destroying it is not helping the Scottish miner. The Amendment which has been moved would mean the abandonment of the Bill. The Secretary for Mines has already said that the Government cannot accept the Amendment. To-morrow is the day on which the law is to be changed. If the Government are not willing to accept the Amendment, there is no choice left but to abandon the Bill, and the position will be that we go back to the 7-hour day. If I were to consult my own personal opinion on the matter, I would be in favour of that, but I want to put to hon. Members on this side of the House that the abandonment of the Bill would put us in a very much worse position than we would be in if we had to go on for a week or two endeavouring to negotiate a settlement. The Bill does not say that wages are to remain stationary for 12 months. I agree with the Secretary for Mines that, if there should be an improvement in the coal trade and if prices should rise, the miners will be entitled under their conciliation machinery to get some advantage from the improvement.
    I am not quite sure whether the miners in Scotland will be working to-morrow or not. It may be that a week or two will elapse before agreement is reached. That agreement may not be accepted by the Scottish miners, and they have a right to stop work. That will be a matter for the Scottish coalowners to face; that is their business, and I certainly will not

    1953
    object to the men stopping work if an attempt is made to reduce wages. But what I am anxious about at the moment is that the Government should get the full support of every member of the Labour party in passing this Bill as it stands. After all, hon. Members ought to have some sympathy, at least on this side of the House, with the Government and the Miners' Federation. For some time we have attempted to get an agreement that would be mutually satisfactory and avoid any necessity for a division of opinion inside this House on either side. Unfortunately, we have failed, and the Government have taken the only course that was open to them. To have relieved Scotland would have put the other districts in a very much worse position. After a full discussion, the conference came to the conclusion that, representing the miners, they would accept the proposals contained in the Bill. They did not do so with good will, but they did so with full knowledge of what it meant.
    I hope my hon. Friends will leave us to endeavour to negotiate as fair and as reasonable a settlement as we can with the districts that are particularly affected without creating in the ranks of our men the dissention that must arise in their minds if there is an attempt to force a Division on this question. I believe in giving fair trial to the Bill and allowing the Scottish miners to work according to the law. I have a feeling that the Scottish miners were blacklegs against the other districts when they worked the spread-over against them, and, if the Government had been sufficiently strong, their duty would have been to put the coal masters in prison; but the spread-over has gone, and the Scottish miners are not willing to go back to the spread-over system. I hope my hon. Friends, having expressed their point of view, will in the interests of the miners withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: I venture to intervene to say a word or two about England in what has hitherto been an entirely Scottish Debate. There is an entirely valid argument from the point of view of England as to why this Amendment should not be passed. The date selected is a date when the full effects of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, are being felt by the
    1954
    coal industry. The hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) made a passionate appeal against the reduction of living of the miners—an appeal which received sympathy from every section of this House—but, nevertheless, when the Coal Mines Bill, 1930, was being discussed here she went into Division after Division to vote for it. That Act has done more than anything else to lower the standards of the miners. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true."] It is absolutely true.
    Mr. McSHANE: Is it in Order on this Amendment for the hon. Gentleman opposite to discuss the Divisions that took place on the Coal Mines Act, 1930?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: My attention was not directed to the particular point of the moment.
    Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If an hon. Member on either side moves an Amendment, is it not perfectly in order for any other Member to show that his or her course of action is inconsistent with the course of action which he or she has taken in the past?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it is quite in order, but I will follow the hon. Member's argument more closely.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: I hope I have not transgressed the Rules of Order, but I cannot accept the contention that my statements were either out of order or inaccurate, subject always, of course, to your Ruling. The standard of living of the minors has been altered and altered for the worse by the Coal Mines Act of 1930. We have to take that into consideration when we are considering this Bill. The Amendment moved by the hon. Lady does not take these things into account. The Bill as it stands does so, and for that reason alone I submit the Amendment will be an impossible one to work.
    Mr. CAPE: If there is one hon. Member in this House who should favour the Amendment it is myself. I represent that area in Cumberland where the miners are on the street resisting reduction of wages. If I had not known and had not been satisfied that those who are responsible for negotiation for the Miners' Federation had tried every means pos-

    1955
    sible to get the percentage settled from November last, I would have been in favour of the Amendment. I have to put confidence, and I did put confidence in the officials of the Miners' Federation who had been carrying on negotiations. I was keeping in touch with them, and I found out that they were not only pressing the coalowners, but pressing from every angle to get their minimum wage stabilised from November.
    Furthermore, my district, at the conference on Friday last, voted against these proposals, largely on the point raised by this Amendment, and, therefore, if anyone should have put down an Amendment of this kind, I was the man who should have done it. Why did I not do it? For the simple reason that, as I have already stated, these officials negotiated as far as was humanly possible to get this position secured for my men and for the Scottish miners; and, in the second place, the district which I represent being a unit in the Miners' Federation, to be honourable to the federation and all the other miners of this country we must, although we voted against the provisions of this Bill, bow to the vote of the majority. I want to tighten the bonds between ourselves and our friends rather than loosen them. Hon. Members opposite would certainly go as far as my hon. Friends on this side if they thought they could do anything that would make the position worse for the miners than it is to-day.
    Why shall we go into the Lobby against this Amendment if it is pressed to a Division? Not because we would not like to obtain all that is in the Amendment; indeed, we would like to obtain vastly more, and we want more before we can be satisfied. But we have to realise that, as things are, we must be satisfied with the largest amount we can get. If hon. Members opposite—I do not think they would do so—went into the Lobby with our Friends on this side and defeated the Government on this Amendment, what would be the alternative? The alternative would be that the Bill would have to be abandoned, and we should have to face a 7-hour day, which I am quite prepared to face, because I have a mandate from my men to do so. [Interruption.] I am all
    1956
    right as far as I am personally concerned; I can be a hero any day if I want to be. I can make a speech here to-day, and go into every mining district in this country and condemn every miners' Member of Parliament. But I am not going to do that; I am going to face the situation as it is.
    This Amendment appeals to me in every direction, but I am not going to lose the Bill by voting for it, and I am not so sure that my hon. Friends want to do that either. I believe that they are as scared as I am, and probably more so, lest the Government should be defeated. Let us face the realities of the case. The Mover of the Amendment was led—I do not complain of it—to launch out into a speech with regard to the miners' conditions with which every miners' Member on this side is quite in sympathy. We could tell even more pitiable stories than she told. With your permission, Mr. Dunnico, she alluded to a certain incident in Cumberland, which is the county from which, fortunately or unfortunately for me, I myself come. When my hon. Friend referred to that case, I made it my business to make full inquiries into it, and I can assure my hon. Friend and this Committee that, while that man's wages were low—and, unfortunately, there are many in Cumberland whose wages are considerably lower—it is a common custom in that part of the county for men to go on the beach to gather coal. I put it to the hon. Lady that she was a guest in that house, and that she is not prepared to say that it was a poverty-stricken house.
    Miss LEE: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so, I have never been in a miner's home in my life, including my own, which I did not consider to be a poverty-stricken house. The very fact that the people in that house, which was not by any means of the worst type, went down on the beach to pick coal, shows that to be the case, for no one is going to say that a miner goes down on the beach to pick coal for the fun of it.
    Mr. CAPE: Let me assure the hon. Lady that sometimes detestable customs will remain. As far back as 30 or 35 years ago, I tried to break down that

    1957
    custom, and failed, and it has persisted from long before my time up to the present. I agree with the hon. Lady that it is unfortunate, but it is a custom that has been carried on in that locality, and it might be on account of his wages that the man she mentioned went there, or it might not. The hon. Lady has put a good case, and I congratulate her on having done so. It is a case with which everyone of us, and myself particularly, can agree. If we are forced to go into the Lobby against this Amendment, I want to assure my hon. Friends that it is not because we do not believe in the Amendment, but because we believe that we shall be getting the best that we can from the Government at the present time.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I have listened to the greater part of the discussion on this Amendment, and it seems to me extraordinary that hardly anyone on the other side seems to have taken the slightest care to explain to the Committee which of the two dates that we are discussing is the best for either the miner, the owner, the industry, or the country as a whole. I myself, not having full knowledge of the details of miners' wages, am only able to decide on this question from such points as may be raised by hon. Members opposite. Apparently, according to the point of view of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), under the earlier date, taking the basis of 12 months ago, the position of the miners would be improved. Since then we have had the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham), who tells us likewise that the position of the miners would be improved if they could have the earlier date, but that, if that earlier date were taken, and the Government were defeated on it——
    Mr. D. GRAHAM: You are just a wee bit mixed up.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member wishes to inform the House that he is a wee bit mixed up—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are!"] Apparently, it is agreed by both hon. Members that with the earlier date the position of the miners as regards their basic wages would be better, but, as I understand the hon. Member for Hamilton, the Government
    1958
    cannot accept that, because they say that the whole agreement under the present Bill would break down. I am not urging hon. Members opposite to break down the agreement which exists under this Bill, but I do say that it is still the final right of Parliament, whether on an Amendment of this kind or on a larger Amendment, to make these laws. We have a perfect and simple right at the present time, whether it be expedient or not, to make this Amendment if we wish to do so, and every hon. Member opposite has a perfect right to vote in favour of or against it. But it seems to me that the only argument I have heard which is really relevant as to what the date should be is that the whole conditions of world trade have changed during that period of 12 months; and, further, there has been an additional blow to the industry in the shape of the Government's Coal Bill. All these things make it impossible to go back to the earlier date; and, recognising that the earlier date is impossible, though it might conceivably be better for the miners from a narrow point of view, and recognising the impossibility of a subsidy—it would be arguable that you might have an earlier date if you chose to pay a subsidy, but I do not intend to go into that question—I most certainly cannot vote against the Government on this particular Amendment.
    Mr. BROCKWAY: I need not tell the Committee that I am not a miner, but I make no apology for intervening in this discussion, because even those of us who are not miners are living on the work of miners, and those of us who are returned to the House of Commons as public representatives have a duty here, in view of the services which the miners are giving to the nation, to see that those miners are guaranteed by the nation in return decent human living conditions. For that reason I think it is the duty of Members of the House of Commons, whether they are miners or not, to seek to do their utmost to secure an improvement of the miners' conditions. The simple object of this Amendment is to secure that the reduction in hours which has taken place, and the reduction in hours which will take place under this Bill in Scotland, shall not be accompanied by a reduction in wages.

    1959
    We have been asked why we have taken the date October, 1930. We have done so because it preceded the reductions in wages in a number of coalfields following the reduction in hours, and we have done so because we fear that, if the appointed day remains in the Bill, in Scotland and in other mining areas, further reductions of wages will take place. In our view the House of Commons, if it does not lift the terrible wages of miners which now exist, and does not prevent a reduction of the wages of miners in Scotland, will be failing to do its duty, as representing the public, to the men by whose work every one of us lives. We cannot eat our food, it would be impossible for us to have the clothing that we wear, it would be impossible for us to have any of the essentials of life, but for the work of the miner. It is the duty of the community, which is dependent on the miner in that way, to see that the miner receives a living wage in return for his labour.
    When one turns to the actual reductions which have taken place in South Wales as a result of the reduced hours, none of us can be aware of those figures without shame. In South Wales now, the single man is receiving a minimum wage of 35s. a week for a 5-day week; the married man with no children is receiving as low a wage as 36s. 3d.; and a married man with children is receiving a wage of 37s. 6d. When the House has mining legislation before it, it has the duty to see that these scandalously low wages are ended and that a reasonable addition is made to them. I regret more than I can say that the Government is not prepared to accept the Amendment. If they had accepted it, the strike which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) fears may occur in Scotland would not occur. I believe if we had a free vote the Amendment would be carried. It is extraordinarily difficult for us, holding the convictions that we do, even to respond to the appeals which have been made by the hon. Member for Hamilton and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) but, in this situation, even if we went to a Division there is no hope of the Amendment being carried. We have no desire to weaken the miners in the industrial field or to divide them in any way in the struggle in which they are engaged. If I ask my
    1960
    hon. Friend to withdraw her Amendment, it is not because we are satisfied with the Government's reply or with their conduct throughout the whole situation. It is only because we do not desire to put the miners in a false position or to weaken their industrial situation. For these reasons alone I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw her Amendment.
    Miss LEE: I wish to make a personal explanation regarding the remark of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham). There is no need whatever that he should immediately assume, if a date is fixed in the Amendment to which he does not agree, that that date is not there after due and proper consideration. The 31st October is a date that precedes the reduction of wages in Wales and elsewhere. It was inserted because we had this in mind, and the date suggested would have guarded the wage situation both in Wales and in Scotland. Furthermore, my intentions were clear. Anyone who knew the technical details better was invited to give an alternative. Although that is my personal view, I am going to accept the statement of the miners' Members that it is in the best interests of the miners that the Bill should be allowed to stand as it is. I only hope I am doing right, not only by the Miners' Federation but by the rank and file members, in taking that line.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out the words "underground in a coal mine," and to insert instead thereof the words:
    "whose wages are determined by reference thereto."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that all workers employed in and around coal mines whose remuneration is affected by the minimum percentage addition to basis rates and subsistence wages should be brought within the scope of the Bill. Throughout the negotiations that preceded the introduction of this Bill, it was clearly understood that all these workers were to be included. It was, however, feared that, although it was well known what were the intentions of the owners as a whole in this regard and that the wages of surface workers move correspondingly with changes in rates of wages of underground workers, isolated coalowners might be disposed to take advantage of

    1961
    the provisions of the Bill to bring about reductions in the wages of the surface workers. In order to prevent that happening, this Amendment is submitted. The provision now put forward makes it clear that the surface workers will be included in the safeguarding provisions with regard to wages.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It was obvious from the Prime Minister's speech yesterday that we should have to have an Amendment of this kind. It is equally obvious that there will be no Division unless there is some purely technical or legal point in connection with it. The reason I wish to comment on the Amendment is this. Not only are we asked by the Government to pass the Bill in two days, but they cannot even frame a short Bill of about three pages without putting in ridiculous words such as these, which it must have been evident to anyone used to reading Bills must make the Bill absolutely impossible to work. It has to be altered, but it is treating the House of Commons rather roughly when the Government, with its legal Department and its enormous power of organisation, particularly when you have a Minister of Mines to do these things, bring in a Bill worded as loosely as this, which might conceivably leave a whole section of the men out of the agreement. That would have meant that the whole position was upset. I regret that the Government were so hasty in their drawing up of the Bill that they could not have spent an extra five minutes in reading it through to see what was an obvious mistake to almost anyone.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I take it that the Amendment is in accordance with what I may perhaps fallaciously call the agreement. What took place over these negotiations was that both sides agreed that certain wages should be continued. There were other conditions attached to it. There was not, in fact, an agreement but, assuming that the other conditions have been fulfilled, I understand from what the Prime Minister said that the contingent agreement that was arrived at was definitely intended by both parties to cover wages above ground and under ground. On that understanding there is no objection to the word being inserted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out the words "by a district agreement."
    This and the following Amendment are purely drafting. The intention is to make it clear that, in the case of a few districts where there are no district agreements at present, the workers should not be prejudiced. There are districts, for example, like Somerset, Kent, South Staffordshire, the Forest of Dean and Shropshire, where in some cases until recently there was no district association and no district agreement. Clearly the intention of the Bill is that all workers should be brought under its scope. The Amendments are intended to cover all categories of workers affected by the minimum percentage addition to basis rates and subsistence wages.
    Mr. BATEY: Does that mean that it only applies where there is a district agreement? We have one or two small collieries where there is a district agreement for the whole of Durham, but those small collieries since 1926 have not been working under district agreements. Are we to understand that where there is a district agreement operating it will apply there?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The intention is that, where a colliery is not covered by a district agreement, the workers in the colliery shall be included in the scope of the Bill and shall not have their present wage rates reduced.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Do I understand the position really to be that this will only apply where a district agreement does not exist at all, that at present operations in those districts are covered by agreements, but they are not agreements made between district organisations on one side or the other, but there are what one might call pit agreements or group pit agreements and it would stabilise the offer of the statutory period whatever are the pit or grouped pit arrangements.
    Mr. SHINWELL: That is precisely the meaning.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 24, at the end, insert the words:
    "so, however, that in relation to any coal mine or group of coal mines for which wages were not on that day regulated by a district

    1963
    agreement this Act shall have effect as if for references to a district there were therein substituted references to that coal mine or group of coal mines."—[Mr. Shinwell.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. BATEY: I should like to ask the Secretary for Mines to explain the need for the insertion of the word "minimum" in the second line of the Clause. I can understand the basis rates of wages and the percentage additions to basis rates, but I cannot understand minimum percentage additions.
    Mr. SHINWELL: I should have thought that way hon. Friend would have found it unnecessary to put the point, seeing that he is an experienced miner and a miners' official. Those are the words which were produced by the Miners' Federation, and, with their concurrence, we accepted them.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That may be an answer which satisfies the hon. Gentleman the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), but what the Secretary for Mines was invited to explain to the Committee was, not the genesis of those words, but what the words mean. I think the Committee will be very glad to have an explanation from him.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: After all, what does the word "minimum" mean? I believe "minimum" means the lowest. Clearly the hon. Gentleman opposite did not understand it. The Government have cowed their followers to such an extent that they will accept almost any mortal thing as far as the Bill is concerned. We are entitled to a full explanation of this matter, and I see no reason why we should not have such an explanation.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Are we not going to have an explanation? I really ask that an explanation be given.
    Mr. SHINWELL: The position, as I understand it, is that there exists in the mining industry basis rates, that is to say, rates for day workers of all kinds and for piece-workers of all kinds which are fixed as a result of local negotiations. Those are the basis rates, and they fluctuate from time to time, up and down, and so on and so forth. Superimposed upon these basis rates are minimum percentages and those are de-
    1964
    scribed by the mining industry itself as minimum percentage additions. It certainly would appear that those percentages, being described as minimum percentages, are the lowest percentages that can be superimposed upon the basis rates. The latter may vary as from pit to pit in some districts, as the previous discussion showed, and they certainly vary as from district to district. I hope that the explanation will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.

    Clause 3.—(Short title, extent, commencement and duration) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    Captain PEAKE: This Bill does two things which are very simple and very obvious, and which there is no difficulty in understanding. The first Clause stabilises for one year the 7½-hour day, and the second Clause guarantees, or fixes in shillings and pence, the actual minimum wages which the miners are to obtain for that same period. Our principal objection to the first Clause of the Bill is that it fixes the hours for one year only. It, in fact, seems to fix the date for the next crisis in the mining industry. It is said that the Geneva Convention may come into operation before that period has elapsed, but past experience of conventions and of treaties leads me, at any rate, to believe that it will be a period considerably in excess of one year before sufficient ratifications are obtained to enable that Convention to come into force.
    I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in his place, because he said yesterday that the suggestion that hours should be fixed for a longer period than one year seemed to him to be an unreasonable offer on the part of the coal-owners. I think that his point was that it was only for one year that the owners were prepared to guarantee the wages. That is a totally illogical position, because on every previous occasion, with

    1965
    one exception, upon which this House has fixed hours of work in the coal mines, those hours of work have been fixed without any time limit and also without any guarantee being given, statutory or otherwise, for any period however short, of the wages to be paid. The right hon. Gentleman, who often speaks with pride of the part he played in reducing hours in 1908, knows perfectly well that no guarantee of any sort or kind of the minimum wage was obtained when the Act was put into operation. Therefore, although hon. Gentlemen opposite may object to the suggestion that the period ought to exceed a year, it does not lie in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway to say that that is an unreasonable suggestion. I am pointing out that his position, at any rate, is illogical after his previous conduct upon these hours' Bills.
    The second Clause of the Bill appears to be by far the most vital and the most important. It is true that it only carries out a guarantee which the coalowners were prepared to give, but it sets a precedent upon which it will be exceedingly difficult for this House ever to go back. Stripped of its technicalities and of its complications, it fixes for the first time, in shillings and pence, the actual sums of money which the miner is going to receive for every shift which he works in the coal mine. What is going to happen at the end of the duration of the Bill? Is it possible for hon. Members opposite to strike out what has been in operation, and which is an actual money wage guaranteed by Parliament? They were charged yesterday afternoon, in what I thought was a very intemperate and injudicious speech, by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Owen) with having sold the miners, but they may be charged in a year's time, if ever they suggest striking out the guaranteed wage once it has been put in an Act of Parliament, with betraying the miners, and it may be exceedingly difficult for them ever to get a provision of that kind off the Statute Book once it had been placed upon it. Hon. Members opposite say that they hope it will be difficult to get it off the Statute Book, but I am not sure that the Clause has not very grave disadvantages for hon. Members opposite even at the present time. Hon. Members opposite always say that miners wages
    1966
    are too low. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. E. Edwards) yesterday afternoon said so very vehemently, and he produced some figures, which, I must say, were exceedingly striking, but which did not seem to be at all typical of the mining industry.
    Mr. EBENEZER EDWARDS: I said that they were the figures for the whole of Durham—40 per cent. of the adult workers.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: As one of the Members for Durham, I wish to confirm what my hon. Friend has said.
    Captain PEAKE: I quite expect that you can find very bad cases of low wages in the mines. I am not quarrelling with that at all. I am pointing out that this Clause is going to have very inconvenient consequences for hon. Members opposite. They never miss an opportunity of saying that miners' wages are too low. They are going to say it to-day for the last time for 12 months at any rate, or else it is going to be thrown into their teeth that they have fixed wages at the present rates.
    Mr. TINKER: We have fixed a minimum. They can go higher.
    6.0 p.m.
    Captain PEAKE: I agree that it is a minimum, lout anyone with any experience of the mining industry knows that these minimum rates have been operative in all important districts for the last five years, and are likely to be operative, as far as anybody can see, for the period during which this Act will run. Not only will these fixed Statutory Parliamentary rates of wages be inconvenient to hon. Members opposite, but they will prove a source of great embarrassment to all candidates at every Parliamentary election. Who knows but what at some future Parliamentary election there will not be a few unscrupulous candidates in the field? I am not suggesting that any Socialist candidate would go so far as to pledge himself to a 10 per cent. increase in miners' wages. I am sure that Socialist candidates would not do anything of the sort. They will go about at the next election saying: "We fixed your wages by Statute, and very good wages they are, and we cannot possibly give any pledge that there shall be an increase." But is it not just possible that hon. and

    1967
    right hon. Members who were prepared at the last election to conquer unemployment, might be prepared to make some little addition of 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. to the minimum rates of wages paid in the mines?
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Or to make wheat growing profitable.
    Captain PEAKE: I am not concerned with the profitability of growing wheat. If I were to follow the right hon. Gentleman in that matter, I am afraid I should be going outside the scope of the Bill. I agree with the right hon. Member for Darwen that we are making a most serious precedent. We are doing a thing which is going to shake our democratic system, because, for the first time, shillings and pounds in wages for men are being fixed by this House, and it will be exceedingly difficult ever to go back upon that. It is bad enough that we have to discuss the actual rates of unemployment pay across the Floor of the House, but once we start with any single industry arguing as to what the minimum wages should be, I cannot see any end to the arguments and discussions. I protest very strongly against a precedent of this sort being started, when the question of hours and wages ought to be taken outside the scope of Parliamentary Debate. This House is not a suitable place, as hon. Members opposite will agree, for discussing the details of miners' wages settlements. There are other places and other times where the owners and the men can get together much better than they can either upon the Floor of this House or behind the Speakers' Chair, or in the corridors of this House. Until the question of miners' wages and miners' hours is taken away from this House and given to some outside body with Statutory powers, I do not see any prospect of permanent peace in the mining industry.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: One would assume the question of the fixing of minimum wages was a new idea. That is not so. To my knowledge, 50 years ago when competition was that of district against district, men were told that they were beaten in price by other coal areas and that they must accept reductions in wages or increased hours to meet the competition. So applications were made
    1968
    by the workmen for a say in the selling price of coal in order to secure a decent wage and to fix a rock-bottom minimum. I am hoping that the rock-bottom minimum that has been put into this Bill will do something to compel the mineowners to do more than they have done in the past to make their business a success. Let me give a case. I know of a company in my own county which for years in succession paid anything up to 100 per cent., 85 per cent., 75 per cent., and so on. To-day, because of the lack of foresight in the management, that colliery is scrapped, and it can be sold as scrap, with 8,000,000 tons of coal within its confines.
    That is the sort of management that we have had in the past in the coal trade. I am hoping that this Bill will make the management a little keener to look after their business arrangements in another way, and not as they have done during my time. In the past the miners have had to pay by wage reductions. That cannot be allowed to continue. We ask the House to say that this Bill fixes a bottom that shall not under any consideration be broken into. If this Bill had not been brought forward, trouble would again have come into the coal industry and we should have had to do what we could to stop further reductions of the miserable wages of the miners. We must protect the wages of men who toil hard, at great risk, amid many dangers, in an occupation which the world and this country cannot do without.
    Sir R. HORNE: I hope that the House will forgive me if I venture to put before it some of the reflections which occur to me in connection with the Bill. I hope I shall not unduly travel over the same ground that was covered yesterday by several hon. Members. This is admittedly a Measure of a serious character, and it also presents features which are entirely unusual. It is serious because it deals with what, perhaps, is not the greatest but, at least, the second greatest industry in this country; an industry which employs the second largest number of people. It is the foundation of our welfare. Without the coal industry, this country would sink into a very small and inferior Power. I will make a prophesy, which I have made before, and say that

