Sitting of 28 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:—
London Electric, Metropolitan District, and Central London Railway Companies (Works) Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time.
Corby (Northants) and District Water Bill [Lords],
Scarborough Corporation Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    RUSSIA.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HACKINGasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the imports from Soviet Russia and the value of the exports to Soviet Russia for the half-year ended 30th June, 1931?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): During the six months ended the 30th June, 1931, the declared value of the merchandise imported into the United Kingdom and registered as consigned from the Soviet Union was £11,386,000. During the same period the exports of United Kingdom goods to the Soviet
    2082
    Union amounted to £3,241,000, and exports of imported merchandise to £971,000.
    Mr. HACKING: Does the right hon. Gentleman still consider that this is mutual trading between this country and Russia?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That, of course, requires a long reply. The short reply is that exports to Russia are increasing, and I should have thought that that was a very desirable thing.
    Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the exports of this country are guaranteed?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That was explained very fully in the Debate the other day. A very large proportion is guaranteed.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Can the President of the Board of Trade say what is going to happen to the balance?

    WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY.
    Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the depression prevailing in the wool textile industry and of the fact that the wages of many operatives are being further reduced, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to compel employers to put into operation the changes in the organisation of the industry which have been recommended by two commissions of inquiry in 1925 and 1929?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: Neither of the Committees to which I assume that my hon. Friend refers made recommendations for the reorganisation of the wool textile industry: indeed the Second Committee stated in their report (Cmd. 3355 of 1929) that any movement to this end must, to have the best chance of success, be a spontaneous movement from within.
    Mr. LEACH: In view of the fact that the employés have presented a case at these inquiries in favour of measures for rationalising the industry, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the desirability of legislative action in this matter?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I have already indicated to the House that I cannot

    2083
    promise legislation, and, in reply to a question the other day, I pointed out that the reorganisation in the woollen industry was part of the duties covered by the Chief Industrial Adviser's Department.
    Mr. HANNON: Did not the Commission of 1929 recommend a Safeguarding Duty for this industry?
    Mr. GRAHAM: No.
    Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only the employers, but the operatives as well, realise that what is now required to prevent a reduction of wages is protection for the industry?

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade the policy of the Government as to assistance to the Lancashire cotton industry?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: If the hon. Member is referring to financial assistance, I would refer to the reply given on the 6th July by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hammersley).
    Mr. REMER: Is not my question quite clear? Will the right hon. Gentleman now state the policy of the Government with regard to the assistance that is to be given to the cotton industry?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The question plainly relates to financial assistance, and I answered it on that basis. I have already indicated that I am prepared at any time the Board of Trade Vote is put down to give a full explanation of the matter.
    Mr. REMER: Is not the President of the Board of Trade aware that on the Board of Trade Vote it is not possible to discuss questions involving legislation?
    Mr. GRAHAM: That is quite true, but a Supply Vote would not preclude a very full statement of all the other steps that have been taken up to the present time.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not possible for hon. Members opposite to move the Adjournment of the House and thus get a full discussion?

    IMPORTS.
    Mr. HANNONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will have a statement prepared, before the reassembly of Parliament, for the information of the House, of the imports, in volumes and values, of commodities which come into this country and the free admission of which lowers the standard of life of wage earners in Great Britain?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: It cannot be admitted that the absence of import duties on goods consumed by the wage-earners in this country lowers their standard of living. The hon. Member will, however, find ample statistics of imports in the Statistical Tables relating to British and Foreign Trade and Industry (1924 to 1930) presented to Parliament in December and April last, as well as in the annual statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom and the Monthly Trade and Navigation Accounts.
    Mr. HANNON: Docs the right hon. Gentleman seriously tell the House that these commodities are imported into this country at costs of production with which we cannot compete?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That hardly arises out of the question.
    Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to indicate to the people of this country that these imports are really preventing the standard of life being maintained?

    EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (ADVERTISING FILMS).
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Empire Marketing Board have now arrived at any decision with a view to producing sound films for the purpose of propaganda.; and will he give particulars?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The Board have three sound films in different stages of preparation at the present time, dealing respectively with Canadian Lumber, Home Milk and the Empire trade of London.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any particular films are in contemplation for particular British products?
    Mr. THOMAS: I think that "home milk" would come under that description, and "Empire trade of London."
    Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate the preparation of any other films in relation to other produce?
    Mr. THOMAS: Not at this stage.

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. MORLEY(for Mr. MARCUS) asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now decided to seek powers to bring the iron and steel industry within the control of a public utility corporation or if he has an alternative policy in view?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: Negotiations with the interests concerned are continuing, but I could not adequately deal with the present position within the limits of a reply to a Parliamentary question.

    READY-MADE CLOTHING (IMPOSTS).
    Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON(for Captain PETER MACDONALD) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the imports of ready-made clothing into Great Britain from the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics during the first six months of 1931; and at what prices are these garments offered for sale retail in this country?
    Mr. W. GRAHAM: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given yesterday to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson), of which I am sending him a copy. I have no information regarding the second part of the question.

  CINEMATOGEAPH FILMS ACT.
  Mr. DAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any allowances or expenses are paid by the Government to the members of the advisory committee appointed under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927; and can he give particulars?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: No remuneration is paid to members of the advisory committee appointed under the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, but travelling and
  2086
  subsistence expenses at the rates applicable generally to members of committees are allowed to those members who claim them.
  Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks how much has been paid?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No, and it would be very unusual to give the amounts, but the payments are on the usual scale. I could not, in a Parliamentary reply, particularise among the members.
  Mr. REMERasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the case brought before the Oldham justices under the Cinematograph Act, 1927; and if he will state on what grounds the Board of Trade opposed the successful defendant's application for costs?
  Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, Sir. The Board of Trade opposed the defendant's application for costs on the ground that, in their view, the case was a proper one to bring before the court; and as the magistrates refused the application it is to be presumed that they concurred in that view.
  Mr. REMER: If the applicant had been unsuccessful would he not have been charged with considerable costs by the Board of Trade?
  Mr. GRAHAM: No doubt, if he had been unsuccessful it would have added to the costs; but that is a matter which rests entirely with the court, and the court gave the decision to which I have referred in the reply.

  FORESTRY WORKERS (HOLIDAYS).
  Mr. LAWTHERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if the Commissioners have yet considered the question of granting to their workmen, whether on datal or piecework, an annual holiday with pay?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The Commissioners have discussed the matter and still have it under consideration.
  Mr. LAWTHER: May I ask whether it is possible for the Commissioners to come to a decision soon so that the men may have an opportunity of having a holiday this year?
  Mr. SMITH: I would not like to say that, as I do not know how long the inquiry may take. The Commissioners are engaged in ascertaining certain facts, and I hope that a decision will be arrived at soon.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    SEWAGE DISPOSAL, ALDERSHOT.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether agreement has yet been reached with regard to the Farnham scheme for the disposal of Aldershot sewage?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): No, Sir. The matter is complicated and is being dealt with as quickly as possible.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to-day is the anniversary of the inquiry held into this matter by the Ministry of Health, and does he not think that it will be well to take steps to prevent the continued pollution of the River Blackwater?
    Mr. SHAW: I am aware that the matter has been going on for a long time, but I cannot admit that the delay is due to the War Office. The War Office is anxious that the matter should be finished.

    COURT-MARTIAL, LICHFIELD.
    Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of Corporal Sidney James, who, after conviction for stealing food valued at 9½d., was sentenced by court-martial at Lichfield to reduction to the ranks, 112 days' imprisonment, and discharged from the service with ignominy; and if he will reconsider the case with a view to alleviating this sentence?
    Mr. SHAW: I have seen a Press report on this case. Inquiries are being made, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  SCOTLAND.

    LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).
    Mr. MACPHERSONasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on Licensing in Scotland took no evidence on the scheme of State management of the liquor trade now in operation in the Cromarty Firth area from witnesses directly representing the police, the county council, town or burgh councils, the local advisory committee, or any other authority in the district; and whether he will therefore consult all or any of these authorities before any action is taken?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Royal Commission did not invite the police, the local advisory committee or any of the county or town councils to give evidence. I am informed, however, that the Royal Commission made a public announcement which gave the county and town councils an opportunity to offer evidence, but they did not do so. In dealing with this part of the Royal Commission's report I shall certainly inform myself fully of the local position in both the areas concerned.

    HOUSING.
    Major McKENZIE WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities in Scotland have still failed to furnish to the Department of Health a general statement of their housing proposals as required by Section 22 (2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): At the 25th July, 36 out of a total of 227 local authorities had not submitted the general statement referred to.

    MORAY FIRTH (FOREIGN TRAWLERS).
    Major WOODasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to state the policy of the Government to deal with the question of trawling by foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the matter is

    2089
    receiving the attention of the Government, but in view of the complexities of the issues involved it has not been possible up till now for a final decision to be reached.
    Major WOOD: Can the Secretary of State say whether he is making any progress towards forming some policy on this matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Can my right hon. Friend tell me the difference between "attention" and "consideration"?

    ROYAL COMMISSION ON LICENSING (REPORT).
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action it is intended to take with regard to the report of the Royal Commission on Licensing (Scotland)?
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: I have recently received the report, but I am not in a position to announce any decision as regards its recommendations.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any indication of when he will have facilities for study, consideration and decision on this matter?

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    WORKING HOURS (CONVENTION).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary for Mines when it is proposed to ratify the Geneva Convention with reference to working hours in coal mines?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): As I informed the House last evening, I have asked the International Labour Office to arrange a discussion between the principal nations interested as to the procedure to be followed to secure simultaneous ratification at the earliest possible date. I cannot say more at present.

    ROYALTIES.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary for Mines when the Government propose to bring in a measure to nationalise mining royalties?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 23rd April last to a similar question by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C.
    2090
    Williams) of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Ernest Gowers has said that this matter, more than anything else is holding up amalgamations?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I have read the speech delivered by Sir Ernest Gowers.

    SUBSIDENCES (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. LAWTHERasked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been called to the damage to property that has taken place by subsidence due to mining operations and the consequent loss to property owners; and whether he will introduce legislation to secure compensation for these losses?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As my hon. Friend is aware, however, the problem of providing a satisfactory remedy is a very difficult and complicated one, and I cannot at present make any statement as to the possibilities of legislation.
    Mr. LAWTHER: Having regard to the various serious subsidences which have taken place recently in Durham, will the hon. Gentleman have inquiries made by his Department, in order to see whether some arrangements cannot be arrived at, whereby small property-owners can be recompensed from the collieries concerned?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am aware of the position in Durham and elsewhere as regards subsidences, but this matter requires legislation.
    Mr. BATEY: When the hon. Gentleman says that a remedy in this matter is difficult, is he not aware that these subsidences are totally unnecessary today, and that there is a machine in use in Germany which fills up with stones, a 6-foot seam where the coal has been extracted?
    Mr. SHINWELL: The hon. Member is speaking now of cure rather than of prevention. We have these matters, of course, always before us.

    MINES (CLOSING).
    Mr. TINKERasked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been drawn to the closing of coal mines owing

    2091
    to the withdrawal of companies who had joined with the owners of such mines to keep them clear of water by a central pumping arrangement; and will he consider getting additional powers to enable him to take action, if he should think it necessary, before the mines are closed and men thrown out of work?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am not clear what action my hon. Friend suggests that I take, even if I obtained additional powers. So long as coal mines remain in private ownership it is clearly impossible for me to prevent an owner from closing his mine if he decides to do so.
    Mr. TINKER: In view of the fact that the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission are dealing with this matter, could not the hon. Gentleman stay the closing of these coal mines until there is a chance of seeing what can be done?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I am afraid that that is asking too much at the moment, but the question of pumping arrangements on a co-ordinated scale, in order to prevent waterlogging, is now actively engaging my mind.

    AUTOMATIC GAS DETECTORS.
    Mr. ERNEST WINTERTONasked the Secretary for Mines whether the results of the recent tests in connection with the use of automatic gas detectors have been satisfactory; and, if so, when he proposes to take steps to prevent future loss of life by making the use of such detectors compulsory in all danger zones in coal mines?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I have received from the Safety in Mines Research Board a full report on the results of the recent series of pit trials, and I have thought it right to give the manufacturers of the detector an opportunity to study and comment on this report. I received their comments a few days ago and I am now carefully reviewing the whole position.

  AUCTION SALES.
  Mr. REMERasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the case in the King's Bench Division, Westby v. Noyes, in which it was shown that an agent, who was not disclosed to probable purchasers, enhanced
  2092
  the bidding at an auction sale for the benefit of the vendor as if the agent were a legitimate would-be purchaser; and will he take steps to amend the law so as to bring such proceedings in future within the description of conspiracy and therefore illegal, and also to make it compulsory that auctioneers shall openly declare reserve prices, if any, on behalf of vendors in order to prevent prices being put up by undeclared agents of the vendor?
  The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): I have seen a newspaper report of the case in question, from which I observe that the jury found that the plaintiff had not been employed for reward to bid on behalf of the vendor. An Amendment to make it illegal for any person to agree on behalf of the vendor to bid up the price at a sale by auction was negatived on the Third Reading of the Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Bill in 1927, and the Government cannot consider the introduction of legislation on the subject at the present time.
  Mr. REMER: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the case in question involved a book which is at present in the British Museum, and for which the trustees had to pay £7,000 more than they ought to have paid?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am quite aware of the fact that the case referred to a book in the British Museum.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    STATISTICS.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons between the ages of 18 and 40 years who are at present registered as unemployed?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): The latest date for which an age analysis of unemployed persons is available is 2nd February, 1931. It is estimated as the result of a sample inquiry that out of 1,873,980 men and 600,479 women on the registers of Employment Exchanges at that date, 1,068,200 men and 468,400 women were aged 18 to 39 years, inclusive.

    RUSSIANS (ENTRY PERMITS).
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Labour the number of permits issued

    2093
    by her since June, 1929, to enable Russians to enter this country to take up employment?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The number of permits issued during the period 1st July, 1929, to 30th June, 1931, to enable Russians to enter this country to take up employment is 619. Of this number, 564 were in respect of theatrical, variety artistes and musicians. Permits are in most cases for short periods.
    Mr. TOM SMITH: Can the right hon. Lady say whether all these 619 people are Soviet citizens?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The majority are not.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. MORLEYasked the Minister of Labour the percentage of applicants who were refused unemployment benefit during the year 1930–31, and the corresponding percentage for the year 1928–29?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Statistics are not available of the number of separate individuals who have had a claim to benefit disallowed within a given period. During the 12 months ended 8th June, 1931, 13,179,231 fresh and renewal claims to benefit were made at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain and 674,835 claims were disallowed by Court of Referees. In the 12 months ended 70th June, 1929, the number of fresh and renewal claims made was 9,805,421 and the number of disallowances was 675,098. These figures give ratios of 5.1 per cent. in 1930–31 and 6.9 per cent. in 1028–29.

  TRANSPORT.

    ROAD GRANTS (CONDITIONS).
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Transport whether he will revert to the position prevailing in 1927 with regard to local authorities in respect of roads, and make it a practice that in the case of works expedited for the relief of unemployment a condition shall be attached to the grant that all contracts for, and incidental to, the work shall be placed in this country unless the express approval of his Department has been obtained to the contrary?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): The conditions at present in force with respect to plant and materials used upon works expedited for the relief of unemployment are very similar to those of 1927, the chief difference being an added requirement that products of the Overseas Empire shall be used failing United Kingdom sources. My right hon. Friend does not consider that there is any reason to alter those conditions.

    CALEDONIAN CANAL (BRIDGES).
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Transport when the work for the new bridges over the Caledonian Canal will be commenced?
    Mr. PARKINSON: A tender for the bridges has been accepted and the work will be commenced shortly.

    OMNIBUS SERVICE (MALMESBURY AND GLOUCESTER).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet held an inquiry into the decision of the traffic commissioners with regard to the suspension of the through omnibus service between Malmesbury and Gloucester as supplied by the Grey Motors of Minchinhampton; and what has been the result?
    Mr. PARKINSON: No, Sir. It has not yet been possible to complete the necessary preliminaries for the holding of this inquiry.

    OIL ELECTRIC SYSTEM OF TRACTION.
    Lieut.-Commander KEN-WORTHYasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether in connection with the proposals for electrifying the main-line railways, his Department has considered the advantages of Diesel electric-traction working in conjunction with full electrification; and whether this system will be fully examined before a decision is arrived at;
    (2) whether he has had reports on the working of the Diesel electric-traction system on a number of important railway systems abroad and in the British Dominions, including the Canadian railways, the Swiss Federal railways, and the Buenos Ayres and Great Southern Railway system, the latter being British controlled and managed?
    Mr. PARKINSON: The potentialities of the oil electric system of traction, particularly for use on lightly loaded branch lines, are discussed in the report of the Weir Committee which had information as to the working of the system on the Buenos Ayres Great Southern, Swiss Federal Railways and elsewhere. Experience of the system is at present limited to certain special requirements, but I understand that the British Railway Companies are investigating it, and my right hon. Friend proposes to ask them for information as to the results of any experiments undertaken.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that before any final decision is reached, the Minister will thoroughly review the whole situation as regards this method of transport?

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (CRANHAM, GLOUCESTER).
  Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the village of Cranham, near Painswick, Gloucestershire, is not yet supplied with electricity by the West Gloucester Power Company; and whether he will ask the Electricity Commissioners to allow the city of Gloucester electricity department, who already supply electricity to a place 1½ miles away, to extend their territory so as to include the village of Cranham?
  Mr. PARKINSON: I am informed that the Electricity Commissioners are already investigating the question whether a supply could be given to Cranham from the mains of the Corporation of Gloucester and are at the present time in communication with the Corporation on the subject. I will inform the hon. Member of the results of these investigations as soon as possible.

  DISUSED PRISONS (ACCOMMODATION).
  Major Sir HERBERT CAYZERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of prisons at present closed which are available for re-opening as required and the accommodation in each?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): There are seven such prisons and a small part of an eighth. Accommodation is available for a total of approximately 2,000. My right hon. Friend will circulate the particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following are the particulars:

  Prison

  Accommodation.

  Lewes

  250

  Northallerton

  170

  Preston

  430

  Reading

  190

  Shepton Mallet

  140

  Stafford

  680

  Usk

  120

  And a small part of Canterbury Prison

  20

  2,000

  LICENSING ACTS (EXEMPTION ORDERS).
  Major HERBERT EVANSasked the Home Secretary the number of exemption orders sanctioned by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police under the Licensing Acts during 1930; and whether he will consider the reference of all such applications to the licensing justices of metropolitan divisions for their consideration, as in provincial areas?
  Mr. SHORT: The number of special orders of exemption granted by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis during 1930 was 13,264. Similar matters are not dealt with by licensing justices in other parts of the country, but in any case any amendment of the licensing law must await the report of the Royal Commission on Licensing.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (FIVE-DAY WEEK).
  Major EVANSasked the Home Secretary whether he has any information of any extension during 1930 of the five-day week principle in works under the Factory and Workshops Acts; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of the processess, areas, and approximate number of workers affected?
  Mr. SHORT: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has received a good deal of information

  2097
  on this subject, but as the reports are too long to summarise in a reply to a question he would ask his hon. Friend to refer to the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1930, which he is about to present to Parliament and which will be published very shortly. It gives a full account of the present position and contains a table showing the number of firms adopting this system, and the number of workers employed, grouped according to industry. It also gives information as to the localities chiefly affected.

  WOLSINGHAM STEEL WORKS (ACCIDENTS).
  Mr. LAWTHERasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to two accidents which have occurred at Wolsingham Steel Works, Durham, resulting in loss of life; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the cause of such accident with a view to measures being adopted to prevent such occurrence?
  Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend has received reports on two recent accidents at these works, but he is glad to say that in only one case was there any loss of life. In that case the accident which has been carefully investigated was the first of the kind that had happened at the works and was due to an unusual combination of circumstances; and it would seem that the only method of avoiding a similar accident would be by turning off the air blast. The firm has undertaken that if similar circumstances arise in future this course will be followed.

  WAGE RATES (LEGALISATION).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to give favourable consideration to the passage of a Bill into law after the Summer Adjournment for the legalisation of wages rates on the lines of the agreement reached recently between representatives of employers and employed?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I am unable to make any statement as to the possibility of time being made available for such legislation this Session.

  BANKS (PUBLISHED ACCOUNTS).
  Mr. KELLYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether ho will include in the terms of reference of the committee to be appointed to re-examine the Companies Acts power to consider proposals that the London clearing banks and Scottish banks should show in their published accounts the average daily amounts held by them of deposits, sterling bills, and acceptances outstanding, on account of banks with head offices abroad, oversea Governments, and oversea customers, as shown in table 9 (page 299) of the appendix of the Macmillan Report?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No, Sir. The actual proposals of the Macmillan Committee for the collection and publication of these statistics are contained in paragraph 413 of their report and are under consideration. But they make no suggestion for the publication of such returns by individual institutions, and I can see no connection between this subject and the Companies Acts.