    1969
    it will be by the coal industry of this country that ultimately our prosperity will be revived. I entirely agree with the hopes expressed by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Richardson) as to the methods which will be taken to develop new enterprises and to carry on the old ones in better shape than some of them are now being operated. There is much to be done in that regard, and I am certain that it can be done.
    It is a grave matter with which we are dealing in this Bill, and the features are so unusual that they could only be justified by an emergency. Whether the emergency could have been avoided, and whether it was not made too sharp by the inactivity of the Government, I am not going to discuss. By yesterday we had arrived at a position of emergency, and only that condition of affairs could justify in the minds of some Members of this House the vote which they were prepared to give in favour of the Bill. Two speech of high merit were delivered by distinguished members of the Liberal party, which made it perfectly clear that in normal times they would never have voted for any Clause fixing wages by Act of Parliament. Therefore, I take it that but for the emergency, there would have been a majority in this House, as at present constituted, which would have opposed any such thing being done. I hope that we shall keep that in view in future discussions on this question.
    I would like to part company with one of my hon. Friends on these benches when he predicted that it would be very difficult in future legislation to avoid the consequences of the present Bill. I want clearly to distinguish between the situation in which we are to-day and any future legislation dealing with either this subject or other cognate subjects. I am not exaggerating when I say that the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and one of his most noted colleagues, a very distinguished man, yesterday made it clear that but for the conditions in which we are at the present time, they never would have given their consent to a principle which enacted wages in a Clause in an Act of Parliament. Let us keep that definition clearly before OUT minds. It is perfectly obvious what is the difficulty in putting wage rates into an Act of Parliament. You can only alter them by other Acts of Parliament. This House is already over-
    1970
    burdened with the amount of work it has to do and if it were to spend its time week after week, and day after day, in discussing wage rates in all the various industries of the country, our legislative chamber would be reduced to a farce. As a mere matter of ordinary practice, it is obvious that no such system as that could ever grow up in this country.
    With regard to the particular rates which are put in the Bill, it is said that they are justified by the fact that the owners offered to continue the present wage rates for a year. It is true, I understand, that that offer was made, but, as the Prime Minister explained, it was on condition that the 7½-hour day was not limited to the period of 12 months. Its termination was to be contingent upon an agreement being made under the Geneva Convention. It was not to evaporate in the period prescribed by this Bill. It is obvious that there is a very great difference between the two situations. In the one case the owners were prepared to make an offer which, judged by the figures, I think is a very risky offer, but it was contingent upon the view that they were faced by a long enough period of the 7½-hour day in operation to be able to do their best in all the circumstances, and that the hours of work should only be altered under conditions which would put them on the same terms as their rivals on the Continent of Europe.
    Looking at the ascertainments which will take place in the early part of the year, and looking at the conditions created by this Bill, it seems to me that a very severe task is going to be put upon the shoulders of the coal industry in fully meeting the wage rates which are being applied. The difficulty about fixing a definite term must be very plain to all of us. As the hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake) said, you are really dating the next crisis by the terms of this Bill. You are saying that this question has to be debated a year hence. A very distinguished business man on the Liberal benches yesterday explained from his point of view—and he has had great experience—the appalling burden which is put upon the coal industry by not being able to make contracts for a longer term than one year. He explained very clearly that in the old days three-year contracts were the common form of their agreements, and

    1971
    that it was on the basis of those long-term contracts that they were able to keep up the prosperity of the industry.
    It is also said that to limit it to a year would obviously put into the hands of their rivals an advantage, because they would know that they could make a much better offer over a longer term than any English coalowner could hope to make. In the condition in which we are at the present time that is a very severe burden to put upon a struggling industry, and it is a handicap which every coal salesman will undoubtedly feel bitterly, because it will defeat his competition in most markets of the world. I should have hoped that the Government would have left the period such as would enable the industry to work upon a definite basis until, by consent, all the nations of Europe were agreed upon what the normal length of the day ought to be. One can only hope that the consequences will not be as bad as one anticipates, but looking at the vicissitudes which this industry went through in the early part of the year, one can only lament that the Government thought it necessary to insert such a condition.
    There is one other matter upon which I desire to say a few words, and that is the effect the Bill is going to have upon the coal trade in Scotland. Scotland, as I have already pointed out, is differentiated from England in this Bill by not having its rate of wages fixed for the next 12 months, upon the ground that it would be impossible to keep up the present Scottish rate of wage if the spread-over is eliminated, as it is by this Bill. That is a very serious announcement to make to Scotland, and I cannot understand why the Government should not allow a system to continue which has been operating with complete harmony for many months in Scotland. The men have worked perfectly contentedly under that system, and they prefer to have the rate of wages rather than to have the definite 7½-hour day. They prefer to work 11 days of eight hours instead of 12 days of 7½ hours. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who always speaks with great authority on these matters and with great reasonableness, interjected a remark that the Scottish people were having higher earnings than the
    1972
    miners in Yorkshire and, apparently, he saw no reason why the Scottish rate of wages should not be reduced.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The difference between the rate of wages in Scotland and those in Yorkshire is accounted for by the extra number of days per week worked in Scotland, the implication being that because Scotland has some advantage they were underselling their competitors and taking advantage of the spread-over.
    Sir R. HORNE: The hon. Member is quite wrong as to the cause of higher earnings in Scotland. The real cause is because in Scotland they have adopted a system which the right hon. Member for Darwen in his report said was too little adopted in this country. The right hon. Member for Darwen deplored the fact that mining was not conducted scientifically enough throughout most of the coalfields, and the truth is that Scotland has succeeded in getting larger earnings for the miners, because it has adopted machinery to a far greater extent than any other part of the kingdom. About 69 per cent. of the coal is cut by machinery, whereas only 29 per cent. is cut in England by machinery, and a far larger proportion of the coal that is cut is conveyed by mechanical contrivances in the pits than is the case in England. It is by advances of this kind that Scottish coal-owners have succeeded in making their position better. Are you going to tell them that they must come down in their rate of earnings in order to be on the same level as the more backward areas? Is that the lesson which this House is going to teach in the coalfields of this country? If so, it is very different from the principles advocated by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Richardson), who was all for better methods, better machinery. That is what Scotland has done, and that is why she shows a higher rate of earnings than other parts of the country. According to this Bill the way in which they have worked their machinery is to be destroyed. In dealing with machinery it must be understood that the less you have to shift and alter it the greater the amount of output, and that is one of the reasons why it is better in Scotland to work 11 days of eight hours than 12 days of 7½ hours. By that means you get a larger output.
    Mr. RICHARDSON: I do not understand that, because, whether you work 7½

    1973
    hours or eight hours, the machinery will he shifted in exactly the same Way.
    Sir R. HORNE: I am assured by practical people that this is the main reason why the spread-over has worked so well in Scotland and is keeping' up the rate of wages. I protest against this quite unnecessary alteration which is being made. There is no reason for it. I am assured that it is not a question of jealousy of Scotland which enters into this matter at all, but there was a suggestion yesterday to the effect that people in the North of England felt the repercussions of the Scottish system. I cannot believe that there are people in any part of the land who are jealous because the Scottish miners are using their own methods in order to keep up the rate of wages to which they are entitled. The Government have made a great blunder with regard to this part of the Bill, and it can only be justified on the ground of the terrible results which might occur if it is not passed. At the same time, we must keep that in view and not allow this legislation to become a precedent for any future Acts of Parliament.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: There is no harm, on the Third Reading of this Bill, with the principle which underlies it, for an hon. Member who has no direct interest or concern with the coal industry to express his opinions upon it, because it does something which is without precedent in the political history of this country. It fixes the wages of a single selected industry, for which the Government accept no responsibility, financial or otherwise. There is no principle underlying a Measure of this kind from a Socialist point of view, and I do not suppose that any hon. Member on the other side would subscribe to the theory that this House should embark upon a process, or rather the progress, of legislating for minimum wages, fixing wages, for various industries over which the Government of the country accept no responsibility whatever. There is no end to that process, and it cannot be justified by any principle whatsoever, Conservative or Socialist.
    From the point of view of hon. Members who do not represent mining constituencies, this is a most serious precedent indeed. Take my own constituency. The two principal industries
    1974
    are agriculture and fishery, and they are both vital from the national point of view, but they are not so powerful, or so well organised, or so well represented in this House, as the coalmining industry. Legislation of this kind might easily give rise to a demand from the workers of those industries that their wages should be safeguarded by the House of Commons, and that demand might spread until almost every industry in the country is covered. The hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) seems to be horrified, but he would not say that this is a good principle to establish unless the Government take over and accept responsibility for the control, conduct and finances of the industry concerned. In this Bill the Government saddle the coalowners with the whole responsibility of fighting the desperate battle for our export trade, and, at the same time, impose upon them this financial burden.
    The only thing which is certain under the Bill is that the whole question will be raised again at the end of a year in an acute form. We are in for a periodical crisis until the question is tackled from a fundamental point of view. No attempt has been made by the Government to grapple with the fundamental problems of the coal industry along any line. It is the same old story of their conduct of unemployment. They drift along without any apparent purpose, or design or plan, or ultimate objective, until they are driven by some acute crisis which arises to come down to this House with panic stop-gap legislation. They ask us to pass this Bill in record time in order to avert a serious crisis and grave stoppage over the coalfields. We are entitled to protest not only against the precedent, which is a most dangerous one, but against the method by which they bring forward this stop-gap legislation, which does not pretend to be a solution of any of the problems with which the country is now faced. Over and over again they allow things to drift and slide, until they are brought right up against a crisis in which they have to take some action in order to avoid a catastrophe, and they produce a Bill of this kind which can effect no permanent good.

    1975
    I should like to say one word in endorsement of what the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has said about the position in Scotland. From the point of view of an ordinary Scottish Member it would appear that the spread-over system has been working satisfactorily to those engaged in the coalmining industry, both miners and owners. According to the Secretary for Mines that system will be smashed from tomorrow when this Bill becomes law, and, whatever the Secretary for Mines may say, it makes wage reductions in the immediate future in Scotland practically inevitable. It is unfair to ask Parliament to impose upon the Scottish miner the necessity of accepting either a certain wage reduction in the immediate future or the still greater horror of a stoppage in the Scottish coalfields. Not for the first time are the real interests of Scotland being sacrificed by the Government to the interests of England. The Secretary for Mines in his speech this afternoon told us that the hope for the future of the Scottish mines and the industry as a whole really lay in the possibility of international agreement.
    So far as the export trade of this country is concerned, and it forms the bulk of the coal industry in Scotland, that is indisputable, but what is so depressing is to hear, or rather not to hear, from the Secretary for Mines anything of a really optimistic character with regard to the prospects of an international agreement. The hon. Gentleman has worked very hard to obtain such an agreement and we all know that it is only through international agreement that conditions in the coal-exporting industry can be permanently raised and maintained upon a higher level. But of this we are also quite certain. If, at this critical moment, when negotiations of a crucial kind to obtain international agreement are about to be continued, we diminish in any respect our competitive power, we shall not hasten or advance such an agreement. We shall rather tend to retard such an agreement, though that agreement in the long run will be absolutely necessary for the coal industry, not only in this country but in Europe as a whole.
    Mr. WISE: I intervene in this discussion only to deal with a point made by
    1976
    the hon. Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Mr. Boothby), which seems to me to be based on a wrong interpretation of the industrial history of the last few years. The hon. Member said that the natural corollary to interference with wages by the Government was greater responsibility on the part of the Government in the conduct of the industry. In that we entirely agree with him, but when he says that it is a new principle that the Government should intervene to fix wages, or to secure that wages should be fixed, or to give statutory justification, as in this case, to wages fixed by agreement, then he seems to ignore the whole history of wages legislation in this House under various Governments for the last 10 or 15 years. There has been a series of enactments such as the Wages Boards Act in agriculture, the Trade Boards Act covering a wide range of trades, and in the case of the mining industry, various special Measures giving the force of law to agreements reached between employers and employed to fix wages at a certain minimum figure.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: The House has frequently set up machinery to negotiate wage agreements and give them statutory force, but this, I believe, is the first time that a wage for a particular industry has been fixed in pounds, shillings and pence by the House of Commons itself.
    Mr. POTTS: Is it not a fact that in 1912 this House passed the Minimum Wage Act dealing with the mining industry, which Act is on the Statute Book to-day?
    Mr. WISE: It is exactly the same point in essence whether you give statutory force to a minimum which has already been fixed a few weeks or a few months ago, or whether you give statutory force to a minimum to be fixed say the month after next. This Bill proposes to do both, but it seems to be a misuse of the English language to say that that introduces a new and revolutionary principle. If it does, we on these benches think it is quite time that that was done. The history of industrial legislation is a history of the intervention of this House in regard to minimum conditions of various kinds—hours, child labour, night work, protection from accident and so on. Only in the last decade or two has

    1977
    the House begun to tackle the question of wages, but at every step, when the House has intervened, there have been delivered in this House speeches exactly the same in principle, with exactly the same apprehensions, fears and criticisms, as those which have fallen from the lips of hon. Members opposite this afternoon.
    Having said that, I am bound to say that I accept the hon. Member's original thesis. When the House finds itself forced to deal with all these questions of conditions and hours and wages, you cannot stop there. You have to go further, and the melancholy history of the mining industry in the last 10 or 15 years is largely due to the fact that this House, and successive Governments have not faced that fact. The House has intervened and continues to intervene in detail, and bit by bit, making it quite definitely more difficult to conduct industry on the old lines. No one supposes that we are going back to the old lines. Measure after Measure was passed in the period before this Government came into office, starting with the Measure referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Potts) in 1912, and in those Measures the House intervened in regard to wages, hours and other conditions in the mining industry. The House must face the fact that in present circumstances the mineowner is without that complete independence by which private enterprise could conceivably operate efficiently under the old conditions—which are never to return, which no one on either side of the House expects to return, which the coalowners do not expect to return and do not desire, when they are coming to this House, as they were a few months ago and as they were constantly doing under the last Government to get assistance and concessions in this, that and the other direction.
    Granted that the old conditions are never to return, we have to face the fact that year after year we shall have the sort of crisis which we are experiencing now, in which at the last moment the industry, unable to adjust itself to the new conditions, looks to the House to cut the knot and help it out of its difficulties and the House, very unwillingly as far as many Members on this side are concerned, adopts expedients which we know merely put off the day of reckoning for a few months longer. The day
    1978
    of reckoning will come, and until we face the fundamental problems of the mining industry and the fact that the industry cannot continue to exist in the industrial world of to-day and give its workers a satisfactory standard of life under its present organisation—until we face that fact, as we shall have to do whatever Government is in office, we shall be constantly under pressure to pass this sort of legislation.
    Having got so far, it seems to me unfortunate that the Government did not feel itself in a stronger position, and able, in this Bill, to fix a date and conditions which would have avoided the criticisms that have had to be made from these benches this afternoon. If it had involved the coalowners, in some districts, in greater difficulty in adjusting themselves to the new situation, I, personally, should not have shed many tears, because the sooner the coalowners and the House face the changes which are necessary, the sooner we shall get to some finality in mining legislation and some hope of prosperity. No one has any real belief that under the present partial and incomplete legislation, the coal industry will be able to extricate itself from problems affecting its wages, hours and prosperity or re-establish its oversea markets. From every point of view, from the point of view of the interest of the miners and the point of view of the interest of the nation, I hope that this will be the last, or almost the last occasion, on which we shall be required to deal with one particular incident of this tangled problem, knowing that our work is incomplete and that within a few months we shall have to start again on the problem at some other point.
    Major COLVILLE: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) in his argument, beyond making the remark that apparently he and his friends would be prepared deliberately to put the coalowners into difficulty in order to further their policy. Let me remind him that if he puts the coalowners into difficulty, they will not go into difficulty alone. The workers go with them and they suffer more than the coalowners.
    Mr. WISE: I should not like the hon. and gallant Member to get away with

    1979
    that misunderstanding of what I said or what I meant. What I say is that the responsibility of adjusting the industry, so as to provide a minimum standard of life for the miners, in present circumstances should rest on the mineowners. If they cannot discharge that responsibility, as seems to be the case at present, it is quite time that they gave way and let somebody else have a chance.
    Major COLVILLE: I am not concerned with what the hon. Member meant but with what he said, and if he consults the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, he will find that I described what he said accurately. This Bill means that the coal industry is to be brought back into the political arena in a year's time, and I take it to be an admission that the Government do not expect to be in office in a year's time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They have had a good deal of trouble in their negotiations up to this point, and I do not think they are yearning to face that trouble again in a year's time. They are anxious to see that it is passed on to the Conservative Government which will be in office, I believe, at that time, and we consider that in fixing the date in the Bill they are making matters more difficult for this great industry. The Secretary for Mines in his speech last night accurately and fairly described the position of the industry as regards foreign competition particularly from Poland. Having read the hon. Gentleman's speech, I feel sure that he is well aware of the dangers which the industry is facing, and I cannot, therefore, understand why he should make the position of the industry more difficult still by fixing a date which causes uncertainty and renders it difficult to deal with foreign contracts.
    In regard to the Scottish position, I am interested to note that when we are debating the Third Reading of a Bill which will have a very great effect on Scotland, so few Scottish mining Members are present. They will have to justify to their constituents the effect of this Measure in a few days' time. The Title of the Bill has been carefully drafted, in such a way as to make it impossible for us to move a spread-over Amendment, and an Amendment which I put down, together with one of my hon. Friend's, was rejected for that reason.
    1980
    I would ask hon. Members to look at the back of the Bill and to observe by whom it has been brought in—a Scottish Prime Minister, supported by a Scottish Foreign Secretary, a Scottish President of the Board of Trade, and a Scottish Minister for Mines. There is only one Southerner among those whose names appear on the back of the Bill. The lion may be rampant in Linlithgow, but he tames down considerably when he gets to Westminster, if this is all that can be done for the interests of the Scottish miners. The Secretary for Mines said that Scotland ought not to be allowed to carry on with what he called an unfair advantage over other districts. He said:
    "The spread-over gives Scotland an advantage over her competitors in England, an advantage resented by the coalowners in other parts of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1931, col. 1794, Vol. 254.]
    I wish to point out that the coalowners represented by the Mining Association did not veto the spread-over. Let that be made plain. The veto was applied by the Miners' Federation, the majority of whom desired to see the spread-over stopped. I want the responsibility for this change to be clearly known and firmly fixed. The Miners' Federation by a majority are stopping the spread-over and the Government are in this case their tools, and in Scotland it will be known that the readjustments which will take place shortly as a result of the Bill are due to the fact that the Labour Government has been, I will not say coerced, but induced by the Miners' Federation to put a stop to an arrangement which in one district, where there are 85,000 working miners, resulted in those miners being able to bring home better earnings than if the spread-over had not been operative.
    The very fact that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) was moved was a recognition that what I say is true, that there is in every miner's home in Scotland the shadow of a drop in their earnings. The hon. Lady, with great part of whose speech I agree with, moved an Amendment in the sense that there was another way of avoiding that difficulty by fixing wages by statute. My view is that while you can fix wages by statute, you cannot force a pit to keep open, and the result of such action would be not better wages but simply greater unemployment. For that reason it was evident the Amendment could not be accepted. My Amendment was cut

    1981
    out because it was not in the Title of the Bill, and her Amendment was cut out because it was found to be impossible. What hope have the miners in that district? It should be known there that the Labour Government have let them down.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I said all that I have to say on the Bill last night. I only rise as the Convention was a good deal discussed yesterday and hon. Members, except the Minister, spoke of it without knowledge because none of us have seen it, and we shall have to get it from the White Paper that has been promised. I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question which is relevant from the point of view of how quickly we may look to see an international convention put into force. The Secretary for Mines, as I understood him, said that nothing stood in the way, and that it would be a fairly simple matter to get complete agreement—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman said that negotiations may proceed, but he left on my mind the impression that it might be a fairly quick business—within the 12 months. It is difficult to say, and I want to put a specific question, because when I spoke last night I was unacquainted with the general terms of the Convention.
    I have not yet seen the draft, but I am told that there are provisions in it which would make it impossible in this, country to start the ordinary Monday shift in the way in which it is started in most of the coalfields with preparations made on Sunday night. I ask whether that is so, because obviously if the Convention involves a great change of practice in our case, or if it involves, as is probable, a much more reasonable course of some negotiations with foreign countries to get a protocol making it reasonable and practical from our point of view—if either of these two things should be necessary, obviously that means much more delay than if the Convention is in a form in which it will be immediately applicable in all countries without any variation of existing practices. Is my information correct that either the Convention will have to be varied in order to make it accord with the regular English working practice or the English working practice will have to be upset?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Perhaps I may be permitted to reply at once to the ques-
    1982
    tions put by the right hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly true that one of the provisions of the Geneva Convention is that it provides for the abolition of Sunday labour where Sunday labour is intended for productive purposes. There has always been some difficulty in interpreting what is meant by productive purposes, but clearly what is meant is the actual mining of coal. Except where emergency measures require it, no Sunday labour will be permissible under the terms of the Convention. It is the custom in this country for the early Monday shift to commence operations round about 10 o'clock on Sunday night; it is sometimes later, but usually it is about 10 o'clock. The British coal-owners' representatives at Geneva maintain that the terms of the Convention with regard to Sunday labour would prevent the normal working of the pit, that is to say, the beginning of the shift commencing at that time. If that is disputed by the miners' representatives, it is not clear whether the owners' contention can be sustained.
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Disputed whether it is an inconvenient thing to do or whether it bears that interpretation? There appears to me to be all the difference. If our Law Officers advise that the Convention permits the practice to go on, that is one thing. The real question at issue is whether it does, in fact, mean a variation of practice?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Special exceptions are provided for in the Convention at various points and in regard to various matters, and it might be possible for the British miners to continue the practice even under the terms of the Convention, Even if that be disputed, I imagine that it will be possible by arrangement to provide for the beginning of the shift at 12 midnight, which is now the custom in many parts of the country. Only a few districts commence operations before 12 midnight, and I imagine that it will be possible for them to make their arrangements accordingly. The terms of the Convention, which in some respects have been regarded as objectionable by the British coalowners, were equally objectionable to coalowners in every country. Coalowners from all European countries raised objections to the terms of the Convention, but in the opinion of the majority of the Govern-

    1983
    ments—only two voted against the Convention—and in the opinion of all the workers concerned, the terms of the Convention are acceptable. In these circumstances, we are bound to accept the opinion of the conference.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The discussion on the Third Reading of this Bill seems to be getting rather irregular. I have given considerable latitude so far, as this Bill is somewhat exceptional and in the nature of emergency legislation, but we cannot widen discussion to include the Convention.
    Mr. W. J. BROWN: The Debate has been widely participated in by those who represent miners directly and coalowners directly, and by others who represent mining constituencies, although they themselves may not be directly connected with the industry. My own interest is not in the mining industry, and, if I intervene, it is because the Government's legislation raises issues of principle of tremendous importance to the country as a whole and are of special significance to the Labour and Socialist movement. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) drew a gloomy picture of what would happen if the House of Commons made a habit of trying to regulate wages by legislation, and he implied that, if ever the House did that, its normal and more important functions would be largely crowded out. In my view, there is no issue which more deserves the attention of the House than the wages issue, for it includes in its scope all kinds of other issues with which the House is called upon to deal from time to time. In wages are embraced the standard of life of the people and the standard of life of the coming generation; the question of public health standards is involved in wages——
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a general discussion on the Third Reading of this Bill of the effect of wages.
    Mr. BROWN: I was trying to answer the point made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I hoped that, as long as I confined myself strictly to that point, I would be in order. I do not want to argue that the House of Commons ought to concern itself with an attempt to regulate wages in all industries. I suggest, however, that there
    1984
    are two reasons why it ought to regulate wages in the mining industry. The first is the reason which has already been given, that, unless the House does something, the industry will be face to face with a crisis. The second reason is that if there be one industry in the country in regard to which public opinion recognises that it has a duty, it is the mining industry. I doubt whether Conservative Members appreciate to what extent the results of the 1929 Election were affected by the public recollection of the treatment of the miners' case by the late Government. I think that they were very heavily affected by that recollection, because public opinion recognises that we have a responsibility in the mining industry.
    7.0 p.m.
    I need not argue that further, because this side of the House and the Liberal Benches are agreed that something has to be done in this particular case. It is common ground between those two sides of the House that there must be legislation dealing with wages in the industry, and the question which concerns me more directly is what are to be the wages to which we should give legislative effect. The Government spokesman made it quite plain that the broad effect of this Bill is to give legislative sanction to an agreement already entered into between the coalowners and the Miners' Federation. That is true of the whole area of the Bill except Scotland, in regard to which it gives a kind of post facto approval to agreements that will be reached, or which it is hoped will be reached, during the next few days or weeks. When the Conservative Government are in power, they do not regulate their legislation to the mining industry by reference to what the trade unions in the industry want, and by the same token I can conceive no reason why a Labour Government should regulate their legislation by what the mineowners are prepared to agree to. That is the basis of this Bill. That raises a very grave issue of principle for the whole trade union and Labour movement in this country. That issue of principle is this: If, when Conservative Governments are in power, they legislate in the interests of the employers of the mining industry, and if, when a Labour Government is in power, it restricts its legislation and sets limits

    1985
    to its legislation by reference to what the employers in the industry are prepared to agree to, then for practical purposes it does not matter very much to the mining community whether there is a Labour Government in power or a Conservative Government in power. Let me pursue that a little further——
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see the connection between that and the Bill.
    Mr. BROWN: The connection between my argument and the Bill is that I am deploring the inadequacy of the Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: In Debates on the Third Reading, one must Debate not what is left out of the Bill, but what is in the Bill.
    Mr. BROWN: I say that what is in the Bill is the legislative enforcement of an agreement which I regard as inadequate. I would like your guidance. Am I entitled to criticise the Government for confining their legislation to that inadequate agreement? Am I entitled to argue that the Bill is inadequate?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Undoubtedly, the hon. Member is entitled to argue that the Bill is inadequate, but he must confine his argument to what is actually in the Bill.
    Mr. BROWN: I am afraid that, if we are to confine ourselves to what is in the Bill, we are both of us going to have a very thin time.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the rule of Debate in this House.
    Mr. BROWN: I hope to keep within the bounds of your Bailing, and I respectfully suggest that my argument is of great importance as affecting this Bill. The Government spokesman has, said that the Government have accepted as the limits of this legislation what the employers are prepared to agree to. If the employers had been prepared to agree to more, the Bill would have been couched in different terms. It is only couched in these terms because the Government have accepted this self-imposed restriction. If that be the case, then I want to point out what the consequences must be to the mining community in particular and to the general movement, which this side of the House represents, unless that conception of Labour legislation is sharply challenged. It is part of the philosophy
    1986
    which is shared on this side of the House that the capitalist system by its very nature produces periodical crises which occur with considerable regularity. Now, during the past, those crises have come at intervals of about 10 years. The average lifetime of a Parliament is about four years——
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is really nothing about that in the Bill.
    Mr. BROWN: But there was nothing about general legislation on wages in the Bill upon which you have allowed general comment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: No, indeed I did not. There is reference to wages in the Bill.
    Mr. BROWN: I am afraid your Ruling puts me in a difficulty. The argument I am trying to address to the House is one of great importance, and it is that, if in this country we are going to have in the mining industry alternating periods of legislation by Conservative Governments in the interests of the employers and by Labour Governments which accept those limits——
    Mr. SPEAKER: Really, the hon. Member is arguing quite a different point altogether. If the hon. Member will not accept my Ruling, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.
    Mr. BROWN: I am afraid the limits you set me make it impossible to continue my argument which I must therefore continue outside this House.
    Lord BALNIEL: I would like to add my voice to the other protests which have been made about the way in which this House has been treated in regard to this Bill. We are placed in an intolerable position. We are presented with a Bill, which we have heard from every side of the House is a bad Bill and which dissatisfies every Member connected with the industry, and yet we are told that, if we successfully oppose it, we shall be plunging the industry into crisis and chaos. We are therefore forced not to take any steps against a Measure which we believe to be a bad Measure containing a revolutionary principle. That, at any rate, is the attitude of a very large number of Members in the House. We are unable, because there is no time, to amend it or adequately to discuss it,

    1987
    and we are effectually prevented from opposing the Measure. The Government are to be blamed for the principle, which has been adopted not only in recent negotiations with the miners, and for the original promises which they made at the last election to restore the 7-hour day to the miners. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down asked whether this Party realises how much effect on the last General Election Conservative legislation with regard to coal had.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now replying to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) whom I called to order on this point.
    Lord BALNIEL: I apologise, because I thought I was answering one of the few parts of the hon. Member's speech that were in order. I was criticising the Government for being to blame for the position which has caused this Bill to be brought in in such a curious way before the House, for being to blame not only in the recent negotiations but right through the history of its pledges and promises culminating in this piece of legislation, designed for one year only, to prevent that pledge being fulfilled automatically. It is unfortunate that we cannot discuss adequately this Bill which overrides the economics of an industry by legislation, It is unfortunate that we cannot attack the hon. Gentlemen opposite adequately for what we believe to be the mere postponement of an issue which must ultimately be faced, and a cowardly postponement and evasion at that. It is exactly on a par with the Finance Bill and the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which postponed in exactly the same way the issues which have to be faced. It is thus making the position of the hon. Gentlemen's successors in a year's time intolerable. I assume from the Bill that they expect that in a year's time even the worm will turn. In a year's time I sincerely hope there will not be trouble, but I profoundly believe that in this Measure the hon. Gentlemen have sown the seeds of trouble.
    I fear there is no doubt whatsoever that the foreigner will take advantage of that and will assume that there will be trouble and, knowing the way that in previous troubles contracts have had to be broken by our industry and in consequence lost, will realise that in six months to make a
    1988
    contract with this country might be a dangerous thing owing to the legislation of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Anyone who has travelled, as I have travelled, and as I believe the hon. Gentleman has travelled, since the last strike through the Polish and German coalfields, and has seen the result of the contracts that we have lost there, would be very chary of bringing in legislation like this, which can only add stimulus to OUT foreign competitors and plunge our own industry deeper into chaos and uncertainty. It is that uncertainty which is being extended by this Bill, the uncertainty which exists to-day and has existed for many years in the coal industry.
    To-day the industry is living from hand to mouth. Parliament must accept a certain measure of blame for that position when we remember how this House has interfered with the industry—Commission after Commission, followed by piecemeal legislation, the control of the War, the decontrol, which everyone now admits was much too sudden, after the War, the subsidies and taking off of subsidies—all parties are equally responsible for this—the threats of confiscation by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Coal Mines Bill, the object of which was to put up the price of coal, followed by the Consumers' Council Bill, the object of which was to keep it down, which I am glad to say was defeated in Committee this afternoon, culminating in the panic legislation before the House to-day. I wonder if any other industry in the country or in the world could have survived such uncertainty and such interference. The fact that this great industry has not gone completely is the greatest tribute to its fundamental stability which can be paid to it. I do not wish to go into details. As we cannot amend it, it seems useless to discuss it. I can only protest most sincerely against the methods adopted by hon. Gentlemen opposite in introducing this Bill in this most unusual way and against the methods adopted in the discussions and negotiations which led up to the introduction of this Bill.
    Major LLEWELLIN: The first comment I wish to make on this Bill before it leaves this House is that the Government have quite unnecessarily tried to force this legislation through the House.

    1989
    They have deliberately turned their backs on the way open to them to allow the industry to carry on under the 60 days of grace allowed under the 1908 Act. They have not only ignored the possibilities of that kind of settlement, but they have deliberately amended that Act by this Bill so as not to allow any of their successors to take advantage of such a period of grace. I know the period of grace was not included in the Coal Mines Act of 1930. It is again not included in this Act which stabilises, in effect, the date for the next dispute in the coal industry.
    The next point I want to make is that this Bill is obviously a confession of the failure of the Coal Mines Act, 1930. The hon. Member opposite who spoke on behalf of the Miners' Federation, in speaking on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee), said he did not understand why she had selected a date in October, because all their troubles had dated from 1st December. 1930. The 1st December, 1930, was the date upon which the 7½hour day came into operation in the coal mines, and no truer word was spoken to-day than that by the hon. Member opposite who said that their difficulties in the mining industry started from that date.
    In the same way, I am afraid the Scottish miners will say, in a year or so's time, all their difficulties started from 8th July, 1931. The spread-over is abolished from 8th July. It would not be abolished if the Government did not pass this Bill, because for 60 days from that date the mines would be able to continue working the spread-over and the miners and mineowners would have that interval in which to make a new arrangement. What is to happen now that the spread-over is abolished? Its abolition seems to be welcomed by those who have spoken on behalf of the Miners' Federation, but it will mean substantial reductions in the wages of the Scottish miners. They may accept them, or it may be found that by this Bill we are pushed into the position of having a strike in Scotland. The Miners' Federation should think twice before passing this Measure, because if there is a strike, then either they must support with funds their brethren in the North or let them
    1990
    fight out their battle on their own, and so split the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. They must face one of those two courses, and neither of them will be at all acceptable, I should think, to the majority of the members of the Miners' Federation.
    The third point I wish to come to is this. The hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) said there was not much difference between the principle of fixing wages in this Bill and the setting up of wages machinery in the agricultural industry or in the mining industry some years ago. There is this essential difference, that with wage-fixing machinery we can modify the conditions from time to time, but here the wages are definitely laid down for a year by Act of Parliament. If trade were to get much worse and prices were to slump even more, mineowners might find that they could not afford to employ people at the wage which has been fixed, and some of the least up-to-date mines, which are still working and giving employment, might then have to be closed down. However, the real test of the Government in this matter is how far they can get on with persuading other nations to ratify the Mines' Convention at Geneva. I was rather disheartened when listening to the Minister last night, because he seemed to think the mineowners might be able to do something in that matter. It is essentially one for the Government to take in hand; it is their responsibility to see, if they can, that some agreement is arrived at which will bring other countries up to the same standard of conditions that we have here. It is not a matter for either the mineowners or the miners to arrange.
    Finally I would say that there is, for me at any rate, one slight ray of hope in this rather unfortunate piece of legislation. That ray of hope is that it should prevent a repetition of some of the things that we have seen recently in by-elections, will prevent hon. Members who sit on the Government Front Bench from going to constituencies and saying, "This is the man who voted for longer hours in the coal mines," as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did in a recent case. There is a very good reply to hon. Members if they adopt that line in the future.
    Mr. BRACKEN: I did not intend to intervene, but I was greatly struck by a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the last point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin). There is, however, something more serious than going down to constituencies and telling electors that their Member voted for the Coal Bill, and that is the fact, that, for the first time in English political history, this Bill introduces the idea that Parliament can lay down rates of wages for an industry. If once we accept that principle we shall simply put seats up for auction. Members will go round and say, "Vote for me and you will get £2 10s. a week!" Members will go round the country and gradually build up a vested interest which will lower the whole tone of politics. And that is not the least of the evils which this Bill creates. Another, and even more serious one, is that we are turning a great industry into absolute chaos and giving definite encouragement to the coalowners of Germany and Poland to compete against Great Britain. We are fixing a limit for a year, although everyone knows that no business can budget merely for 12 months ahead, but must budget for the next two or three years. That is exactly what the Secretary for Mines has prevented the coal industry from doing. He has not only got this Bill, which is a "cash for votes Bill" but he intends to keep this industry in absolute chaos, in the hope that if the Government are in office in 12 months' time they will nationalise the industry, or if they are thrown out, that the position of the industry will be one of the greatest possible difficulty for the administration which will take the place of the present Government.
    There is only one other point I would like to touch upon and it is a very difficult thing for one to do. I am not a Scotsman, but my heart has been touched by the appeals of Scottish Members in this Debate. Remembering all the economic writings of the President of the Board of Trade, which are contrary to everything in this Bill, and remembering also his great affection for Scotland, I can only say to him now that a milder mannered man never scuppered a great industry in his own native land. The Secretary for Mines is not a Scotsman.
    1992
    He has this connection with Scotland, that he holds a seat there. His action on this Bill will sever that relationship with Scotland, and I am sure that Scotland will be proud of it.'

HOUSING (RURAL AUTHORITIES) [EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.
[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient—
(a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such special contributions, payable annually for a period of forty years, as the Minister of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland, respectively, may, on the recommendation of committees appointed by them with the approval of the Treasury and on such conditions as they may with the like approval determine undertake to make towards the expenses to be incurred by rural district councils in England in providing houses in agricultural parishes for agricultural workers and persons of substantially the same economic position, and by county councils in Scotland in providing houses for such persons as aforesaid in rural areas;
Provided that—

(i) such contributions shall be made only to councils who satisfy the said committees, acting in accordance with such general directions as may be given to them by the Minister or, as the case may be, by the Department, that their financial resources are insufficient to enable them without such assistance to make adequate provision in regard to the matters aforesaid;

(ii) the rents to be charged for houses in respect of which such contributions are made shall not, notwithstanding anything in section three of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, exceed such sums as the Minister and the Department respectively may, in accordance with the recommendations of the said committees, determine; and

(iii) the present capital values of such contributions, as calculated at the dates when the Minister and the Department respectively undertake to make them, shall not in the aggregate exceed, as respects England, eighty ninety-first parts and, as respects Scotland, eleven ninety-first parts of the sum of two million pounds;

1993
(b) to authorise the Minister and the Department respectively to assist rural district councils in England and county councils in Scotland in providing dwelling accommodation in such localities and for such persons as are mentioned in the preceding paragraph by themselves acquiring land and erecting houses, or by arranging with some other Government Department to acquire land and erect houses, on behalf and at the expense of those councils; and
(c) to make provisions consequential upon, or ancillary to, certain of the matters aforesaid."—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]—(King's Recommendation signified.)
Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I think it would be the general desire, Sir, if it can be arranged, that we should have a general discussion on this Resolution, and then deal briefly with our Amendments later. I do not know whether that is possible, but I think it is the desire of the Minister of Health as it is also the desire of hon. Members on this side, and I think that the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir Tudor Walters), who will be here in a minute or two, will also desire it.
The CHAIRMAN: There is no objection that I can see to a general discussion provided that it is confined to the question of finance with which the Resolution deals.
The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): This Financial Resolution is the preliminary to a Bill dealing with a special aspect of the housing problem, that of rural housing. There are two difficulties in the way of solving the housing problem. There is the unwillingness of certain local authorities to use the powers they possess, and the inability of certain local authorities to find the financial resources to deal adequately with the problem. It is true that since the War we have built a very substantial number of houses, the majority of them by private enterprise and built for sale. A minority, rather over one-third, have been built by local authorities, over half of them under the Act of 1924, designed to bring rents within the reach of what an ordinary workman can be expected to pay. In the rural areas over 410,000 houses have been built since the War, 84,000 of them by local authorities, about half of that number under the Wheatley Act of 1924. That looks a very good figure, but if we in-
1994
quire about the number of houses which have been made available for the rural working class it is clear that the figure of 84,000 does not carry us very far, owing to the largely accidental way in which we have classified our local authorities. A large number of rural districts contain industrial areas, and a considerable number of the houses built in rural areas, technically so described, have, as a matter of fact, been provided for an industrial population.
There is no doubt, moreover, that the overflow of population from the towns into the rural areas, with the natural and laudable desire of town dwellers to live nearer to the open country, accounts for the fact that a number of the houses built in rural district areas have not gone to rural workers. The pressure of the towns upon the countryside has been an influence in restricting the accommodation available for the agricultural worker. There has also been the difficulty of the customary wage of the agricultural worker, which is deplorably low, and the customary rent which he has paid in the past. There has been a vicious circle. Low wages meant low rents, and low rents were used as a justification for a continuance of low wages. The fact is that rural wages to-day do not permit of the building of houses of a rent as high as the ordinary industrial worker can pay, and it was because of this that in the Act of 1924, for the first Lime, a differentiation was made in the Exchequer grant for houses built in rural areas. There was a substantial difference in the grant in respect of houses built in agricultural areas and the grant in respect of houses built in urban areas.
I would like to press a little further the figures as to the number of houses which have been built by the district councils. Of the 41,000 houses which have been built by the rural district councils, 18,000 have been built in agricultural parishes. In other words, the majority were built, not entirely in agricultural areas, but some outside the purely agricultural areas. Investigation which has been recently made showed that of 15,000 of these only one-third of them, so far as we could compute, have been let to agricultural workers, that is to say, to people engaged in agricultural employment. In spite of the very generous assistance that has been given

1995
by the State, we have not succeeded in providing for the agricultural worker the kind of house for which the provision was made.
The late Government tried, through the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, to alleviate the position in the rural areas, and that Act has been extended for another five years. In the contributions made under that Act during the last two years, I have tried to flog more out of it than my predecessor, and I have succeeded, although what I have been able to get has not been very large. In the meantime, we have been faced with a new difficulty. The derating of agricultural land has put the authorities in rural areas in a desperate position, because of the loss of rates on agricultural land. Certain of the functions of the rural district councils have been handed to the county councils, but it still remains true that housing is a function of the rural district councils. Many of the rural district councils are finding it increasingly hard, especially since the full operation of the Derating Act, to find a contribution of £3 15s. per house per year for 40 years. That is not surprising, when one remembers that there are probably 200 rural district councils where a penny rate produces less than £100—a sign of the financial stringency of the time. It was largely for that reason that, in the Housing Act of last year, we gave the county councils, for the first time, a direct responsibility for the housing conditions of rural areas, with powers to assist, financially or in other directions. A definite obligation was put upon the county councils to give financial assistance where houses were provided by rural district councils for the agricultural population. We have to admit that, in recent years, heavy responsibilities have been placed upon county councils, and that this was a new one which they were not at first very willing to accept.
I think it is clear that there is an unsatisfied demand for houses for rural workers. I do not want to enter into harrowing details of what is to be found in rural villages. We know they are pretty bad. I have seen a good many of them during recent months. Whatever the number may be, there is a considerable number of people in agricultural
1996
areas whose economic circumstances are such that they cannot provide those houses for themselves, and the houses are not there. It is equally clear now that the poorer rural district councils—I am not saying all the rural district councils because they are not all equally poor—will be able to provide very little money to meet this situation, unless they are given further financial assistance. The County Councils' Association, and the county councils themselves, are beginning to realise their responsibility. In the course of time, I have no doubt, they will rise more fully to their responsibilities. In existing circumstances, and under present economic conditions, they are very unwilling to go beyond the responsibilities placed upon them by the Act of 1930. It was because of that that we—in consultation with the right hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir J. Tudor Walters) and other hon. Members that were associated with him worked out that it was necessary to provide some supplementary engine to deal with this problem.
I do not think that the value of this Financial Resolution and of the Bill which follows will be confined to the actual houses which will be built under the scheme. My own view is that it will set machinery in motion which, once it gets in motion, will operate with the normal machinery; that it will be, so to speak, greasing new machinery at the beginning, machinery which ought to continue to work if it can be properly started now.
The proposal which is now submitted is to provide a sum of £2,000,000, on present capital values, to assist the poorer districts. If one gets outside the range of the poor districts, then, clearly, there is no end to the amount of money which might be given. So long as housing remains a local service, and there is a local responsibility, I should myself wish to confine this proposal to local authorities who are not unwilling, but who are unable, to fulfil their responsibilities. It is suggested that this sum should be distributed on the recommendation of a strong committee which will receive and consider applications made by the existing councils. That committee will then grant assistance, in addition to the assistance already provided under the

1997
Wheatley Act; that is to say, it will be assistance in addition to the £11 per house per year which is being paid at the present time in agricultural parishes. The purpose of the additional sum will be, on the one hand, to relieve the rate burden of the rural district council, and, on the other, to bridge the gap between rents and wages. The grant will be confined to agricultural parishes as they were defined in the Act of 1924, and it will be confined to applications made before the end of November this year. That will give the local authorities sufficient time, without giving them too long, to formulate their claims for assistance.
It is difficult, as the Committee will see in a moment, to say how many houses this money will be likely to provide, and how much will be given per house. What we are aiming at—one does not want to use the figure too definitely—is the house built at a maximum cost of about £350. I believe, and I think other hon. Members do too, that that figure can be reduced. If so, so much the better. But we are thinking of that as a maximum. At the present time, the existing subsidy in agricultural parishes amounts, roughly, reckoning £11 per house per year for 40 years, to a capital value of about £200. That is almost two-thirds of the cost of the cottage of which we are thinking, and leaves about £150 which is not covered by the subsidy. If you take a rent of, say, 3s. per week, roughly one-half of that, I am informed, would be set aside for repairs. It is a larger proportion than in the ordinary house. The cost is the same, but the proportion is higher.
Mr. ALBERY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, while he is on that point, if he will give the Committee some idea of the accommodation he expects this house to provide?
Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not want to standardise any kind of accommodation. It would have to be varying accommodation.
Sir J. TUDOR WALTERS: Probably a five-roomed house, with three bedrooms.
Mr. GREENWOOD: Some may be, and some may be smaller. It depends upon the local needs of the area. If we assume a net rent of 1s. 6d. per week, that would as a capital sum provide about £75
1998
towards the £150, leaving you with £75 to be met, either out of local rates or by State assistance. If the cottage, however, is for a member of the agricultural population, the county council has to make a contribution amounting to another £18. Then you would be left with a debt of only £57. We have gone on the assumption that the additional contribution which will be made will be a grant of about £50. That means that we should get down to the figure of a cottage to be let at 3s. per week, plus rates. If that works out so, and it will depend, of course, upon the actual working of the scheme, we hope that it will initiate, as the first part of a rural housing programme, the building of 40,000 houses. The £2,000,000 is to be divided between England and Wales and Scotland, in the usual proportions of 11–91sts for Scotland and 80–91sts to England and Wales. In consequence, there will be a separate advisory committee to advise the Department for Scotland.
Now, as to the financial conditions, and how they will be applied. Hon. Members opposite wish to put some alarming conditions into the Bill. I do not wish to argue the case, because there is an Amendment on the Paper to deal with the question. The general direction under which the committee will work will be this: The committee will consider the-poverty of the area. They will get away from the flat-rate grant. If a local authority are able to make a part of the contribution that it should make under the Act of 1924, and that is reasonable, it will be asked to make it. The more that can be done, the further the capital sum involved will go. In some cases where from sheer poverty the rate contribution is impossible, the whole of it will have to be met, and will be met. The local authority will come before the committee with their scheme and proposals, with an explanation of their poverty, and the committee will make recommendations on specific points—the number and type of houses for which this special assistance should be given, the date for the completion of the houses, the rent at which the houses are to be let, having regard to the estimates submitted, and the amount of the special grant which is to be given.
Mr. HURD: What kind of committee is this to be?
Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member will be patient I can assure him that before the Bill reaches its final stage I shall be pretty definite about the kind of committee this will be. But I prefer not to say anything about it now.
The CHAIRMAN: Will the constitution of the committee be in the Bill?
Mr. GREENWOOD: It will be in the Bill.
The CHAIRMAN: Then any question about it arises on the Bill, and not here.
Mr. HURD: We are asked to hand over this money to a body of which we know nothing.
The CHAIRMAN: When the hon. Member comes to the Bill he can propose to change the committee if he is not satisfied.
Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member will find the points dealt with in the Bill. I think it right to inform the committee of the yard-stick to be used by the new committee. We are issuing a double test: (1) That to be eligible the estimated product of a 1d. rate for the present financial year does not exceed 5d. per head of the population, and (2) that the poundage of the general rate levied for the year 1930 exceeds 10s. Those seem to be reasonable conditions which would establish a level of real poverty.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea how many areas would be covered by conditions of that kind? I do not mean the number of parishes actually, but some estimate as to whether the area would be large or a comparatively limited one.
Mr. GREENWOOD: So far as we can tell at the present time, out of about 650 rural district council areas in England and Wales, this would include between 300 and 400. That total would exclude the industrial areas and some of the rural district councils in the area where the right hon. Gentleman lives, which I think are well able to do their own work. But it would include all the truly agricultural areas which can be described as really
2000
poor, and which out of their own resources could not, unaided, carry on the work. I go further and say that there may be special conditions, even when the two requirements are not fulfilled, to which the proposed committee ought to attach importance. There may be cases where, although the general rates levied in the area do not exceed 10s., there may be pretty heavy special rates and parish rates which are a heavy burden on the district. I think that the committee should be empowered to take circumstances of that kind into account, even though the two requirements were not strictly fulfilled. There may be other cases where the local authority might not be able to do the work unless it was to have cast on itself a burden substantially higher than £3 15s. There provision will be made for the committee to make recommendations for houses in those areas to be endowed to bring the contributions of the local authority to the £3 15s. level. That will cover the necessitous rural areas.
It is also proposed that we should bring in the service of the State. I understand that strong objection is taken to that on the Opposition side of the Committee, and that later an Amendment will be moved to deal with it. Many of these rural district authorities have built next to no houses. In Scotland some have never built any at all. They have not the resources, the technical knowledge, the skill, or the experience to deal with the problem. It seems to me that where the local authorities cannot do this work and where the county will not, the authorities should not be penalised, and that there should be this power of the State to step in and make arrangements for the building of the houses. It is not a new thing. It exists in the Act of 1930 and can be used in cases of default. If it is to be used in cases of default why should it not be used in the case of the willing but poor authority?
I hope that the Committee will agree to the Resolution as it stands, and that this power of direct national intervention will be retained both in the Money Resolution and in the Bill. This proposal represents a contribution to the solution of the housing problem, but, as I suggested earlier, I believe that its value is not going to be so much in what it actually accomplishes, substantial as that