  NATIONAL AND LOCAL EXPENDITURE.
  Sir ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say what is the substantial contribution members of the Cabinet propose making to the cause of economy?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The answer is in the negative.
  Sir A. POWNALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the reason for the delay, and say whether it is because each member of the Cabinet thinks that his own salary ought to stand and that of others ought to be reduced?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not know whether I ought to answer a question which has not been put in very courteous terms.
  Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will be in a position to reply to the communication he has received from a number of leading men in finance, industry and commerce calling his attention to the need of rigid economy in public finance, and to indicate the policy of the Government on the measures they propose to adopt in the limitation of State and local expenditure?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not clear precisely to what communication the hon. Member refers. As regards the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that as the result of a Resolution of this House, a committee was set up to consider the whole question of national economy, and that the report of that committee is about to be published.
  Mr. HANNON: Did not the right hon. Gentleman receive a communication a few days ago from an influential body of financiers and industrialists in the City, submitting to him certain proposals in relation to public economy?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not aware of it.

  CIVIL SERVICE (PAY).
  Sir A. POWNALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can announce the decision of the Government with regard to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service on the subject of consolidation of pay?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No, Sir. The matter is now under consideration.
  Sir A. POWNALL: Is not the delay caused by a promise of the right hon. Gentleman to see the staff side before deciding, and, if so, when will the conference be held?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: There has been no delay. This report was received only three or four days ago, and hon. Members seem to give the Government credit for an expedition in dealing with these matters which I do not think they deserve.
  Sir A. POWNALL: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman will say whether he has given a promise to receive a deputation before he comes to a decision, and, if so, when it will be?
  Mr. PYBUS: Is it in order for a member of the Commission to heckle the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this manner?
  Sir A. POWNALL: May I say, as a matter of personal explanation, that the Royal Commission having reported, I have ceased to be a member of the Commission, and I am perfectly correct in asking questions in the House.

  COMPANY LAW.
  Mr. EDEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to paragraph 386 of the Macmillan report, which states that 284 companies were floated on the public in 1928 for more than £117,000,000, that three years later the market values showed a public loss of £50,000,000, that 70 of those companies had been wound up, and that the capital of 36 others had no value; and whether, in view of the fact that the report records that those 106 companies alone involved the public in a loss of £20,000,000, he will take steps to protect the public by preventing Stock Exchange quotations from being granted in future to industrial companies until remedies outlined in paragraphs 388, 389, and 390 of the Macmillan report have been adopted?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I am aware of the statement in the Macmillan report, but I cannot find any suggestion that the procedure suggested in the second part of the question was in the minds of the committee.
  Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will so amend the Companies Act that in published accounts the words profit and balance shall be understood to mean the profits and/or balance resulting from trading operations during the period covered by the accounts in which they appear?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: As I have already stated, I am not in a position to promise legislation to amend the Companies Act, but my hon. Friend's suggestion has been noted.
  Mr. MORLEY(for Mr. MARCUS) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will compile a record as from 1st January next, and for five years onwards, of every security under the Companies Act, 1929, to which a quotation from that date is granted for the first time by the committee of the London Stock Exchange, and keep for the same period a record of interest and/or dividend paid in respect of such securities, in order to ascertain whether the facilities afforded by the stock exchange for the public flotation of such securities are a source of profit or loss to the investors?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No, Sir.

  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (COMMITTEE).
  Mr. MUGGERIDGEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total cost of the recent Select Committee on Capital Punishment; and how much of that cost was due to the expenses of official and other witnesses from other countries?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The gross expenditure incurred in respect of the Select Committee on Capital Punishment amounts to approximately £1,500, of which £351 represents the travelling, etc., expenses of witnesses from other countries. The receipts from sales of reports amount up to date to approximately £230.

  TOURIST TRAFFIC.
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY:
  "59. To ask the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what special steps are being taken to encourage and extend the tourist industry in this country?"
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I put this question down to the Lord Privy Seal, as it obviously affects a number of Departments such as Transport, Home Office, and so on, and it has been altered without my consent to the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department. I fail to see what the Overseas Trade Department has to do with this question at all.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member had better wait and see what the answer is.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: If I wish to ask the Lord Privy Seal a question which I think comes within his province, what means have I of questioning him?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Questions are obviously answered by the Ministers whom they most concern.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am sorry to press this matter, but may I draw attention to the fact that at the beginning of this Parliament, questions affecting policy on unemployment were almost invariably answered by the then
  2102
  Lord Privy Seal, but recently it has been exceedingly difficult to put any questions on policy affecting unemployment to the Lord Privy Seal.
  Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Did not the Lord Privy Seal announce this policy as part of the Government policy?
  Mr. HANNON: Is not the Minister for Overseas Trade the right Minister to reply to this question?
  Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that this question in no way refers to overseas trade, but to tourists in this country?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot expect me to reply to that question.
  Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) on 23rd July, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not that answer show that I am fully justified in my protest?
  Mr. HANNON: Can any portion of the money appropriated for the Empire Marketing Board be applied for the purpose of advertising tourist traffic?

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH SERVICE).
  Mr. OSWALD LEWISasked the Postmaster-General if he will state for the last year for which the figures are available the total capital sum invested in the telegraph service, the gross operating income, and the net operating loss?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee): The figures for the year ended 31st March, 1931, are:

  £

  Capital investment in telegraph engineering plant and stores

  8,924,000

  Gross operating income

  4,211,000

  Net operating loss

  967,000

  These figures are still subject to adjustment.
  Mr. LEWIS: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to take every opportunity to make the figures public as an illustration of the benefits of State trading?
  Mr. ATTLEE: The matter has been made public.

  AGED WORKERS.
  Mr. MORLEYasked the Minister of Health the estimated number of persons employed in industry over the age of 65; and what has been the effect of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act upon employment in this age group?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 15th instant to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Marcus) on the same subject.
  Mr. MORLEY: In view of the difficulty of men over 65 obtaining employment, is my hon. Friend seeking legislation with a view to increasing the pension of such men to an amount on which they can live?
  Miss LAWRENCE: That question had better be put to my right hon. Friend.

  COLONIES AND DEPENDENCIES (OPIUM CONSUMPTION).
  Mr. WELLOCKasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps are being taken in British Colonies and Dependencies to carry out the recommendations of the report of the commission of inquiry into the control of opium consumption in the Far East?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): The recommendations have been carefully considered by the Governments concerned, but it is considered advisable to defer any changes in the existing system of control until the commission's recommendations have been fully discussed at the International Conference which is to be held at Bangkok in November.

  RODRIGUEZ (UNDER-NOURISHMENT).
  Mr. McSHANEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he
  2104
  is aware that a large proportion of the inhabitants of Rodriguez are suffering from under-nourishment; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has received no information as to the existence of a state of under-nourishment among the inhabitants of Rodriguez, but the Governor is visiting the island in the course of the next few days and he is being asked to report.
  Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it would be a good thing to send them some bounty-fed sugar from England?

  MAURITIUS.
  Mr. McSHANEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report on Mauritius will be available?
  Dr. SHIELS: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the annual report for the year 1930. This has not yet been received from the Colony, but inquiry is being made as to when it may be expected.

  KENYA (COFFEE).
  Mr. HANNONasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will be prepared to extend the publicity given to coffee from Kenya Colony in this country; and if he will recommend preferential treatment in Great Britain as against the foreign product?
  Dr. SHIELS: Action is already taken by the Eastern African Dependencies Trade and Information Office to advertise Kenya and other East African coffee at exhibitions and in other ways as opportunity offers. If additional funds could be made available, that office would be glad to extend the publicity given to East African coffee. As regards the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that there is already a preferential duty on Empire-grown coffee.
  Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Gentleman's Department getting any assistance from the Empire Marketing Board towards giving publicity to Kenya coffee?
  Dr. SHIELS: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the Empire Marketing Board mainly concern themselves with

  2105
  background advertising rather than with advertising specific commodities. This matter has, however, been before them. They are unable to do anything at present, although they may later.
  Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Gentleman exercise a little further pressure on the Empire Marketing Board in order to give Kenya coffee a little more publicity?

  GAMAGES (WEST END) LIMITED.
  Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take under Section 182 of the Companies Act to fix financial responsibility upon those who induced the public to be parties to the expenditure of more than £1,000,000 sterling upon the building of Gamages (West End), Limited, in view of the fact that the market value proved at auction to be no more than £330,000 and below the reserve placed upon it by the court under the bankruptcy proceedings?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: Under Section 182 the Official Receiver is required to report to the Court and not to the Board of Trade. I understand that in the case mentioned the Official Receiver has not yet reported.

  AGRICULTURE (ARABLE FARMING).
  Major BRAITHWAITEasked the Prime Minister in view of the fall in world prices of cereals and the effect this has had on the British farmer, whether he will ask this House to appoint a Select Committee to consider and recommend immediate remedies to avert a financial collapse of arable farming?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: This is not a matter which could be most advantageously dealt with in the manner suggested.
  Major BRAITHWAITE: As the situation is so serious, could not the right hon. Gentleman give a reassurance that something is going to be done during the Recess?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I think a considerable amount has been done by the legislation that has been undertaken.
  Mr. PYBUS: Has the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind about the home quota?
  Mr. HANNON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of farms will go out of cultivation entirely in East Anglia and the East Riding of Yorkshire during the time that Parliament is in Recess?
  Major BRAITHWAITE: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House.

  STANDARDS OF LABOUR BILL.
  Major BRAITHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether in view of the increasing number of unemployed persons he will give facilities for the passage of the Standards of Labour Bill?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No, Sir; it is not possible to hold out any hope of time being found for the discussion of this Bill.

  INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS, DROXFORD RURAL DISTRICT.
  Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL(for Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the correspondence which has taken place between the Droxford Rural District Council and the clerk to the commissioners of taxes for the Portsmouth fourth district with reference to the new Schedule-A (Income Tax) assessments which have recently been made in this district; whether he is aware that a number of small houses, consisting of five or six rooms, which are let at rents of 7s. a week plus rates, assessed for rating purposes at the gross value of £18, have been assessed under the new Schedule A at the gross value of £36; and whether he will have a full inquiry made into this matter?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have inquired into this matter. At the time of making the assessments of annual value no particulars of the rents of these houses had been received and the annual values were assessed at estimated amounts. The owners have now given particulars of the rents and the assessments have been adjusted accordingly.

  ENTERTAINMENT DUTY.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS(for Colonel HOWARD-BURY) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to stimulating employment in the British theatrical industry and assisting it to compete with the cinematograph industry, he will consider making a readjustment in the British Entertainments Duty in his next Budget on lines similar to those in Section 22 of the Irish Free State Finance Bill, which exempts from Entertainments Duty all entertainments in which the performers are personally present?
  Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have noted the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion but he must not ask me to anticipate next year's Budget Statement.

  LOTTERIES AND SWEEPSTAKES.
  Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to lottery tickets being transmitted to England from foreign countries by post; and if he will take such steps as may be necessary to stop this practice and so discourage money from being sent out of England for this purpose?
  Mr. ATTLEE: Communications relating to lotteries are received from time to
  time in mails from the Continent. The transmission of such communications through the post in this country is illegal, and if they come under observation they are withheld from delivery.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what business he proposes to take to-night?
Mr. P. SNOWDEN: It is proposed to-night to dispose of the Local Government (Clerks) Bill, the Motion relating to Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation, and the Gas and Electricity Orders on the Paper. If a communication is received from another place relating to the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill and the Smallholders and Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill this afternoon, we propose to consider those Measures to-night.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 1.5, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the Clock, and that the Proceedings on Government Business other than the Business of Supply be exempted, at this day's sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]
The House divided: Ayes, 214; Noes, 91.

Division No. 458.]

AYES.

[3.29 p.m.

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

Daggar, George

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

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

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

Amman, Charles George

Day, Harry

Herriotts, J.

Arnott, John

Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

Attlee, Clement Richard

Ede, James Chuter

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Ayles, Walter

Edmunds, J. E.

Hoffman, P. C.

Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Hollins, A.

Barnes, Alfred John

Egan, W. H.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Batey, Joseph

Elmley, Viscount

Horrabin, J. F.

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Foot, Isaac

Isaacs, George

Benson, G.

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

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

Bowen, J. W.

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Bread, Francis Alfred

Gill, T. H.

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

Brooke, W.

Gillett, George M.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)

Brothers, M.

Glassey, A. E.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Gossling, A. G.

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

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

Gould, F.

Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

Buchanan, G.

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

Kelly, W. T.

Burgess, F. G.

Gray, Milner

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

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

Cameron, A. G.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Knight, Holford

Cape, Thomas

Groves, Thomas E.

Lang, Gordon

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

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Church, Major A. G.

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Clarke, J. S.

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

Law, A. (Rossendale)

Cluse, W. S.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney& Zetland)

Lawrence, Susan

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Haycock, A. W.

Lawson, John James

Cowan, D. M.

Hayes, John Henry

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Leach, W.

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Owen, H. F. (Hereford)

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

Lees, J.

Palin, John Henry

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Leonard, W.

Palmer, E. T.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wipan)

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Logan, David Gilbert

Perry, S. F.

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Longbottom, A. W.

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

Longden, F.

Picton-Turbervill, Edith

Stamford, Thomas W.

Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

Pole, Major D. G.

Strauss, G. R.

Lunn, William

Potts, John S.

Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Pybus, Percy John

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

McElwee, A.

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Thurtle, Ernest

McKinlay, A.

Rathbone, Eleanor

Tinker, John Joseph

Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

Raynes, W. R.

Toole, Joseph

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

Richards, R.

Tout, W. J.

McShane, John James

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Townend, A. E.

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

Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

Viant, S. P.

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

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

Walker, J.

Manning, E. L.

Ritson, J.

Wallace, H. W.

Mansfield, W.

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

Watkins, F. C.

March, S.

Romeril, H. G.

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

Marley, J.

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Wellock, Wilfred

Marshall, Fred

Rowson, Guy

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Mathers, George

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Westwood, Joseph

Matters, L. W.

Salter, Dr. Alfred

White, H. G.

Messer, Fred

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

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Middleton, G.

Sanders, W. S.

Wilkinson, Ellen C.

Mills, J. E.

Sawyer, G. F.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Milner, Major J.

Scurr, John

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Montague, Frederick

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Morley, Ralph

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

Sherwood, G. H.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

Shield, George William

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Mort, D. L.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

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

Muff, G.

Shillaker, J. F.

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Muggeridge, H. T.

Shinwell, E.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

Murnin, Hugh

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Naylor, T. E.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

Sinkinson, George

Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

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

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

NOES.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Frece, Sir Walter de

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Penny, Sir George

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Ganzoni, Sir John

Perkins, W. R. D.

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

Remer, John R.

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

Boyce, Leslie

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Briscoe, Richard George

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Salmon, Major I.

Broadband Colonel J.

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hartington, Marquess of

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Campbell, E. T.

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

Somerset, Thomas

Carver, Major W. H.

Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Castle Stewart, Earl of

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

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

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

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

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

Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Hurd, Percy A.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

Christie, J. A.

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Colfox, Major William Philip

Knox, Sir Alfred

Thomson, Sir F.

Cranborne, Viscount

Latham, H. P. (Scarboro'& Whitby)

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

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

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

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

Long, Major Hon. Eric

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

Macquisten, F. A.

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

Marjoribanks, Edward

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Eden, Captain Anthony

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Captain Wallace and Sir Victor Warrender.

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

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

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

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

Question put, and agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LANCASTER AND DISTRICT JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (RHYMNEY VALLEY JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

  BETHLEM HOSPITAL (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with an Amendment, from the Select Committee.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Isle of Man (Customs) Bill,
British Sugar Industry (Assistance) Bill,
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Chepping Wycombe Corporation) Confirmation Bill,
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Rotherham Corporation) Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  SMALL LANDHOLDERS AND AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  That they do not insist on their Amendments to Small Landholders and Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill to which the Commons have disagreed, but have made an Amendment to the words restored to the Bill to which they desire the concurrence of the Commons.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) BILL.
  That they do not insist on certain of their Amendments to Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill to which the Commons have disagreed; they do not insist on certain other of the said Amendments but propose Amendments in lieu thereof; they insist on certain other of their Amendments for which insistence they assign their Reason; they agree to the Amendments made by the Commons to the words restored by them to the Bill without Amendment; and they disagree to the
  2112
  Amendment made by the Commons to one of their Amendments but propose an Amendment in lieu thereof.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1931.
      CLASS V.

        MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
        Resolved,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £13,116,212, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health, including Grants and other expenses in connection with Housing, certain Grants to Local Authorities, etc., Grants-in-Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, and other Services."—[NOTE: £6,500,000 has been voted on account.]

      CLASS III.

        HOME OFFICE.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £298,434, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices, including Liquidation Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Contributions towards the Expenses of Probation."—[NOTE: £159,000 has been voted on account.]
        Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I believe this is the first time this year that the Committee has had anything to do with the Vote of the Department of thy right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Everybody will agree that the Home Office has been less open to criticism than any of the other Departments of His Majesty's Government. I do not know whether the reason is that the right hon. Gentleman is an admirable Home Secretary, or that he has been particularly fortunate; it maybe it is a
        2122
        little of both. The Home Office covers a very wide field indeed and touches us all very closely. Any controversy dealing with the administration of the Home Office immediately arouses a great deal of interest, and sometimes considerable excitement.
        There is no subject of controversy facing us to-day. I only want to raise-one or two more or less non-controversial questions, on which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a little information.
        In the first place, I should like to deal very shortly with the question of the immigration of aliens into this country. As the Committee are aware, there are various Acts of Parliament dealing with the immigration of aliens and regulating their entry into this country, and those Acts were passed, as everyone knows, to safeguard our own population from undesirable immigrants, who might import disease into this country, who might import crime, who might be dangerous in other respects to the community, and who also might take up work which properly belongs to our own people. It has always seemed to me to be very important that those Acts of Parliament should be carried out, not only in the letter, but also in the spirit, because, if they are not properly carried out, you are liable to leave a very large loophole which would considerably nullify the provisions of the Acts.
        The point that I want to emphasise to-day is the entry into this country of aliens who come here to take up work. I have various White Papers here, from which I have obtained information. I find that, in 1920, 12,576 aliens were admitted in connection with the Ministry of Labour permit. It is perfectly true that the Ministry of Labour is partly responsible for the entry of these aliens, but the right hon. Gentleman, as Home Secretary, is, of course, ultimately responsible. A good many years ago I was at the Home Office for a couple of years, and I remember quite well that on many occasions the Home Office turned down the entry of aliens into this country, although they possessed Ministry of Labour permits.
        Of course, the figure I have mentioned is a very high one, but I find from the White Paper that last year no fewer than 13,396 aliens were admitted on Ministry

        2123
        of Labour permits, or nearly 1,000 more than the previous year. That is to say, concurrently with an aggravated state of unemployment over here, an increased number of aliens were admitted to this country to take up work—persons who naturally, to some extent, must have competed for the diminished amount of employment available for our own people. I hope that no relaxation is taking place in the matter of immigration of aliens of this kind. I notice, when I look at the Estimates, that, although there are various increases in many of these items of the Home Office Vote, there is a decrease of expenses under the Aliens (Restriction) Acts amounting to £2,592 as compared with the year before. One-half of that decrease is due to a reduction in the travelling expenses of inspectors and immigration officers, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that reduction means that the inspection of these aliens has become less rigid, and that the control has become looser over alien immigration. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could let us know about that.
        Akin to this question of immigration of aliens is, of course, the question of the naturalisation of aliens. A White Paper has been published giving the figures relating to the naturalisation of aliens. Last year, naturalisation certificates were granted to 950 aliens, of whom no fewer than 488 were Russians. That seems to me to be a very large proportion of the total certificates, and I may point out that it shows that 66 more Russians were given certificates than the year before. If you take the whole British Possessions outside the United Kingdom, you will find from this White Paper that they only granted 11 certificates of naturalisation to Russians last year, and that was an actual decrease, as against our increase, on the year before. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is taking great care as to the persons to whom these certificates are given, and what inquiries he is making. I notice from the main Estimates that there is an Appropriation-in-Aid of £1,000 more in regard to these certificates of naturalisation than there was the year before. Is that increase in the fees due to an increase in the scale of the fees, or is it due to an increase in the number of persons
        2124
        to whom certificates of naturalisation have been given?
        I raise this question of naturalisation certificates for a specific reason. Under the law of the Soviet. Union, Russian nationality can only be renounced by Russians living abroad by the special decree of the Praesidium of the Executive Committee of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, or, alternatively, in certain cases, consent can be given by the plenipotentiary of the Union. Does the right hon. Gentleman, before granting certificates of naturalisation to Russians, in every case make quite certain that this decree has been issued allowing the renunciation of Russian nationality, or that a decision has been given by the plenipotentiary? If the decree is not passed, the persons to whom these British certificates of naturalisation are given still remain citizens of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, and their allegiance first and foremost is not to this country, but to the Soviet Union.
        It can easily be seen that this might lead to very undesirable results. I do not want to enter into any controversial matter this afternoon, but everyone in the House will agree, and the Soviet have said it over and over again, that one of their main objects is world revolution, and we know perfectly well that there are Soviet agents for this purpose all over the world. Therefore, a Soviet political agent here might get a British certificate of naturalisation, with all the rights and privileges attaching to British nationality, and yet remain a Soviet citizen, owing allegiance first and foremost to the Soviet Union. It would be very interesting to know whether this large number of Russians who receive these certificates really come over here to escape persecution, or whether they come here to make war underground against our institutions. I do not want to pursue that matter, but I shall be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman can let us have some information about it.
        I would like now to pass to quite a different matter, and to refer for a moment to the question of street accidents. I agree that it is rather a jump, but we are talking about the Home Office as a whole. May I give a few figures with regard to street accidents in Great Britain? There is a very interesting