2001
may be, but it will be an agency for educating authorities, like the county authorities, who ought to be doing far more than they are doing but have not yet learned how to use their new powers. It is this double value of it which I think will appeal to the Committee—the fact that it does something directly and may enable further building to be undertaken in the rural areas in future.
Sir K. WOOD: I suppose that rarely has a Financial Resolution been introduced in such peculiar and unusual circumstances. From the indications which the Minister of Health gave, when he waved an arm towards the right hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir J. Tudor Walters), I think that we can at any rate say that the parentage of this proposal is of a rather dubious character. I am beginning to wonder whether the Minister of Health is really the person who ought to be fostering these proposals. I had some confirmation of that view during the Minister's speech, because I observed that when there was a difficult question to be answered, as we should expect the right hon. Member for Penryn was able to supply the answer. Certainly the Minister of Health is the last man who a few weeks ago thought that he would be introducing proposals of this kind. Only a short time ago we had a long housing Debate. I hope I am not doing the right hon. Gentleman any injustice when I say that the impression he gave me and other hon. Members was that, so far as housing was concerned, we had a complacent, self-satisfied and self-sufficient Minister. I remember very well that the right hon. Gentleman, who was chairman of the Liberal Housing Committee—he came from Manchester—described the Minister's speech as a speech of self-satisfaction throughout. Then as to any alteration of his policy, or any proposals such as those of to-day, only a few months ago I asked him what was the policy of the Government on housing, and he replied that the housing policy of the Government was contained in the Acts or 1924 and of last year. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman had a bad break, so far as his self-complacency was concerned, and it was just about the time that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) began to visit the Minis-
2002
try of Health. The Minister of Health then said:
"I will not be a member of another minority Government. It would not be fair to the people I represent; it would not be fair to anybody."
8.0 p.m.
Apart from that, the Minister of Health regained his confidence. We then criticised him so far as the rural areas were concerned. He said little or nothing was wrong, that he was prepared to place his record against that of any one of his predecessors, and that all was well. This afternoon he has spoken about the desperate financial position of the smaller local authorities and the terrible experience that they were suffering under what he called derating. This is an entire change of front. It was only a few weeks ago that the right hon. Gentleman was saying to the local authorities of this country:
"Under the provisions of the Act of 1930"—
that was the Housing Act—
"it is open to the county council to assist the rural district councils where necessary in dealing with the housing needs of their district"—
He told them that:
"The Act provides for the co-operation of the county councils and rural district councils in attacking this serious and important problem."
So far as money is concerned, in regard to which this resolution asks for a further £2,000,000, the right hon. Gentleman, only two or three months ago, told the rural authorities that the Act of 1930
"provides wide powers … under which the superior resources of the county councils may be brought to the aid of the rural district councils."
As to the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth, I remember very well that when the right hon. Gentleman made his speech in the House of Commons, making proposals in reference to these financial matters, I put a question to the Minister of Health. I have put a great many questions to the right hon. Gentleman and I have endeavoured to help the Liberal party, because I took the whole of the recommendations of the Liberal party in their Yellow Book and I put them one by one to every Minister of the Crown dealing with these proposals to aid unemployment.
The CHAIRMAN: Did these recommendations deal only with housing? If not we had better keep to housing.
Sir K. WOOD: No, I regret to say they did not. As a matter of fact there was one and this one met with the same fate as all the other questions which I put, because on every occasion the Government turned the Liberal propositions down. I asked the Minister of Health what he was going to do about the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman in this connection, and he made the most icy reply. After all the eloquence of the right bon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth, this was the answer which the Minister of Health gave to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that a Housing Board should be set up. He said that this question was the subject of recent discussions in this House, and that there was no general desire that the present position should be reconsidered in this way. I feel for the right hon. Gentleman. That, at any rate, was the position just a few weeks ago.
It may be that a large number of members of this Committee think that this financial proposition may commend itself to them because it is based upon the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth, and if they read the newspapers and the Liberal propaganda they may be carried away in that particular connection, but even that suggestion is a very doubtful one. I approach the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth with the greatest good will. He knows that. I remember when he stated just before the last General Election that my right hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) was the best Minister of Health that this country has ever had. I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his opinion since then, and, so far as housing is concerned and the proposals which are now before the Committee, I think the right hon. Gentleman commended himself most to me in this particular connection when he was a guest of a club called "The Individualist Bookshop." They pay tribute to individualists like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth, and on that occasion, dealing with this very question of finance
2004
in relation to housing, the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not believe in any form of State subsidy and he saw no reason why working-class houses built for men receiving fair wages should not be let at a rent within their power to pay.
Sir J. TUDOR WALTERS: And I believe that still to-day.
Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman believes that still, and I shall therefore be interested to hear how he reconciles that with the resolution now before the Committee asking for another £2,000,000 so far as subsidy is concerned. Fond as I am of the right hon. Gentleman, it does not seem to fit in with the statement he made when he said he did not believe in any form of State subsidy. So far as housing policy is concerned, and this particular position of rural cottages is in question, I think the right hon. Gentleman has, on the whole—at any rate up to the last few weeks—been perfectly sound. He said, so far as the Minister of Health was concerned, that he was tired of this dull, stupid, jog trot, fearful way of dealing with matters, and he said also, and I agree with him in this, that courage, resolution, initiative and determination were lacking so far as the Minister of Health was concerned. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman went a little bit too far, and I do not go with him when he talks of the Minister of Health being displaced so far as housing is concerned and a National Housing Board put in his place. With that reservation, up to a few weeks ago, I was entirely with the light hon. Gentleman, but I must say, so far as these financial proposals are concerned and the attempt made by the Minister of Health a few minutes ago to associate the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman with this Financial Resolution, I shall await the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman on this particular matter with some considerable interest.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth has a youthful and vivid imagination. He is not wedded to consistency, and he is not bound down by any particular financial principles or dogmas. What was the plan he disclosed to the House only a few weeks ago? It was a plan which took away the breath of a good many hon. Members. He said that, so far as the expenditure of this

2005
money was concerned, under his scheme he would employ, right away, directly, a quarter of a million men and indirectly another quarter of a million, and 300,000 odd of them were to build agricultural cottages and the rest would be engaged in dealing with slums in urban areas. The Minister of Agriculture was to select the sites and buy the land, and the Minister of Health—he did give the right hon. Gentleman some little work in this connection—was to step in and make the roads. But that is very different from the proposals which we have before us to-day. They were to be built by a central authority, under methods of mass construction. But the most stimulating and intriguing part to the imaginative mind was the finance of the scheme. I should think the right hon. Gentleman must have gone to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs for the finance of the scheme, because he said that 100,000 houses would be built for agricultural labourers, and it would cost nothing at all. But a very interesting incident took place when the right hon. Gentleman was proposing this scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was present, as I think he ought to be this evening, if he is well enough. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth got to this stage of his proposals and said that 100,000 houses were to be built for nothing, the Chancellor of the Exchequer began to sit up and take a little notice, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth looked at the Chancellor of the Exchequer and said:
"I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer looking suspiciously at me as though I was juggling with something."
And then a little while afterwards, apparently instead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer looking suspiciously, he began to smile, because I noticed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth said:
"Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer is smiling."
I do not know what has happened to this scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as this proposal of a quarter of a million men engaged directly and another quarter of a million men engaged indirectly and the Minister of Agriculture to buy the land and the central housing authority going into methods of mass production, are concerned. What
2006
becomes of them I do not know. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has many ways of dealing with Liberal constructive plans. Some are offensive and disagreeable. But on this occasion I believe those plans were withered by his smile, because one thing is certain and that is that they are not in this Resolution.
We have had a very hesitating presentation of the case for the Government. I have never heard so many qualifications as to what was going to happen. Three times we were warned not to expect too many houses under this plan, but to look to the indirect results of this proposal. I think the "Manchester Guardian" has given a very important judgment on the proposals contained in this Financial Resolution. The "Manchester Guardian," the leading Liberal newspaper, has devoted a very considerable portion of its space to social matters, such as housing, and has given its considered judgment on the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman as contained in this Resolution which we are discussing this evening. The article was headed, "In A Minor Key," and I think the writer in the "Manchester Guardian" must have had some prophetic sense, because he was not only describing the contents of the article, but he might very well have been describing the speech of the Minister of Health this evening—"In A Minor Key." This leading Liberal newspaper said this:
"One expected a bolder and more comprehensive measure to emerge from the conversations between Sir Tudor Walters and the Government. Sir Tudor is known to be an enthusiast for the mass production of buildings, of which his feat in building 12,000 houses for the Industrial Housing Association, Limited, has given him special experience. Perhaps his idea of a central housing authority, with power to help local bodies, not only in paying for the houses but in actually building them, smacks too much of State Socialism to commend itself to the Ministry of Health,"
This is very important, especially for Members of the Liberal party, because I want to warn them not to go on platforms and speak too much about these proposals and what they have done in connection with them. The article goes on:
"But is the less ambitious plan brought forward by the Government a satisfactory equivalent? When the Liberals opposed the Conservative Vote of Censure two months ago, one of the points which

2007
weighed most with them was a promise of a more active rural housing policy."
And this is the summing up of the "Manchester Guardian":
"The Government have not responded too generously to their confidence."
In other words, they had the votes of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of both sections, in return for the promise that there was going to be a really active policy. The last Vote of Censure was in regard to the unemployment policy of the Government, and the "Manchester Guardian," quite rightly, says that after all the Government have not responded too generously in that connection. The result is that we have these proposals this afternoon, which remind me very much of a pathetic ballad which I used to sing in my earlier days. It was entitled, "Nobody's Darling," and was the pathetic story of a poor waif, unwanted and disowned. So it seems to me are these proposals, for they are certainly not the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth; do not let anyone be under that mistake; and, so far as the Minister of Health is concerned, we know that only a few weeks ago he was the most contented and most self-satisfied Minister of Health that the House of Commons has ever known. This is one of those compromises, I suppose, which result from an unfortunate union of the character of that which I have been describing.
If one takes the view of this great Liberal newspaper that this is but a halfhearted and timorous plan, it certainly has a more serious aspect so far as housing generally is concerned, because I believe that in this proposal which we are now discussing are the seeds of considerable mischief and damage to housing progress generally. Take, for instance, the main proposal in the Resolution, for another £2,000,000 in subsidy. Whenever right hon. Gentlemen opposite get into difficulties, either in connection with unemployment or in dealing with their colleagues, or whatever they call them—perhaps comrades—of the Liberal party, they always have to come for more money. That is their main stand-by, and we are now asked to vote another £2,000,000 in subsidy. We have spent, since the War, about £1,000,000,000 on housing, most of it borrowed, and im-
2008
posing, undoubtedly, heavy burdens on taxpayers and ratepayers alike.
I do not believe that this country will ever grudge adequate provision for housing people who need housing in this country. There never was a time when we more needed a wise, efficient and economical housing policy. But it is astonishing to me—and I think most hon. Members opposite will agree, perhaps not with my conclusions, but at any rate with my complaint—it is astonishing to me that this proposal for an additional £2,000,000 for housing has never been submitted to the Committee which was set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with all financial matters and proposals. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, only on the 2nd of this month, whether the new proposals in relation to rural housing had been submitted to the Economy Committee, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied in these terms:
"The rural housing proposals have not been specifically referred to the Economy Committee. It is, of course, for the committee itself to determine the direction of its inquiry within its terms of reference. Those terms are sufficiently wide to allow of this question being taken into consideration."
I ventured to put a supplementary question:
"Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be wise, in view of the fact that he set up this committee, to refer such a matter as this to it, in order that, when the House comes to consider it, we shall have their observations, if any, on the matter?"
I think that that was a perfectly reasonable suggestion. The reply of the Chancellor was:
"No, I do not think it would he a wise thing at all. I am prepared to trust the Economy Committee to carry out their work in full under the terms of reference."
To complete the quotation, I think I had better read the last question that I put, which, I regret to say, was unanswered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
"Does the right hon. Gentleman still hold the opinion about the Economy Committee that he originally announced, that he could write their report himself before they sat."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1931; cols. 1451–2, Vol. 254.]
It is astonishing that when the Government, whatever may be the merits, bring forward financial proposals of this character, involving a very considerable

2009
sum of money, we should have no statement from any responsible Minister or from the Treasury as to whether in fact they did desire to make any observations to the House on this matter. I hope that whoever is going to reply later will be able to tell us whether in fact the attention of the Economy Committee has been called to this matter, as I think it ought to be if the Committee was worth setting up and if we have any confidence in it at all.
There is another observation that should be made in connection with this further demand for a subsidy. I think it is ignoring all the lessons that ought to have been learned from the housing experience of this country during the last few years. One of the most remarkable records of achievement during the past year has been the fact that no fewer than 161,000 houses were built in this country by private enterprise without a penny of subsidy at all, and I would venture to say that, even so far as local authorities' housing is concerned, the policy of reducing the subsidy still further would not have interfered in any way with greater progress in housing. I am sure it is a matter of great regret to everyone, whatever their views on housing progress may be, that the Minister of Health is taking no effective steps to bring about a reduction in housing costs, because that is not only in the interests of the national Exchequer, but in the interests of the great body of working people in this country, who are themselves very largely paying these subsidies in respect of houses which a large proportion of them will never occupy at all.
A proposal of this kind to ask for further money is a retrograde step. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth has ever even been associated with it. I much prefer the statement that he made a few months ago when he said that he was against all subsidies and believed that houses could be economically built without them. I am sure he was on the right lines then, and I cannot make out what has happened to cause him to change his mind. What effect is this increased subsidy going to have on housing progress generally, and what is going to follow from the fact that ultimately additional grants are to
2010
be given to certain local authorities? I beg hon. Gentleman who, I hope, equally credit me, as I credit them, with a desire to see housing progress, to consider the endless difficulties that will arise directly you begin to choose the local authorities to whom you are going to give extra money. In the words of the Minister of Health a few moments ago, the test is to be their poverty—whether they are poor local authorities. The trouble and confusion that will arise, and the difficulties that will be experienced in respect of one local authority receiving and another not receiving will be endless.
A large number of local authorities will claim to come under the conditions that qualify them. You will have all those difficulties and, when you think that under these proposals it will be possible to give the local authorities the whole of the sum of money to build their houses, we are going back again to what is called the Addison policy, which proved so disastrous, when there was so very little responsibility upon the local authorities from the financial point of view. We are going to deal with certain of the main objections that we take to the Resolution in our Amendments. We think it is right to have regard to Parliamentary authority, and it would be a very good thing for the local authorities that the general conditions upon which they receive the grant shall be set forth in the Bill. Secondly, we say that, in the matter of the State stepping in and the Office of Works being permitted to build, the Minister has made out no case for it and I shall hope to move an Amendment to delete that portion of the Resolution. As far as I can see—and I shall prove it from statements of the Minister himself—there is no occasion for such a provision to be made in the Resolution.
We are inclined to take the view of the "Manchester Guardian" that these are not much of proposals. There is nothing particularly bold or comprehensive about them. There is little or no promise of an active rural policy in them. Since the right hon. Gentleman became Minister of Health he has been denied nothing by the Opposition in relation to housing. If the mischievous and dangerous elements are eliminated and various

2011
Amendments made, he might as well have these proposals for what they are worth. I should not like hon. Members opposite to go whimpering and whining and excusing their housing failures because we refused to give them these proposals. That is the first thing they would do. One may very well take the view that, having regard to the unfortunate and disastrous experience of the Government during the last two years, the possibility of an addition of even a few hundred houses in certain rural districts cannot be rejected. There are 144,000 building operatives walking the streets. The Wheatley Act has failed to provide houses for the lower paid workers and, but for private enterprise, there would be no reduction in the housing shortage. The straits to which the Government have come in relation to the problem of the unemployed in the building trade and elsewhere is well illustrated by these proposals. The Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal were asked a week ago whether, before the House adjourned for the Summer Recess, they had any practical proposals to make to deal with unemployment and they were only able to point to the pitiful contribution made by these proposals. As a real effort to bring new houses to rural areas they can be regarded as insignificant, and certainly as a contribution to the mitigaation of unemployment it is one more revelation of the incapacity of the Government and their failure to redeem the pledges upon the faith of which they obtained office.
Sir J. TUDOR WALTERS: I am very much touched by the references which the right hon. Gentleman has made to me. I am glad to know that he listened to the speech I made in February and, no doubt, he has since refreshed his memory by consulting the OFFICIAL REPORT. It appears as though the seed has fallen upon good ground and may at some time bring forth fruit, because, as far as I can gather, the chief fault he could find with the Bill is that it did not follow the bold lines that I laid down in February. If the wheel of events turns round and the Conservative party comes back to office and the right hon. Gentleman becomes Minister of Health, I shall expect to see him reproducing in an early Measure that bold scheme of mine of which he has spoken.
2012
Although I am cordially supporting the Resolution, I do not deceive myself by fancying that it is in any sense an embodiment of the proposals that I submitted. I adhere to those proposals today. Every word that I said in that speech I still believe and am prepared to prove. My figures were not the wild visionary dreams of a Cornish Member. They were the result of a very long practical experience. The estimates that I submitted were based upon actual plans prepared and tenders obtained. I have not a single word to withdraw of the statements that I made on that occasion.
I should like to have seen a bold policy in connection with housing. I should like to have seen half a million men employed within a few months—and I believe they could have been employed—in mass production in building houses both in town and country and in slum abolition. Those were the views that I held and I hold them to-day. I am not the Minister of Health. I am not the Prime Minister of the Socialist Government. I cannot lay down a policy nor insist upon my views. I am very grateful to the Government for having given me an opportunity of putting my views before them. On many occasions I have met them in consultation, and they have adopted some of my suggestions. They have mixed a good deal of water with the whisky, and diluted it very considerably, but I still think that the proposal that is promised in the Rural Housing Bill is one fraught with beneficent possibilities for the countryside. Why do I think that? I will give one or two reasons. I view with great satisfaction the introduction, not of a national housing board, I am sorry to say, but of an advisory committee. I think that it is time that not only the Ministry of Health but other Government Departments had, in addition to their excellent permanent officials, the help of some of the outside public who understand various questions, in order to get a move on.
The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is a Money Resolution in Committee, and that such matters as he is now introducing should be left until we come to the Bill.
Sir J. TUDOR WALTERS: I submit that one reason why we should vote

2013
£2,000,000 is because it is going to be spent in a sensible way. I have made my point, and I will leave it at that. Another reason why I shall support the Bill is because I think that it will mean a closer touch between the local authorities and the Ministry of Health. It will mean that the Ministry will be able to give advice and assistance, and that they will hear in fuller detail the difficulties of the rural authorities, and will be able to submit to them plans and matters of organisation by which they can more effectively and economically provide the houses so much needed in the rural areas. The mere focussing of the attention of the Ministry of Health upon the problem of rural housing must lead to a great advance in that direction.
I need not dwell upon the needs of rural authorities. Many Members of the House are fully acquainted with the inadequacy of housing in the agricultural parishes. It is certain that unless some assistance of this description is given, unless there is some help from the Ministry of Health and some further financial grants are provided, it will not be possible for agricultural labourers to obtain houses at rents which will be within their capacity to pay. I think the urgency of the need is the reason why we should make special efforts. In my view, if the methods of mass production had been adopted, the results would have been the building of houses at a much cheaper rate, and this additional subsidy might not have been needed. I never contemplated in my proposal any increase of subsidy, and when I made the observations which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted, it was on an occasion when I had been explaining the methods of mass production and the cheapness that resulted therefrom. I should have preferred that method of dealing with the question, but, as the Government have not seen fit to adopt those proposals, I welcome, as an instalment towards dealing with the rural housing question, the method of procedure outlined in the financial proposals submitted to us tonight.
One point of view has been entirely overlooked in our discussion to-night. It was the one which was most prominent when we discussed this question in February last, namely, the question of un-
2014
employment. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Minister of Health did not preface his observations by saying that this is an emergency Measure, and that it is something for the purpose of providing work for the unemployed, but he never mentioned it at all. It is fundamental to the whole proposition. If you build the 40,000 houses suggested, that will mean 60,000 men connected with the building trade directly employed, and another 40,000 indirectly employed in the provision of materials, transport and the like. There is 100,000 men. Is that nothing? It is not the 500,000 which I suggested, but 100,000 would save in unemployment benefit £5,000,000.
We are asked to sanction £2,000,000 for the purpose of carrying through these 40,000 houses, and, on the other hand, we save £5,000,000 in unemployment benefit. Is that a bad financial transaction? The question of employing unemployed members of the building trade is vital to a consideration of a Measure of this kind. I am satisfied that if a fair experiment is tried, we shall alter many of our methods of dealing with housing questions in this country. I believe that this Measure could be used as a dynamic to set into operation forces at present only partially active. Of course, everything depends upon the way it is handled. It might be merely an excuse for further postponement, but if those who are concerned in the matter, the Minister of Health and those working under him, mean business, this is an opportunity to do something.
I confess that I should like to see a great deal more earnestness and enthusiasm put into the advocacy of the Measure. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health took the matter quietly and calmly. He is not, perhaps, of the Celtic temperament like some of us on these benches whose enthusiasm generates heat and vivacity. Perhaps he feels as intensely in his restrained and quiet way as we do when we express ourselves more vigorously. But this Bill, with all its possibilities, with this Financial Resolution before us as its foundation, will fail utterly unless those who administer it believe in it, and put some steam and go into it. If they do so there should be no difficulty whatever in building the full complement of 40,000 houses

2015
at least within the next 12 months, and, before they have spent all that money, having gained experience, in coming to Parliament for a further £2,000,000 for another 40,000 houses. This is the right direction in which to move, and I have no doubt that when once those concerned with the administration of the Bill begin to realise the practical advantages of other recommendations that have been made to them, they will be like repentant prodigals, and come back and ask for the original scheme. It is my pleasure to support the Resolution.
Mr. HURD: I think that the Committee, in considering the Financial Resolution, should ask themselves three questions. What is the case that is being made out for the expenditure of this money at this particular time? What is the method by which this money is to be spent? Is this method likely to produce the results which the Minister desires? On the first point, I cannot for the life of me understand how the Minister—and I listened carefully to him—justifies the expenditure of this money upon the case he put forward as to the need of the houses. We are at a time, nationally, of great financial embarrassment. Almost every week adds to that embarrassment by the addition of some sum or other to the deficit that this country will have to face in the next Budget. With a levity almost astonishing we march forward day after day adding to that deficit, and to-night we are proposing to add to it to the tune of £2,000,000. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir J. Tudor Walters) that he calmly contemplates at an early date a demand for another £2,000,000 in the same direction. Those who are familiar with the agricultural situation know that, owing to the conditions of agriculture and the absence of any effective remedial measures to assist agriculture to do its business, there are many parts of England where cottages are falling vacant with a rapidity which is distressing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] There are a good many districts in England. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In the Eastern counties.
Mr. ALPASS: In your own Division?
Mr. HURD: In my division. Owing to agricultural depression in many areas
2016
there are many cottages falling vacant. There can be no doubt that in those areas it will be very difficult to make out a case for the expenditure of this further money on houses. The hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Alpass) said: "In my division." In my division, if we had had more energy employed we could, unde the Act of 1926, the reconditioning Act, have satisfied the housing needs. We all know the difficulties that the local authorities have experienced in working that Act. I am sure that if the Minister of Health had put his energy, initiative and enthusiasm into spreading a better knowledge of the advantages of that Act and of making it fully appreciated in the rural areas by owners and local authorities, we should have found in that Act means of satisfying a very large amount of the demand which exists for more houses for rural workers.
The Minister has spoken about the unwillingness of the local authorities to tackle the rural housing problem. That may be largely due to their want of knowledge of the means that this House has provided. I welcome very cordially the steps that the Minister took the other day to start a missionary effort in the rural areas where the housing problem has been satisfied, such as the county of Devon and in the rural district of Atcham in Shropshire, where the needs of rural housing have been satisfied without the help of such a Vote as the one proposed to-night. That has been done under the Act of 1926. If the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the unwillingness of the local authorities by means like that, by spreading the knowledge of the provisions that Parliament has made for a larger supply of rural cottages for agricultural workers, there would have been little, if any, need for this Bill.
As to the financial inability of the rural authorities, I would remind the Minister that in the county of Devon 600 or so cottages have been reconditioned and put into a splendid state for occupation by rural workers at an expense of one-sixth of a penny in the pound on the county rate. Contrast that expenditure with the lavish expenditure contemplated under this Financial Resolution, and we realise that the House is doing something to-day which to a large extent is unnecessary. The right hon. Member for

2017
Penryn and Falmouth, in a former speech, chided the Government in that they were shivering on the brink. He deplored their attitude of mind in regarding the local authorities as something sacred, and in considering that they should not be dealt with summarily. In effect, he said: "Why do you not do away with them? Why not set up an outside authority to deal with housing enterprise, and leave them entirely in the lurch? The Minister to-day has indicated that he contemplates that something like 300 or 400 rural district councils will come under the operation of this Financial Resolution. We are making a strange departure. Under paragraph (a) of the Financial Resolution we are putting the control in the hands of the Ministers or as the case may be of the Department of Health for Scotland. In paragraph (b) we find that the local authorities are limited and the control is put into the hands, presumably, of the Office of Works, who can acquire land and erect houses at the expense of the councils. After wiping out the councils they calmly throw the expense upon the local ratepayers. The Minister said that he was beginning a new machine. The right hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth told us that we were moving in the right direction.
It seems to me that this Financial Resolution is part of the method of an agency not for educating but for eliminating local authorities from the fulfilment of their proper functions, depriving them of their powers and putting their duties into the hands of some centralised authority like the Office of Works. We need in this country agencies for educating local authorities. We have enlarged the franchise, we have brought the whole community in to the task of assisting in the government of the country, and we can only hope to carry through that gigantic enterprise if we bring public opinion along with us. If we enable local administration to be carried out by those people who are close to the homes of the people and who have a knowledge of their needs, all will be well, but it will be hopeless to expect to carry through to success this enlarged democracy, this new ideal of democracy on a large franchise, unless we bring the local people into intimate touch with the management of their local affairs. The more we have of
2018
this kind of legislation, which takes the control of local affairs out of the hands of local people and those whom they elect locally, and bring them to London, to the Office of Works or to the Ministry of Health, the more we are tending to degrade local administration and to deprive it of what has been its chief advantage.
Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: I am surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) when one considers two things which I propose to mention. First, the Act of 1926 was not an Act for building houses.
Mr. HURD: For providing homes.
Mr. WINTERTON: It was an Act for patching up old property and subsidising the landlord to do it at the expense of the State. I am pleased that the Minister of Health has brought in a Housing Bill which we can support very cordially and a Financial Resolution to spend the State's money for the benefit of the people and not for the benefit of private individuals. The speech of the hon. Member leads one to think that there are unlimited resources in connection with the rural district councils which will enable them to meet the housing requirements of the agricultural districts. He must know that the De-rating Act deprived those councils of the necessary money with which to undertake building operations.
Mr. HURD: One-sixth of a penny in the pound.
Mr. WINTERTON: Whatever it may be, it is too much for the rural district councils, who are too poor to do this work. Therefore, this Financial Resolution provides additional money for that purpose. My complaint is that the sum is far too little in view of the terrible shortage of houses in agricultural districts. Why should we begrudge this expenditure? During 14 years we have spent £1,000,000,000 in building homes for heroes, and we spent during the War £8,000,000,000 in four years. We are far better engaged in this constructive purpose, in voting this £2,000,000, than we are sometimes engaged in voting £100,000,000 for purely destructive purposes. I hope that this is by no means the last Bill to assist rural housing. I am astonished at the suggestion that rural authorities are in a position to deal with