        2125
        White Paper published by the Home Office every year with regard to street accidents. The total deaths caused by vehicles and horses in the streets in 1928 amounted to 6,138. Two years later, the last year for which I have figures, they had risen to 7,305, an increase of 1,167. The total injuries in the same periods were about 178,000 against 164,000 the year before, or an increase of over 13,000. A figure of between 7,000 and 8,000 killed in a year is a very heavy toll of human life. If a great ship went down, or an earthquake or flood took place, and caused this enormous destruction of human life it would be regarded as a disaster of the first magnitude. These deaths take place day after day and week after week and people take very little notice of them. This increase has taken place concurrently with an immense increase in the cost of the police, which has risen in the last two years by over £3,500,000. A large part of that increase, of course, represents increased grants to the councils of counties and boroughs. Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to see that the police are efficient in carrying out their duties in this respect? The Home Office gives the grant and it depends on the efficiency shown in their work by the police. I cannot help feeling that, with a little better organisation, the enormous figure of 7,000 or 8,000 deaths a year might possibly be reduced.
        The other two questions I wish to touch upon were raised in the Debate last year, the questions of young offenders and mental defectives. In regard to young offenders, there is still a considerable want of uniformity in the way they are dealt with by magistrates. Sometimes they are sent to prison and sometimes to institutions. It is very desirable that the practice should be uniform and that young offenders should be sent to institutions and not to prison. The right hon. Gentleman could do a great deal to bring influence to bear upon magistrates by circularising them. Hitherto the practice of some magistrates has been only to send young offenders to institutions after several short terms of imprisonment. This, of course, means that they are far more difficult to reclaim than if they were sent straight away to an institution on the first offence. It is true that young offenders under 21 years of age who have sentences
        2126
        of three months and over are placed in certain prisons, but this really does not get rid of prison conditions.
        To my mind, there ought to be a great effort to abolish altogether the practice of sending young offenders to prison at all. The conditions in Borstal and other institutions are quite different from the conditions prevailing in prison. All the inmates in those institutions are young. The whole régime is directed to reclamation and is suited to the age of the inmates. In prisons the inmates are of all ages, the prisoners only form perhaps a small proportion of the population of: a prison, and the whole administration treats them and regards them from that point of view. Again, in these Borstal institutions there is a great variety of training, and the training is spread over a considerable period, and this gives a real chance of developing the talent of the young inmate and discovering the bent of his mind. In prison again it is quite different. Sentences are short, and there is no proper period for experimental development at all. In prisons, moreover, the subjects of training are much more limited than in institutions, and they have less scope for adapting the work to the inmates. There is also far less opportunity of open-air training and physical exercise, and lastly there is always the risk in prison of contamination by the older prisoners. The authorities do their best to safeguard and to segregate the young offenders from the old, but it is impossible to keep them completely apart. In fact, last year the right hon. Gentleman agreed that the conditions in prisons were quite unsuitable for giving proper training and that segregation from the older offenders was almost impracticable.
        4.0 p.m.
        Finally, I should like to draw attention to the case of mental defectives. Here again the Home Secretary could do a great deal by communicating with the magistrates. There is a practice in some courts of sending persons of doubtful mentality to prison in order to undergo observation. Here, again, the practice of magistrates differs considerably. Some take advantage of their powers under the Mental Deficiency Act, and others do not, but send mental defectives to prison as convicted prisoners. It is very undesirable that mental defectives should be branded as convicted felons, and it is

        2127
        very undesirable that prisoners of normal mentality should be herded in the same prison with mental defectives. The right hon. Gentleman could probably do a great deal by circularising the magistrates, and bringing this to their notice. Short sentences cannot possibly do mental defectives the slightest good in the world. To my mind they ought at once to be sent to a special institution. The difficulty is to get the person at once into an institution. Very often great delay takes place, and I believe that is one of the causes why these people are very often sent to prison, where they languish perhaps for many months at a time until accommodation in an institution can be found. In many cases the sentences expire before accommodation is found and these mental defectives are once more thrown on the world, after doing their spell in prison, to commit further wrongs against the community. The Home Secretary, I think, would be doing a great service if some arrangement could be made whereby accommodation could be found much more speedily for this type of case. As I said before, the Home Office has not presented as far as I can discover any vulnerable front to the public. These are the only questions I have to ask, and I should be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he would reply to them.
        Mr. MIDDLETON: I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the points he has raised, but, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has probably a greater variety of responsibilities than any other Minister, he will expect in the course of the discussion to be called upon to deal with a great many subjects. I want to say a few words, if I may, about the Carlisle State Management Scheme for which the right hon. Gentleman has to accept Ministerial responsibility. I have no doubt the Committee is aware that in that part of the country which I represent we have almost a complete scheme of State Socialism in the form of public ownership of the drink trade. That experiment, so-called, has been going on since, I think, 1916 or 1917. It was originally decided upon as a War measure, and it has been going on long enough now for the Home Office to—
        The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that we cannot deal with that subject on this Vote. That comes under Class 6, Vote 16. May I explain to the Committee that there seems to be a general misunderstanding in the Committee that when the Home Office Vote is before us everything that comes under the control of the Home Secretary can be discussed. That is not the case. Anything that is included in any other Vote cannot be discussed on the Home Office Vote. Only what the Minister is responsible for in so far as it is covered by this Vote, or anything not covered by any other Vote can be discussed under this Vote. Therefore, I am afraid my hon. Friend cannot raise the matter on this Vote.
        Mr. JAMES HUDSON: It would be in order, I take it, to make reference to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite?
        The CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any intention of making any reference to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but the subjects to which he referred are in the Vote, and therefore I ask hon. Members, when they come to discuss these Estimates, to make themselves acquainted with what is in the Vote.
        Mr. MORRIS: I regret that the very interesting topic which the hon. Gentleman opposite was going to raise is out of order on this occasion. I want to turn to another subject altogether, namely, the Racecourse Betting Control Board. There is no Vote, I think, in respect of that, so that I think I may be in order under your ruling. On the eve of the adjournment of the House for the Whitsuntide Recess, I had an opportunity—a very short one, it is true—of putting some questions with regard to the balance sheet of the Board which at that time had not been issued. The report was not issued until some days after the Recess had started. Now we have an opportunity of discussing the position of the Betting Control Board with the report before us, and a very interesting report it is.
        There are some questions I would like to put to the Home Secretary upon that report. I know that, probably, he will tell us that he has no responsibility whatever in the matter. It has always been

        2129
        one of the difficulties in this House to discuss the affairs of the Betting Control Board at all, because the right hon. Gentleman says that, as Home Secretary, he has nothing whatever to do with the affairs of the Board. Actually, he has responsibilities in three ways, first of all for appointing the chairman of the Board, and then for the form in which the accounts of the Board are presented, which form is prescribed by the right hon. Gentleman himself. I presume that one can raise questions as to the form in which they are prescribed, and show that that form gives no adequate information with regard to the actual position of the Board. The right hon. Gentleman has other powers beside. Under the Act he has power to see that a scheme is prepared by the Board for the distribution of the funds which they obtain from their operations and to see that those moneys from time to time are applied by the Board in accordance with the scheme approved by the Secretary of State. He has to approve a scheme under which they distribute that fund, and he has to approve the form in which the accounts are presented. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the form in which the Betting Control Board presented their accounts for the two years 1929 and 1930? A good deal of discussion centres round balance sheets in these days, and one examines these balance sheets very carefully. In the beginning of their report, they say, in page 7, dealing with the activities of last year:
        "The income received has been sufficient to meet all operating and administration expenses applicable to a normal year's working"—
        I do not know what "normal year's working" conveys to your mind, but it conveys absolutely nothing to mine—
        "although failing to cover the interest on capital and provision for depreciation."
        They are very far from doing that. The total liabilities amount to no less a sum than £2,065,286 2s. 8d. What are their assets to meet that? Among their assets they show sums which are very difficult of explanation. There is an item on the asset side of £11,172 6s. 8d. What is that in respect of? It is described in the balance sheet as:
        "Expenditure on alterations, etc., to buildings, transferred to Development Account."
        2130
        For what was this £11,000 paid? Why have they not given us particulars of the items? I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether that amount is in respect of their totalisator at Newbury, which was not a satisfactory machine, and has been scrapped. If so, why is not the item given here? There is another item of £93,005 19s. 3d. The description of that is:
        "Expenditure on Experimental Plant, etc., transferred to Development Account"
        —a very euphemistic description.
        The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is entering into details of the accounts and not the precise form of the accounts. All that the Home Secretary is concerned with is the form in which the accounts are presented, I understand that is so, and, if so, we can only decide whether they are intelligibly placed before us.
        Mr. MORRIS: I want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this. Here is an account which I fail to understand, and which conveys no accurate information to anyone's mind. The reason why I am calling attention to these items is this: Is this the form which satisfies the Home Secretary? That is the defence of the Board, because they set it out on page 33:
        "The accounts are presented in the form prescribed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department."
        That covers them completely, as long as it is in the form prescribed by the right hon. Gentleman, but that form covers a whole host of secret items, and conveys no information at all as to the true position of the Board. I venture to submit on that point that I am perfectly in order. My complaint against this balance sheet is that if it satisfies the form, as they say it does, and I accept that, then this form does not demand from them any true statement of the real position in which the Board finds itself to-day with £2,000,000 liabilities. Let me go further into this balance sheet to show how serious is the position actually disclosed. The last item on the asset side sets out the sum they have earned during the year, and it is of some concern to this House. The sum earned during the year was £261,323 15s. 10d., to meet an expenditure of £355,090 5s. 6d. There was, therefore, a dead loss on the Board's working for the year of £197,944.
        The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that the Minister is in any way responsible for this loss. After all the hon. Member is really criticising the financial statement and not the form in which the accounts are presented. The Minister is not responsible, as I understand, for the loss or the profit, if one may use those words.
        Mr. MORRIS: With every respect, it is perfectly true that the Minister is not responsible for the loss incurred by the Board, but he has responsibility that the Board shall show clearly what the true financial position is. I cannot show that that form is unsatisfactory unless I discuss the actual items that make it up.
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has no right to criticise the Minister for accounts for which he is not responsible.
        Mr. MORRIS: I am not making myself clear. I am not criticising the body of the report. Supposing the whole of the items were amply set out, showing the exact profit and loss account, and it showed a loss of £197,000, it is true I would have no right to criticise the Minister, but when the Minister prescribes the form, and there is no full statement showing how these losses have been arrived at, surely I am entitled to criticise the Minister, not upon the loss but upon the form prescribed which should show the actual loss. I am referring to these items, not to criticise the Minister for the actual loss, but because the prescribed form which, apparently, satisfies him, and which the Board use to cover them, does not show the true position. Take the first figure on the top of page 40. There they give the sum they spend on salaries and wages—£27,062—and the first sentence on top of that page is:
        "Administration expenses, after deducting amounts allocated to Buildings and Equipment Accounts."
        My complaint about the form of that is that when they set out a sum of £27,062 in respect of salaries and wages, it does not represent in any way the amount spent in salaries and wages, because on turning over the pages one finds that a sum in respect of salaries is included in the amount of £624,146 in respect of buildings. How can anyone say what is the sum spent by the Control Board upon buildings and what is the sum spent upon salaries? Surely that is a very unsatisfactory way of presenting
        2132
        the accounts. We do not know the true position of the Board from the way in which these accounts are kept. Salaries and wages are given in the operating expenses as £109,881 10s. 8d. Appendix IV of the report sets out—I do not know whether it is a sort of genealogical tree—a large number of the officials of the Board in tabular form. What is the good of presenting a report to the House giving the total sum of £109,881 10s. 8d. in respect of salaries and wages? Why should we not be given the exact sum paid in respect of the chairman of the Board, the secretary of the Board, the chief accountant and the general manager? Why are not the salaries set out?
        That is not the only thing about which I have to complain. Take the question of losses which have been made. There is nothing to indicate how those losses have occurred or how the Board hopes to evade them in the future. I will give an instance of how they hope to recoup themselves. I do not want to get out of order. I am not using the figures in order to complain of the administration of the Board, because there is nothing at all in the prescribed forms which demand that the Board should show in the accounts presented to Parliament the real result of their operations on the racecourse. What has occurred at Ascot? They installed at Ascot a building worth £250,000, and the total amount received at Ascot from the totalisator was £220,000, and, taking the gross profit at 10 per cent., it would give a yield of £22,000. The net profit actually made, however, was £9,000, and that means a cost of £13,000 on the day's working. I have taken that as an illustration, but there is nothing to show, from beginning to end, the position after any day's racing during last year.
        There is another and more serious complaint concerning the report. Parliament is very much concerned with this. I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's right to appoint the chairman of the Board. When the Bill, which is now an Act, was introduced into the House it was urged upon the House by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn), who was the sponsor of the Bill, that one of the aims he and the promoters of the Bill had m view was that it would do away with off-the-course

        2133
        betting. He criticised off-the-course betting in very unmistakable terms. He said that it led to more crime than any other form of betting and that he wished to suppress it. I am not discussing the ethics of betting at all. I am merely concerned with the attitude that this House took towards betting, and the undertaking which was given to the House when it passed the Bill. Off-the-course betting was condemned by the promoters of the Bill, and yet, when I turn to this report, I find, in page 19, set up in heavy type, the words:
        "'Off-the-course' betting."
        I want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to some of the passages contained in paragraphs 37, 38 and 39:
        "The arrangements entered into with the London and provincial Sporting News Agency, Limited, continued in force throughout the year and proved an efficient service.
        At the commencement of the year the board were considering proposals from the Guardian Pari-Mutuel Limited, which was desirous of obtaining facilities for placing bets with the racecourse Totalisator on behalf of its members. An agreement was entered into by this organisation which was in force during the year, its bets being tendered at the racecourse by the medium of the London and Provincial Sporting News Agency Limited, and accompanied by the requisite amount in the form of chits."
        The fact is you can only do cash betting with the totalisator.
        The CHAIRMAN: I am not very much concerned about this. In the event of the Board of Control doing anything wrong, regarding off-the-course betting, it can be challenged in the courts of law, and the Minister himself is not in any way responsible. If that be so, I cannot see that this matter is in order at all.
        Mr. MORRIS: That is the whole point; it cannot be challenged in a court of law for this reason. What is legal with the totalisator is cash betting. Credit betting with the totalisator has been prohibited under the Act itself. I am not at all clear, but that was the intention of the Act. There is no credit betting with the totalisator. The undertaking given to Parliament was that—
        The CHAIRMAN: I am not concerned at the moment with the undertaking given by the hon. and gallant Member to Parliament. I am concerned with the
        2134
        Vote before us and the Minister's responsibility for that Vote. If the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) expressed an opinion, or gave an undertaking, it does not bind us at all in this discussion.
        Mr. MORRIS: The Minister has this power with regard to the Board. He appoints the chairman of the Board. The chairman of the Board and the Board itself are not carrying out the undertakings given to Parliament. They have devised a way in which to get behind the Act. The right hon. Gentleman is in the position that he can supplant the chairman, see to it that a chairman is appointed to carry out the undertakings given to Parliament, or he can withdraw the chairman entirely. He is in that position. Therefore, I am raising the point and urging the breach of the undertakings in this House as a reason for the right hon. Gentleman to take steps to remove the present chairman. I am not concerned with the individual, but with the fact that five out of the 12 representatives of the Board were Government nominees, one of whom was the nominee of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has power over him, not to determine his action, but to remove him and to cancel his appointment. In that case, I submit that I am perfectly in order in saying that here is a reason, because the Board is doing something which is a violation of the undertakings given to this House, why the right hon. Gentleman should take action and remove the chairman of the Board or decline to continue his appointment and appoint someone else That is an action which is clearly within the rights and powers of the right hon Gentleman.
        The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to have to intervene again. We are concerned with an Act of Parliament and not with any undertaking urged at the passing of that Act of Parliament. If the chairman is not carrying out the Act of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman would be quite in order, but, when he tells me that somebody gave an undertaking, I want to know whether that individual was appointed by the Home Secretary.
        Mr. MORRIS: It is not an undertaking which is binding upon the Home Secretary, I agree. Nothing is binding

        2135
        upon the Home Secretary except the Act of Parliament itself. There may be reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should or should not put into operation the provisions of an Act of Parliament, but the powers he has in this case are concerned with the honour of this Committee. They concern the question of pledges given by the promoters of the Bill. It was not an irresponsible undertaking. It was an undertaking upon which the House passed the Bill by a very narrow majority. The answer may be that it is now an Act of Parliament, and that therefore the history of the passage of the Bill through the House becomes, in a sense, immaterial. That, in a narrow technical sense, may be quite true, but I very much doubt it. I maintain that it is within the power of the right hon. Gentleman to remove the chairman of the Board. Here is a Board doing something which is encouraging off-the-course betting, which was never contemplated by the Act.
        The CHAIRMAN: There is no money in this Estimate for any of the things to which the hon. Member has referred; no money whatever. All I am concerned about is the responsibility of the Minister, and nothing beyond that. In the Estimate as presented to us to-day there is no money involved. Perhaps the Minister will help us.
        The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): It may ease the situation if I say a few words. I understand from the hon. Gentleman that I have no power over the actions of the chairman. That, I think is admitted. He pointed out that I have authority to appoint him or to remove him. I am not sure that to remove him or to appoint another, in the circumstances, would afford any remedy. We are dealing with an Act of Parliament, and under that Act my authority, as I understand it, is limited to sanctioning the form in which the Control Board shall present its accounts. That form is determined on the advice of accountants of the very highest standing and position. If my hon. Friend will bear in mind that the form of presenting these accounts is a new stage, and, it may be, an experimental stage of a new organisation, and if my hon. Friend can suggest improvements in the form of the
        2136
        accounts in which my authority is limited, I shall be very glad to consult with him and see how far, jointly, we might make helpful representations in the proper quarter, to the chairman and to the Control Board.
        Mr. MORRIS: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, but I am not content with the first part of his remarks. The right hon. Gentleman began by assuming that it would not help very much if he removed the present chairman and appointed someone else in his place. That may be true, but the position since the Act passed has so changed that not only is it not necessary any longer for the right hon. Gentleman to make a new appointment, but no appointment should be made at all by the Home Office, and for this reason. When the Act was passed, it contemplated a situation in which it was generally thought that totalisators could not be set up on racecourses without a special Act of Parliament authorising their being set up. The Act limited the setting up of totalisators on racecourses for horse racing and horse racing only. The whole object of the Act is said to be for the improvement of horse breeding. The right hon. Gentleman has a statutory obligation upon him to devise a scheme by which money shall be paid for the purpose of improving horse breeding, but there is no hope of a single penny being set aside for horse breeding. Since the passage of the Act totalisators have been set up on racecourses which have nothing to do with horse racing—on dog-racing tracks—and the result has been that cases have come before the courts. The Divisional Court has held that a totalisator can be set up on any racecourse by any group of people and by any private individual. That is a change altogether. No one contemplated that that was the law until the decision of the High Court was given. If that be so, and I or anybody else or any combination of people can set up a totalisator upon any course in the country, why should it be necessary to have this august body of 12 nominees, five of whom are Government nominees? Why should the right hon. Gentleman appoint upon this Board—
        The CHAIRMAN: We have nothing to do with that.
        Mr. MORRIS: The Home Secretary can do what he pleases. It is not mandatory upon him to appoint. I beg pardon. That may be so. It may be that it is obligatory upon the right hon. Gentleman.
        The CHAIRMAN: If he has to appoint a chairman, then he is exercising a function which devolves upon him, and if it has been found that, under the law, it is possible to create totalidsators everywhere, I do not see that we can criticise that on this Vote.
        Mr. MORRIS: I agree that in that case it would require amending legislation. If I might digress for a moment, I would say that it has become clear that we do not need an august body of this sort, with Government representatives upon it, to do something which any private individual can do. The thing is laughable and farcical. Although it may be obligatory upon the right hon. Gentleman to appoint someone, it is high time that the chairman of the board should be a person who will satisfy the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary must satisfy himself that the Act has been properly administered and carried out, and it cannot be said at the moment that the accounts disclose anything in regard to the true position. The public in the past year subscribed something like £300,000 to the totalisators and they have a right to know the real position. I welcome the suggestion of the Home Secretary that a form should be put before him which would reveal the true financial position of the Racecourse Betting Control Board. I thank him for that assurance.
        Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I appeal to the Home Secretary on a matter which is arousing very widespread interest and attention. A very large number of people are much concerned about the working of the cinemas in this country, and they are particularly concerned about two matters connected with the cinema. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the system of censorship.
        The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Home Secretary has nothing to do with the censorship. All that he is concerned with are the duties of the police where necessary in connection with the showing of films. I find that the cinematograph
        2138
        adviser does not arise on this Vote. We cannot have a criticism of the censorship of films on this Vote.
        Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: May I state the line that I was going to take? The Home Secretary has power, if he likes, to appoint a committee of inquiry to go into the question of censorship.
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will appoint such a committee, and, if he says "yes" or "no," that is an answer, and that ends it.
        Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Surely, I am entitled on the Home Office Estimates to ask the right hon. Gentleman to appoint such a committee, which has been frequently asked for but which he has so far declined to appoint. I am going to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on the Floor of the House to appoint the committee and to satisfy public anxiety about the working of the censorship and the influence of the cinema upon children.
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must appreciate my difficulty. I cannot allow him to discuss anything for which the Minister at the moment is not responsible. I have been making inquiries and I understand that the only thing that concerns the Minister is when the police say that certain films are indecent, and the police then have a right to interfere. Then the action of the Minister may be criticised.
        Mr. FOOT: Suppose that the hon. Members feel that the right hon. Gentleman should have regard to the protest that is being made through the country against the character of the films that are now being shown. Can we not press upon him in this Debate the advisability of the appointment of some committee or board of inquiry to ascertain the working of the existing censorship and to suggest its improvement for the protection of the public interests?
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can ask for the appointment of a committee but he cannot enter into details in regard to a matter on which the Minister is not for the moment responsible.
        Mr. BENSON: If the hon. Member is allowed to give reasons why such a committee should be appointed, would

        2139
        another hon. Member be entitled to give reasons why the Home Secretary should have nothing whatever to do with the censorship?
        The CHAIRMAN: That question illustrates my difficulty. If I allow an hon. Member to urge that the committee be appointed, I cannot deter another hon. Member from urging that no committee be appointed.
        Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Why should you not do that?
        The CHAIRMAN: Because this is not the time or place for doing it.
        Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I regard this matter as very important in the interests of the Home Secretary himself. I should have thought he would welcome a discussion on the Floor of the House rather than denunciations in the country.
        The CHAIRMAN: Even if that be so, the proper place to raise this matter is in connection with the salary of the cinema adviser. I suppose he advises the Minister; I do not know. Well, whoever he is. That would come on Vote 14, Class 7.
        Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: May I raise this point of Order. If it be the case that films can only be censored by the police if they offend against decency, and the Home Secretary has power over the police, would it not be in order to urge the Home Secretary that he should—I do not want to use a slang phrase—ginger up the police to be more stringent in their censorship of what is and what is not decent?
        The CHAIRMAN: That may be so, but not on this Vote. That would be on the Police Vote.
        Lord EUSTACE PERCY: May I put this point of Order? There are many voluntary arrangements for controlling the nature of the films shown to children, and so forth. I believe, subject to correction, that the Home Secretary is responsible for the administration of these voluntary arrangements; I may be wrong, but it is not sufficient to say that the Home Secretary has no power of censorship and that, therefore, the question of censorship cannot be discussed. That is obvious, but if he is responsible to this
        2140
        House for the general question of films and if he can, by agreement with the industry, safeguard the quality of the films, is it not open to us on the Vote for his salary to question him and discover how he is carrying out those duties, which may be extra-statutory duties?
        Mr. CLYNES: I have frequently been questioned in the House on the subject of the censorship in relation to the demand that I should appoint a committee of inquiry generally into the form of the censorship. The present form is that of an independent body of film censors and there is dissatisfaction with that condition. Consequently, I have been pressed to appoint a committee. I raise no objection whatever to my action in refusing to appoint a committee being made the subject of debate and criticism in this House. I can see your difficulty, and it is for you, as Chairman, finally to determine whether a debate should take place now or on some other occasion.
        The CHAIRMAN: It is impossible on this Vote to raise matters over which the Minister has no control, although he may have been questioned on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members must seek another opportunity, such as on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. I am not in a position to allow a discussion ranging over the question of film censorship, for which there is no money in this Estimate; not a single penny piece.
        Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Surely, on the Minister's salary I might raise the question of the cinemas. I put down a Motion to reduce the Minister's salary in order to ensure my being able to speak on this subject, but I withdrew it on subsequent consideration. Surely, on the salary of the Minister and the general question of the Minister's duties I am entitled to ask him to reconsider his decision not to appoint a committee to inquire into these matters that are exciting so much general interest.
        The CHAIRMAN: Yes, but I cannot allow the hon. Member to criticise the censorship, in so doing.
        Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: What I was going to do was to point out that the censorship was very unsatisfactory in its present stage. May I call your attention to some words that were used by the

        2141
        Attorney-General the other day before the Committee which is considering the question of Sunday cinemas?
        "We may very rapidly, I think, come to the time when there will have to be lists of what films can be shown and what films cannot be shown. The time is quickly coming when we really shall have to take this question in hand. I think the whole system of the licensing of films at present is very unsatisfactory."
        The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Vote. I cannot allow the hon. Member to go off at a tangent in this way. He must confine himself to something which is concerned with the Vote.
        Mr. EGAN: Are not the police responsible for any pictures that may be shown for the advertising of films, whether they offend against decency or not? Does not that come under the authority of the Home Secretary?
        The CHAIRMAN: Even if that be true, the police action does not arise on this Vote, as I have already pointed out.
        Mr. DENMAN: It may be perhaps for the convenience of the Committee if I call attention to a matter which is in order. The Vote very definitely provides that for the Roll of the Baronetage there shall be provided £128, which I note is a saving of £8 on the Vote for 1930. That is a matter for congratulation. It shows that the Government are taking economy seriously. It is a matter of great interest to our party, because we have lost one of our baronets. I do not know whether that is a matter which is in any way reflected in this Vote. This particular sum is, however, less satisfactory than it might be, because I notice that there has been a greater decrease in the Appropriations-in-Aid. Last year the baronetage enrollment fees amounted to £150, but this year they are estimated to produce only £135, so that the transaction in relation to the baronetage shows decreased revenue. In 1930 we made a profit of £14, and in 1931 we are only making a profit of £7. I was in hope that this Government trading, if it be right so to describe it, would be more and not less successful in 1931 than in 1930. I have mentioned this matter in order to restore our Debate to perfect order.
        I will conclude by drawing attention to two more substantial points. When the Home Secretary first came into office
        2142
        he was very patient with me, under a certain amount of examination, as to his administration of the naturalisation laws. I discovered, in the course of my investigations, that naturalisation in previous times had been so costly as to make it outside the range of poorer persons who by their long residence and by their excellent records of character and service in their work had shown themselves abundantly qualified to become naturalised British subjects. The sole difficulty with them was money; they could not afford the high fees that were then charged. The Home Secretary undertook to examine the matter, and I think he made a change in the regulations whereby it was possible for such deserving cases to obtain naturalisation at more reasonable figures. I should be glad if he would tell us how that experiment has succeeded and whether he proposes to extend it. I notice that in the Appropriations-in-Aid he estimates an even larger income from fees under the British Nationality (Status of Aliens) Act, in 1931 than in 1930, and it may be that the smaller fees now charged in such deserving cases have brought in, and are likely to bring in, a bigger revenue than the higher fees.
        To one other point I must refer. A curious change has occurred in the treatment of persons who have changed their name under the proper legal provisions. A case was brought to my notice not long ago of a man who within three or four days—he was a British subject—had changed his name by the ordinary legal method, with proper publicity and so on, and for all practical purposes since then he has been known by his new name. In 1920 he had a passport that took him abroad under that name. Recently, however, in obtaining a new passport, he has found inscribed upon it, I understand in accordance with the regulations laid down by the Home Office, the fact that 20 years ago he had another name. Of course it is a perfectly true statement of history, but it is not a very agreeable statement to have announced in that way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If you have changed your name at a given moment and published the fact, people know that it is done, but if you have it recorded on a document and you present that document wherever you happen to be staying abroad, and it is there recorded

        2143
        that 20 years ago you had another name, there is no explanation made as to the reason for the change, and nothing is known about it. Obviously it does suggest to the authorities of the other countries that there may be something queer about it. In the case of British citizens it should surely be quite unnecessary, after a limited number of years, say five years, for such details to be published on documents. Such publication is liable to create difficulties and objections, and even pain quite out of proportion to any practical result that can possibly be regarded as beneficial. I am sure that the Home Secretary will look into these points. If he can give us any information as to improved facilities for naturalisation I am sure the Committee will be glad to have it.
        Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I wish to raise one point regarding the Home Office Industrial Museum which is mentioned on page 17. The Home Secretary will find exhibited at that museum various guards for particular machines, and that they are really impracticable to be put into ordinary use in workshops. Particularly do I refer to the guards on certain types of presses. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, in common with all who are interested in industry, desires that the museum should be of the greatest possible benefit to those engaged in the administration and organisation of workshops. If one went to the museum to see how to put a guard round a particular press, and one then duplicated that particular guard in one's own workshop, the output of the machine would come down so as to make the retention of the machine absolutely impracticable. That remark applies not only to certain double-action presses, but also to grinding machinery.
        I would like to have some information from the Home Secretary as to how many managers and those responsible for workshops have visited the museum during the past year. Perhaps it would be an advantage to industry in general, and to this museum in particular, if there could he some closer co-ordination between the Home Office and organisations of employers engaged in the engineering industry; if there could be some joint committee set up to review the exhibits in
        2144
        this interesting museum, including perhaps those engaged in the practical side of industry as distinct from those engaged in the supervising side, such as the Home Secretary and his Department. Perhaps such a committee could make some contribution which would make the retention of this museum more valuable to national industry than it is at the present time. The average payment per person for workmen's compensation in the engineering industry is 20s. to 30s. per cent., according to the particular class of output of the factory. I feel sure that with a greater use of practical examples in industrial museums, a more practical liaison between industry and the Home Office, the percentage rate which firms have to pay for Workmen's Compensation Act insurance, would be materially brought down and the number of accidents would be fewer. I think that the museum would be a greater benefit under such a scheme than it is now.
        Mr. MILLS: I want to refer to Class III Votes, on page 23, in reference to inspectors of constabulary and contribution towards general expenses.
        The CHAIRMAN: The Home Office Vote starts on page 4. The second Vote is Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum.
        Mr. MILLS: I have always been qualified for Broadmoor. I have in mind the deplorable results of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser), and I have endeavoured to begin by giving chapter and verse for the point upon which I wanted to speak. However, it is on the Home Office Vote, and it relates to administration.
        The CHAIRMAN: It cannot be on the Home Office Vote if it is on page 23. The Vote before the Committee now is the Home Office Vote. The Vote on page 23 relates to the police of England and Wales, and is a different Vote.
        Mr. J. HUDSON: With fear and trembling I approach the subject that I wish to raise in this Debate. I hope I have some excuse for my intervention in the fact that the matter upon which I wish to speak was raised definitely by the right hon. Gentleman who began this Debate. I want to refer to the responsibility

        2145
        of the Home Office for street accidents, not so much police intervention in accidents but the part which the Home Office plays in the matter. I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman said, that this becomes year by year a more serious issue, and that Parliament should take every opportunity to impress upon the Home Office the need for better regulations and better intervention. To have a list of accidents that approaches pretty well a war casualty list year by year is something that ought to lead to a great deal more care on the part of the Home Office in discovering what steps can be taken to prevent these serious results.
        In the statistics that are prepared for us year by year it appears that between 80 and 90 per cent. of the total accidents are due to human causes, to mistakes in judgment, and that only 10 to 20 per cent. are classified as due to mistakes or defects in the machine, in the motor. As far as I can judge, the anxiety of the Home Office, in the regulations that are published and in the pressure that it brings to bear on the police, and through the police, is mainly with respect to the machine. All sorts of regulations are made and all sorts of pressure is used to see that the brakes are all right on motor cars, the red light is burning at the proper time, and that the other rules laid down are being kept, but so far as the human side of the matter is concerned very little indeed seems to be done by the Home Office.
        5.0 p.m.
        Taking the total casualty lists, it appears from the 1930 figures that 33 per cent. of the accidents were caused by private cars and taxicabs; 12 per cent. by vans and lorries; that motor cycles and sidecars took a large toll, 16.7 per cent.; and that motor cycles driven solo were responsible for 22 per cent. The most remarkable fact of all in these figures is that motor omnibuses and coaches, which one would have expected to have taken a very large proportion in this annual toll of road accidents, were responsible for only 5.3 per cent. of the accidents upon the road. I want to suggest that the regulations that have been applied by municipalities and by private companies who are responsible for the running of these motor omnibuses have had a great deal to do with the limitation of the accidents to the particularly
        2146
        low figure of 5.3 per cent. of the total. You may ask what type of regulations could have had such an effect as this. There was given to the Royal Commission on Licensing some very remarkable evidence by Dr. Courtney Weekes who was acting as the specially appointed Secretary of a committee representing the House of Commons and the House of Lords in putting forward a particular point of view to the Royal Commission. He had sent a special questionnaire to all municipalities and all private companies engaged in the running of those motor omnibuses to find out what might be the cause of this very low percentage. It was discovered as a result of this questionnaire that of the municipalities 88 per cent. were—
        The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Vote, because it is not the responsibility of the Home Office. There is no reference at all to the authority of the Home Office in this matter. If the hon. Member wishes to refer to street accidents, he must show how far the Home Office is responsible.
        Mr. HUDSON: I am only referring to the fact that the Home Office has issued regulations and circulars to the police to see that the law is carried out. If you run a motor bicycle and sidecar which has not an effective brake, you will have two burly policemen stopping you and telling you to put the brake on so that they may test it. I understand that sort of thing is done by policemen, because they receive circulars and instructions for which the Home Office is responsible.
        The CHAIRMAN: Surely these regulations are issued by the Minister of Transport and not by the Home Office.
        Mr. HUDSON: Surely the Home Office is responsible for the final issue of them to the police.
        The CHAIRMAN: Not to the police away from London.
        Mr. MILLS: On that point of Order, may I remind you that, in my own experience, workmen travelling to work on what was regarded as defective pillion seats were prevented from proceeding, under the terms of the Road Traffic Act, by policemen operating on instructions from the Home Office.
        The CHAIRMAN: Again, I must point out that, if hon. Members want to criticise the police in any way, they must wait until we come to the police Vote.
        Mr. HUDSON: On that point of Order. Surely all this expenditure on staff at the Home Office pre-supposes expenditure upon making clear to the police what is the law upon these matters.
        The CHAIRMAN: I am informed that the Home Office has nothing whatever to do with this matter. It is the Ministry of Transport.
        Mr. HUDSON: If that is your Ruling, Sir Robert, I bow to it. But may I say, on the point of Order, that I understood, when the Opposition puts down a Vote for discussion, that that is the opportunity we should take to raise the issue which the Opposition considers should be raised. Is it not true that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) acting for the Opposition, raised specifically the question of Home Office responsibility for road accidents. Is it not unfair, when that question has been raised by the Opposition, that we should be precluded from discussing Home Office responsibility?
        The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, when making his speech, referred to street accidents in London, and Home Office regulations dealing with the same.
        Mr. HUDSON: No, in the country.
        The CHAIRMAN: If I had understood him to refer to road accidents in the country, I should have called him to order. Now I learn that the regulations to which the hon. Member is referring are issued by the Ministry of Transport.
        Mr. BENSON: We have here a Vote of nearly £500,000 for the Home Office, and so far no one has been able to discover what the Home Office does. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to give us some outline of its work?
        The CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members are apparently paying no attention to the Vote. If they look at the Vote they
        2148
        will find that there is a lot that the Home Office does. I am concerned primarily with what is covered by this particular Vote. If hon. Members want to discuss-the police in relation to the Home Office they will have to do it on Vote 3, not on Vote 1.
        Sir BASIL PETO: I want to raise the question of the administration of the Aliens Acts, 1914 to 1919. I see by the Vote that there has been an economy effected this year in the officers who carry out the regulations. There has been a saving of £1,692 on the salaries and allowances of officers, and there is a further saving of nearly a third on travelling and incidental expenses. I should like the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to be able to assure us why it has been found possible to do away with one or more—I should like to know how many—of these officers whose duty it is to administer the Aliens Acts. Will he also explain how it is possible, on this comparatively small allowance for travelling and incidental expenses, on which we have to depend for the mobility and consequently the usefulness of these officers, to save nearly one-third of the total?
        I found recently that the Home Office have withdrawn the restriction in one particular case on a Russian—I am informed he is a Communist and no one has denied it—and he is absolutely free in this country at the present time. When I raised this matter on the Adjournment the other night, I carried it a little further than I had given the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary notice of, and I asked one or two questions. I wanted to know whether the conditions imposed upon the landing of foreign Communists had been generally relaxed or removed, and, if that were so, whether the officers of the ports, having these instructions from the Home Secretary, were now allowing the entrance of a larger number of undesirable aliens. I wanted to know how many aliens had been admitted during the right hon. Gentleman's tenure of office, and whether they are free of restrictions and are allowed to carry on Communist propaganda throughout the country. Those questions, I have no doubt, the Home Secretary will now be able to answer as I gave him notice

        2149
        that I would raise them. I hope he will be able to assure us that perhaps my fears are groundless.
        There has been a further development. I understand from a notice which I have seen in the Press that we are very shortly to be favoured with a visit from Russia of a Soviet ship containing 300 of the best Communist workers that they can send. These the only casual visitors, but I want the Home Secretary to assure us that no part of that human cargo is to be left behind in the Port of London. When you get a large number of these Soviet citizens it would be very natural to assume, knowing the conditions under which they work, that a very considerable number would prefer to remain permanently in this country if they could evade the regulations. They are going round on a trip, and they are going to be watched to see how they are to carry out their propaganda. They are to visit such diverse places as London, Stamboul and Genoa.
        Mr. MILLS: Is it in order on the Vote of the Home Office to raise a purely hypothetical question about the hypothetical visit of people who have not yet started for this country?
        The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is dealing with the question of aliens coming to this country, he is entitled to ask questions on the subject.
        Sir B. PETO: All I ask is that the opportunity shall not be given of the arrival of this ship to allow any of the 300 Communists to slip through the regulations and remain behind. When I see that we are reducing the Vote for the officers to carry out the restriction regulations, and still more their power of movement from place to place, I am anxious as to whether the benevolent views to which the Home Secretary gave expression with reference to the Communist violinist may not cause him now to put the telescope to his blind eye on this question of communists getting through. There are two views of this matter. There is the view we take of the propagandist value of these people in this country, and there is also the fact that they have to earn their living if they are not paid from foreign sources. Even if the Communist is a violinist, he is doing an English violinist out of a job, and our English musicians are suffering very
        2150
        severely by the introduction of automatic music in cinemas. I am anxious, with the enormous unemployment we have to-day, that there shall not be the slightest relaxation of these Orders and Acts preventing the incursion into this country or aliens from abroad.
        Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: It is interesting to note the perturbation which seems to be present on the benches opposite with regard to the administration of the Aliens Acts. I rise merely to make a short observation in the hope that the Home Secretary will persist in the relaxed administration of the Acts. The right hon. Member who opened the discussion expressed great concern about these matters, and it has just been reechoed by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). Do they recollect the circumstances in which this Act and its regulations came into operation? It is now 17 years since the Act was first started, and owing to the special circumstances of that time changes were introduced which I suggest have no warrant in the circumstances of to-day. It was one of the glories of England in 1914 that opinion was free. It was thought necessary, erroneously as I thought, to contract and restrict expression of opinion for the purposes of the War; but is there any reason why that contraction should continue now? The hon. Member for Barnstaple does not surprise those of us who are accustomed to his views on such matters when he reiterates his concern that in connection with some trip a number of Communists are about to visit this country. I have not heard of this trip, and frankly I think it is a matter of no consequence whatever. Putting matters at their worst, and supposing that these persons arrive here and express Communist opinions, what does it matter?
        We are accustomed in this land to provide the fullest freedom for expression of opinion, and even unpopular opinions, and while we thought it necessary to contract that right during the War is there any reason why that contraction should continue now? In his administration of the Aliens Act my right hon. Friend is taking the right course in adapting its regulations to the changed circumstances of the time, and it would be most unfortunate if any expression of his gave any currency to the fears expressed by the