2019
this problem without any financial assistance. Quite near to my own constituency a resolution was introduced into the Tutbury Rural District Council to erect more rural houses at Branstone, but the resolution could not get a seconder, although it was pointed out that in that particular area there were 11 people living in a house with two bedrooms, eight other people in another house with two bedrooms, and 10 people living in a house with two bedrooms. The excuse made was that the council were already building 12 houses, but, as a matter of fact, there were already 30 applications for them, although they have not yet been advertised.
9.0 p.m.
In spite of these facts, hon. Members opposite, who are supposed to represent the agricultural worker and to be the special champions of agricultural interests, refers us to an Act of Parliament which they passed in 1926, which has been largely ineffective, and which I regret that the present Government have extended, because I think the money could have been much better spent. I have had representations from some rural councils in my own constituency. They have asked me to use my influence with the Minister of Health to prevent men and women living in caravans, but these people who protest against people living in caravans are the same people who during the past year or two have only built seven or eight or a dozen houses in their own areas. I welcome especially the possibility of the intervention of the Government to bring these recalcitrant and poverty-stricken authorities to do their duty to the people in their localities more effectively than they have done in the past. I have sympathy with the proposals of the right hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir J. Tudor Walters). The Government might have taken their courage in their hands and made this a far more Socialistic Measure. It would have been a good thing if the idea of mass production advocated by the right hon. Member on the last occasion had been introduced into this Measure, but I hope that we shall not take up the inconsistent position of the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). On these grounds I hope that the Committee will brush aside the suggestion of the wasteful expenditure of
2020
public money. We have been told of the hard times in which the country finds itself and of the burdens upon industry. I have in my constituency numbers of people who would build houses in rural areas if they could, but they are denied the opportunity of doing so because of the incapacity of rural councils to grapple with the problem. If hon. Members opposite, who are always girding at the Labour Government because of their supposed failure to provide the means of employment, were as sincere as some of their interruptions would lead us to believe, instead of criticising and denouncing this Resolution to provide at least £2,000,000 worth of work for the building trade of this country, they would welcome it with open arms.
Mr. KEDWARD: I support the Resolution, and I am sorry that hon. Members above the Gangway have gone out of their way to oppose it on the ground that the financial position of the country does not warrant the expenditure of an additional £2,000,000 on rural housing. Anybody acquainted with rural districts and who has taken the trouble to investigate the conditions will feel that the nation has not devoted anything like that amount of attention to the housing problem in these areas which it deserves. Comparatively little of the money that has been spent on housing has gone to the rural areas. I have gone down from this House on three successive weeks and spent my own money in instructing solicitors to deal with people who were being ejected from rural houses and who had nowhere else to go. When you find conditions like that prevailing and appeals constantly arriving of people who have been given notice to quit and who have nowhere else to go, the fact is brought home to one that something ought to be done immediately to deal with the situation. It is not a good investment to have a large number of people in rural areas living in rotten and decayed houses, little white washed sepulchres as they are in many cases. With a rambler rose climbing over them they look picturesque on postcards, but inside many of them are insanitary little hovels placed in beautiful surroundings.
It is time that we turned our attention to that question. I was called in only the other day to make arrangements for the removal from one of these places

2021
of a person who was suffering from tuberculosis, due to the existence of these overcrowded houses in a beautiful countryside. It is not a good investment for the country to allow things like that to persist in the open countryside, where people contract disease, and then to be compelled to give the county councils the money to build sanatoriums in which to cure the people. It would be far better to spend money on housing people in better and healthier conditions. I hope that when this Resolution has been passed and this money has been granted, the Ministry will speed up the getting through of plans. I am going to make a complaint not against the Minister but that the officials of the Ministry seem to think that it is their job to hold up schemes as long as they can.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence)indicated dissent.
Mr. KEDWARD: I am going to give chapter and verse, and I mention the matter because I want to raise this point. In the Bill for which finance is being provided by this Resolution, I understand that the definition of "agricultural parish" is to be the same as that in the Act of 1924. I sent to the Minister only three days ago communications on the subject of rural parishes which are cut out even from the £11 grant because of certain conditions attaching to that definition. I urged the West Ashford Rural District Council to undertake the building of houses. They got schemes through to build houses, and Smarden and Pluckley, two of the most agricultural parishes in that district, applied for the £ 11 grant. What happened? Because a length of railway line runs through them—there is no station in one of them—and because the rateable value of the railway track happens to exceed the rateable value of the adjoining areas, the Ministry say they cannot have the £11 subsidy, but must be content with a lower subsidy, although the rates from the railway do not go entirely to those villages but are spread over the whole union. Thus two of the most rural communities are cut out. I sent to the Minister the whole of the correspondence and pointed out that I thought he had the power to decide what was a rural parish and the power to include these parishes. Yet,
2022
after all our trouble and difficulty in securing the promotion of these schemes, it would seem as if the Ministry had some desire to hold up the schemes. I feel sure that cases of that kind when they are gone into will be put right in this Bill. I hope that the Government will take steps to see that such a thing cannot happen under the legislation now proposed.
I welcome this Financial Resolution, and I believe that these proposals will be welcomed by many rural district councils throughout England. There are many councils who are not unwilling to build houses, but whose financial resources are not adequate. I would, however, like to see what hon. Members above the Gangway seem to fear, namely, larger compulsory powers, because while there are many rural district councils willing and anxious to build, there are some rural district councils, where probably the agent of the lord of the manor has a seat on the council or is chairman of the council, which desire to have no houses-built in their localities. Propositions to build houses have time and again been torpedoed because of the lack of interest in them. There are councils like that within our knowledge, and while it is something to take powers so as to be able to say to a rural authority, "If you are unable to do it, then we will do it for you," yet there is no power, as far as I can see, to deal with people who are unwilling. I should be very glad, however, to be reassured on that point. I cannot see that the Government have taken powers to deal with people who default. [Interruption.] I am talking about this particular Measure for the moment, and we are a little in the dark because we have not the actual proposals of the Bill before us, but if my information on that point is incorrect, and if the Government are taking such powers, then I congratulate them all the more. I hope they will seldom have to use those powers and that the very fact of such powers being there will suffice to stimulate the backward authorities. In-any case I congratulate the Government on introducing this Financial Resolution.
Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Kedward) appears to be under the misconception that we on this side of the House are opposed to the

2023
betterment of the conditions of rural housing. I wish to take this opportunity to deny the charges and accusations which have been made in that respect by hon. Members in the course of this Debate. The speech of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton) is precisely of the sort which does harm, not only to our discussions on rural matters but to the development of housing in the rural areas.
Mr. WINTERTON: Has the hon. Member read his own Amendment in which he seeks to exclude "agricultural parishes" from the benefits of the Measure?
Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Member is labouring under a misapprehension as to the conditions of housing in the rural areas. I have put down that Amendment in order to meet the very point just raised by the hon. Member for Ash-ford and, if the hon. Member for Loughborough had studied the matter, he would realise that owing to the definition of "agricultural parish" in the Act of 1924, at least half the agricultural rural parishes in this country are going to be omitted from the Bill. He would then understand why I have put down that Amendment. If the hon. Member wishes to take part in our Debates on these subjects, I think it would be well if he acquainted himself with the elementary facts of the problem.
Mr. WINTERTON: Perhaps the hon. Member will explain what he means by his next Amendment to exclude "rural areas."
Mr. BUTLER: That is to cover precisely the same point in regard to Scot-land. I would not have taken up this scholastic attitude in reproving the hon. Member were it not for the fact that I very much resented his attitude towards us on this side in regard to rural housing. I also resented his remarks about the Act of 1926. The hon. Member for Ashford said that there were many rural district councils which deliberately obstructed rural housing. If he is going to make charges like that I should like him to substantiate them with facts.
Mr. KEDWARD: I said that there were many rural authorities who were too poor. I said that there were some
2024
who were unwilling. I did not make any charges of the kind which the hon. Member suggests.
Mr. BUTLER: Perhaps the hon. Member will tell me in which of the cases he had in mind the agent of the lord of the manor was chairman of the rural district council and obstructed rural housing? I am willing to give way if he will quote me a case.
Mr. McSHANE: That is not fair.
Mr. KEDWARD: I wish to do no damage by mentioning names in this House but I will give the hon. Member the name of the council, the name of the man who was chairman for years and my correspondence with him. That man was agent for the lord of the manor and he did obstruct, because he did not want houses built in the locality. I will supply the hon. Member with the facts.
Mr. BUTLER: I do not wish to pursue an individual case and I do not wish to impute any motives to the hon. Member. I was, perhaps led away by my enthusiasm for the cause of rural housing, but I am sure the Committee will agree with me in not wishing to pursue any particular case. I was objecting to the general attitude which has been taken with regard to the party on this side of the House, and to coupling it with certain rural district councils which are deliberately obstructing the cause of rural housing. I should like to return to the hon. Member for Loughborough, who said that the Act of 1926 was introduced for the purpose of assisting the landlords only. That is a travesty of the facts, and I believe also that that sort of attitude towards the Rural Workers Act, which the medical officer of health for Essex in his report says has done a considerable amount of good, and which I know has done good in my district—that sort of attitude towards rural housing does more harm than anything else in our discussions.
Mr. WINTERTON: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not desire to misrepresent me. I did not refer to the Act of 1926 as benefiting the landlords only. I object to public money being used for the subsidising of private individuals.
Mr. BUTLER: The hon. Member certainly gave us on this Bide that impression. I am not deliberately raising

2025
this point, because it is not my habit when talking on this question to create discord between one side of the House and the other. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who have heard me intervene on these subjects will agree that the tenor of our Debate has been changed by the rancour which has been introduced by the two hon. Members with whom I have had the pleasure of having an altercation this evening. I hope that we can finish with that and continue in a calmer atmosphere the discussion on rural housing. It is unnecessary for me to add anything as to the necessity for housing in the rural areas. I have been visibly struck, when I have had the privilege of taking any party of my constituents over the House of Commons and the House of Lords, in seeing the attitude which they adopt towards this magnificent structure in comparison with the almost miserable hovels in which they live in the countryside. Very often what strikes them most when they come to this great city are those buildings and structures in which we live in comparison with those in which they are obliged to spend the greater part of their lives. The Act of 1926 was one of the first efforts to deal with this problem by the repairing of old houses. The suggestions in this Money Resolution will do something towards tackling the deficiency of houses in the rural areas, and because of that I shall support it.
By the introduction of this Money Resolution some effort is being made to tackle a problem which has never really been tackled from the very beginning of history in England. Some of the houses in my district in Essex are the type of wattle and daub houses which were actually erected by those men who originally cleared the country for cultivation, and it is a striking fact that we in this age of civilisation can put up in our rural districts the sort of structures that are there for the people to live in. That is particularly remarkable of the Essex daub and wattle, and lath and plaster houses, in which so many of my people are obliged to live. This Measure, therefore, will be one which we shall take seriously on all sides of the House and do our best to encourage. I prefer to take that attitude rather than the attitude which so many hon. Members
2026
took when the Act of 1926 was brought in for the patching up and reconditioning of old houses. I hope that that attitude will be generally adopted in the House on this Measure.
I am very interested in the attitude of the Liberal party towards this provision. I am told when I consider the Liberal attitude towards rural problems particularly in regard to subsidies to the corn or sugar-beet industry, that that party is against a policy of subsidies. Yet when we are to have a subsidy for rural housing, which is an ancillary problem to the great productive industries in the rural areas, we find that the party will give it their blessing. I ask their Leaders why they are willing to support a subsidy for rural housing, but not willing to support a subsidy for great rural industries. I am leading up to this point because I believe that the problem of rural housing is one of the aspects of the general economic troubles of the countryside. If the Government introduced this rural housing Measure as part of a great policy of restoring prosperity in our countryside, there would be more to say for it, but merely to tackle the housing problem, which is only one aspect of the economic difficulties of rural England, and to leave the whole subject of the jobs and occupations of the people who are to live in the houses without any policy, is a case of putting the cart before the horse. I cannot blame the Ministry of Health for that, but I can blame the Government as a whole. I wish that this policy could have followed upon a general policy of the economic betterment of the countryside as a whole. That is the general criticism that should be levelled against this Money Resolution.
I want to take up the point of the hon. Member for Ashford with reference to the meaning of an agricultural parish. I have an Amendment to leave out the words "in agricultural parishes" in order to make the scope of the Bill very much wider than we find it. I only wish the hon. Member for Ashford could have given us the benefit of his advice and encouragement when we raised this question before the Parliamentary Secretary in the discussions on the 1930 Act. There was an opportunity in that Act of remedying the definition of "an agri-

2027
cultural parish" as included in the Act of 1924. We had repeated opportunities for pointing this out to the Minister and to the hon. Lady, but unfortunately nothing was done by the Government to remedy this defect. The result is that it remains, despite the fact that it was thought proper to insert it in another place. The sins of the hon. Lady are returning to her in the course of the introduction of this Money Resolution, because that definition, which she could have encouraged in the 1930 Act, would have made the provisions of this Bill apply to all the agricultural parishes in England.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The effect of the Amendment, whatever may be its intention, is to remove the limitations of expenditure as sanctioned by the Crown. It is, therefore, out of order on the Money Resolution. The question may be raised when the Bill is introduced.
Mr. BUTLER: If that means that this Amendment will not be called, may I, in all deference to your Ruling, ask your advice. If the Resolution is passed with the words "in agricultural parishes" included, it will mean that we have absolutely no method of introducing this discussion, because the money will be limited to the Bill as it stands.
The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: The King's recommendation has been signified to this Money Resolution, and the effect of the Amendment would be to remove the limitations of expenditure, imposed therein. It is therefore out of order. It is not for me to say at this stage what will be in order on the Bill, but on the Second Reading of a Bill, one can certainly raise questions which it is thought ought to be included in the Bill.
Mr. BUTLER: I thank you for your Ruling. May I take it that that means that, as a Member of the House of Commons, I am unable to enlarge the scope of the Money Resolution?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Royal recommendation must be signified to all Money Resolutions, and it is not for any individual Member to initiate matters involving expenditure which have not received the sanction of the Crown.
Mr. BUTLER: Again, in deference to your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, what I wished
2028
was not to enlarge the Money Resolution, but to spend the money in a different way by distributing it among the parishes which are financially in need.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As I have already said, it is not for me to decide what the intentions of the hon. Member may be. I have to decide what would be the effect if the Amendment were accepted, and the effect of accepting it would be to remove the limitations on the purposes for which expenditure is recommended by the Crown.
Mr. BUTLER: I give up that point, with every apology for detaining the Committee, but I believe it to have been a very important point. I have received strenuous representations on the point from a rural district council and from others, and I thought it necessary to intervene. As it had been mentioned specifically, I thought I was in order in proceeding. It was an important point which I wished to introduce into the Bill, as most of the parishes in my division will not be included in it. That being so, I cannot have the same praise for the Resolution that I had when I first started my speech, because I find these parishes which are wholly agricultural will not be included. As it does not apply to many of these parishes, I must consequently withdraw many of the observations of praise which I made when I started.
Viscount LYMINGTON: I should like to join in the congratulations to the Minister on making a real attempt to deal with the problem of providing new houses in the rural areas. Albeit I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) in thinking congratulations to be premature owing to the definition of agricultural parishes. But because one criticises a measure it does not mean that one is opposed to rural housing, only that one is trying to see where the Bill could be improved. At the same time, when you examine a Measure of this sort critically, the first thing you see is the advisory committee. An advisory committee is just a beginning in delegating responsibility, which means red-tape and puttings things off. As one who was connected with the administration of the Rural Workers Act, 1926, in my own county, I can say that one of the greatest difficulties we had even

2029
then was to get over the red-tape which must accompany any grant of Government money, as between the rural and district councils and the county councils, and as to the conditions governing county councils. It was a definite check necessitated by a form of inspection which is one of the greatest checks on rural housing. This issue is confused by the lack of simplicity by the advisory committee having to deal with the poorer districts only in certain areas, for the whole of the agricultural parishes not even as defined in the 1924 Act, but only certain necessitous areas. Those of us who know where the necessitous agricultural area is, know that the cottages in such an area are probably sufficient for the workers. I do not say they are in good condition, but in really necessitous agricultural areas they are probably sufficient for the workers, for the reason that there is no irruption of industry into the really poor area, and no increase of rateable value. Therefore, there have been no artisans taking the houses which formerly belonged to agricultural labourers. Moreover the poorest agricultural areas are generally those places where agricultural labour itself has been drifting into the towns owing to the depression.
In these circumstances, I agree that in the case of these poorer necessitous areas the 1926 Act would be more likely to provide the necessary houses, but it is the richer areas where the agricultural labourer is in the worst plight. It is there that he has to face the competition of highly paid labour, with present methods of transport. As soon as a farm falls into the hands of a farmer with, say, four sons, the farmer lets those cottages, perhaps, to the artisan labourers who come out from the towns, and when the sons leave, it is impossible to get the cottages back without the greatest difficulty. Those are the areas where we are having far the greatest difficulty in housing the rural workers. Before we vote this two million pounds for which the Minister is asking I think we have the right to have certain questions answered. In this Resolution there is mention of the rent which the Minister thinks he may charge, but there is no condition of any sort as to whom these cottages shall be let to. It is perfectly possible to build cottages in rural areas
2030
for 4s. 6d. or 3s. a week with the help of this Bill, but just as possible that people coming from the towns will get them if they happen to be temporarily empty. When you are spending money under this Measure in providing rural cottages, you should do something to earmark them for those who are drawing agricultural labourers' wages, or who are agricultural labourers themselves. That is the definition which applies in the 1926 Act.
There is another thing upon which the question of rural areas bears very strongly, and upon which we ought to ask the Minister to give an assurance, before we vote this £2,000,000, and that is, the question of the size of the cottages. Often and often we meet with difficulty in housing our old people who live for years in cottages close to the farms, which are badly needed for the younger labourers when the old men retire. They are probably old Darbies and Joans. A great deal of the problem could be met infinitely more cheaply by providing cottages for the younger married people, and others to which the old people to retire. There could be some form of sliding scale with a grant according to the size of the houses, so that there would not be the restrictions of the earlier Acts on the size of the houses.
Lastly, I should like to enter a protest against what I know is a perfectly common practice in these housing Bills, and that is what I may call the Drage way of finance. We deliver these houses in plain vans, and the country does not guess the bill until it is too late. To provide £2,000,000 to be spent on housing in 40 years is simply hiding the truth of the financial position from the country. Forty years hence, or even 20 or 10 years hence, the whole position may be entirely altered, and I do think that we should incur financial responsibility only as far ahead as we can see. It should not be for more than 10 years, and, if the country is really to realise the financial position, it should not be considered for more than one year.
Sir JOHN GILMOUR: This Financial Resolution applies to Scotland as well as to England, but not a voice has been raised on the subject of Scotland during this discussion. I listened with some interest to the discussion of the financial provisions of this proposal for dealing with

2031
rural housing so far as it affects England. Of course, it is obvious that many of the conditions in rural districts in Scotland differ vastly in circumstances from those across the Border. Since I am closely conversant only with the conditions in my own country, and can speak with but a limited knowledge of conditions in England, I will, in the main, confine myself to the circumstances of my own country. I have always looked at rural housing proposals with a view to seeing whether they can be used with material advantage to meet a problem which, until we had the Rural Housing Act, was gravely neglected by Parliament. It was natural that after the War the attention of housing reformers should have turned more particularly towards our great cities and the overcrowded conditions in our slums, but those of us who have lived all our lives in the country and know the difficulties of housing there realise that we owe it to the dwellers in the countryside to give them material help.
The Rural Housing Act was a great step forward, and if I thought that the present proposals would materially assist in dealing with the rural housing problem in Scotland I should give them my wholehearted support. I observe that we in Scotland get our share of the £2,000,000 allotted to this scheme, but, after all, that cannot be a large sum of money, or go very far in dealing with this problem. However that may be, Scotland has to ask herself, and we in this House who speak for her have to ask ourselves, whether this proposal will be of material value or not. In England, as I understand the position, there are rural district councils and, superimposed upon them, county councils dealing with housing. In Scotland we deal solely and absolutely through the county councils. Under the reorganisation of local authorities which took place county councils are given wider and more enlarged powers for dealing with this problem. In Scotland, too, rural housing is dealt with to a certain extent under land settlement Acts and the administrative procedure of the Department of Agriculture; they deal with crofters and other dwellers in the poorest and most difficult areas. For smallholders we have a system by which not only are grants given to them but stores of building materials of every kind are made available to them. If it had
2032
been suggested that the existing powers should have been developed I should have said that was a more practical scheme and more likely to succeed than the present one.
I have listened with some interest to the criticisms made from time to time of the laxity and inertia of local authorities, but is there any one who will say that we ought to adopt a threatening policy, an overriding policy of taking away powers from these local authorities, particularly the new and enlarged authorities, who now have wider opportunities for dealing with this problem? I have had the responsibility of doing business with the local authorities of my country, and I have often felt a sense of irritation at their hesitation over local affairs, but unless we are to say frankly that we will abolish the whole system of local government we must approach this question with the intention of assisting and advising, encouraging and directing local authorities in carrying out the necessary work. I heard the Minister responsible for the English Department say that he did not think either the Financial Resolution or the Bill was calculated to produce any material number of houses, but that this legislation would be an agency for educating local authorities.
If the local authorities require education is it not the duty of the Department to point out to them their responsibility, under existing laws, with reference to insanitary and insufficient houses? They should encourage them to go to the owners of such houses and say "You fail in this and that respect, and in our judgment things must be put right." In the main Scottish local authorities have always responded to such advice, and I look with apprehension at a situation in which they are threatened with the introduction of dragooning powers, threatened with the introduction of the Office of Works, of all things, into Scotland. Our experience of the working of that Department has not always been so satisfactory. Under the Department of Agriculture we have to-day a system by which smallholders are assisted by loans and by materials to build good and proper houses in the most rural parts of the country. They are built by the energy and self-help of the smallholders themselves, assisted by local

2033
people in the building industry. We owe a great deal to private enterprise in housebuilding in this country. Is it to be said that, without a further attempt to work the existing machinery, you are to scrap that and bring in a Government Department, take over the land and build these houses?
Our conditions in Scotland, so far as agriculture is concerned, differ very materially from the conditions in England. In England, you have a system in which, I imagine, the great bulk of your farm workers live in villages, and outside the land with which they are concerned. That is not so in Scotland. The workers on the land, and others who are occupied in agricultural pursuits, live in houses connected with the land for which they pay no rent, and for which they are not asked to pay rent. The houses are part of the estate on which they work, whether it is an estate of large dimensions, or whether it is owned by an individual farmer who has bought the land, or who works in the main with his hands. The conditions which pertain in Scotland are so vastly different, that it is to-day within the power of the Department of Agriculture, not simply to spend more of the money that is at their disposal, but they could make more use of their existing powers, without touching in any way the proper jurisdiction of the local authorities. We throw into the arena of local Government in Scotland threats of a system, and of a variety of judgments, as to what the local authorities should do.
I do not know, because we have not heard, what kind of composition the council is going to present, nor, I understand, can we discuss it to-night. It is not without its importance, in considering the administration of this money, to ask into whose hands we are to place this sum of money, and under what conditions are they going to dictate, either through the representatives of their council or the Department of Health in Scotland, to the local authorities. I have heard something of the terms which the Minister in England considers shall represent the line of poverty across the Border. I want to know whether those conditions are exactly similar in Scotland, or upon what basis this line or datum of poverty is to be considered. It may well be that you will go into some
2034
districts and say that the local authority has done so much in this line already that it may reasonably be excused from going further. I confess that I cannot see any kind of line upon which any body of men, or any Government adviser, can, with fairness or with proper judgment, decide where the line of poverty shall be drawn. If that is so, what is to be the inevitable result of this proposition? Every extra Act that we produce to deal with housing—and, goodness knows, there has been a large number already—has set up, each one in its turn, a different problem. The Lord Privy Seal stated in the House not long ago that the time has already approached, if it has not already passed, when we have to take all those systems and coordinate them into some new scheme. Here we are adding another. Every local authority is to hold up its hand, and to hesitate to advise anyone to go into this proposition, until it knows whether it is to come within this so-called datum line of insolvency.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Johnston): Would the right hon. Gentleman mind indicating to the Committee what his view is as to how we should deal with county authorities who have never built a house under any Act, because they have been too poor to do so?
Sir J. GILMOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman says that there are counties of that kind, no doubt that represents a difficult problem. Under the suggestion of I he Government, the Department of Health in Scotland, as I read the report, have in their hands great coercive powers under which they can go to the local authority and say, "You are not doing so and so." Equally, if a medical officer of health operates in that district, as he operates in the one in which I live, he goes, to my knowledge, to the proprietor of a cottage and says, "This cottage is deficient either in sanitary arrangements or something else, and it must be put in order." It is done, and it can be done, under the present arrangements. I cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman is to gain anything fresh or that he will secure any fresh weapon or power, except that he is going to say to these local authorities, "We are not going to give you an opportunity to carry it out, even under our compulsory powers. We are