        2151
        hon. Member for Barnstaple, that this Government entertains any sort of fear about the expression of political views whatever their character may be. We understand that the apprehensions of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) are well founded The more his views are examined the less likely are they to be accepted. We on this side are glad to hear the expression of any views. We have always the safeguard that if they are accompanied by an act of any illegal character proceedings can be immediately instituted against the offender, but the mere expression of opinion is no circumstance to excite terror on any side of the House. Even the moderated terror of the Noble Lord, accentuated in the case of the hon. Member for Barnstaple, is no reason why we should be affected by any expression of opinion. It is the general desire on these benches that the least impediment possible shall be placed on the interchange of opinions between country and country through the administration of the Aliens Act.
        A recent incident has been mentioned of a distinguished Russian, with certain political activities, who attended here for another purpose altogether; in order to take part in some scientific deliberations. Apparently, on the benches opposite there are no politicians of scientific attainments. They are accustomed to associate politicians merely with political activities, but in a case such as the one to which reference has been made, where a politician was a man of considerable attainments in scientific matters, was that any reason why his visit to this country should be the subject of the clamour which occurred in, certain quarters, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary refused to give way; a fact upon which I should like to compliment him. So far as that aspect of the administration of this Act is concerned I hope my right hon. Friend will persist in this relaxed and progressive view of its administration. There is another aspect of the administration of this Act to which reference has been made. Complaint has been made about foreign musicians coming to this country. They do not come in, large numbers. But what about the musicians who proceed from this country to foreign lands? I am not in the habit, like some
        2152
        hon. Members opposite, of attending foreign resorts of pleasure, but a few weeks ago I found myself in a foreign land and I was taken to one of the places of amusement. There I discovered that there were British artistes of considerable attainments. Why should we complain of foreign musicians coming into this country if British musicians are allowed to go and perform to the delight of other lands.
        I want to ask in all seriousness, whether, now that so many years have passed since this panic legislation was started during the War, the time has not arrived when we should reflect upon what this country stands for and make some effort to resume its traditions. We want free political opinion, with a careful look out for extremists—that has been our national policy. Why should we not allow opinions to be freely expressed, interfering as little as possible between the interchange of views between one country and another, and give up the foolish notion that we are called upon to prevent foreign musicians coming here whilst everlastingly complaining that our own musicians are denied the opportunities of employment abroad? I express this view with all respect to the Committee and I hope that the Home Secretary will persist in the good course he has so far adopted.
        Mr. CADOGAN: Although the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) and the right hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) have introduced a perfectly novel feature into our Debate by raising a discussion on a subject which is entirely in order, perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I strike out on a different line, although I hope I shall be within the rules of order. On these Supply nights each hon. Member has his own pet grievance to air to which he cannot expect other Members to listen in virtue of the fact that they are intent upon airing their own. Those hon. Members who wish to bring forward their own particular case will have to postpone it for a brief space whilst I occupy the attention of the Committee for just a few moments. They have my sympathy; but my deepest sympathy is reserved for the Home Secretary who has to sit and listen to all our grievances and then to satisfy us as best he

        2153
        can without unduly pledging himself and his colleagues. The grievance I desire to raise is one to which the Home Office is getting accustomed, but I hope that familiarity will not breed contempt or indifference. I do not think that contingency is likely to arise, because I know that the Home Secretary is in sympathy with me and that if he was the only Member of the Cabinet to be consulted on the matter he would satisfy me. But there is always behind him the sinister figure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am speaking quite impersonally, because every Chancellor of the Exchequer is a sinister figure.
        I want to ask how far and how soon the particular recommendations of the Committee on Youthful Offenders are going to be implemented, that is to say, I hasten to add, those recommendations which do not require any further legislation. Last autumn the Home Secretary was good enough to give me a lengthy reply to a question I put on the subject. He expressed himself as generally sympathetic towards it, but he dwelt more particularly upon the organisation of the juvenile court and he informed me that he had circularised every court of summary jurisdiction on the subject. I should like to ask him what has been the effect produced by the circular and what has been the results of the committee which he set up to consider juvenile courts He also made a sympathetic reference to the subject of remand homes which I raised on the adjournment some month or two ago, because I considered it to be one of great urgency. He expressed himself as absolutely sympathetic, but he was in a parsimonious mood on that occasion. I do not blame him under the present circumstances, but I should like him to say whether there is any hope now that these remand homes will be instituted in accordance with the recommendations of that committee.
        Finally, he made a reference to the hopeless overcrowding at Borstal institutions and there he held out considerable hope of improvement. The right hon. Member who opened this Debate said that the Home Secretary appeared to be the only Member of the Cabinet who did not seem to have got into trouble, and he suggested that it was due to one of two causes, either that he
        2154
        had not had much trouble at the Home Office or that he was a better man than his colleagues. I suggest that he is a much better man than his colleagues. He has been struggling with adversity throughout his official career during the last two years but, nevertheless, he has made an attempt by starting a new Borstal institution at Lowdham, near Nottingham, and Camp Hill is to be transformed. He has certainly that to his credit. The Borstal system is not having a fair trial. The lads are hopelessly overcrowded, especially at their work, which should more resemble the work they are likely to do when they are outside these institutions at the end of their term. There is also little of that classification which is an essential and integral part of the whole Borstal system. At Lowdham you have beginners mixing with the old hands, which is quite wrong, and you find the smart young motor bandit and forger associating with the lumbering hooligans. That is quite wrong.
        Moreover, the staffs at the institutions are hopelessly inadequate. I do not think there has ever been a full complement of the superior staff at any of the Borstal institutions, and with regard to the lower grades of staff I should like to suggest that some of the assistant housemasters should be paid better salaries. By that means you will get individuals who are far more suitable to work the Borstal system. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to allay my misgivings on these points. I am one of those who look forward fervently to the time when no single young person under the age of 21 shall go to prison at all.
        The CHAIRMAN: I must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that the subject of the Borstal system does not arise under Vote 1, Class III. Of course, if the hon. Member is dealing only with the probation of offenders system, he is in order in doing so on this Vote, but the Borstal Institutions come under Vote 4, Class III.
        Mr. CADOGAN: I am sorry if I have gone beyond this Vote, and I suppose I may consider myself rather lucky to have been allowed to get in so much. As I say, I trust that the time will come when no young person under 21 will go to prison. We know that there is a contagion within prison walls which no

        2155
        young person can possibly hope to escape. We already have the machinery for the new system. What is required is that that machinery should be kept in good order and controlled by experienced hands, and, last and most important, that it should not be called upon to bear a too great a strain. We have the probation system, the juvenile courts, and, even in the ordinary prisons, we have arrangements for segregation, which mitigate to some extent the abominable evil of sending young persons to prison. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to strengthen and develop that machinery and make it capable of bearing the strain which it will be called upon to bear. New ideas in the treatment of young offenders are useless and illogical unless carried out upon approved lines.
        For the benefit of hon. Members who may not have given the subject as much time and attention as I have been able to do, I may point out that the new system depends on two basic principles, namely, classification and individual treatment. Unfortunately, under present conditions in industry there are a great many young people with idle hands—through no fault of their own—and for them there is plenty of temptation. It is not likely that the curve of juvenile delinquency will take a turn for the better. It is essential to realise that we have to face an intensification of the problem. Again, I congratulate the Home Secretary on hastening the provision of the increased accommodation which the necessities of the case require. I urge in the strongest terms at my command the immense importance and the immediate necessity of carrying into effect an already well-proven remedial system of dealing with young offenders. Gone are the days when we thought we had discharged our duty to these unfortunate youths by castigating them and putting them in durance vile. There is now, in the first place, prevention, and, in the second place, remedial treatment, and these are the appropriate methods of approaching and tackling the problem. Let us do all in our power to prevent crime. Better housing and education are the first preventatives. If these fail, let us give the cure a proper chance and not apply it in some makeshift way, which may
        2156
        bear a remote resemblance to the original, but will only result in bringing the new system into contempt and disrepute.
        Mr. HALL-CAINE: It has been evident in this discussion that hon. Members are under some difficulty in raising certain matters. There are one or two serious matters to which I wish to call attention, and for that purpose I propose to move to reduce the salary of the Home Secretary by £100.
        The CHAIRMAN: It is not necessary for the hon. Member to do so in order to discuss anything which is in order on this Vote, and he must not think that if he moves to reduce the Home Secretary's salary he will then be able to discuss something which is not in order on this Vote.
        Mr. HALL-CAINE: This is a matter with which the Home Secretary deals directly, but whether you, Sir Robert, will rule it out of order on this Vote or not, remains to be seen. The point which I wish to raise is that of the very serious increase in crime in the London Metropolitan area and for that matter throughout the whole country, though I proposed to confine myself, as it appears to be necessary to do so on this occasion, to the Metropolitan area. Mr. Justice McCardie at the Sussex assizes this year said this:
        "The attention of the police"—
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member was in order until he mentioned the word "police." I must draw his attention to the fact that if he wishes to discuss the administration of the police, or the action of the police, he can only do so on Vote 3, which refers to the police. He cannot, when we are dealing with Vote 1, discuss matters which properly arise on Vote 3.
        Mr. HALL-CAINE: Would I not be in order in moving to reduce the salary of the Home Secretary, and then pointing out the disastrous state of affairs which exists in the Metropolitan area in this respect?
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would then be taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by a Motion to reduce the Home Secretary's salary, to raise something on this Vote, which

        2157
        ought to be raised on another Vote, and I could not allow him to do so.
        Lord E. PERCY: There are two points to which I should like to draw attention, but before doing so may I refer to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Holford Knight). Never since Tartarin of Tarason went to Africa to shoot a lion that was not there, have such heroic gestures been made as those of the hon. and learned Member this evening in threatening what was purely a phantom of his own imagination. It has been stated from this side of the Committee that we desire to be satisfied that the Home Office is administering the Aliens Restriction Act with a view to restricting a flow of labour into this country which might compete with our own people. We have not even mentioned any question of suppression of opinion, and any doubts or fears which we may have, as to what is commonly called propaganda, would, I can assure the hon. and learned Member, be covered by his own phrase about "keeping an eye on the extremists." But I hope that the hon. and learned Member in his heroic gesture did not intend to convey that he wished a Labour Home Secretary to establish, as far as possible, free trade in labour between this country and foreign countries, because that is the point which we wish to press on the attention of the Government. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not going back to Nottingham to say that he does not care how much competition comes from abroad, in the form of labour competing with the labour of our own people.
        I wish, firstly, to raise the question of the action of the Government concerning correspondence relating to sweepstakes. I am aware that I am not entitled to question the action of the Postmaster-General in opening letters, in so far as the Postmaster-General acts in that matter solely upon his own general powers under legislation to prevent the passage through the post of illegal matter. But I wish to ask whether the action taken in the opening of mails has been thus taken by the Postmaster-General in pursuance of his general powers, or whether he has been acting under warrant issued by the Home Secretary. If he has been acting under
        2158
        warrant issued by the Home Secretary, I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this is a subject which has always been very jealously regarded by the House of Commons. I am bound to put my criticism in a hypothetical form because I am asking a question. If it be true that the Home Office has issued a warrant for the opening of letters, with a view to detecting sweepstake tickets coming from Dublin to this country, then it is almost certain, I fear, that the warrant has been issued in a general form permitting the opening of any envelope which, in the opinion of some official of the Post Office, might be regarded as suspicious. Certainly we know with what an extraordinary appearance of hap-hazardness this search for incriminating matter has been conducted. I ask the Home Secretary to address himself to that point and to explain under what system, and by what authority the Post Office has acted in this matter.
        Secondly, I wish to put forward a rather broad point of policy. Hon. Members this afternoon have found to their cost the extraordinary character of the Home Office. The Home Office, like the Ministry of the Interior of every nation which I know, is a congeries of departments, a receptacle of miscellaneous duties which do not fall on any other Department and are therefore unloaded on to the Home Secretary. For some extraordinary reason Parliament has required that the Home Office Estimates should be presented in a form closely corresponding to this strange organisation. In the case of any other Department, such as the Board of Education for instance, it is possible to discuss on the main Vote any subject for which the President of the Board of Education or whoever may be the head of that Department is responsible to Parliament. In the case of the Home Office, it has been ruled apparently that the Home Secretary shall account separately to the House of Commons for prisons, for police, for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, for reformatory and industrial schools and all the other matters within the scope of the Department. It is therefore almost impossible to have a general debate on the state of crime in this country or on practically any broad subject of policy with which the House

        2159
        of Commons would wish to deal on the Home Office Estimate. I raise that point in passing for the purpose or suggesting that it might be well for us to consider, not now but on another occasion whether this form of presenting the Estimates is satisfactory or not. There is, however, one subject raising a broad question of policy which can be discussed on this Vote and in view of the Debates of previous years, I am surprised that is has not yet been raised this evening. I refer to the question of factory inspection.
        Mr. BUCHANAN: I was about to raise that question.
        Lord E. PERCY: I do not wish to discuss the general question of factory inspection, but to mention a point which has been impressed very much on my mind by previous Debates on the subject. Since I became a Member of Parliament, nearly 10 years ago, I have heard Home Secretary after Home Secretary express his desire to increase the number of factory inspectors and declare that he was convinced of the inadequacy of the system of inspection, but year after year the occupant of that office has been compelled to add that, in view of the financial situation and the hardhearted-ness of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could do nothing. The present Home Secretary has increased the number of inspectors as an experiment. He has increased the number of Class I inspectors by nine, and Class II inspectors by five, and has made one or two small variations in other directions; but no one supposes, and I am sure the Home Secretary himself would not argue, that that increase is sufficient to render Home Office inspection of factories what it ought to be, nor, in my judgment, can any conceivable increase in the number of inspectors really make this service as efficient as it ought to be.
        In this matter, as in so many others, the administration of this country runs on from year to year, not noticing the changes which are taking place in the nation, and adhering to old lines of organisation simply because they are old. When the factory inspection was originally set up, it was for the purpose of controlling industry, which was at that time not collected in great aggregations
        2160
        under one management, but was scattered in a number of small firms throughout the country. The management of those firms was carried on under the doctrine of enlightened self-interest, and conducted with extreme disregard very often—I am speaking of a 100 years or so ago—for the health or the other interests of the employed people, and it was necessary for the State to step in and enforce standards of safety, and so on, in the factories. What has happened to-day? We have had the growth of great aggregations of capital building up businesses, industries and factories under one management. We have had at the same time great aggregations of workers in national trade unions well organised in every factory, certainly in all the large factories, and we have had of recent years the establishment of national industrial councils representing both the employers and the employed. The action of the State as pioneer, and later of employers and workers, has established now in most industries a high and recognised standard of safety, of health and of the prevention of disease—
        Mr. KELLY: But not recognised by the Home Office.
        Lord E. PERCY: The danger of running on with this system of factory inspection as if it were imposed by the State from above is that the official worker, not having as many inspectors acting as intelligence officers as one would wish, tends rather to fall behind the standard of industry itself and not to act as a pioneer in advance of industry. In many industries we might get more rapid advance and more easy adaptation to the new discoveries of science if we delegated more responsibility from the Home Office to industry and made it answerable for the maintenance of a high standard of safety, health, prevention of industrial disease, and so on. Of course, the Home Office have not been blind to the desirability of that development, and they have sought to encourage the development of responsible statutory committees and the delegation to them of a great deal of responsibility. My submission is that until you carry that system very much further than you have, until you delegate to these great aggregations of industry far more than you do of responsibility for maintaining a high standard of

        2161
        safety and so on in the factories, you will never have enough officials or enough inspectors to keep track with all the small workshops and the small factories where abuses in the matter of safety regulations most commonly occur.
        It is this vast congeries of miscellaneous small workshops which forms the real problem of factory inspection. It is there that you get abuses and disregard of safety regulations, and until you can concentrate your inspecting staff far more upon that, you will never make any progress. This policy involves a distinctly new attitude towards the administration of industrial and economic matters in this country. It means a direct encouragement by the Government of the development of responsible bodies in industry; it means that you can no longer administer this country in its present economic conditions merely through central departments and local regional authorities, and that you have to administer it, certainly in matters of factory inspection, far more through economic authorities representing not a geographical region, but an industry or an occupation. This is the really interesting line of advance, the really interesting development in administration which it seems to me the Home Secretary should be really considering. He is like the old woman who lives in a shoe, and has so many children that he does not know what to do with them; and he must be often worried to death in boxing their ears or giving them a passing stroke with the cane instead of being able to concentrate on any broad administrative policy. I suggest that the broad administrative problem from which these petty distractions ought not to divert him is that of developing in this country in connection with factory inspection a new experiment in government by the addition of responsible authorities, responsible to the central Government, to the local regional authorities through whom we carry out the bulk of our administration.
        Mr. CLYNES: This is, I think, about the time when it is customary for a Minister to deal with some of the points which have been raised, though my rising must not be taken as indicating any unwillingness on the part of the Home Office to deal with points that may be raised later. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary
        2162
        Secretary has a few points in mind, and will be prepared to deal with them in due course. There is no ground for any complaint on the part of the Home Secretary concerning either the terms or the tone of anything that has been said in any part of the Committee, or in any one of the topics which the Chairman has permitted hon. Members to bring forward. Indeed, I must acknowledge the very kindly and cordial terms in which the right hon. Gentleman who began the Debate led the way in his references to the work of the Home Office—a very intimate work in our internal life, and a varied work, as the restricted discussion has already indicated.
        I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the restrictions relating to aliens and the general conditions under which they have been permitted to enter this country have not been in any sense loosened as to permit competing labour from other lands to come into an already over-loaded labour market, and no decision of the Home Office or the Ministry of Labour can be cited to prove the contrary. Aliens who seek admission to this country for employment form a special class. They cannot be admitted indiscriminately to look for work, and are required to present at the port of arrival a permit for their engagement issued to the man's prospective employers by the Ministry of Labour. Before giving such a permit, the Minister satisfies himself that every effort has been made by the employer to find suitable labour in this country, and that the wages to be paid are not less than those usually received by British workers for similar work. Nearly half the permits are in respect of female domestic service, and the biggest groups are theatrical, vaudeville and concert artists, musicians', foreign correspondents, clerks, voluntary commercial students, and teachers of foreign languages. In the case of hotel and restaurant employés, permits are with a few exceptions issued only on condition that a British subject is sent abroad in exchange so that he may have the opportunity of learning foreign languages and foreign hotel practice.
        6.0 p.m.
        It is essential in the public interest to maintain some form of control over aliens, apart from the necessity of excluding aliens who are individually undesirable, criminal, diseased, or destitute.

        2163
        The principal feature of the past year has been the simplification in the procedure in connection with the admission of aliens and the kindred question of naturalisation. Instead of a total of eight documents, the whole of the necessary information is now contained on one application form for naturalisation. Five statutory declarations have therefore been wiped out, and now only the applicant himself is required to support his application by a statutory declaration, written references, not on oath, being accepted from his British sponsors. The new form of application has been drawn up as simply as possible so that an applicant should be able to complete it himself instead of having to take it to an agent or solicitor. These were the conditions which made applications for naturalisation a very costly process, and placed the figure higher above the capacity to meet it of many of those who had proper ground for applying for naturalisation. This new procedure enables the Department to deal more expeditiously with applications when they are lodged, and more applications have been considered than was previously possible. It is not the case, however, that naturalisation is being granted more freely. The standard expected of an applicant for the privilege of naturalisation is being well maintained, but I have simplified the process by eliminating certain sources of delay before applications were taken into consideration, and it has been possible to overtake some of the arrears accumulated before the present Government took office. There was, indeed, a long, long queue of waiting applicants wearied by years of waiting for their cases to be dealt with. The question of fee has been referred to. The present fee is £10. This is sometimes regarded as prohibitive, but let us not forget that this process of conferring British nationality upon aliens is a costly process, requiring great expenditure on the part of the State, and very expensive machinery in the way of staff and offices in order that the facts shall be assembled and tested, and finally that the naturalisation should be granted. My own view is that British nationality is a possession which ought to be highly prized by anyone receiving it, and therefore is so good a thing as to be worth paying for; and the simplification of the
        2164
        procedure has enabled the alien to dispense with the services of a solicitor or agent.
        The Secretary of State has undertaken to consider, in any cases where it is claimed that the maintenance of the present fee debars a respectable alien from obtaining British nationality, whether the circumstances justify an application to the Treasury for their consent to the remitting of the fee, so that in the case of poor persons clearly unable to meet this payment steps have been taken, and periodically are taken by me, either completely to remit the fee or substantially to reduce it, so as to bring it within the means of the Act. In the earlier part of the Debate reference was made to numbers, and figures were cited. Although it has been made easy for everybody concerned, both from the standpoint of administration and from the standpoint of the applicant, the figures reveal the fact that the Labour Government are not indiscriminately letting in people and naturalising them upon application. Taking as a comparison the figures for the year 1928—a year in my predecessor's term of office—and 1930, I find that in 1928 registered certificates were issued to 1,393 persons and in 1930 to 1,409, a difference of a very few in favour of the Labour Government.
        It was pointed out that many of those naturalised are of Russian nationality. That is true, but it is not accurate to say or to imply, as I think was implied by the hon. Baronet opposite, that we were loosely admitting to these shores Communists and Soviet nationals and naturalising them. The truth is that nearly all, certainly a very large proportion, of the Russians who in due course receive British nationality are Russians of long residence here, who lived here before the War or before there were any such strained relations as it is now sometimes represented exist between Russia and this country. In the main they are fathers and mothers of children who are British subjects. Their children born here acquire British nationality. Therefore, we are not as guilty as is sometimes urged upon the platforms of this country. Coming to percentages, I find that in 1928 the percentage of Russians naturalised was 37 per cent., and in 1930 34 per cent., so that a Labour

        2165
        Home Secretary has naturalised fewer Russians than was the case under the preceding Government in 1928. On the point of renouncing nationality, we do everything we can to prevent double nationality, but naturalisation is an act of Sovereignty, and we could not make it a right on our part to require a Russian or any other alien to renounce a foreign nationality. That is a step, so far as I know, which has never been taken by any Home Secretary or any Minister who had to deal with these cases. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his very helpful speech, almost apologised for jumping from one subject to another, having no relation to it. I must follow his example.
        Sir B. PETO: Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes with the subject of aliens, will he tell us whether the figures he gave of 1,393 and 1,409 are the numbers naturalised or the figures of admissions to this country without restrictions?
        Mr. CLYNES: The numbers naturalised.
        Sir B. PETO: And can he answer my question as to how many aliens have been admitted into this country during the last two years?
        Mr. CLYNES: I do not happen to have those figures before me, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give that information later.
        It is lamentable that there should be a very substantial increase in the number of street accidents, but the reason is obvious. With the revolution in street traffic and transport conditions, and in this age of increasing speed, I think it is inevitable; unhappy as it may be, this substantial increase is almost unpreventable. Touching this matter from the standpoint of police action, I can only say that the police have become more and more the guardians of the public interest as regards road safety, and by regulations and instructions, and by ceaseless watchfulness, they do a great deal to lessen the number of accidents, large as that unhappily is. Public safety depends, and must depend more and more, upon private carefulness, upon the avoidance of those reckless steps which are so frequently the cause of loss of both life and limb. The police have, I
        2166
        claim, become much more efficient in the handling of traffic, and do all they possibly can, faced as they sometimes are with the baffling condition of satisfying some motorist eager to gain time and at the same time guarding pedestrians, who in no sense are guilty of any abuse of our public roads.
        There was another topic referred to by the hon. Member for Finchley, whose services in the matter of Borstal work and young offenders is very real and extremely valuable. I would like to acknowledge the good work which I know he has done, and the time and service which he has given to the pursuit of this human interest. I wholeheartedly agree with him in the line of argument which he followed. There is an increase of enlightenment on the part of all of us as to how we should deal with young offenders. We have learned by experience, and are making the very best use of that experience, even if at times it is rather costly to do so. Persons under 16 are not sent to prison save in rare and exceptional cases where the Court certifies that the young person is so depraved or so unruly as to be beyond aid or cure by being sent to, say, a place of detention. A substantial number of persons between 16 and 21 years of age are received into prison. The latest figures available show that in 1929, 1,560 boys and 93 girls between 16 and 21 were sentenced to imprisonment. The figures have been declining rapidly. In 1922 there were over 3,000, in 1926 over 2,000, and from 1928 to 1929 they dropped from approximately 1,850 to approximately 1,650.
        Some of these young prisoners had many previous proved offences and, so far as we can judge, might well have been sentenced to Borstal treatment. Others had no previous offences, and of these many might possibly have been dealt with under the Probation Act. The policy advocated in the Home Office Circular of July, 1928, is that for young offenders the general policy should be either probation supplemented by the use of hostels or homes, as conditions of probation, or Borstal, and the courts appear to be coming more and more to follow this advice. As a result, the number of young offenders sent to gaol is decreasing and the number of young persons sent to Borstal is increasing. Accordingly, as

        2167
        the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we require to incur heavier expenses in preparing Borstal buildings and generally adapting our present system to that particular line of treatment. Compared with the total number of offences committed by young people between 16 and 21, the number sent to prison is undoubtedly small, but we believe it ought to be still smaller.
        In addition to the young people sentenced to imprisonment, there are substantial numbers of young people remanded to prison but subsequently dealt with by some other method than imprisonment, such as fine or probation. From London and the surrounding points all male young persons under 21 are sent to Wormwood Scrubs, and there accommodated in a special block, and special arrangements are made to keep them apart from the older prisoners. In the provinces a young person sent to prison goes to the nearest local prison, but if the sentence is more than three months he is transferred to one of the prisons which are used as collecting centres for young prisoners. The question whether there is any alternative to imprisonment is a matter where in each case the discretion of the court must be exercised. The Home Secretary, in October last, addressed the Magistrates' Association on this subject; and the Prison Commissioners call attention to the matter each year in their annual reports. I have personally done what I could to impress upon many magistrates the necessity for following the London policy, with which my hon. Friend opposite and myself are in complete agreement. A circular to which my hon. Friend referred contained recommendations definitely expressing our views, but I regret that, so far, we have no evidence collected as to what has been the result either in individual cases or in mass. That is an important point. In all things experience is the greatest teacher; in this respect we find out by experience what the magistrates and the courts have been doing and what generally has been the result of this appeal.
        The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of mental defectives. As soon as a prisoner is found certifiable, the case is notified to the Board of Control, who communicate with the local authority and arrange as soon as possible
        2168
        for the transfer of those prisoners to an institution for mental defectives. Considerable numbers of prisoners, though not certifiable, are recognised by the medical officers as being of subnormal intelligence or with a defective sense of responsibility. The treatment of those persons in prison is a matter to which the most careful consideration has been given. Those who are serving sentences of any length are transferred to certain selected prisons for special arrangements to be made for their treatment and occupation. In all cases, special care is taken not to subject them to undue discipline. We endeavour as far as we can, by treatment, attention and classification, to make the lives of these classes easier for them while they are in prison, and when, in due course, they emerge from detention.
        The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) has referred to the subject of the Home Office museum. He asked for figures of the number of people who have taken advantage of the opportunity of seeing the exhibits there. I find that the number of visits for the six months ended 31st May last was 2,667, and that that number included 80 separate parties. I am not saying that I am satisfied with that number, but we must not judge the usefulness of the visit from the size of the figure. Probably those persons were representing bodies or were delegates who were certain to make the fullest use, both personally and officially of the information which they gained. I have been to that museum. I cannot fall back upon any practical knowledge with regard to the character and the value of, for instance, safety guards, which was the matter referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I do not know in what way those safety guards could be made practicable as instruments of safety, if transferred to factories and workshops in different parts of the country, but I shall see that that view of my hon. Friend is represented to those who are better judges than I am as to how to make practical use of the exhibits which are on view in the Home Office museum. One suggestion which the hon. and gallant Gentleman made I should like to test. It is the suggestion that we should make better use of those exhibits by calling together joint bodies for consultation and for testing the value, and,

        2169
        as it were, popularising, the use of those exhibits. I am not certain at the moment whether that could be done, but I think it is a view that might properly be put before organisations of employers and workers to see whether some joint body could extract greater value from the exhibits of the museum than has so far been the case.
        The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) raised certain questions about aliens, and asked whether the reduced figures of the money and salary paid to immigration officers indicated that any less attention has been paid to their duties. The answer is that the fall in the figures is due to the fall in the cost-of-living bonus. Immigration officers have been treated as other employés, and the lesser figure appears in the report. I repeat to the hon. Baronet that we are not relaxing the Regulations, or loosening our hold on the safety of the State. One of my hon. Friends mentioned the case of the musicians. Our artists and performers go from England to all other lands, and it is our boast that they are to be found on platforms and in concert halls in every part of the world. One recalls the lines:
        "The man that hath no music in himself,
        Nor is not mov'd with concord of sweet sounds,
        Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils.…"
        therefore, I will say to the hon. Baronet, be not afraid of a musician coming into this country, even though he is a Russian who has long been out of his country and longs to remain out of it. I am not certain that the Soviet ship, of which the hon. Baronet spoke is likely to do us any harm. If those travellers land, they will do so under leave, like those who come from any other ship. I have not before me any information indicating that there is the slightest ground for any fear of these travelling Russians doing any harm, in the short time during which they are allowed to land, if they are allowed to land at all.
        The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) referred to the subject of the opening of letters, in our efforts to enforce the law relating to sweepstakes. The Labour Government have taken no different action from any other Government, in respect either to sweepstakes which are illegal, or in respect
        2170
        of enforcing the law under any other head. I say, as definitely as I can, in answer to the precise questions of the Noble Lord, that letters are opened by the Postmaster-General, who acts under the express authority of the Secretary of State. The power of ordering the opening of a letter is derived from, and is part of, the ancient prerogative of the Crown, which attaches to the Sovereign in his capacity as guardian of the State. This power has been recognised from time immemorial, and successive Acts of Parliament have confirmed it. The latest statutory recognition is contained in Section 56 of the Post Office Act, 1908, which provides penalties for any officer of the Post Office opening postal packets, but says expressly in Subsection (2):
        "Provided that nothing in this Section shall extend to the…. opening or detaining or delaying of a postal packet…. or in obedience to an express warrant in writing under the hand of a Secretary of State."
        I agree, as I am sure we all will, that it is a distasteful thing for a Government Department to have to do, but it is essential to the enforcement of the law. The law decrees that a certain lottery is illegal, and requires the police authorities, the Post Office authorities and the Home Department to see that that law is not violated; therefore the State Department must take steps to prevent the violation of the law and to detect wrongdoers. I can assure the Noble Lord that there is no general or sweeping signing of authority by any Department. A warrant is signed in each individual case, for a particular person and for a particular address. There is no general, wholesale giving of authority to the Post Office, from any Department whatever, to take that action.
        On the question of the factory inspectors, I am in complete agreement with the general argument used by the Noble Lord. I particularly welcome it, because the Home Office has for some time been following precisely those broad lines of adapting factory inspection to the changed industrial conditions, which have been enormously altered by big amalgamations, and because of the immense factories and workshops that have taken the place of smaller institutions. Inspectors are doing rather different work now from what was their

        2171
        job 30 or 40 years ago. I can remember as a factory lad, say from the age of 10 to 15 or 16 years of age, often living in fear of the factory inspector coming to our room. In those days, we were warned of the oncoming of the factory inspector, and it was part of the way in which we earned our living to get out of his sight and to keep out of his sight until the way was clear. Conditions are very different. Adequate precautions, conditions of safety, the setting up of elaborate welfare organisations within the works, all tend to alter the service of the factory inspector and to make it unnecessary for him to do the things which he had to do 50 or 60 years ago. There is still very much else for him to do in the way of good work, and I welcome the terms in which the Noble Lord has so well described that work.
        I will content myself by indicating that we are endeavouring to follow, not only on the lines of what the Noble Lord has said, but to make a substantial increase in the number of inspectors within the lifetime of this Government. In 1929, the total number of inspectors was 205. Now the number is 282. We have made a very healthy addition to their service of watchfulness over the life of the factories of our country. I am in complete sympathy with what the Noble Lord said, and I am sure that we are working on the lines of his speech. Let me finally thank the various hon. Members who have spoken, not so much in criticism of the Home Office. By their comments, they have done something more to help the Home Office in the work which it is doing.
        Mr. MATTERS: The Debate on this Vote has necessarily been limited in its scope, but, none the less, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee still find the field to be wide enough to allow them to indulge in a gallop on their favourite steed of Communism, knock-kneed, broken-down crock though it be. The whole question of the treatment of aliens and the carrying out of the naturalisation laws has been criticised from the other side entirely from the point of view of this ancient political prejudice which seems to obsess certain Members on those benches. I would like to put this point to those who have criticised the action of the Home
        2172
        Office and of the right hon. Gentleman in the admission of aliens, and who, possibly, have not been satisfied by the excellent reply which he has given, that there is a good deal of virtue in the admission of a certain type of alien into this country. It is true that we do not want those who are destitute, who are diseased, who may have criminal tendencies; but, for my part, knowing something of the outer world, as I may claim to do, I should like to see a much freer admission of alien citizens, particularly those who may come into this country to acquire in our workshops and factories a knowledge of the technique of British industry, and who will carry back with them to their own countries a favourable prejudice towards this country, and towards its products, its machinery and its goods.
        I have in mind the whole field of Latin America, from which, if the restrictions and regulations dealing with aliens were much less drastic than they are to-day, we might draw many scores of thousands of worthy South Americans and Central Americans, whose period of stay in this country would have an enormous influence on our foreign trade with those countries. As it is to-day, and as it has been in the past, the Latin American peoples have definitely passed this country by. They have gone to France, to Spain, to Italy, to Germany, and to other countries, largely because of the regulations and laws which arose in this country after the war-time hysteria, and from that hysteria, unfortunately, we have not yet recovered. These Latin Americans do not as a rule learn the English language, but they have a very great affection and admiration for British institutions and for this country. It has been my own experience among them to find that they resent their treatment in this land, where, until quite recently they were dubbed aliens. More fortunately, the present Government has decided to describe them as foreign visitors. These Latin Americans come into our ports and meet our immigration officers, and these officers, who, despite their innate courtesy, have necessarily considerable limitations, particularly in the matter of foreign languages, have been infected—I do not blame them for it—with the suspicion that anybody dubbed an alien coming into this country must necessarily be doubtful. The Latin Americans, of all people, have

        2173
        resented the supervision, the catechism which takes place on those lines, and for which there is no longer, in my judgment, any reason in substance. If we can get rid of that, and abolish all this nonsense which still survives from a period of war fever and hysteria, it will be the better for this country and for its interests in the broader international field.
        I cannot understand why hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should show such concern lest the present Administration should be admitting Russians into this country, and, above all, admitting them to British nationality. They are constantly telling us that Russia is an unfortunate country, that it is a country from which anybody ought to be glad to escape, and one would imagine, therefore, that they would welcome the news that this or any other Government was admitting Russians here on a large scale, and, particularly, endowing them with the rights and privileges and the very serious responsibilities of British citizenship. Those who have discussed this question this afternoon have apparently had very little experience of what the process of naturalisation means, or they would know that it is not by any means a simple process. I personally have had to handle a few individual cases, and I want to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his Department on having made it possible for myself to handle those cases, instead of the individuals in question having to go to agents and be bled by them for a substantial fee to acquire this right. The procedure, as the right hon. Gentleman states, has been made simple, and so plain that the applicant himself or herself can, with at least a very little guidance, put forward his or her own papers and go through this process without paying an exorbitant fee for it.
        In any case, however, it is an ordeal for the genuine and well-meaning foreign subject to secure naturalisation, even under present conditions. The degree of inquiry carried out by the Home Office to-day is meticulous and stringent in the extreme, and the person who applies for naturalisation actually has to undergo a very severe cross-examination, which I think I am right in saying amounts to an ordeal through which very few of the critics of these foreign nationals would be prepared themselves to go. I want to
        2174
        point out a fact which seems to be forgotten, namely, that the right of naturalisation is one that is definitely prescribed by law. Even the Home Secretary has only some degree of discretion in the matter of exercising or putting into operation the regulations. Even to-day this Government is not yet doing what it might and holding strictly to the letter of the law itself. We know that no foreign national can be naturalised unless he or she has had a residence of something like 10 or 12 years in this country. It may be slightly less to-day, but the Act does not actually require that. The Act says that the period of residence need be no longer than five years, and, consequently, any respectable alien should surely have the right to secure naturalisation, everything else being equal, once he or she has complied with the strict requirements of the Act.
        The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lamp-son) raised the point, if I understood him correctly, that the Home Secretary should not naturalise any Russian subjects or nationals unless they first secured from their Government a certificate of denationalisation—unless they were first freed from their Russian nationality. Surely, the right hon. Member is aware that a good many other countries beside Russia maintain that their natural-born subjects or citizens remain with that nationality despite their obtaining the certificate of this country. I think that Poland requires that its nationals shall first secure permission to acquire British or any other foreign nationality. In any case, I do not fee why we should insist upon that requirement in the case of Russia alone. The obligation is upon the individual applying for naturalisation to observe the laws of this country, and the Home Secretary and the Government have always been in control of the procedure.
        With regard to the question of the opening of certain correspondence, I prefer the explanation of the Home Secretary, and, if he will allow me to say so, I think it is one which would satisfy the House in general. I would like to know, however, what degree of evidence the Home Secretary considers to be necessary before he will issue the warrant to which he referred. In a recent case, one of

        2175
        our most respected magistrates described it as a horrible business that the post of this country should no longer be considered safe. He was then dealing with a case, brought, I presume, under the authority of the Home Secretary, in connection with the Irish sweepstakes, and it is rather significant that in that case, after offering some very strong opinions indeed as to tampering or interference with mails, the magistrate, Mr. Halkett, summarily dismissed the charges. I agree that it would become indeed intolerable if the suspicion were to grow and spread throughout this country that the mail is no longer the safe custodian of what we regard as our own private and extremely personal property, and I think it would be well to let it be known that any light treatment of the undoubted legal right which the Home Secretary has in this matter would not be tolerated by public opinion in this country, even though the object were to enforce the law in relation to a rather debatable question like that of ten-shilling sweepstake tickets.
        Mr. HALL-CAINE: I rise to ask the meaning of the item "Special Constabulary Medal." I see that the sum has been reduced this year from £1,750 to £150. I should like to ask the Secretary of State what exactly this special constabulary medal is for. Is it for long service, or is it for some distinguished service, or what exactly is it for? Further, if it is for special service, why has the amount been reduced? Does that mean that there were fewer special constables in 1931 than in 1930, or that the right hon. Gentleman does not consider that they have done their work sufficiently well to justify their having this medal? If he does not consider that they have done their work sufficiently well, one might draw attention to the statement of Mr. Justice McCardie that crime was on the increase in Great Britain, and that more and more criminals every year were escaping unpunished. If, on the other hand, it is that there are fewer special constables, I would suggest that this is not the moment at which to reduce the special constabulary. In 1911 indictable offences known to the police were 97,171. The latest figures are 130,464. There were 68,575 persons proceeded against in
        2176
        1911, and the latest figures are 63,194. The actual offences have increased by 34 per cent. It is very important that we should have a large number of these special constables. We really must put down this crime. We cannot have housebreaking going on like it is. The latest figures show a great increase.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I am not sure that we can have a large discussion on housebreaking on a Vote for medals.
        Lord E. PERCY: On a point of Order. Are these special medals for constables or medals for special constables?
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is a point of Order. It is more a point of information.
        Mr. HALL-CAINE: It comes to the same thing in the end, because these special constables are there to stop crime, the same as the ordinary police are. I suggest that there should be more constables and more medals for good work for these people. These special constables are at present dealing with various road accidents, motoring offences of a trivial kind and helping children across roads. The number of minor motoring offences which constables had to deal with in 1928 amounted to 12,000. Instead of them getting medals for that kind of thing they should really be dealing with crime.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see any Vote for special constables. This is a Vote for special constabulary medals, but not for special constables'. The hon. Member is entitled to argue that the medals ought or ought not to be given, but not to go beyond that.
        Mr. HALL-CAINE: I am arguing that more ought to be given, because they have been reduced. I want to know whether the special constabulary has been reduced because the medals have been reduced. It is a very serious thing if the constabulary has been reduced. It should be increased. I would ask the Home Secretary, if he has reduced it according to this figure, whether he will not only put it back to its former numbers, but increase the numbers so that we may be able to give more medals and have more police, and so that the special constabulary will not be given medals merely for detecting minor

        2177
        offences of silencers on motor cars, obstruction and things of that sort, but will be looking out for general criminals. Every house in a road near mine has been burgled. Where is this special constabulary which has been given these medals? Why are they not doing their work in that neighbourhood? If they are, why are there not more of them to take charge of these things and see that these houses are not broken into? In other suburbs the increase in burglary has been very great.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that these special constables are appointed by the local authority, and not by the Home Office.
        Mr. HALL-CAINE: If that is so, why does the Home Secretary give them medals? We are asked to vote money for the medals, yet we have apparently no control over their employment. I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us exactly what this money is, why it has been reduced, also whether it is the number of men that has been reduced or is it only that he considers they have not done their work sufficiently well to justify the same amount of money being paid this year as last year for these medals. I should also like him to tell us whether, in the light of this very serious increase in crime, he will not increase the numbers of the constabulary throughout the country.
        Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I find myself in considerable sympathy with the hon. Member in his difficulty over the special constabulary medals, principally because, although only for a short period and not very effectively, I performed the duties of a special constable, but no one ever offered me a medal. I, therefore, feel considerable sympathy with his demand for further information on the point. However, I rose for another object—to put before the Home Secretary a question in which I know he is very interested, and in which he had a great deal of correspondence with various Members in different parts of the House. I refer to the very difficult situation which arises in the case of men or women who were born in this country and have gone to other countries, particularly America, and have found it necessary, in order to secure employment there, to become naturalised. Many cases occur
        2178
        in which these people afterwards desire to return to this country. It may be because they lose their employment, or for reasons of health or for family reasons, that they desire to settle again among their own people. At any rate, I understand there is a large number of such cases.
        I know it is extremely difficult for the Home Secretary to decide what he should do and to what extent permission should be given for men who are in fact American citizens to settle here. If he applies, as he perfectly rightly does, the order against foreigners coming to settle in this country, he is bound logically to apply the same regulations against people who were originally British subjects, but who have now become subjects of some foreign Power, and I do not at all complain of the attitude that he has taken up. But I think it is a matter which the Government will have to decide, because there is an increasing number of such cases, perhaps owing to economic conditions throughout the world. It is a great hardship on men in this position to find they can only get a permit for three or six months, and are then literally forced out of what in their hearts they believe is their own country.
        7.0 p.m.
        I have here particulars of two cases such as I have been referring to, both relating to my own constituency. One is a British subject by birth, born in this country of British parents. He became a naturalised American. He lived in this country until he was 38, and went to America to improve his position. He is now 55 years of age. He is prepared to go the length of saying definitely that he will give up any idea of working in this country at all if he is allowed to remain. He does not like to say he will not seek work, but he is prepared to give that undertaking rather than be forced to leave the country. The other case is one of a man, also a British subject born of British parents, who found himself out of work 20 years ago, went to America and became naturalised. He sent money home regularly to his relatives. He offered his services to the British Canadian Forces, but was refused on grounds of health. He now wants to settle in England and he also is willing to agree not to undertake work in this country. I know the difficulties that face the Home Secretary. These people have chosen to become naturalised Americans