2035
going to step in with the Office of Works, take the land and build."
Mr. JOHNSTON: I would like to make my point clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not at all asking him about the case of counties who are able to operate the Acts, and do not do so. That is another point. I asked him the question about counties who are too poor to be able to build any houses.
Sir J. GILMOUR: It is news to me, though I had something to do with the administration of this problem, that there are any counties where real poverty is so bad. I am aware of the fact that in many counties there has been great delay in taking the opportunity of the Rural Housing Act, but it was in great part due to the ignorance of those who were operating the Act, and the lack of means of communicating with the individuals concerned, who did not realise the opportunities which they had under the Act. I confess I am a little surprised to hear that there are counties in Scotland who are really so impoverished that they cannot make any progress in these things. I do not believe that this is really the case. In Scotland we now have machinery which is ample and sufficient to carry out a great part of the work of dealing with rural housing problems. If the right hon. Gentleman is to take this method of spending fresh money and of adding fresh commitments in expenditure, that is his concern. For myself, all I will say is, that I think it is a wrong method to apply.
I believe that when, in the further stages of the Bill, we come to consider this problem, we shall find that the method in which this Financial Resolution has been drawn, and the administration with which it will be carried out, will prove to be a grave disappointment to many rural districts both in Scotland and in England, and that in no case will it make the slightest difference in a problem which, if goodwill exists between Government Departments and local authorities, can be capable of solution. All through we said that we would deny to the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the Government of our country, no money which could be expended for the improvement of the country. On those
2036
principles we are not opposing him. In the main, this new device is inadequate and wretched, and I fear that it is likely to be a disastrous proposition, creating disorder among the local authorities of the country.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am glad of the opportunity to intervene at this stage. Unfortunately I had to attend another meeting and was unable to take part in the earlier Debate, and I have not heard it all. Let me say something about what fell from the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I am not in the least concerned with the interference with the county councils—quite the reverse. My complaint is that the powers of interference and of direct action are not greater than they are. It is no use saying that you are interfering with local authorities who have been striving hard to do their duty during recent years. They have not, and that is the fact of the matter. They have had all sorts of encouragement and assistance, financial and otherwise, from successive Governments, but up to the present, as I understand from the Minister, only 5,000 of these houses have been erected. There are many counties in which hardly any house has been built. That is not because there is no need. If the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiry about some of these areas, he will find that there is no decent accommodation for the agricultural labourer and his family. That applies to a vast number of them.
It is not a case of poverty. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman there. It is because of reluctance, a real reluctance to build these houses in the rural areas. The people who dominate the councils do not want them. They have a natural objection to anything in the nature of a penny or twopence added to the rates, but I do not think meanly enough of them to imagine that that is the dominant factor; there are other factors into which I need not enter. But having lived and been brought up in a rural area for many years, I know exactly why in those districts there are scores of workmen's cottages that have been allowed to fall into disrepair and now are mere ruins, and why no effort has been made to substitute new houses for them. Therefore, I am not in the least alarmed at the small measure of direct initiative

2037
which the Ministry of Health have taken to themselves in this respect. My only regret is that they have not taken very must stronger action. I am a little bit disappointed that their proposal has not been bolder, that they have not shown more enterprise, have not shown more confidence in themselves and their colleagues in other Departments, and have not taken a real grip of a serious problem. The de-population of the rural side is not altogether an agricultural problem. There are a great many young people who know that if they get married there, there is no house for them, and that in itself is driving them to the towns.
10.0 p.m.
This will be a contributory measure towards re-establishing rural life and regenerating it, a task which in my judgment is one of the most important problems of the time. Until the House of Commons and the agricultural interests take counsel together, and take some steps for the purpose of reviving the old life of the countryside, I am certain that we cannot depend upon anything like healthy prosperity being restored to this country. I am glad that the Government have gone so far. I wish they had gone further, and I hope that with the encouragement of the House of Commons they may be induced to put a little more vigour into their rather halting steps.
With regard to the test of poverty, I did not quite follow the Minister. I wish there had not been this test. It is not altogether a conclusive test. It is not mere poverty that is preventing the building of these houses, but reluctance on the part of local authorities. Moreover, the test is a very difficult test to apply. Into districts where you can never persuade the rural council to move one step, the Department ought to be able to go, to plant houses there, and to supply a real national need. Otherwise what you will get will be this: You will get certain districts which will be able to satisfy the conditions with regard to poverty, where houses will be built, but other districts where you may have greater need for houses because you have a greater number of agricultural labourers, and where, because the test of poverty is not satisfied, the Government's beneficence will not apply and the houses will not be built. I maintain that it will be quite impossible for that distinction
2038
to continue. Once you begin, you have to put it right through and undertake this as a national enterprise, which it really is and ought to be.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the test of poverty would not apply to the county from which I come. If the test is as high as he stated, I tell him that there will not be many houses built. He was talking about a Highland county, where most of the farms are smallholdings, and by smallholders I do not mean people with under 100 acres, but people with 10, 15 or 30 acres where man, woman and child have to work in order to make a living at all. The right hon. Gentleman said it will not apply to a county of that kind. Would he say where are these poverty-stricken counties which are so much poorer than the Highland counties? Is it only the Highlands of Scotland that are to receive this benevolence, and are the Highlands of Wales to be excluded? By what ingenuous test is the right hon. Gentleman going to succeed in that achievement '? The test of what he calls poverty is a very important one. I wish that he had not put it there at all, and that the State would undertake this as a really great undertaking. Then the right hon. Gentleman could say, "Here is something I have done." This is his opportunity. Then I do not know whether the tests of poverty which he laid down are alternative or cumulative. He mentioned two tests: A penny rate is not to produce five pence, and the rates are not to be more than 10s. Are these cumulative?
Mr. GREENWOOD indicated assent.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes; then what part of the population in the rural areas would be covered? There is another case not provided for, and I rather think that one of my hon. Friends referred to it. There are cases where you have something which is called a rural parish but where there is one corner with a population that has no interest of any sort or kind in agriculture. I could mention such a case. It is a rural parish, but those with no interest in agriculture dominate the voting there. It is in no sense of the term a poverty-stricken district. On the contrary, this particular area should be rather a well-to-do area. The result will be that that district will be completely excluded, because of the rural council being dominated by a rather

2039
rich area which is not concerned about planning houses for agricultural labourers in the more poverty-stricken part of the district.
I hope that the Minister is going to make his test of the conditions so wide that, where there is a separation of interests of that kind, the agricultural population is not going to be left in the lurch, because there is a rich corner of the parish. I know one or two instances of that kind. Everything will depend upon that test. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had not got a test at all. The other thing will be the composition of the committees. I know it would not be in order for me to discuss that, and I do not propose to do so. I only want to emphasise that it is of paramount importance that the committees should be of such a character that they will have on them men interested in putting this thing through and not merely in saving money to the Treasury or in carrying out the orders of the officials of the Ministry of Health, but that they will be there with a real concern for providing houses for these workmen who, at the present moment, are either herded together under unhealthy conditions in old cottages, quite unequal to the needs from the point of view of accommodation or sanitation, or, on the other hand, as an alternative, are being driven into the towns.
Miss LAWRENCE: The Government has no reason to complain of the manner in which this Resolution has been received, and I will, if I may, go through some of the speeches, taking the smaller and less important points first and coming last to the main issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and other speakers. Taking them in this order I begin with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). Listening to him it was difficult to know whether he was in favour of the Resolution or whether he was not. He gave us a biographical sketch of the political career and opinions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir T. Walters) and then he gave a resumé to us of an article in the "Manchester Guardian." He then made a little excursus on the general history of
2040
housing. He said £1,000,000,000 had been spent on houses and added, quite truly, that it was a large sum of money, and added to our already large commitments. Then he said a few words of general disapprobation, and it was only in the very last minute or two that I received the impression that, after all, he was not going to vote against this Financial Resolution. In duller and more lethargic speakers we should have called this sitting on the fence, but no metaphor could be more inappropriate. For we saw the right hon. Gentleman running round and round his subject as though he were making an effort to see how close he could get to it without touching it. I do not know if hon. Members have had the pleasure of watching figure skating. The performer puts down an orange, and then he goes round and round and round it. He gets as close to it as he can, but he would be disgraced if he touched it. A more delightful speech and a more amusing performance I have rarely listened to.
The next isolated point was raised by two Members on the question of the reconditioning of rural workers' cottages, and one Member spoke very regretfully of the Government, saying that they had not taken proper advantage of the Measure already in force. Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I will give the figures. The number of cottages reconditioned under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act in 1928 was 44; in 1929, 792; in 1930. 1,086; and in 1931, 1,455. It docs not look as though we have been very unkind to the little Housing Bill brought in by our predecessors. Then I want to say one word on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour). He complained most bitterly that we were forcing the rural authorities and interfering with their proper functions and doing all manner of things we ought not to do. But ho would not answer the question put to him by Lord Privy Seal, the late Under-Secretary for Scotland, with regard to the case of counties such as Ross, Sutherland and Caithness, which were so poor that they could not build any houses at all. It seems strange to talk of what we are doing as coercion. We are offering to bear up to the whole cost, if they apply. I should have thought that a

2041
Scottish constituency would have welcomed coercion in this matter. We should like very much this sort of coercion in our private affairs and I cannot believe that this is a coercion to which any reasonable man would object.
Now I come to the questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. He raised two important questions. The first was with regard to the poverty line and the second was his desire to see some great national housing scheme undertaken by a central authority. Let me take first of all the poverty line.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What I said was that if the local authorities failed to carry out the provisions of this Bill then it should be undertaken by some central authority. But I should much prefer the local authorities to do the work.
Miss LAWRENCE: I want to recall to the memory of the right hon. Gentleman the provisions of the 1930 Act. Supposing a local authority is rich enough to build houses and refuse to do so, the Government have the power now to come down and build the houses and put the whole charge on the local authority and take away from that authority as much of the subsidy as they think fit. There cannot be more complete powers for dealing with default than those which already exist under the Act of 1930. You can build the houses, you can hand the houses over to the local authorities to manage, and you can charge the local authorities not merely with the amount which ordinarily falls to them but with the whole cost. That is the procedure for those who can and will not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will it be carried out?"] I say most certainly that, where a case is properly proved, my right hon. Friend will have no hesitation in carrying it out, and I shall myself have considerable pleasure in seeing it carried out.
Then we have to meet the ease of those who cannot, and here it is absolutely necessary to draw a distinction between rural districts which have plenty of money and those which have not, because, if you say that every rural district is to have these facilities, you cannot possibly draw the line at rural districts, but will have to include urban districts also. Some rural districts in the county to which
2042
my right hon. Friend referred are far richer than a great proportion of urban districts. I will take the case of the Epsom Rural District Council. Its general rate is 6s. 2d. in the £, its 1d. rate produces £1,529, and it can build 100 houses for a ¼d. rate. [Interruption.] This is the best case that I can find anywhere. It is a rural district council, with agricultural workers within its area, its 1d. rate produces £1,529, and it can build 100 houses for a ¼d. rate. Supposing that the poverty test were done away with, and we said that every rural district should have these houses for nothing, would it be possible to stop at Epsom? You would have to say that the nation should shoulder the whole burden of housing for the great hulk of urban authorities, and that would impose upon the Exchequer a heavy burden which at present is partly shouldered, as it should be, by the local authorities.
Under the definition "agricultural parish" 9,000 out of 13,000 agricultural parishes in rural districts will be included. We found, speaking in general terms, that the Act of 1930 was working very well indeed; there has been a marked and increasing revival of housing. We found that urban districts were increasing their programme by 80 per cent., and we found that county councils and rural district councils in many cases were getting on with the job, but we found that in the case of the very poor districts the burden appeared to be too heavy for them to carry and it was quite clear that under our housing programme the poor people and the poor districts would be served last and possibly not at all. We therefore resolved to take the tail end of the programme and put it into the front rank—to cut out that part of the work which in normal circumstances would he done last and put it in the place where it would be done first. That was the whole plan—to deal with this difficult part and leave it to the Act of 1930 to deal with the more prosperous areas. We have committed ourselves to national housing; the Government will come in, either when districts cannot or will not act. I hope I have answered all the points which have been put to the best of my ability and I think I can see that the Committee will not be prepared to vote against the Resolution.
Mr. KEDWARD: Would the hon. Lady kindly deal with the very pressing point as to the cutting out of purely agricultural parishes because a length of railway line happens to run through them and the rates on the railway line are more than the rates of the agricultural parish itself?
Miss LAWRENCE: Where you have a nice lump of rateable property, you are not poor enough to qualify for an additional subsidy.
Mr. KEDWARD: Take the two parishes I have mentioned—two of the poorest in this district. They do not receive the rates that come from the main lines themselves. They are spread over the whole union. Yet there are several parishes which are going to get the £11 subsidy, nearer the town and more populated.
Miss LAWRENCE: I could not obviously discuss individual cases on the Floor of the House.
Mr. KEDWARD: I have no desire to ask the hon. Lady to discuss individual cases. We are raising a vital principle which affects hundreds of rural parishes wherever a railway line runs. I can assure her it is a much bigger thing than two isolated cases.
Mr. HURD: I beg to move, in line 16, to leave out the words "the Minister or, as the case may be, by the Department," and to insert instead thereof the word "Parliament,"
The purpose of the Amendment is that general directions should be stated in the Bill and should not be left in the hands of the Department. We do not wish to see the Bill made a means of further endowment of Departmental control and the elimination of Parliament in matters of representative government. In recent times we have had, from no less a person than the Lord Chief Justice, a reminder of tendencies in our present methods which are very menacing to our public life. He has spoken of the way in which Departments have been usurping the place of Parliament, even in some cases deciding what the law should be. In our view this tendency of government by Department has already gone too far and we do not wish to see it extended. It may be said that no small part of the
2044
fault lies with Parliament itself. There is no doubt that we have by our legislation introduced such complexity into the machinery of government that it is very difficult to carry on upon the old lines of administration. We have thought, in much of our legislation, too much of increasing that complexity and adding to government at the centre instead of building up the local management of local affairs:
"Checking the crazy ones,
Coaxin' onaisy ones,
Liftin' the lazy ones on wid the stick."
The whole genius of the English character is shown in the way in which we try to leave the management of our local affairs, as far as possible, in the hands of the representatives of the localities, to encourage efficiency and self-management on sound progressive lines. In the Amendment we ask the Committee to use some restraint in this tendency by-enthroning Parliament. I should certainly be the last to say anything which would detract from a recognition of the efficiency of civil servants. The more we see of the official life of this country, the more we recognise the devotion and high efficiency with which they discharge their duties. At the same time, we have our duty as Members of Parliament and we have our representative system, and we should not allow these to be displaced whatever temptation there might be.
It may be said that if you put these governing directions into the Bill, you will still have difficulty in defining what they mean. The Minister this afternoon talked about the yard-stick. He set out in broad outline the sort of stipulations to go into the Bill. It should not be left to the management and control of departmental regulations. It will be said that there will be exceptional cases. That is always an excuse for a further extension of bureaucratic interference with our affairs. I do not think that that is a sufficient reason for the words contained in the Financial Resolution. If exceptional cases arise, I fail to sec why they will not be covered by the terms in which the general directions are framed, but supposing the necessity should arise for some exceptional treatment, it would not be a very strange thing to have in such a case a Resolution passed by both Houses in order to deal with it. At all events, in this Amendment we ask the

2045
Committee not further to weaken the functions of Parliament in the management of local affairs. The Minister talked to us to-day about the new Measure being the greasing and the beginning of a new machine. Do let us use some restraint in the tendency to displace control in our national affairs.
Mr. GREENWOOD: I have two objections to this Amendment. The first is that in view of the character and the limited time during which the provision operates it is quite unnecessary. My second objection is that I see no reason why I should be shackled in a way that my predecessors have not been shackled. The principle which has been adopted in the Financial Resolution is no new principle. For years the unemployment grants operated under the annual Vote of Parliament without the publication of any rules of any kind and no money limit and no time limit. It just went on from year to year, and Ministers were entrusted to administer the money as well as they could, and as wisely as possible. It ill becomes the party opposite who have really been the pioneers in this method of increasing Ministerial control which they now profess to dislike when out of office to raise this question. The Housing Act of 1923 provided us with a most pernicious illustration of the use of Ministerial powers. A grant was payable to local authorities in respect of the building of houses under private enterprise. No rules were there applicable and there was no financial limit. Here we have a financial limit and a definite rule of time. To bind the advisory committee down in an Act of Parliament, literally, definitely and specifically to detailed regulations is, I think, asking too much, and I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.
Sir K. WOOD: I will not detain the Committee more than a minute or two, because we shall have a further opportunity of discussing this matter on the Bill. The only real objection of the right hon. Gentleman to the Amendment is that it would prevent him from making what he describes as the detailed changes which he might desire to make in the
sums granted under his proposal. If that is all the difference between us, if he desires to preserve the right to make some changes in detail, I have no doubt that we shall be able to meet him and to preserve to him some power to meet any matters of that kind that may arise in the day to day working of the scheme. What the Amendment seeks to do—and the right hon. Gentleman has advanced no real objection to it—is that, so far as the grant of this money is concerned, we should lay down some general directions in the Bill regarding the local authorities who shall be entitled to claim the grant and, secondly, that we should lay down the general conditions upon which the grant should be made. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has made no substantial objection to that course and that the discussion this evening has shown the necessity of some specific way of dealing with a matter of this kind. After the very loose suggestions of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), I think the Committee will see the necessity for some specific way of dealing with this matter. As we have two other Amendments on the Order Paper we do not desire to detain the Committee further, in view of the further opportunities we shall have for discussing this question. But we shall have to divide, and deal further with the matter at a later stage.
Mr. HANNON: Before we divide I should like to enter my protest against the continued expansion of the powers of Departments to make laws for this country. It is a custom which has arisen, no doubt, out of the War, that Departments should constantly be given extraordinary powers to apply orders for the expansions of legislation. Legislation by order of a Department is a very objectionable feature of our system. I will not give a silent vote. I must protest against this continued enlargement of the powers of a Department to make laws.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 91.

Division No. 380.]

AYES.

[10.35 p.m.

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

Ammon, Charles George

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

Arnott, John

Ayles, Walter

Alpass, J. H.

Aske, Sir Robert

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Barnes, Alfred John

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Barr, James.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Batey, Joseph

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

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Herriotts, J.

Potts, John S.

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

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

Price, M. P.

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Hoffman, P. C.

Quibell, D. J. K.

Benson, G.

Hollins, A.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Hopkin, Daniel

Rathbone, Eleanor

Birkett, W. Norman

Horrabin, J. F.

Raynes, W. R.

Blindell, James

Isaacs, George

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Bowen, J. W.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Broad, Francis Alfred

Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

Ritson, J.

Bromfield, William

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

Bromley, J.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Romeril, H. G.

Brooke, W.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Brothers, M.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Rothschild, J. de

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

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)

Rowson, Guy

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

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Burgess, F. G.

Kelly, W. T.

Sanders, W. S.

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Sandham, E.

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

Lang, Gordon

Sawyer, G. F.

Calne, Hall-, Derwent

Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

Sexton, Sir James

Cameron, A. G.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

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

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Charieton, H. C.

Lawrence, Susan

Sherwood, G. H.

Chater, Daniel

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Shield, George William

Clarke, J. S.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Cluse, W. S.

Leach, W.

Shillaker, J. F.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Shinwell, E.

Compton, Joseph

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Daggar, George

Lees, J.

Simmons, C. J.

Dalton, Hugh

Leonard, W.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Sinkinson, George

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Logan, David Gilbert

Sitch, Charles H.

Dukes, C.

Longbottom, A. W.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Duncan, Charles

Longden, F.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Ede, James Chuter

Lunn, William

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Edmunds, J. E.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Egan, W. H.

McElwee, A.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Elmley, Viscount

McEntee, V. L.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

England, Colonel A.

McKinlay, A.

Sorensen, R.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall. N.)

Stamford, Thomas W.

Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Strauss, G. R.

Foot, Isaac

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Sullivan, J.

Freeman, Peter

McShane, John James

Sutton, J. E.

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

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

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

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

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Thurtle, Ernest

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Manning, E. L.

Tillett, Ben

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Mansfield, W.

Tinker, John Joseph

Gibbins, Joseph

March, S.

Toole, Joseph

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Marcus, M.

Tout, W. J.

Gill, T. H.

Marley, J.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Gillett, George M.

Marshall, Fred

Vaughan, David

Glassey, A. E.

Mathers, George

Viant, S. P.

Gossling, A. G.

Matters, L. W.

Walker, J.

Gould, F.

Messer, Fred

Wallace, H. W.

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Middleton, G.

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

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

Mills, J. E.

Watkins, F. C.

Gray, Milner

Milner, Major J.

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Montague, Frederick

Wellock, Wilfred

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Morley, Ralph

Westwood, Joseph

Groves, Thomas E.

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

White, H. G.

Grundy, Thomas W.

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

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

Mort, D. L.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Muff, G.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Muggeridge, H. T.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

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

Murnin, Hugh

Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Naylor, T. E.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

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

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

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

Haycock, A. W.

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

Wise, E. F.

Hayday, Arthur

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Hayes, John Henry

Palin, John Henry

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Palmer, E. T.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Atkinson, C.

Beaumont, M. W.

Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

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

Bird, Ernest Roy

Albery, Irving James

Balniel, Lord

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

2048

2049

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Boyce, Leslie

Hartington, Marquess of

Savery, S. S.

Bracken, B.

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

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Briscoe, Richard George

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

Skelton, A. N.

Broadbent, Colonel J.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Butler, R. A.

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Campbell, E. T.

Hurd, Percy A.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Carver, Major W. H.

Inskip, Sir Thomas

Thompson, Luke

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

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

Lamb, Sir J. Q

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Christie, J. A.

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Train, J.

Colville, Major D. J.

Long, Major Hon. Eric

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Cooper, A. Duff

Lymington, Viscount

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

Warrender, Sir Victor

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

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

Wayland, Sir William A.

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

Muirhead, A. J.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Nail-Cain, A. R. N.

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Ford, Sir P. J.

Penny, Sir George

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Ramsbotham, H.

Womersley, W. J.

Ganzonl, Sir John

Remer, John R.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Gower, Sir Robert

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Salmon, Major I.

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Sir Frederick Thomson.

Hammersley, S. S.

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, in line 23, after the word "committees" to insert the words:
"and subject to such conditions as Parliament may impose."
I do not propose to detain the Committee long, because I know that hon. Members opposite are anxious to have a Division as quickly as possible, but I would not like this Amendment to be put to the vote without some words of explanation. During the discussion on the previous Amendment, which also had a bearing on the subject of this Amendment, the Minister told us that he was only following the example set by others and he gave as an instance the Unemployment Grants Committee and the way in which they dealt with their work. I think that the right bon. Gentleman selected a bad example to prove the desirability of the Minister and his Department having the sole right to handle any money voted by Parliament for this purpose. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is in her place again. I welcome her very much because on this question as to whether Parliament or the Department shall have control, I had a little discussion with her a day or two ago. I was wandering from the path of rectitude, and she took me, back again very quickly. I made a suggestion that a certain matter should be left to the Minister of Agriculture to settle, and this is what the hon. Lady said:
2050
"It will be as well that I should state the views of the Government on this matter. After consultation between the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture, both Ministers are of opinion that this question is one which should be determined by Parliament, and it would be quite improper and wrong to give such powers to the unchecked discretion of the Minister of Agriculture."
I can understand the hon. Lady saying that about the Minister of Agriculture, because he has shown himself to be rather extravagant, but we have embodied in this Financial Resolution exactly the opposite to what she was preaching to me the other day. My Amendment deals with the rent to be charged, and I can appeal to hon. Members opposite to support it. The question of the rents to be charged for these houses is a serious one to those people who have to occupy them. We are told that it will have to be a very cheap rent to meet the conditions of the agricultural workers whom it is hoped will occupy the cottages. It is all very well to say that we will leave the question of what the rent should be in the hands of the Minister and his Department. Hon. Members opposite may have a great deal of faith and hope in the present Minister and his Department, but other Ministers will follow him, and it is wrong to allow this to go out of the hands of Parliament.
It says in the paragraph that notwithstanding anything that may be enacted under the Housing (Financial Pro-

2051
visions) Act, 1924, this power shall be given to the Minister and his Department. The section of the Act of 1924 referred to lays down that every rule made under the Section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith. We ought not, therefore, to allow this to go out of our hands. It ought to be laid as an order on the Table of the House, so that any Member who thinks that too much rent is being charged will have his opportunity of bringing the matter forward in the usual way. The rights of private Members in this House are being filched away week by week, and by no one more than the
present Government. I cannot understand hon. Members opposite, who pride themselves on defending the rights of individuals, allowing a Minister of the Crown to come along with such measures to take away the few remaining rights of hon. Members. I know that the local authorities will resent very much this being left in the hands of the Minister and his Department. It is a step in the wrong direction, and I hope that many hon. Members opposite will follow me into the Lobby.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 93; Noes, 243.

Division No. 381.]

AYES.

[10.50 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Ganzoni, Sir John

Salmon, Major I.

Albery, Irving James

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Atkinson, C.

Gower, Sir Robert

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

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

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Balniel, Lord

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Savery, S. S.

Beaumont, M. W.

Hammersley, S. S.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Bird, Ernest Roy

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Skelton, A. N.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Hartington, Marquess of

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Boyce, Leslie

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Bracken, B.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

Briscoe, Richard George

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

Thompson, Luke

Broadbent, Colonel J.

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hued, Percy A.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Butler, R. A.

Inskip, Sir Thomas

Train, J.

Campbell, E. T.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Carver, Major W. H.

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

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

Long, Major Hon. Eric

Warrender, Sir Victor

Christie, J. A.

Lymington, Viscount

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Colville, Major D. J.