        2179
        and are, in the eyes of the law, foreigners. Therefore, there seems no logical reason why they should be treated differently from any other foreigner who wishes to settle in this country. At the same time, it is a very great hardship, and Members upon all sides of the House will feel with those who, having been born and brought up in this country and having been away a few years, desire to come back and settle here but find they are considerably harassed by constant demands on them either to leave the country or to get permission to stay a few months longer. I would ask the Home Secretary if it would not be better for some definite arrangement to be made in such cases. There must be similar cases of foreigners who are not connected with this country at all or born of British parents. In such cases there may be claims made which may seem quite as just as in these cases.
        The sympathy of the House will go out to those born and brought up in this country who have always felt themselves in their hearts to be British subjects and who want to settle down at home. I want the Home Secretary to see, where he can get an undertaking that a man will not seek work—though I admit it may be difficult to see it is carried out—and particularly where the man is past middle age, if he cannot lay down some rule whereby it will be possible for such a man to become again a British citizen, or, at any rate, to get permission to remain in this country for the rest of his life. I hope he will be able to tell us that this matter has received the very careful attention of the Government, and will give us some indication of what general rule they propose to lay down, so that it will not be necessary for those people to make constant appeals for an extension of the time.
        Mr. MUFF: I am very glad that the Noble Lord has raised the question of additional factory inspectors. Not only in the stabilised industries like wool and textiles and so forth do we need more inspectors, but also in the newer industries, such as the manufacture of artificial silk and in the newest industry of cinema film production. The Home Office could very well bend its energies towards seeing what could be done in
        2180
        securing the more minute inspection of such industries as I have mentiined. There has been a change of heart in the Home Office in my knowledge of its administration ever since the days of Lord Gladstone. Hon. Members who remember him when he was Home Secretary will recognise that he introduced a new spirit into the Home Office which has been carried on by Home Secretaries ever since, whatever their politics. The Committee will forgive me if I touch on a matter which has already been mentioned by the Home Secretary. I remember, when I went into the factory at the age of 10, that I was examined by the doctor appointed by the Home Office and all he did was to say, "What is your age?" I told him I was 10. "Let me look at your teeth?" he said and, after looking at my teeth in the same way that they can guess the age of a horse, he came to the conclusion that I was 10 and allowed me to pass. There were, however, some of my colleagues who passed the doctor who were but nine years of age.
        Compared with these days there is quite a revolution now. In those days the inspector was the pacemaker. We were always on the look-out to warn the overlooker when the inspector came along. We would even clean out the stinking privies which were a menace to our health in those days. On visiting factories in the woollen industry to-day, as I do when I am at home, I find a revolution in outlook which is largely due to the humane and enlightened policy of the Home Office and their inspectors. In those days fenced machinery was a bugbear to the overlooker, while, as for the youngsters working in the mill, I have a nightmare to this very day, which comes to me when I am dreaming, and it is that I am entangled in unfenced machinery, which was prevalent in the bad old days. I am not going back a hundred years ago, as the Noble Lord might suggest, but to a much later period. In those days, too, the factory inspector would come along and say that the women should not kiss the shuttle in order to catch the thread, but should use a little instrument for so doing. As soon as the factory inspector's back was turned, the woman herself would kiss the shuttle and endanger her health. The factory inspector would say, too, that we must

        2181
        have shuttle guards on our looms, but, when his back was turned, the shuttle guards were taken away. That is entirely a thing of the past owing to more enlightened operatives and more enlightened employers. The Home Secretary should pay more attention to those newer industries.
        I would like to mention the decrease of £1,600 in the Vote for the special constables. The hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Hall-Caine) was asking why there was a reduction. I believe it is entirely due to a large shower of medals which were given in various parts of the country for services rendered sometimes in strikebreaking. I hope the Home Secretary will see to it that the special constables are not used for purposes of strike-breaking. I myself before coming to this House sat for many years on a watch committee, and we dealt with the work of the special constables. If there was some special visitor to our town or some special duty to perform—
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The special constables are not appointed by the Home Office, but by the local authorities, and the matters referred to by the hon. Member do not arise on this Vote.
        Mr. MUFF: I hope there is going to be no cheeseparing policy in cutting down this £1,600. For the sake of a few pounds, I would suggest that the Vote be increased rather than decreased, because I contend that this decrease of the Vote from £1,750 to £150 shows a change of policy on the part of the Home Office, and a lack of recognition of the special constables.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member rather misunderstands. As far as I am aware, the Home Office grants these medals on the recommendation of the local authorities concerned. It simply gives the awards on the recommendations made by those authorities. It is not a question of the Home Office making the awards themselves.
        Mr. MUFF: That is the answer I would like to have from the Home Secretary when he replies.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is the Ruling I am giving from the Chair and precludes the hon. Member from pursuing that point.
        Mr. MUFF: I bow to your Ruling, and will not transgress, and will not get in a point which I wanted to make about special constables, whether they are to be male or female. I pass to the Vote for £49,500 for probation officers, which shows an increase of £500. I wish to congratulate the Home Office on the increase of that Vote, because it appears as if the Home Office was recognising increasingly the value of these probation officers. I presume that this is for salaries for probation officers, and I would like to ask the Minister whether he is paying due attention to appointing an increasing number of women probation officers. It is by appointing un-uniformed women as probation officers to look after and care for the people who, unfortunately, have taken the wrong turning and by sympathetic treatment that we can try to bring them back—to use a platitude—to the paths of rectitude. In this matter the Home Office is likely to meet with more success by appointing a greater number of probation officers than by increasing the uniformed staff of women in the police forces. I wish to emphasise that point very much. After an experience of many years on the Watch Committee and of the lack of success of the uniformed police, I feel, with regard to the un-uniformed probation officers, that there is likely to be an increasing degree of success in the future.
        I close with another point which the Home Secretary mentioned, the question of juveniles who are certified as being mentally affected. He said the magistrates certified these children and that they were then reported to the Board of Control. It has also been one of my duties, in addition to sitting upon a watch committee, to sit upon a committee to deal with these unfortunate people who are mental defectives. I do not think it comes directly under the control of the Home Secretary, because he said that they were handed over to the Board of Control. I want to emphasise that here is the tragedy. We have had these cases reported to us time after time and we want to deal with these unfortunate juveniles where we can segregate them and take them away from any taint of prison or of similar influences.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is a separate Vote dealing with tie Board of Control, which is not included in this Vote.
        Mr. MUFF: I only mention the point because the Home Secretary mentioned it himself.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It does not matter what the Home Secretary mentioned. Where there is a Vote for a special service, that special service can only be discussed when that Vote is before the Committee. It is the Home Office Vote which is before the Committee at the present time, not the Vote for the Board of Control.
        Mr. MUFF: I close my remarks, then, by asking the Under-Secretary to remember that, when his Department has certified these children to be mental defectives, there is an absence of treatment after they have been certified, and that they are thrown upon the streets unclassified and unsegregated. Some of them find themselves either in maternity hospitals or, if not, in a prison cell again and again owing to inadequate treatment and—
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is discussing a subject outside the jurisdiction of the Home Office. Mental defectives come under county councils.
        Mr. MUFF: I bow to your Ruling, and will not pursue the matter.
        Mr. KELLY: I wish to raise one or two matters upon this Vote, and I hope to keep within the circle of Order. I should like to know whether there is a sufficient number of certifying surgeons in view of the numerous industrial diseases in the country. One finds that in the case of the asbestos industry, and wherever fibre is part of the material operated by those engaged in industry, there is an inadequate supply of certifying surgeons. I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State replies he will be able to give an assurance that the matter will be gone into, and that not only will a sufficient number of medical men and women be appointed, but that some means will be taken to make it well known to the people engaged in the various factories and workshops where the certifying surgeons are to be found. I know that by making an application
        2184
        to the local town hall or to the municipal buildings in a neighbourhood that information may be obtained, but a great many of our people are not aware of that fact.
        Another point which I wish to raise relates to the chemical industry and the operation of the various regulations issued by the Home Office. One finds that in the case of aniline dyes many persons are affected by a very serious disease, and I would ask whether consideration is being given to the issuing of regulations under which such persons will be compensated in the event of being disabled from following their employment. I know of a case in the Manchester area in connection with one of the works at Clayton where not only was the husband disabled by reason of that with which he had come in contact in the matter of dyes in the establishment, but the wife who happened to wash the clothing he had been wearing was also badly infected. Because of the absence of a regulation there was no opportunity of securing compensation from the wealthy undertaking concerned as a result of the injury those two people sustained by reason of the nature of the work in that particular establishment. I ask that there should be closer investigation on the part of the inspectorate in the heavy as well as the light chemical industry of this country. It is possible that as a result of such investigation—and I am speaking for an industry with which I am directly concerned—it may be found necessary to issue regulations for the better protection of the workpeople.
        Although I have spent many years dealing with the explosives industry of this country, I have never yet come across any of the staff of the Home Office, as far as the inspectorate is concerned, which has been dealing with those establishments. When I realise the danger in these places, I ask myself whether the Home Office is considering the need for the staffs of the inspectorate being in proportion to the number of factories in the country. We have recently had a serious explosion at Halton Heath. I am not sure whether the Home Office has the power to inspect the explosives factories of the Admiralty, but, if so, I urged that they should go very closely into the explosion at Halton Heath in order to try to find out whether there

        2185
        was any neglect at any stage with regard to the awful happening at that place. There is an item in the Estimates with regard to Woolwich Arsenal, and I would ask whether the inspectors have reported as to the number of boys employed in the danger area at Woolwich Arsenal. I really cannot understand boys being permitted to work in the danger area of Woolwich Arsenal. Have the inspectors made any report with regard to Woolwich Arsenal, Waltham Abbey and the other explosives factories in the direction of Enfield?
        With reference to the item under the head of "Workmen's Compensation Acts," I notice that there is a sum of £17,500 under E(1) and that the Appropriation-in-Aid is £12,000, showing a difference of £5,500. Am I to understand that in every case where the medical referee is called upon, those concerned in the cases are not asked to refund to the Department the amount expended in regard to the appointment and upkeep of medical referees in the various courts of the country? The names of the medical referees should be made better known. There is another item in regard to which I should like an explanation. It appears under "F.—Expenses Under the Disabled Men (Facilities for Employment)." I notice that there is an increase of £95. I am not taking exception to the increase in the amount, but I should like an explanation as to how many of the men who returned from the War disabled, and for whom the Home Office undertook certain responsibilities, are employed at the present time and the necessity there is for the increased amount. I hope that there are many men employed, but I trust that none of them meets with accidents and requires assistance.
        The industrial museum has been in existence for some time now, and it would be of interest if we could have a report as to the success of the museum, and whether there is any intention of extending the museum both in regard to the number of items to be shown and the explanations to be given which will be of advantage to those who visit the museum. I hope that an increasing number will go to the museum. The last item to which I wish to refer is the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hastings (Lord E.
        2186
        Percy) in which he said that it was not an increase in the number of inspectors that we required at the present time, but rather that there should be a better understanding between the Home Office and those engaged on the two sides of industry—the employers and the employed. I should like to see the Government Departments paying greater attention to the trade unions of the country. At present one finds that the trade unions, even when they are members of the Joint Industrial Council, are not recognised by the Home Office in a way that would be to the advantage of the administration there. I will give as an illustration the two-shift system, which I dislike and which I have done everything possible to prevent coming into operation. It comes under this Vote, Mr. Dunnico. The two-shift system comes under the administration of the factories.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not attempt to instruct the Chair as to its duties. The two-shift system, so far as it is permitted by law, cannot be criticised. The hon. Member can only criticise any action or inaction on the part of the Home Office affecting its operations.
        Mr. KELLY: It is the administration of it with which I am going to deal. While I made the statement which you considered to be out of order, which I regret very much, I am sorry that the trades unions, as representing the working people, are not considered, even when members of the Joint Industrial Council, to be people who ought to be heard and whose opinion ought to be expressed. I wish to ask the Under-Secretary how many persons are engaged at the present time upon this particular system and whether the inspectors are frequently reporting as to the length of time the system is in operation in the various factories? I hope that they are watching the matter very closely, especially as so many young people are concerned in, this operation. It often means that young people begin work at six o'clock in the morning, and, at the other end of the day, at ten o'clock at night, and I hope that the Home Office, through its inspectors, is watching this position closely. I urge upon the Home Office to give close observation to this system for

        2187
        the benefit of the people engaged in industry and for the benefit of industry itself.
        The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I rise for the purpose of replying to the few questions that have been put to me. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) raised a very important matter in relation to the admission into this country of British-born subjects who at some period went to America and became naturalised citizens of that country. He stressed the importance of that particular problem, and suggested that it was well worthy of the serious consideration of my right hon. Friend. I can assure him that the problem is a serious one. It is one that has been made for us, and it requires careful examination from time to time. There is a stream of such people finding their way here, owing to the tragic unemployment in America, and anxious once again to settle in this country. We have to deal with them under the law as it is, and we have to treat them as aliens. We have to give consideration to the various cases on their merits. While I cannot give the hon. Member any such undertaking as he sought to obtain, I can assure him that the question causes the Department grave anxiety. In so far as such an undertaking can be given in respect of the two cases that he mentioned, on condition that if they are permitted to remain in this country they will take no employment of any kind, I can only say that such an undertaking would weigh with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It is a very important problem and is becoming more serious every day. It engages the constant attention of my right hon. Friend and those associated with the Department.
        As regards the special constabulary-medals, mentioned by the hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Hall-Caine) and the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff), I may say that the medals are given for long service, for nine or 10 years' service. It so happens that the variation in the amount paid is due to the fact that the period of years served coincides with the particular year mentioned in the Vote. In regard to the expenditure upon probation offenders, we are developing our
        2188
        probation system and are very anxious that young children, being dealt with for the first time, should not find themselves in prison, but should be put upon probation. An increasing number are being so treated, and that has Jed to an increase in payments. We are also having to increase the number of probation officers. We are seeking to establish a higher standard of remuneration that will attract the right type of men and women for probation purposes. That accounts for the increased sum in the Vote. With regard to young children who are mentally defective, I am not able to deal with that aspect of the matter, but in so far as they come within the Home Office supervision from the probation point of view or the prison point of view, we do all we can so far as their mental defect is concerned.
        The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) asked for information respecting the number of aliens. My right hon. Friend was unable to give him the information on the spur of the moment, but I have the figures, which I hope will satisfy him. He will see that the proportion of aliens who come into the country and who leave is pretty much the same. There is a slight rise or fall in given periods. In 1927 the number landed was 412,686 and the number that left was 409,925. In 1928 the numbers were 403,419 landed, 432,853 left. In 1930—I give the figures for 1930 which is a full year of administration under the present Government—the numbers were 454,752 landed, 449,741 left. The figure of 454,752 is slightly less than the figure in 1929. I think those are the figures that the hon. Baronet sought to obtain.
        Sir B. PETO: Does that mean that over 5,000 more aliens have come into this country than those who left last year, and that therefore they are able to stay here permanently?
        Mr. SHORT: I do not think that is the conclusion to be drawn from the figures, but I will clear up that point for the hon. Baronet. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) asked me a question in regard to the certifying surgeons. If my hon. Friend had given me a little more notice, I would have sought to obtain the exact information for him. I will see that the information is made available. So far as I am advised, the number of certifying surgeons is sufficient. I have

        2189
        no reason to think that they are not sufficient at the moment. I can assure him that they are under review from time to time, and if the need arises, consistent with the expenditure of public money, we shall be happy to increase the number. The hon. Member also asked for information as to the whereabouts of the certifying surgeons. If an application were made to the factory inspectors' office, the information would be made available to any legitimate inquirer. It is desirable that such information should be made available, and I will inquire whether any increased facilities are necessary in this respect.
        The hon. Member also asked me a question with regard to dyes. I should like to have an opportunity of going more fully into this matter, because the hon. Member raised questions of compensation and as to whether the workers were entitled to compensation. I should like to see how far the law covers these particular workpeople and whether it is desirable that better facilities should be provided.
        Mr. KELLY: I want to protect them.
        Mr. SHORT: I will have further inquiries made and see if any further step can be taken in the direction suggested. As regards explosives, I understand that we have four inspectors dealing with explosives. I can assure the hon. Member that in so far as the Halton Heath explosion is concerned, the report on that accident will be fully considered, and any improvements necessary in connection with the handling of explosives will undoubtedly be attended to by my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member also suggested that the names of the medical referees should be more widely known. I answered a question a few weeks ago on that subject, when I indicated that such information would be made available. In so far as more general access is required, I will see that it is done. The hon. Member made reference to the museum and stressed the importance of the valuable work done by the museum. I should like to see a larger number of people visiting the museum. As the hon. Member rightly emphasised, it is not the number of visitors that matters, so much as the representative character and quality of the visitors. I should like to appeal to Members of Parliament who
        2190
        might reasonably pay a visit to the museum. It would be a real instruction to them and would enable them to give useful and valuable advice to their constituents.
        Finally, the hon. Member made reference to the two-shift system. His; opinions on that subject are well known. He pleaded that the trade unions should be consulted. Under the present system the application has to be a joint one. The workpeople involved have to be balloted, their opinions have to be sought and, as a result of discussions in this House, the factory inspector visits the factory and interviews the persons involved, in order to be satisfied that the opinions of the workpeople have been secured without duress and without their being put under any obligation to the employer. The hon. Member seemed to think that the joint industrial councils were ignored, but it is clear from the Order that if a joint industrial council makes a joint objection to the Order coming into operation, I think I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend loses the power to issue the Order. The hon. Member asked for the number of Orders in operation. I can give him a few figures. In 1930, 129 Orders were issued. I have not the complete figures for this year, but 81 have been issued up to date. There are 825 firms operating 930 Orders. It must be remembered that some of the Orders issued only operate for a short time. They are not constantly in operation. Some are only issued for temporary periods, such as in the canning industry, which is becoming established in Lincolnshire. I hope that I have given sufficient information to satisfy the hon. Member.

      REVENUE DEPAKTMENTS.

        INLAND REVENUE.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £4,763,080 (including a Supplementary Sum of £290,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."—[Note: £2,250,000 has been voted on account.]
        Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: I would make a suggestion for your consideration, Mr. Dunnico. There

        2191
        are three Supplementary Estimates, which deal with the same subject, namely, the staff required in order to put into operation the decision of Parliament in regard to the imposition of land taxation. The first Estimate deals with the staff, the second with buildings for housing the staff and the third with the provision of maps with which the staff is to work. In these circumstances, I suggest that we might follow the precedent which is to a certain extent adopted in regard to Service Estimates and that is that on the first of the Votes we should have a more or less general discussion covering the whole question, on the understanding that we do not discuss the subsequent Votes.
        The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): So far as I and those on this side are concerned we have no objection to that course.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that that would be by far the better plan. It will be quite in order to have a general discussion.
        Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: These Supplementary Estimates are concerned with matters that raised a considerable amount of interest and controversy in this Chamber earlier in the present Session. I have no doubt that some of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who took part in those earlier Debates will again raise this issue. But it is now very close to the end of the Session before the Adjournment, and I hardly anticipate that the vehemence of the Debates which took place earlier on will be repeated on this occasion. Whereas then we were discussing ab initio the whole principle, we are now discussing only the implementing of that principle in one particular, howbeit an essential particular required for the fulfilment. The three Supplementary Estimates stand together. They are rendered necessary by the additional work thrown upon the Inland Revenue Department under the provisions of the Finance Bill. The valuation of land for the purpose of land value tax will have to be undertaken during the next two years, and because the existing staff is closely proportioned to its present duties there is no marginal staff available for the new work connected with land valuation.
        2192
        The additional staff will be mainly concerned with the technical and clerical work connected with the valuation. The valuation office will also have to be equipped with up-to-date maps, and there will be need for additional accommodation and furniture. The Board of Inland Revenue have already a staff of 475 qualified valuers under a chief valuer, and this permanent establishment will be augmented by the recruitment, on a temporary basis, of an additional staff of valuers, valuation assistants and draughtsmen. The intention is to attract into the service as soon as possible a small number of valuers, roughly up to the number of about 200, and a larger number of valuation assistants, perhaps up to about 600, who will in each case have had suitable experience in land valuation work, particularly in urban areas. The Committee will remember that so far as purely agricultural land is concerned, where there is no site value over and above the purely agricultural value, it is not proposed to insist upon the valuation. Therefore it will be mainly in urban and extra urban districts where the experience and knowledge of valuers will be specially required. About 200 daughtsmen will be required at once, and they must be competent land surveyors. Their duties will lie mainly in the preparation and correction of plans and maps.
        As for the rates of pay I would not like to be too definite and precise, because naturally what will be offered to these temporary technical officers will depend upon age, experience and qualifications and other matters, but, speaking broadly and generally, I should say that the pay of the valuers will not exceed about £550 per annum, and the valuation assistants will not exceed about £7 and the draughtsmen about £5 a week respectively, and all these rates will, of course, be inclusive. I am sure the Committee would like me to say that in making these appointments a preference will be given to ex-service men. Shortly an announcement of the terms of appointment will be ready and will be sent to the Press as soon as the Finance Bill receives the Royal Assent. Of course the numbers which I have mentioned for each particular grade are not precise and definite, though the estimate