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Cooper, A. Duff

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

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

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

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Muirhead, A. J.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Dalkeith, Earl of

Nall-Cain, A. R. N.

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Womersley, W. J.

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

Ramsbotham, H.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Remer, John R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Ford, Sir P. J.

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.

NOES.

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

Bromfield, William

Dalton, Hugh

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

Bromley, J.

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Alpass, J. H.

Brooke, W.

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Ammon, Charles George

Brothers, M.

Dukes, C.

Arnott, John

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

Duncan, Charles

Aske, Sir Robert

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

Ede, James Chuter

Attlee, Clement Richard

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Edmunds, J. E.

Ayles, Walter

Burgess, F. G.

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Egan, W. H.

Barnes, Alfred John

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

Elmley, Viscount

Barr, James

Calne, Hall-, Derwent

England, Colonel A.

Batey, Joseph

Cameron, A. G.

Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

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

Foot, Isaac

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

Charleton, H. C.

Freeman, Peter

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Chater, Daniel

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

Benson, G.

Clarke, J. S.

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

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Cluse, W. S.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Blindell, James

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Bowen, J. W.

Compton, Joseph

Gibbins, Joseph

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Daggar, George

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Broad, Francis Alfred

Dallas, George

Gill, T. H.

Gillett, George M.

Longden, F.

Sanders, W. S.

Glassey, A. E.

Lunn, William

Sandham, E.

Gossling, A. G.

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Sawyer, G. F

Gould, F.

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Sexton, Sir James

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

McElwee, A.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

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

McEntee, V. L.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Gray, Milner

McKinlay, A.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Sherwood, G. H.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Shield, George William

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middletbro' W.)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Groves, Thomas E.

McShane, John James

Shillaker, J. F.

Grundy, Thomas W.

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

Shinwell, E.

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

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Manning, E. L.

Simmons, C. J.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Mansfield, W.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

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

March, S.

Sinkinson, George

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

Marcus, M.

Sitch, Charles H.

Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

Marley, J.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

Marshall, Fred

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Mathers, George

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Haycock, A. W.

Matters, L. W.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Hayday, Arthur

Messer, Fred

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Hayes, John Henry

Middleton, G.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Mills, J. E.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

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

Milner, Major J.

Sorensen, R.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Montague, Frederick

Stamford, Thomas W.

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Strauss, G. R.

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

Morley, Ralph

Sullivan, J.

Herriotts, J.

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

Sutton, J. E.

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

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Hoffman, P. C.

Mort, D. L.

Thurtle, Ernest

Hollins, A.

Muff, G.

Tillett, Ben

Hopkin, Daniel

Muggeridge, H. T.

Tinker, John Joseph

Horrabin, J. F.

Murnin, Hugh

Toole, Joseph

Isaacs, George

Naylor, T. E.

Tout, W. J.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

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

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Noel Baker, P. J.

Vaughan, David

Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Viant, S. P.

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

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

Walker, J.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Wallace, H. W.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Palin, John Henry

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Palmer, E. T.

Watkins, F. C.

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wellock, Wilfred

Kelly, W. T.

Phillips, Dr. Marlon

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Westwood, Joseph

Lang, Gordon

Potts, John S.

White, H. G.

Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

Price, M. P.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Lawrence, Susan

Raynes, W. R.

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)

Leach, W.

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

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Lee, Frank (Derby. N. E.)

Ritson, J.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

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

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

Lees, J.

Romeril, H. G.

Wise, E. F.

Leonard, W.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Lewis, T. (Scuthampton)

Rothschild, J. de

Logan, David Gilbert

Rowson, Guy

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Long bottom. A. W.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to move, in line 29, to leave out paragraph (b).
Question put. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 92.

Division No. 382.]

AYES.

[11.0 p.m.

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

Batey, Joseph

Bromley, J.

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

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Brooke, W.

Alpass, J. H.

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

Brothers, M.

Ammon, Charles George

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

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

Arnott, John

Benson, G.

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

Aske, Sir Robert

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Blindell, James

Burgess, F. G.

Ayles, Walter

Bowen, J. W.

Burgin, Dr. E. L.

Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

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

Barnes, Alfred John

Broad, Francis Alfred

Calne, Hall-, Derwent

Barr, James

Bromfield, William

Cameron, A. G.

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

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Rathbone, Eleanor

Charleton, H. C.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Raynes, W. R.

Chater, Daniel

Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Clarke, J. S.

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Cluse, W. S.

Kelly, W. T.

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

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ritson, J.

Compton, Joseph

Lang, Gordon

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

Daggar, George

Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

Romeril, H. G.

Dallas, George

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Dalton, Hugh

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Rothschild, J. de

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

Lawrence, Susan

Rowson, Guy

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Dukes, C.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Sanders, W. S.

Duncan, Charles

Leach, W.

Sandham, E.

Ede, James Chuter

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Sawyer, G. F.

Edmunds, J. E.

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Sexton, Sir James

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Lees, J.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

Leonard, W.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Egan, W. H.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Elmley, Viscount

Logan, David Gilbert

Sherwood, G. H.

England, Colonel A.

Longbottom, A. W.

Shield, George William

Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)

Longden, F.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Foot, Isaac

Lunn, William

Shillaker, J. F.

Freeman, Peter

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Shinwell, E.

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

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

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

McElwee, A.

Simmons, C. J.

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

McEntee, V. L.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

McKinlay, A.

Sinkinson, George

Gibbins, Joseph

Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

Sitch, Charles H.

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Gill, T. H.

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Gillett, George M.

McShane, John James

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Glassey, A. E.

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

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Gossling, A. G.

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Gould, F.

Manning, E. L.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Mansfield, W.

Sorensen, R.

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

Marcus, M.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Gray, Milner

Marley, J.

Strauss, G. R.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Marshall, Fred

Sullivan, J.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Mathers, George

Sutton, J. E.

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

Matters, L. W.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Groves, Thomas E.

Messer, Fred

Tillett, Ben

Grundy, Thomas W.

Middleton, G.

Tinker, John Joseph

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

Mills, J. E.

Toole, Joseph

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Mliner, Major J.

Tout, W. J.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

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

Morley, Ralph

Vaughan, David

Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)

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

Viant, S. P.

Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Walker, J.

Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

Mort, D. L

Wallace, H. W.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Muff, G.

Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor

Haycock, A. W.

Muggeridge, H. T.

Watkins, F. C.

Heyday, Arthur

Murnin, Hugh

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Naylor, T. E.

Wellock, Wilfred

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

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

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Noel Baker, P. J.

Westwood, Joseph

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

White, H. G.

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

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

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Herriotts, J.

Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

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

Palin, John Henry

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Hoffman, P. C.

Paling, Wilfrid

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Hollins, A.

Palmer, E. T.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Hopkin, Daniel

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Horrabin, J. F.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Isaacs, George

Phillips, Dr. Marion

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

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

Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Potts, John S.

Wise, E. F.

Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

Price, M. P.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Quibell, D. J. K.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. Thurtle and Mr. Hayes.

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

Boyce, Leslie

Colville, Major D. J.

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Bracken, B.

Cooper, A. Duff

Albery, Irving James

Briscoe, Richard George

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Atkinson, C.

Broadbent, Colonel J.

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

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

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Balniel, Lord

Butler, R. A.

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Beaumont, M. W.

Campbell, E. T.

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

Bird, Ernest Roy

Carver, Major W. H.

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Boothby, R. J. G.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

Ford, Sir P. J.

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Christie, J. A.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

2056

2057

Ganzoni, Sir John

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Stanley, Hon. O, (Westmorland)

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

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

Thompson, Luke

Gower, Sir Robert

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

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Muirhead, A. J.

Todd, Capt. A. J.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Nall-Cain, A. R. N.

Train, J.

Hammersley, S. S.

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Ramsbotham, H.

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Hartington, Marquess of

Remer, John R.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

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

Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)

Warrender, Sir Victor

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

Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E.

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Salmon, Major I.

Wayland, Sir William A.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

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

Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Hurd, Percy A.

Savery, S. S.

Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount

Inskip, Sir Thomas

Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

Womersley, W J.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Skelton, A. N.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Lamb, Sir J. Q.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Long, Major Hon. Eric

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Sir George Penny and Sir Frederick Thomson.

Lymington, Viscount

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

  COMPANY PROMOTION.
  COMPANY PROMOTION.
  OIL DUTY.
  OIL DUTY.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (CHARGES).
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (CHARGES).
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE, KENT.
  ADVISORY COMMITTEE, KENT.
INDIA.
  IMPORT DUTIES.
  IMPORT DUTIES.
  BRITISH GOODS (BOYCOTT).
  BRITISH GOODS (BOYCOTT).
  WIDOW'S PENSIONS.
  WIDOW'S PENSIONS.
  ANIMALS (SLAUGHTER).
  ANIMALS (SLAUGHTER).
SCOTLAND.
  MATERNITY CASES, LANARKSHIRE.
  MATERNITY CASES, LANARKSHIRE.
  PIERS, WESTERN ISLANDS.
  PIERS, WESTERN ISLANDS.
  NURSERY SCHOOLS.
  NURSERY SCHOOLS.
  SPECIAL SCHOOLS.
  SPECIAL SCHOOLS.
  DOMINIONS (FINANCIAL GUARANTEES).
  DOMINIONS (FINANCIAL GUARANTEES).
  ELECTRICITY CHARGES.
  ELECTRICITY CHARGES.
  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  DARTFORD-PURFLEET TUNNEL.
  DARTFORD-PURFLEET TUNNEL.
  ASSOCIATION OF EX-SERVICE CIVIL SERVANTS.
  ASSOCIATION OF EX-SERVICE CIVIL SERVANTS.
  INCOME TAX (DRAINAGE AUTHORITIES).
  INCOME TAX (DRAINAGE AUTHORITIES).
  TERRITORIAL ARMY OFFICERS.
  TERRITORIAL ARMY OFFICERS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether before the business of the House is taken, it would be convenient that I should ask the noble and learned Leader of the House if he has any statement to make with regard to the course of business in the future.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for asking me this question. He may have noticed, and I dare say others of your Lordships have noticed, the wish expressed by the Prime Minister in another place that Parliament should either adjourn or prorogue at the end of July. Here we are quite up to date with our work, so that we, at any rate, do not put any obstruction or difficulty in the way of that admirable desire, after a very long Session. It may, however, be necessary—I do not want to say more than that to-day—to meet either on Fridays or Mondays, whichever day in the particular case is most convenient to your Lordships. I, of course, will consult your Lordships about it. That would enable us to get through our business and keep quite up to date. I know that privilege will be accorded to me as Leader of the House if I make the request.
There is one other matter I should like to mention. I understand that the Coal Mines Bill is still under discussion in another place. Although we had hoped to discuss it to-day, it really cannot come on for discussion until to-morrow. Therefore I shall put down the same form of Resolution that stands on the Paper in my name to-day, so that it may take precedence over all other work if it is sent up from the Commons in time for us to proceed with it to-morrow. I am sure your Lordships are aware of the necessity of dealing with it as quickly as possible, and therefore I need not say anything more on the subject.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I would only assure the noble and learned Lord that I realise that at this stage of the Session it is not unusual for the Government of the day, whoever they may be, to have to make a request on the lines of that which he has just made. I think it is also usual to ask that if it should be found necessary to take precedence in the business of the House, the Leader of the House would do his best to protect any Motion which has already been set down on the Paper or any business which has been advanced, so that the fact that the Government have to take precedence shall not deprive those who have already secured a place of the opportunity of getting their Motions or their Bills adequately discussed.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I think it has always been the desire of the Leader of the House, certainly ever since I have been a member, that that should be done if possible. It cannot always be done. There is an instance to-morrow when the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Southwark has a Motion on the Paper dealing with slum clearance. It is absolutely essential that to-morrow Government business should take precedence, but I quite agree with the noble and learned Viscount that unless there is overwhelming necessity that ought not to be done, and I shall certainly not propose that it be done.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
EBENEZER CHAPEL BIRMINGHAM BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name
620
in order that Standing Orders may be suspended so that Government business shall have precedence.
Moved, That Standing Orders No. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended for this day's sitting, and that Government business have precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LANCASTER AND DISTRICT) JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (RHYMNEY VALLEY JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (GREAT WESTERN RAIL WAY) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, there are several drafting Amendments on the Paper. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 11, after ("Act") insert ("as amended")
Schedule, page 3, line 37, leave out ("arbitrator") and insert ("Tribunal to whom the question of disputed compensation shall be submitted")
Schedule, page 3, line 44, leave out ("he so determines he") and insert ("the Tribunal so determines it")
Schedule, page 5, line 8, after ("20") insert ("feet").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (PORTSLADE AND SOUTHWICK OUTFALL SEWERAGE DISTRICT AND SEATON BURN VALLEY JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ST. HELENS AND YORK) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (GODALMING AND SCUNTHORPE AND FRODINGHAM) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL AND LEICESTER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ABERTILLERY AND DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT AND WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE BOARD) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, after Clause 34, to insert:
Certain rules and regulations to be laid before Parliament.
".—(1) Where any of the construction regulations, survey regulations or rules for life-saving appliances applicable to passenger
622
steamers plying on international voyages, or any of the wireless telegraphy rules applicable to ships plying on international voyages, being a regulation or rule made after the passing of this Act and in force at the commencement of this Part of this Act, contains, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, a requirement which—

(a) is at variance with any specific requirement of the Safety Convention; and

(b) was not contained in the regulations or rules in force at the passing of this Act;

the regulation or rule, as the case may be, shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after the commencement of this Part of this Act.
(2) Where any of the construction regulations, survey regulations or wireless telegraphy rules, being a regulation or rule applicable as aforesaid and made after the commencement of this Part of this Act, contains, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, such a requirement as aforesaid, it shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
(3) All rules for life-saving appliances made after the commencement of this Part of this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, together with a report stating whether any, and if so which, of the rules applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages contains, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, such a requirement as aforesaid, and all rules for lifesaving appliances made before the commencement of this Part of this Act, which have not come into force before the commencement of this Part of this Act, shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after the commencement of this Part of this Act, together with such a report as aforesaid.
(4) If either House within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat after—

(a) any regulation or rule is laid before it in pursuance of subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section; or

(b) any rule is laid before it which is reported in pursuance of subsection (3) of this section to contain such a requirement as aforesaid;

resolves that the regulation or rule shall he annulled, the regulation or rule shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new regulation or rule.
(5) Subsection (2) of Section four hundred and twenty-seven of the principal Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any rules for life-saving appliances made after the commencement of this Part of this Act and with respect to any such rules made before the commencement of this Part of this Act which have not come into force before the commencement of this Part of this Act."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry that the House should

623
be troubled again with this matter. No doubt the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, agrees with me in that. I have letters from shipowners, particularly from one well known in this House, taking the view that the attitude which the Parliamentary body—not the shipowners themselves—is adopting in this House is raising, in their opinion, a very small point. They desire that the Bill should pass and hope it may pass in such a way that this House agrees with the view put forward by the Board of Trade.
I wish to say only a word or two on this Amendment because this matter has been "talked out," if I may use that expression. We are dealing with an International Convention—that is, a Convention that does not come up to the view of all parties but is in the nature of a compromise. The compromise which is before your Lordships in the two Conventions was agreed to by all the parties present, including the representatives of the British shipowners. I should have thought that this in itself would be sufficient unless some great matter were involved. The only point that I could follow at all in the criticism of the Bill was that raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Halisham, who said that if we retained our existing national powers and at the same time the Convention was the general rule, a stronger obligation might be placed upon British shipowners than upon the shipowners foreign countries which had signed the Convention. On that point I have made inquiry and have found that under the Act of 1925 arrangements can be made, and have been made in all important cases, by which, if a foreign country allows our shipping to go into its ports—for instance, into German ports—on a certificate that it has complied with the British requirements, then under the principle of reciprocity we allow German ships to enter our ports on a certificate that they have complied with the German regulations. It is that arrangement, which, in fact, is largely used by every large passenger-trading shipowner in the country, that becomes the model in the form of a Convention.
The fact that a matter of this kind has been confirmed in the Convention might well persuade us to end the discussion. The view put forward by Great Britain
624
originally, and by her representatives in the Convention, shows that all shipowners are most desirous that the Convention should come into law. I am obliged to say that, if the view that I have put forward is disputed, and the present attitude of noble Lords opposite is insisted upon in another place, as I am sure it will not be, the Convention would have to fail. All parties to the Convention object entirely to their national regulations being reduced and made less efficient so long as they come under the obligation to see that the conditions of the Convention are observed. That is the only possible way, and no greater uniformity and equality is possible. I have stated my view of the position and I hope this House will not stand in the way of this Bill being passed, so that the Convention may be ratified.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had given Notice that he would move the omission from subsection (1) of the words "made after the passing of this Act" and the insertion of the words "whether made before or after the passing of this Act." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord opposite that we do not want to re-argue the whole of this case, and I hope your Lordships will not expect me to do so. I must say that the speech made by the noble and learned Lord is one that I should have liked to make myself, because he has put forward the whole argument that I have been trying to frame to the House through all the stages of this Bill. He has said that the Convention should come into force as it stands, which is exactly what I am asking for. What I am really asking is, that we should make this Convention the standard and bring our regulations into accord with it. The noble and learned Lord referred to the reciprocity arrangement with other Powers. I think, if he will refer to the Act of 1906,—
LORD PARMOOR: Of 1925.
EARL STANHOPE: I know all about the Act of 1925, but the Act of 1906 is really the main Act in regard to this question. There it is laid down definitely that the Government of this country has power to impose similar regulations to ships coming into our ports, whether

625
under our flag or others, to those imposed on our own ships. Of course there is also a clause by which, where a country has similar regulations to our own, coming up to our standard, we accept their standard as being equivalent to our own, and though the regulations are not identical the standard is regarded as the same. I think the noble and learned Lord will find on inquiry that where nations do not come up to our standard there is no reciprocity agreement and we impose our regulations on those ships.
LORD PARMOOR: I should not like to allow that to pass. My information is that, as regards twelve large countries, we do accept, and there are not likely to be any practical differences. Their regulations are accepted and the reciprocity principle prevails, although the regulations are not quite identical.
EARL STANHOPE: That is exactly what I said. The regulations may not be identical, but they come up to the same general standard. Therefore, they are quite readily acceptable, and obviously it is a. reasonable agreement. The only point I want to suggest to the noble and learned Lord is that there are countries with a fair amount of shipping that do not come up to our standard and there, I think, he will find that the reciprocity agreement is not in force.
LORD PARMOOR: The Convention would make similar reciprocity universal.
EARL STANHOPE: I think the only point between us is that I am anxious that our regulations should come into line with the Convention, not only those to be made but those that are already in force. Let me just add this. I am anxious about this point because it imposes extra obligations on British shipowners as compared with foreign shipowners. It does not make a real charter unless you accept my Amendment.
The point is really this. Under the Shipping Convention there are three classifications of ships: the home trade, the short international voyage and the long international voyage. The home trade ships are left out of account altogether so far as the regulations of the Conventions are concerned. Under the present Board of Trade regulations, there are only two classifications instead of three. They have the home trade, which includes not
626
only coastal ships but ships going from this country to the nearer ports on the Continent; and they have foreign trade. Foreign trade ships are merely those which go from this country to some other country. Our Board of Trade have no regulations whatever for ships that travel between two foreign ports. Under the Convention they will have to make those regulations. They will first have to alter their regulations in regard to the home trade, in order to take out ships going from this country to the Continent—and incidentally to the South of Ireland, which is a separate country no longer excluded from the Conventions. Secondly they will have to superimpose upon the present classification ships which go between two foreign ports and do not call at ports in this country at all. Under that you will get a real hotch-potch of regulations, and I am anxious, as was suggested by the noble and learned Marquess who leads the Liberal Party, that there should be a new code. If there was a new code it is obvious that it would be impossible to put a few regulations before the Houses of Parliament and to have a few not come before the Houses of Parliament. I suggest that the whole lot should come together.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Marquess is not here, but he informed me that he is in favour of our proposal.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not think that that alters what I have said. All I have said is that he is in favour of a new code, and that it should come before both Houses of Parliament. As your Lordships know, I am only speaking for the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, and in no sense from a Party point of view. Therefore, if the Government decide that they will not accept my Amendment I regret it, because I think my Amendment will improve the Bill. I think it will bring the Bill into line with the Convention. I should like them to do what the Canadian Government is doing. I have here the Bill which has just been brought forward in the Canadian House of Commons. Incidentally, it has only fourteen clauses, instead of well over seventy, as this one has. Clause 4 says:
"The Governor in Council may make such regulations as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the said Conventions. Such regulations shall conform

627
in all respects to the requirements of the said Conventions, and shall have the same force and effect as if enacted herein."
LORD PARMOOR: It is the same as in our Bill.
EARL STANHOPE: No, it is not the same as here, because the noble and learned Lord is not prepared to bring regulations which are at present in force before Parliament.
LORD PARMOOR: Does the noble Lord suggest that the Canadian Government are going to give up regulations which at present apply? As regards new regulations the position is the same as here.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not know how you are going to conform with the Convention unless the regulations conform with the Act. I think my Amendment will improve the Bill, but unless I get support I shall not delay the House by pressing the matter to a Division. It must be the Government's responsibility if the Conventions do not have as much effect as most of us would like them to have. We all desire that the Conventions should come into force and have no wish to delay their coming into operation.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
In subsection (1), line 6, leave ant ("made after the passing of this Act") and insert ("whether made before or after the passing of this Act").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
On Question, proposed new clause agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: My other Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Fourth Schedule, page 223, line 30, third column, after ("eighty-five") insert ("subsection (2) of Section four hundred and twenty-seven.")—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Privilege Amendment made.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BETHLEM HOSPITAL AMEND MENT BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, the title of which is so cumbersome that one of my correspondents, who is wholeheartedly in favour of it, is misled into calling it the Marriage (Improper Relationship) Bill, and the provisions of which are so complicated that I shall have to go into them at some length later on, I feel I must first detain your Lordships for a few minutes in order to give you the sequence of events which led up to it. You will doubtless remember that after a great deal of controversy an Act was passed, in 1907, authorising a marriage between a man and the sister of his deceased wife. Then, after a good deal more controversy, in 1921 another Act was passed allowing a woman to marry the brother of her deceased husband. These Acts have left a somewhat anomalous position, inasmuch as although a man may marry his dead wife's sister he cannot marry the sister's daughter. In the same way, although a woman can marry her deceased husband's brother, nevertheless she is debarred from marrying the brother's son. It is in order to remove these amongst other anomalies that this Bill is now before this House.
With regard to the history of similar measures, Bills having the same object have been before the House of Commons every Session for the last six years. In 1926 a Bill received a Second Reading in another place without a Division, and again in 1927, but owing to its always having been in charge of private members it only once passed its Third Reading in time to reach this House. That was in 1928. On that occasion the Bill had a most chequered and peculiar career in this House. It received its Second Reading without a Division, and it was not until the Committee stage was reached that the guns of its opponents were unmasked. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, had a series of Amendments on the Paper, of which he had given Notice, but he had not given notice of another Amendment, which he moved—namely, that the House, instead of resolving itself forthwith into Committee,

629
should postpone the Committee stage for six months. That amounted really to a rejection of the Bill.
A series of Second Reading speeches ensued. By the time that a Division was taken it was late in the evening, and when the figures were announced it was found that fourteen Peers had voted Content and fourteen Not-Content. That being so the Lord Chancellor declared under Standing Order XXXIII that the question was undecided, and the debate had to be adjourned to the next day. On the following day the debate was continued, but instead of going to a Division again Lord Ullswater ran away and. his Motion was negatived without a Division. The Bill was not amended in Committee, and so when the Third Reading stage was reached the Bill was in exactly the same form, word for word, as it was when it passed its Second Reading without a Division. The late Archbishop Davidson, however, had down a Motion for its rejection. Again there was a series of Second Reading speeches, but on the plea that another six months consideration should be given to the matter—which in point of fact turned out to be six times as long, because it is three years ago—the Bill was killed on Third Reading by twenty-six votes to twenty-five, a majority of one.
Since then there has been ample time for opposition to have been organised in the constituencies, had there been any vital objection to the proposals in the Bill; but the very fact that it has had an easy passage in another place shows that no real ground of opposition exists. It was recently suggested in debate in this House that when all Parties in another place are in accord upon certain proposals, that amounts to a representation of the will of the people, and therefore your Lordships would be amply justified in assenting to any such agreed measure. I submit that this is a good case in point. For this is by no means a Party matter, similar Bills having been introduced into another place in 1926 and 1927 by Sir Arthur Shirley-Benn, in 1928, and in the case of the present Bill by the Rev. James Barr, and I believe in 1922, by Mr. Rendall, a Liberal M.P.
The Bill has of necessity been drawn in somewhat complicated phraseology, but for the benefit of those of your Lordships
630
who have not yet had time to work out the various relationships in every-day English, I beg to inform you that cases 1, 2, 7 and 8 allow a man to marry his various classes of niece by marriage, and cases 3, 4, 5 and 6 allow him to marry his various classes of aunt by marriage. It therefore follows that if you turn cases 1, 2, 7 and 8 round you will find that a woman may marry her uncle by marriage, and in cases 3, 4, 5 and 6 a woman is enabled to marry her nephew by marriage. There is, therefore, no question of blood relationship, but merely that of affinity. As in the 1907 and 1921 Acts, so also in this Bill the provisions are retrospective. The clergy who have scruples about marrying persons in affinity are amply protected. The discipline of the Church is maintained; in fact, the clergy will not be required to do anything which they think they ought not to do.
Before I resume my seat, there is one point to which I desire to draw your Lordships' attention. The wording of the proviso in Clause 2 is not in the same form as it was in the Bill of 1928, nor is it as it was introduced in another place. For this reason, that when it was in Committee in another place, the spokesman of the Home Office moved an Amendment to alter the wording. In the opinion of the Home Office it was a purely drafting Amendment, but, owing to the complexity of the matter dealt with, it is not very easy to explain. The point arose in this way. Subsection (1) of Section 184 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, is as follows:
"As soon as any decree for divorce is made absolute, either of the parties to the marriage may if there is no right of appeal against the decree absolute, marry again as if the prior marriage had been dissolved by death or, if there is such a right of appeal, may so marry again, if no appeal is presented against the decree, as soon as the time for appealing has expired, or, if an appeal is so presented, as soon as the appeal has been dismissed:
Provided that it shall not be lawful for a man to marry the sister or half-sister of his divorced wife or of his wife by whom he has been divorced during the lifetime of the wife, or the divorced wife of his brother or half-brother or the wife of his brother or half-brother who has divorced his brother during the lifetime of the brother or half-brother."
The necessity for the proviso arose by reason of the fact that the subsection to

631
which it is appended (consolidating the old law) enables divorced persons to marry again, "as if the prior marriage had been dissolved by death."
Without the proviso it might have been argued that, inasmuch as persons are entitled to marry as if the marriage had been dissolved by death, a man might under the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act be entitled to marry his divorced wife's sister, and, similarly, that under the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act, 1921, a man might be entitled to marry his divorced brother's divorcee. It was in order to prevent this that the proviso was inserted in the Act of 1925, but that proviso naturally dealt only with the two Prohibited Degrees of Relationship Acts which were then in force. It has been recognised that this proviso must be extended to fit the extended class of marriages which will be permitted under Clause 1 of the Bill, and it is with this intention that Clause 2 was inserted in the Bill. While the proviso suggested by Clause 2 as it originally stood intended to do no more than adapt the existing law without substantive alteration, it did, as drawn, go a great deal further than the existing law, and a good deal further than was intended.
The effect of the proviso as it was originally drawn is most easily shown by illustration. For instance, assume that A's wife's sister has been divorced. A's wife dies. Under the existing law, A is permitted to marry his deceased wife's sister, notwithstanding that her divorced husband is still alive, but, under the proviso as it stood, he would not have been entitled to do so. Again, assume that A has been divorced. Upon the decease of his brother, he would be entitled under the existing law to marry his deceased brother's widow, but, under the proviso as originally drawn, he would not have been entitled to do that. The proviso at present enacted in Section 184 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, is drafted in a form which enumerates the cases dealt with by the two existing Acts, which, complicated as the matter is, was probably the most intelligible way of putting the matter at that time, but if the Bill passes eight further "prohibited degrees" will cease to be prohibited, and
632
to attempt to continue this method would involve a perfectly unintelligible tangle. All that the proviso, as amended, does is to put into general terms the effect of the existing proviso to Section 184 of the Act of 1925 in such a way that it will operate in respect of the "prohibited degrees" in exactly the same way as it operates in respect of the existing ones.
I may mention that, although the Government of the day has never officially supported similar Bills, yet the spokesman of the Home Office has frequently taken a kindly interest in them, as is evidenced by remarks made by Mr. Hacking in 1927 in another place, by my noble friend Lord Desborough in 1928, and by Mr. Adamson on the present Bill. It has been suggested that there are not many people likely to be affected by the provisions of this Bill, and that, therefore, it need not be passed. Is that any reason—because there are only a few people who ask for a little happiness and justice? I venture to think not. For my part, if your Lordships are good enough to place this Bill on the Statute Book, then, if only a few people are made happy, instead of remaining with a sense of injustice in their hearts, I shall, indeed, consider it to have been a privilege to have been in charge of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I dislike this Bill. I think it makes a further departure from a sound and wholesome principle, and I see no signs of any real demand for it. The noble Viscount seemed to imply that, because there was little opposition to it in another place, it could be regarded as representing the will of the people. I do not think the people care anything about it. I do not think they have given it any attention, and I see no kind of trace of any general demand for it. For long centuries the principle was established that the relations of one of the partners of a marriage, whether by affinity or consanguinity, should be regarded as the relations of the other. It was a clear principle, a consistent principle, and it relieved the whole family life, which the

633
husband and the wife share, from the embarrassment which would arise if it were possible that a relation of the husband or the wife might conceivably, if circumstances occurred, become a possible husband or wife of the other.
But into this clear principle Parliament drove a wedge in 1907 when it passed the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act. Assurances were then given in abundance that there was no contemplation, or indeed probability, of any further extension being made. Such assurances, of course, were vain. The breach, once made, was bound to be widened. Consequently, there came the Deceased Husband's Brother's Marriage Bill and now this Bill which proposes to legalise marriages within the remaining degrees of collateral affinity. It has not even the excuse of the two former Bills, and it cannot be alleged that there is any plea for the consideration of the special cases of men or women who may be left with children in their homes and who would naturally look to their deceased wife's sister or deceased husband's brother for help and guardianship. Therefore, as I say, it is a Bill which I intensely dislike. Yet, since Parliament, in its wisdom or unwisdom, departed from the long governing principle in these matters it seems to me futile to go on contesting the extension of what Parliament then did to its logical and legitimate consequences.
Moreover, there are some proposals in the present Bill that are less objectionable than those of the Acts which have already been passed. For example, if a man may marry his deceased wife's sister it seems rather absurd that he may not marry his deceased wife's sister's niece who is further in relationship from himself. I do not forget that the last time a similar Bill was before your Lordships' House my revered predecessor, Archbishop Davidson, moved its rejection and did so in what was his last speech in your Lordships' House as Archbishop of Canterbury. He carried its rejection, as you have been reminded, by only one vote and the main plea which he urged against its introduction was that it had been thrust into the hurry and confusion of the very end of the Session. These objections do not apply in like measure to the present case. Therefore, I confess with very great reluctance and a good deal of hesitation, I have refrained from
634
putting down any Motion that this Bill should be rejected.
It has one satisfactory feature; that is, as I understand it, that the liberty of the clergy guaranteed by the former principal Act has been retained and that the clergy are under no requirement whatsoever either to perform marriages between persons named in this Bill or to lend their Churches to anyone else to perform them—a liberty much greater and, in my judgment, much more just than is accorded to them in regard to the marriage of divorced persons. At the same time your Lordships will recognise that this Bill constitutes a still wider divergence between the principles of the Church and the law of the State—a problem which sooner or later must be faced and which is one of extreme gravity and difficulty. I can only trust that when it is fully and with full responsibility brought before Parliament, Parliament will treat it in a wise and considerate manner.
It is, perhaps, needless to add, yet I think it necessary to say it clearly and to put it on record, that nothing that is contained in these Acts from the one of 1907 to this present Bill of 1931 can be deemed in any respect to change the teaching and discipline of the Church of England as that teaching and discipline were before the principal Act was passed. It is competent for Parliament to give protection and enforcement or its own sanction to that teaching and discipline, but they themselves remain and always will remain outside the sphere of Parliamentary enactment. I have not concealed my dislike or this Bill, as I think it moves still further away from sound and consistent principle governing the home life of the country, but Parliament has broken that principle and I think it must abide the consequences.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, when this measure was before your Lordships' House three years ago did what I could and said what I could with a view to preventing its becoming an Act of Parliament. I have not changed my own personal views on that subject in the least. If I may respectfully say so, I agree with all that the most reverend Primate said in respect of the unhappy effects of a measure of this kind upon family life in this country. It diminishes

635
the area of the family circle, which is an unfortunate thing. It provides the logical sequel to two, as I thought, misguided measures of past times which have at any rate this to be said in their favour, that as to marriage with a deceased wife's sister, there was a strong body of public opinion founded upon intelligible and, perhaps, one might call them very generally recognisable reasons. To my mind there is no such body of opinion behind this proposal although it is the logical sequel to the two Acts to which the most reverend Primate referred.
This measure after three years of consideration is again presented here. There are people, as one knows from one's own correspondence, who press, in the name of logic and reason, to be admitted to liberties to which others have been admitted by previous legislation and, although I dislike this Bill as much as I disliked the earlier Bills, I do not propose to take the responsibility of moving against the Motion for Second Reading.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, there is no need for me to delay the Second Reading of this Bill by making a speech. I only rise on behalf of the Government to say that they desire to raise no opposition whatever to the Second Reading. The noble Viscount has explained very fully the history of this measure and the ups and downs during the last years through which various Bills have passed. He is more fortunate to-day. The weighty pronouncement we have heard from the most rev. Primate fortunately is not in opposition to the noble Viscount's Motion. As the most rev. Primate said, a breach had been made in what were regarded as the prohibited degrees by the Act of 1907, and I cannot help thinking that what has happened since then is but a logical sequence, and that the measure we are considering to-day is complementary to previous legislation. I therefore rise only to say that His Majesty's Government will support the Second Reading of this Bill.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, there is only one word I should like to say. I am sure that the most rev. Primate will have earned the undying gratitude of the people affected by the really broad position, if I might use that term, which he has taken to-day.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PREVENTION OF IMPORTS OF PRODUCTS OF CONVICT OR FORCED LABOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Phillimore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Definitions.
5. For the purposes of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:—
The expression "forced labour" means all work or service exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its non-performance and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily;
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to add to the definition of forced labour, "but shall not include any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws for work of a purely military character." The noble Lord said: I need not detain your Lordships for more than a moment. I intimated on Second Reading that owing to a failure to understand the construction, if I may put it so, of my own Bill, I did not include this exception, which was included by the drafting convention of the International Labour Conference. The result of not including this exception would be to put on a presumptive black list such countries as France, where a certain amount of work of a military character is carried out by military forces. I do not feel that it is necessary for me to explain the matter further and I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Phillimore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRADING AND MARKING) AMEND MENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Removal of doubts as to conditions which may be attached under s. 2 (1) of the principal Act.
3. For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the power of the Minister under subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act to make provision for conditions beting attached to any authorisation granted under that subsection (which relates to the marking with the grade designation mark of any article in respect of which such a mark has been prescribed or of any covering containing or label attached to any such article) shall include and shall be deemed always to have included power to make provision for conditions being attached as to the payment of any expenses incurred by the Minister, or by any person or body of persons authorised under that subsection, in connection with the manufacture or use of any die, block, machine, or other instrument requisite for the purpose of the reproduction of the mark, or with the manufacture or use of any covering or label marked therewith.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 3. The noble Lord said: This clause is one for the removal of doubts, and it is said that
"it is hereby declared that the power of the Minister under subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act to make provision for conditions being attached"—
to certain things—
"shall include and shall be deemed always to have included"—
that is retrospective to begin with—
"power to make provision for conditions being attached as to the payment of any expenses"—
that imposes a charge upon the subject which I understood your Lordships could not do—
"incurred by the Minister, or by any person or body of persons authorised under that subsection, in connection with"
certain things. Then follow the things for which he can authorise expenses.
Some years ago, for the first time, there was introduced into the House of Commons a clause of a somewhat similar character. It was, indeed, of a more far-reaching character, because it gave power to the Minister to do practically what he liked, and if a Court of Law interfered he said: "Well, here is Parliament which allows me to do what I like." It would have allowed him to do what he liked without going to Parliament. This clause does not go quite so far as that, but it goes some way in the same direction, because it gives power to the Minister to spend money which has not been authorised by any Resolution in Committee of Supply. There would have to be a Resolution, I presume, in Committee of Supply. I see my noble friend Lord Ullswater present; he will put me right if I am wrong. But this is a House of Lords Bill and not a House of Commons Bill, and the expense would have to be authorised by a Resolution in Committee of Supply.
As I understand it, it is entirely against the opinions of the noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite that anything should be introduced into this House which in any kind of way interferes with the Privileges of the Commons. I think I remember only a few weeks ago, on another Bill, that being emphasised very strongly by noble Lords who, I think, said it was a dreadful thing when my noble friend Lord Hailsham said something about Privileges. "Oh, you must not interfere with the Privileges of the House of Commons," they said, "that would be a very wrong thing to do." Yet when it suits them it is, of course, a different thing, and what is sauce for the goose over there is not sauce for the gander here. That is a thing which I have never subscribed to, as I believe all members of either House have equal rights. Therefore I beg to move that the clause be omitted. The omission of this clause will not in any way interfere with the principle of the Bill. Everything will go on all right, but if the Minister spends money he must not be allowed to put his hand into the taxpayers' pocket without the authorisation of Parliament. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out Clause 3.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): The noble Lard, Lord Banbury, is apparently anxious to protect the taxpayer.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I always have been.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am sure we all sympathise with him very much in his efforts. I could only wish he was going to be a little more effective in doing so. This clause merely permits the Minister, by voluntary arrangements with those who wish to enrol themselves under the National Mark scheme, to collect from them any expense that he is put to in the manufacture of labels and in the promotion of the scheme. That is all this clause proposes to do. If it is removed the charge will have to be imposed on the taxpayer in order to enable the Minister to pay the charge as a subsidy to the industry. This is a charge that has been made from the beginning of the scheme. No objection whatsoever has ever been made to it by any of those who have come into the scheme. I would further point out to your Lordships that the scheme is entirely voluntary, and if the Minister was unreasonable in his charges, he would merely be defeating the object of his scheme, because nobody would come into it. It is only making certain of removing a small legal doubt that has arisen, making legal something that has always been done. Therefore I hope your Lordships will leave the clause in the Bill and not do, as the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, is so anxious to do—impose this large charge on the taxpayer.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If 1 understood the noble Lord correctly, this is to make legal something that has been done. What could be worse? The Minister does something which is illegal and then he is afraid that the Courts may interfere and perhaps make it rather awkward for him, so the noble Earl brings forward a Bill which makes legal something which is illegal and which he ought not to have done. I must say that, after the explanation of the noble Earl, the clause seems to be much worse than I thought it was and I certainly shall have to divide if, as I hope, I get some support.
EARL DE LA WARR: Just to reassure the noble Lord on this important constitutional point, may I say that it is not
640
a question of making legal something that has been done that should not have been done. It is simply that people might possibly be entitled to refuse to pay, and in the future at any moment it is possible for people who have been using our labels which cost us money to turn round and say they are not going to pay.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: As the noble Earl says this is a matter about which some legal doubt has been suggested, I should like to ask him one question because the answer would affect my decision in this matter. I should like to know whether anybody has challenged the legality of what has been done, because I do not think myself that it is right that an Act of Parliament should be passed to legalise something which is possibly illegal after someone has detected the illegality and has objected to make the payment. I know it has been done by the Government, of which he is a distinguished representative in this House, under circumstances which preclude our discussing it, but I should be very glad to know that nothing of that kind is contemplated here because I should find it very difficult to reconcile it with my conscience to support such a proposal.
EARL DE LA WARR: I can certainly give the noble and learned Viscount that assurance. It has not been brought up because of anyone being unwilling to pay. It is purely a doubt that has occurred to us.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Then what is the use of it?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Repeal of s. 61 (3) of 20 & 21 Geo. 5 c. 43]:
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to insert a new clause at line 5. I think it had better come at line 10, after Clause 1. Therefore I will put the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
On Question, Clause. 1 agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
Correction of clerical error in s. 100 of 20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 43.
".In paragraph (e) of Section one hundred of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which provides for the application of Part IV of the said Act to Scotland) for the reference to Section ninety of the said Act there shall be substituted a reference to Section ninety-one thereof."
The noble Lord said: I agree with what the Lord Chairman has just said, that this Amendment had better be made after line 10. It will come in as the second clause. Advantage has been taken of the passage of this small Bill, which I explained on Second Reading, to insert here a small correction of a clerical error in the Act. The Act is used a great deal up and down the country and has been constantly referred to, and this opportunity is being taken of correcting a small clerical error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the said now clause.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The Title:
An Act to repeal subsection (3) of Section sixty-one of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The Amendment which your Lordships have just made will necessitate a consequential Amendment in the Title. It will now have to read "and to correct an error in Section one hundred" of the Act.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, after ("to") insert ("correct an error in Section one hundred of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and to").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Title, as amended, agreed to.

DESTRUCTIVE FOREIGN ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Provisions as to musk rats found at large.
5.—(1) The following provisions of this section shall have effect with respect to musk rats found at large at any time while an order under Section one of this Act is in force.
(3) The appropriate department so soon as they become aware that musk rats, not being musk rats kept under a licence, are to be found on any land, may, unless they are satisfied that either the owner or the occupier of that land is taking all necessary steps for their destruction, themselves take such steps as they consider necessary for that purpose, and it shall be the duty of the occupier of the land to afford all such facilities as it is in his power to afford to any persons employed by, or on behalf of, the department for that purpose.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "unless they are satisfied that either the owner or the occupier of that land is taking all necessary steps for their destruction, themselves take such steps as they consider necessary for that purpose," and to insert "take such steps as they consider necessary for their destruction." The noble Earl said: This Amendment was put down at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who pointed out on Second Reading that it would he unwise to rely upon the endeavours of the owner or the occupier of the land to take the necessary steps to destroy musk rats on the land, since the trouble would be on too large a scale for any one owner to deal with and would probably spread. I have put this Amendment down in order to give the Department power to carry out any destruction. I think that meets the point.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, leave out from ("may") to ("and") in line 19 and insert ("take

643
such steps as they consider necessary for their destruction").—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Does this mean that an official may come all over my laud and destroy foreign animals? I do not think there are any foreign animals there, because I do not like foreign animals; but does it mean that an official may come all over my land and see if he can find a foreign animal?
EARL DE LA WARR: He ought to do so if you let loose musk rats.
On question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Offences, &c.
6. Any person who—

(a) at a time when the importation of musk rats is prohibited absolutely, imports, or attempts to import, any musk rat into Great Britain, or at a time when such importation is prohibited except under a licence, imports or attempts to import, any musk rat into Great Britain without having in force a licence authorising him so to do; or

(b) at a time when the keeping of musk rats is prohibited absolutely, keeps any musk rat in Great Britain, or at a time when the keeping of musk rats is prohibited except under a licence, keeps any musk rat in Great Britain without having in force a licence authorising him so to do; or

(d) turns loose any musk rat, or wilfully allows any musk rat to escape; or
shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and shall on summary conviction be liable—
in the case of an offence under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection, to a penalty of twenty pounds, or if the offence was committed in respect of more than four animals, to a penalty of five pounds in respect of each animal;
in the case of an offence under paragraph (d) or paragraph (e), to a penalty of twenty pounds; and
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in the first paragraph defining penalties, after "paragraph (a)", to leave out "or" The noble Earl said: During the Second Reading the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, raised the point that the penalty for turning loose musk rats was really too slight, and that it. would he desirable to have the same penalty for
644
this offence as for the offences under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause. The Amendments are put down to meet his point, which we consider a valid one.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 20, leave out ("or").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 21, after ("paragraph (b)") insert ("or paragraph (d)")
Page 4, line 30, leave out ("paragraph (d) or").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Compensation.
7.—(1) If an order is made under Section one of this Act prohibiting absolutely the keeping of musk rats, any person who on the date of the order and on the twenty-fourth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, was keeping musk rats for profit in Great Britain shall, subject to the provisions of the next succeeding subsection, be entitled to receive from the appropriate department compensation in respect of any pecuniary loss which be may suffer by reason of his being required in consequence of the making of the order to destroy those musk rats and in respect of the value of any structure or equipment erected or provided by him which is rendered useless, or of less utility, by reason of the prohibition contained in the order.
EARL DE LA WARR: My first two Amendments to this clause are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 12, leave out ("the next succeeding subsection") and insert ("this section")
Page 5, line 17, leave out ("those") and insert ("his").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that the compensation payable to a person under this section shall not in any case exceed the amount which would be payable to him if he had, at the date when the order came into operation, possessed only the same number of musk rats and the like structures and equipment as he possessed on the said twenty-fourth clay of June."
The noble Earl said: The clause as at present drafted does not make it quite clear that the owner of musk rats in the

645
event of an order being made prohibiting the keeping of musk rats altogether should be entitled to compensation only in respect of his losses as from the date of the introduction of this Bill. After the passing of the Bill it is intended that musk rats shall be kept entirely at the owner's risk,, subject in the event of total prohibition to the owner being compensated for such loss as he would have sustained if he had not been allowed to keep and breed musk rats from the date of the passing of this Bill. The object of this Amendment is to make that purpose somewhat clearer.
Amendment moved
Page 5, line 20, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Power to extend provisions of Act to other destructive foreign animals.
(2) In this section, the expression "foreign mammalian species" means a mammalian species which at the date of the commencement of this Act was not established in a wild state in Great Britain, or which at that date was not commonly kept in Great Britain in a domesticated state.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or which at that date was not" and to insert:
"had only become so established during the preceding fifty years:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any species which was at the said date"
The noble Earl said: As the clause is drafted, it might permit the Minister to issue an order prohibiting the keeping of domestic cats and various other animals. Accordingly it is proposed to insert this Amendment limiting the power of the Minister to deal with animals that have been imported within the last fifty years.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 31, leave out from ("or") to ("commonly") in line 32, and insert ("had only become so established during the preceding fifty years:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any species which was at the said date").—(Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should like to ask the noble Earl on this point why
646
this is limited to foreign mammalian species. Is there already power to deal with everything except mammals, or is it assumed that everything but mammalian species is necessarily harmless? I have a recollection of certain ticks which were supposed to come from a remote part of the globe and to be very damaging and venomous. I dare say that there is a. very good reason for limiting the Bill in that way, but I should be reassured if I knew what the reason was.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think I can reassure the noble and learned Viscount. We have made careful inquiries about all other animals and insects, and we find that they can be dealt with under existing legislation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 4) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Marley I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, on a point of order, if this is not a Certified Bill? In the case of a Certified Bill, I thought the practice of this House was not to resolve itself into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

MAURITIUS LOAN (GUARANTEE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TEE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Passfield.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill, but I should like to say one or two words before it passes. The Government naturally have not been able to take any other measure than is proposed under this Bill for the relief of the difficulties that have arisen as the result of the hurricane in Mauritius, but my feeling is that His Majesty's Government, in relation to our Colonies, always fly to the remedy of loans for assisting in any of the difficulties that may arise. I only wish to say that I think the contents of this Bill emphasise the necessity for His Majesty's Government to consider measures for more permanent relief for our Colonies, especially our sugar Colonies. We have debated this subject in this House on many occasions during the past year, and nothing which has been said by the noble Lord, or by any member of the Benches opposite, has in any way indicated that they have a real, definite and practical policy for dealing with these questions. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will after the Recess, or in the next Session, be able to present some measures of a practical nature to deal with these sugar Colonies.
LORD PASSFIELD: My Lords, in answer to the noble Viscount, I may say it is perfectly true that in a measure for dealing with a hurricane His Majesty's Government do not propose any permanent measure. We do not know, I admit, how to prevent hurricanes, and when they occur, as they unfortunately do periodically occur in the Island of Mauritius, it seems to me that they must be dealt with ad hoc, I do not think any other measure than a measure of financial relief, which must either be by grant or by loan, would be relevant to the particular case now under consideration. It is perfectly true that the sugar producers of Mauritius, in common with producers all over the world, are not doing well, but I am glad to say that so far as we can learn the producers in Mauritius have been able to reduce their cost of production by several pounds per ton, as compared with what the cost was returned at eighteen months ago by Sir Francis Watts in his Report, and they have been able to carry on, no doubt without much profit and in some cases
648
even at a loss, without any reduction of the area of cultivation.
However desirable it may be to come to the aid of sugar production all over the world, or at any rate all over the British Empire, that is not a matter which in the opinion of the present Government can be successfully done by any measure of fiscal Preference. The unprofitableness of producing sugar remains unprofitableness even if you give a subsidy to the producers, and at the present time the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prepared to increase the heavy subsidy already given in the form of a Preference to sugar coming from parts of the Empire. I do not think that that arises on the present occasion, because not even the efficacy of Preference can be invoked as a means of dealing with hurricane havoc, and I do not think the noble Viscount will suggest that His Majesty's Government can deal with damage caused by hurricanes in any other way than that of which the Treasury have been glad to approve—namely, the guaranteeing of a loan.
I may mention that we have sent out to Mauritius a Commission to see that they take care to put their revenue and expenditure on a proper basis, so that they will be able to meet the interest on the loan without hardship to the producers or population. We have every confidence that that can be done, and the noble Viscount may rest assured that whatever else can be done for the sugar industry in Mauritius, and the producers elsewhere, the Government are doing, except attempting to put things right by fiscal means, which we cannot convince ourselves is the best and only way. I am able to tell your Lordships that all sorts of things are being done in the way of improvements in these sugar Colonies.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

COAL MINES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

HUMBER BRIDGE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. WEST HAM CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
YORKSHIRE (WOOLLEN DISTRICT) TRANSPORT BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL.
The King's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with further Amendments.
LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, AND CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES (WORKS) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
SHEFFIELD GAS BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on Thursday last discharged, and Bill committed for Thursday next.

DUDLEY, BRIERLEY HILL AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1931.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Town of Dudley Gaslight Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WANDSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1931.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
MOTOR VEHICLES (VARIATION OF SPEED LIMIT) REGULATIONS (No. 2), 1931.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Regulations as required by the Standing Orders of the House: That the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, attended the Committee: That in their opinion the provisions of the Regulations raise a question of principle: That the provisions of the Regulations are not founded on precedent: That in their opinion the Regulations cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision upon the Resolution approving the said Regulations: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
IPSWICH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. YORK CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (COWES AND YAR MOUTH) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.