        2193
        is probably round about what is required. As time goes on and as the work progresses these figures will have to be reviewed to make sure that exactly the right number are being employed, but in all probability the numbers which I have indicated are the numbers roughly which will be required.
        With regard to clerical staff, the need will arise at an early date, and it is anticipated that a considerable number, probably from 600 to 800 temporary clerks, Grade III, will have to be appointed at the valuation office during some portion of the current financial year. I may mention that there are at present about 1,700 such temporary clerks, who have been engaged for a few weeks in the office of the Inspectors of Taxes in transcribing into land valuation records particulars of Schedule A Income Tax assessments for the purposes of valuation. This work is now practically completed, and no doubt some of the temporary clerks will be among those who will find employment in the Valuation Office. That is to satisfy the need of some 600 to 800 temporary clerks. Under Clause 28 of the Finance Bill all instruments transferring land will have to be presented to the Commissioners as from 1st September next, and in order to record the particulars contained in those instruments a small additional staff will be required in London, Edinburgh and provincial stamp offices. The total number concerned will probably be about 40.
        A slight increase in the administrative establishment of Somerset House is also necessitated by the increase of work thrown on the Department generally. The financial effect of that will be very small. Provision is also made for such travelling and subsistence allowances and other miscellaneous expenses as are likely to be involved. These are referred to on pages 12 and 13 of the White Paper. Additional office accommodation is required for the increased valuation and other staff throughout the country. Particulars are found on pages 10 and 11 of the White Paper. If the Committee desire further information with regard to the various heads H to N, which will be found there, I will do my best to supply them with it.
        Finally, as has been mentioned, in order that the Valuation Office shall have
        2194
        the most up-to-date information n the form of ordnance maps it will be necessary to increase temporarily the staff of the Ordnance Survey. Particulars of that are found on pages 8 and 9 of the White Paper. We also provide for equipment, stores, and the incidental expenditure necessary to meet the requirements. The work which will be performed by this additional survey staff will not be lost to the Ordnance Survey, because, quite apart from the use to which it will be put by the Valuation Office, it will represent to some extent preliminary work for the normal survey which will be performed out of the ordinary routine. That is the general explanation that I have to give in defence of these Supplementary Estimates. I am sure that from what I have said the Committee will see that in order to implement the Clauses of the Finance Bill, to which this House has already assented, it is necessary to take these steps. The figures that I have given are probably quite close to what will be the actual figures during the current year. I feel sure that the Committee will be satisfied that it is necessary to proceed in the way that I have suggested. In so far as any further information is desired, I shall be happy, as far as I can, to supply it later in the Debate.
        Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
        The hon. Gentleman may be disappointed, in view of what he has said, out he can hardly be surprised, if I say at once that I propose to ask him to accept a reduction of £100 on this Vote. Rather less than four weeks have elapsed since the Finance Bill was parted with by this House. We are now presented with another kind of bill, a consequential bill, or a portion of it. The Financial Secretary has introduced it. If I dared to make a classical quotation I would say:
        "Quantum mutatus ab illo Hectore,"
        8.0 p.m.
        which very freely translated might be read as, "The morning after the night before." What a change from the rather robustious attitude of the hon. Gentleman, of which we heard too little on the Finance Bill, is this apologetic, almost bedside manner, in which ho brings forward these Supplementary Estimates to-night! The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to give us some figures regarding

        2195
        the staff which it is proposed to employ, but he must not blame me if I find them a little difficult to reconcile with some of the figures given to us in the course of the Debate on the Finance Bill. It was not until the concluding sentence of the hon. Gentleman that I conceived what I fancy is the explanation of an apparent discrepancy between the two sets of figures. The hon. Gentleman spoke in the earlier part of his speech as if the number of people to be employed on this valuation in the capacity of valuers, head men with real expert knowledge, was something in the neighbourhood of 200, whereas at an earlier stage of the Debates on the Finance Bill the figure was given by the learned Solicitor-General as 1,000, which seems to me a much more reasonable figure, having regard to the experience we had in the case of the land taxes of 1910. We know then that this figure of 1,000 was very considerably exceeded. It was not until later in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he called the Committee's attention to the fact that this Estimate only deals with the remainder of this year, and in consequence, when he says that there are 200 valuers to be employed, 600 valuation assistants, 200 draughtsmen and 800 temporary clerks, he is only dealing with the extra staff to be employed during the concluding months of this year:
        "If they do these things in the green tree, what shall he done in the dry?"
        Basing myself on the Solicitor-General's figure of 1,000 for the quantity of the valuers altogether to be employed, I can see at once that what the hon. Gentleman is envisaging is a staff, not of the comparatively modest dimensions which he has set out here, but a staff of 1,000 valuers, 3,000 valuation assistants, 1,000 draughtsmen and 4,000 clerks. That seems to me to be very much more like the probable out-turn from the staff point of view than the figures with which the Committee is confronted to-night. But I have for the moment to take the figures before us, and I would observe again that this is only the beginning of the Bill. This is not the Bill itself. This is not the main body of the Bill, but only the beginning of it, and it is a very respectable beginning. These three
        2196
        Votes between them account for very nearly £400,000, which the taxpayer has to find. Surely, that is a very respectable beginning.
        Let me ask the hon. Gentleman one or two questions about the staff. The hon. Gentleman has stated that the sort of salary which is to he paid to the expert valuer who is to be in charge is about £550. Is not that so?
        Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: £550 a year is the probable maximum.
        Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am bound to say that it seems to me to be very doubtful whether you will get the class of expert man whom you want for a figure of that kind. I believe it will be found as time goes on that either you will have to take less expert men, with consequent difficulties in your valuation and consequent injustices either to the revenue, on the one hand, or the taxpayer on the other, or it will be found that you will have to pay more, because what happened on the last occasion is, I am almost certain, to repeat itself on this occasion. You may well call this a surveyors' indulgence Bill, because it is going to provide employment for the surveying fraternity in the country. Every surveyor in the country is going to be engaged in advising his private clients to the best of his capacity how best they can resist the demands made on them by the Inland Revenue. That is what occurred last time. Every surveyor is going to be able to make a far more profitable living in that capacity than he would be able to make by engaging himself as a temporary valuer or surveyor to the Inland Revenue. I fancy the Government will find out, as was found out before, that they will have the utmost difficulty in getting really the best class of expert assistance which they ought to have for the staff which they are proposing to engage. But I am grateful for their assurance that it is their desire to have really expert assistance, because I cannot put it better than was put in the evidence given before the Land Values Committee of 1920 by one of the highest experts, a Mr. Edwin Savill, a member of the Council of Surveyors, and if I may I will read one sentence from his evidence, because it really expressed the sort of difficulty with which valuers are confronted. He said:

        2197
        "Valuations are not made by rule, but by experience, and by experience only. Every valuation made presents its own special difficulty, great or small; the best method of overcoming each difficulty is a matter of opinion, and the result of the whole deliberation is an estimate of value, the approximate accuracy of which depends entirely upon the knowledge and experience of the man making the estimates."
        This is a point I desire to stress, that it is upon men of knowledge and experience that the Government will have to rely, and it is precisely in the finding of those men that I think they are going to have their greatest difficulty to start wih.
        I am a little surprised that, even on the figures given by the hon. Gentleman, the amount of £245,000 is as low as it is, and I do not quite see how it squares with the other figures he has given, and still less do I see how the discrepancy between £245,000 for salaries and only £14,000 for travelling and subsistence allowances is to be explained, and I should like the hon. Gentleman if he would, when he replies, to devote himself to explaining that discrepancy. It seems to me, whether the amount of salaries be reasonable or not, that the amount for travelling and subsistence allowances is abnormally low, and if the Government propose to make a serious beginning of the work it will be found to be a gross underestimate because, if there is one thing more certain than anything else, judging from the experience of previous years, it is that a large quantity of this work has got to be done, and can only be done, on the spot. Here, again, I appeal to experience. I do not ask the Committee to take this statement from me. Here is what Mr. Edgar Harper, then the chief valuer of the Inland Revenue, said before the Land Values Committee. He was pointing out the difficulty of the task which confronted the district valuer, and on page 43 he said:
        "District Valuers and their staff had far more to do than is ordinarily implied in the phrase 'making a valuation.' A valuer called in by a client usually has all the necessary particulars of the property, its boundaries, area, rents reserved, etc., supplied to him. But it was far otherwise with the work of the Valuation Office. Before the work of valuing could commence it was necessary to identify and define each unit to be valued."
        That is why we have this amount, because account has to be taken not only of the situation of each unit but of the situation of hedges and trees and all the rest
        2198
        of it, and a complete survey has to be made. Mr. Edgar Harper went on:
        "For this purpose local rate-books and valuation lists were utilised, as well as owners' returns. But no satisfactory definition of the unit could be obtained without ascertaining the boundaries and other conditions on the spot, and laying them down on the working plans."
        Then he goes on to speak of the difficulty of the diversity and sub-divisions of interests, and he gives an interesting commentary upon the case sometimes made that this work could be easily performed by others. He says:
        "Freeholds, customary freeholds, freeholds subject to perpetual ground rents, copyholds, 999-year leases, building leases, occupation leases, etc., presented a mixture beside which land tenure in new countries is simplicity itself."
        In those circumstances, I want to ask how it is that the amount which the Government are proposing to take for travelling expenses and subsistence allowances for their valuers who will have to do their work largely on the spot is so comparatively low? How is it that we have only got a figure of £14,000 I do not know what the ordinary rate of subsistence allowance for this class of Civil Servant is, but I think probably about £1 a day. On the basis of £1 a day for six months, that only appears to make provision for 70 gentlemen going about the country, and 70 gentlemen going about the country cannot begin to scratch the first hole in the surface of the problem. In those circumstances, I think the hon. Gentleman will find that he is not really going to make an effective start on 31st March and that the figure of £14,000 is much too low.
        I said a moment ago that the survey would have to be a cadastral survey; it would have to be a complete survey, and, so far as I know, it will have to be a survey of all the land of the country because, after all, the surveyor is not concerned with whether the land is or is not to be exempt from taxation. The surveyor has no information on the subject. It is his task to draw on his map the limits of the physical peculiarities—trees and hedges, and so on—of the area in which he is compiling his survey. Therefore, I think it will be found that, in truth and in fact, the survey has to be a survey of all the land. I am not talking about the valuation. I can find nothing myself which avoids that description. I have always been very doubtful

        2199
        myself whether in truth and in fact the courts will not subsequently hold that there devolves upon the Inland Revenue the duty of valuing all the land of the country, but that is neither here nor there. I have to accept what the hon. Gentleman says, that there is this m easure of discretion which resides in the valuer to decide whether or not a valuation is to be applied to a particular bit of land or not.
        I want to point out, because this affects vitally the amount of money the House is being asked to vote, that the compilation of this new Domesday Book must necessarily depend upon the temper or the mood of the valuer at the moment who happens to be making this particular valuation. If this were a proposal to have a really complete valuation, a really new Domesday Book such a book as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has always been clamouring for, there might be something more to be said for it than there is at present. But it is not. Consider how this is going to work. Consider the valuer in his progress through a purely agricultural area. It happens possibly to be a fine morning. He will find himself on a bit of rising ground, commanding a view over the valley. He stops his car, and he says: "I perceive a piece of eligible building land. I should not mind having a house there, I will go down and value it." And then he turns to his chauffeur and he says: "It is true that to the naked eye that piece of land may appear like plain plough land, but my experienced eye, stimulated by the amount which the hon. Gentleman has asked the Committee to vote as my share of this Vote, enables me to see that in the somewhat unpromising area of that plough land there resides a good piece of building land." Then he makes a valuation. But supposing it is a wet day and the valuer comes home tired and passes through the same place. He does not say then: "What a nice place," but he says: "What a beastly hole. Nobody out of Hanwell would like to live here." Does that plot of land get into the new Domesday Book? It does not. This estimate, which is presented to the House seriously, purporting to ask that a particular sum of money should be voted for a particular purpose, is a purely illusory estimate.
        Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about the valuer may I make this statement? He has said that I said that the valuers would decide as to whether they should value a piece of land or not. I only rise to say that if I did make that statement—I do not think I did—I did not intend to make it. What I intended to say was that every piece of land would not be valued, because agricultural land with no value in excess of its cultivation value would not come under the valuation, but I did not intend to make the definite statement that the decision of the individual valuer would determine the matter.
        Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Far be it from me to say that the Financial Secretary said what he did not actually say but what he has said now confirms the point I was making. Agricultural land, as such, is not to be valued, but who is to decide whether the land is agricultural land or not—the valuer.
        Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is the decision of the Commissioners. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to Subsection (6) of Clause 11 he will find that it is the Commissioners who are to decide whether a piece of land is exempt or not, and the opinion of the individual valuer will not be the deciding factor in that issue.
        Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: But surely the Commissioners must base their conclusion on the decision of the individual valuer. The Commissioners cannot possibly know whether a piece of land at the bottom of Farmer Hayseed's yard has any value beyond its agricultural value. The only person who can tell the value of that particular piece of land is the man who made the valuation on the spot, and it is his decision which will govern the case. The Financial Secretary is only now waking up to perceive for the first time matters about which we have protested again and again. The Commissioners will have to rely on the judgment of the individual man who makes the valuation, because, manifestly, they cannot spend the rest of their official lives in going up and down England, looking at every plot of land in order to decide for themselves whether it has any value in excess of its agricultural value.

        2201
        The only other point on which I want to ask a question is whether the forms to be filled up by the taxpayer have already been drawn. If they have not, then I hope the Financial Secretary will give us an undertaking—it was done in 1910—that they will be laid before Parliament, and that at the same time the instructions to valuers will also be laid before Parliament. It is desirable that Parliament should see the sort of questions with which the subject is going to be confronted, as soon as possible. I have no doubt that other hon. Members desire to raise other points and, therefore, I do not propose to protract my observations further than to say that I hope the Committee and the country generally will realise that this is only the first and a small instalment of the bill which the taxpayer will be ultimately compelled to pay.
        Captain BOURNE: I also want to put a few questions to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I was rather surprised when he said that agricultural land will not have to be valued. To the best of my recollection agricultural land will not be liable to taxation if, and only if, the cultivation is equal to the site value as ascertained in accordance with Clause 9. If that is right, I cannot see how anybody can say, or how anybody can know, whether or not any given piece of land is or is not liable to taxation unless a valuation has been made of it. If my memory serves me right again, the Sub-section to which the Financial Secretary referred when he was replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) provides that the Commissioners, as the hon. Member says, may decide that a piece of land which is exempt from taxation does not require to be valued, but if he will look into the Clause a little closer he will see that it only applies where exemption is specifically given under the Act itsef, that is, land belonging to a charitable institution or land which is used for certain purposes of sport. Whether the land may or may not be taxed will depend upon the valuation, and, therefore, a great many valuations will have to be carried out up and down the country.
        In the second place, there is no doubt that the valuations are going to prove extremely difficult and very technical.
        2202
        You are going to value the site on the assumption that the building is not there. It is to be a site which was once covered by a building, but some genii such as we read of in the Arabian Nights has spirited away the building in the night and left a hole in the earth where the building once stood. One thing, which is most important, is this, that if these valuations are to be equitable to the taxpayer and to the revenue there must be some uniformity. The buildings in which we are now are not subject to valuation. But suppose they were suddenly removed and we were left with the bare site. These buildings have very deep basements; and that is a very important matter from the point of view of valuation. They may be of value to one person but distinctly detrimental to another. In this matter it is very essential that the Department should have the services of the most skilled people possible, and with the salaries suggested to be paid it is highly unlikely that they will get skilled people who understand this highly technical work. The Financial Secretary said that he proposed to get 200 people. I should like to know the fees that are to be paid to the valuers, and what are to be their professional qualifications. I am certain that this work is not going to be easy. It is technical, complicated, and it requires great accuracy and fairness, because on this will depend whether or not you get a large group of law suits, and also whether the taxpayers generally will be more or less reconciled to this new taxation. On its accuracy and fairness will also depend the amount of ill-feeling and friction. I want to ask what professional qualifications will be required as essential for a valuer, and what lesser professional qualifications will be regarded as necessary for the assistants. Then, also, will the assistants be allowed to make valuations on their own.
        This brings me to the point which is perhaps the most important on the particular Estimate with which we are now dealing. This Estimate covers, approximately, six months during the current financial year. A Clause in the Finance Bill introduced comparatively late in the Report stage is to the effect that the valuation should not commence before January and I ask the hon. Gentleman, first, when he hopes to approve of these 200 valuers and 600 assistants and,

        2203
        secondly, are any steps to be taken to train these people in the new and unprecedented and somewhat difficult tasks which they will have to undertake? It seems highly desirable that some instruction should be given to these men, in order to ensure that in dealing with these difficult problems there shall be uniformity in the valuations, as between one part of the country and another.
        I have spoken just now on the point as to whether a site is to be valued as it would have been before any building was erected upon it, that is to say as a level piece of land ready for building, but as yet having no excavations made in it for foundations, or whether it is to be regarded as if the building had been bodily taken away and the site left with the excavations in the ground. That makes a considerable difference to the value. It might make a considerable difference to a willing purchaser. In many cases he might be glad to have the site with this hole in the ground where a building had been, whereas in other cases he would not. The mere expense of filling up such an excavation might detract considerably from the value in some cases while that might not apply in other cases. It seems to me that uniformity is necessary. If you are to have a valuer in London, for instance, treating the site as if the excavation still existed and a valuer in Sheffield, valuing the site as if the excavations had been filled up, then you will get a contradictory set of valuations as between different parts of the Kingdom. Unless the Inland Revenue authorities give some form of instruction or training in this matter, there will be conflicting decisions.
        In the case of agricultural land the estimation of the cultivation value is not going to be easy, and I do not gather from reading the Bill on what basis the cultivation value is going to be assessed. Presumably it is to be on the capitalised value of what a willing tenant would give as rent, in the open market, for the farm as it stands, allowing for outgoings of different sorts. There, again, it will be necessary to see that the valuations are uniform. Are the deductions to be made, if any—say as regards landlords' expenses—to be the deductions allowed under Schedule A. All this will make a
        2204
        considerable difference. Again, there ought to be uniformity of practice in all parts of the country from Northumberland to Cornwall, and the valuations should not be influenced by divergencies of view as between different valuers.
        Divergent views may be quite honestly and legitimately held as to what should or should not be included in these complicated valuations. A man who has prejudices in one direction may make a series of valuations in one district and a man who puts a different interpretation on these provisions—and Heaven help those who will have to interpret them—may take quite another view of the same circumstances in another part of the country and apply a completely different system. These are matters on which we shall expect a definite answer from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I hope that he will be able to assure the Committee that the gentlemen who are going to carry out this difficult operation are to receive the training necessary to ensure uniformity of working before they commence their duties.
        I turn to two other Estimates which we are considering. There is an estimate for £78,000 for new Inland Revenue buildings. I realise that if this large work of valuation is to be carried out, it will be necessary, at least for the time being, to have premises in which to house the staff. In the Debate on the Finance Bill, and, at a later date on the Financial Resolution relating to the valuation Clauses, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he hoped to get the first valuation finished by 1934; that the subsequent valuations would be quinquennial, and that he did not think they would entail a very large cost. Is it proposed to purchase or erect all the new buildings required out of this £78,000 or is it the Department's intention to supply as much of this accommodation as possible in temporarily hired premises? Once this first Domesday Book has been completed, if the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is correct, there will not be the same necessity for this staff as there was in the beginning. A smaller staff will be able to carry on thereafter, and that smaller staff will require much less accommodation than will be needed in the first instance. What is the idea of the Inland Revenue or the Office of Works or whatever Department

        2205
        has to deal with this matter? I hope for the sake of economy that it is intended to hire as much accommodation as possible, and to hire it temporarily for the purposes of the first valuation.
        Then as regards the survey I would like to know what type of map it is proposed to use in connection with this valuation. We have already a very good series of ordnance maps. We have the one-inch map which I conclude would be too small for most of this work. We have a very good and U3eful six-inch map which I think would be good enough for most of the work except in towns. Beyond that we have the 25-inch ordnance map, a very valuable one in the country though somewhat cumbersome, and finally we have the large-scale ordnance map for work in the cities. I agree that in parts of the country a more recent survey is desirable, and I wish to know on what particular sections of the survey it is intended to concentrate if this Estimate is passed. Is it intended to concentrate on the town? As it happens in my constituency and I dare say in a good many other urban constituencies, we have recently carried out new building programmes and there are quire large areas on the outskirts of our cities which a year or two ago were open fields but are now covered with houses. These, as far as I know, are not marked on any map whatever. There is a complete absence of any record on the maps of these building programmes and I suggest that one of the things which will be necessary before this valuation comes into operation, is to get accurate maps showing recent developments.
        The hon. Gentleman may reply that these housing estates have been largely built up by local authorities and are therefore exempt from this taxation, but in many cases, my own constituency included, a large number of these houses, though not all, have been sold either to the individual occupiers or to other persons. In these conditions there will be cases in which individuals will be liable to the tax and other cases of individuals who will not be liable. The houses will not be uniform in this respect and it will not be possible to value one of these estates simply by walking along the streets, taking house
        2206
        A as a sample and valuing all the rest accordingly. A very careful survey will be required in order that the differences between the houses may be ascertained and a considerable number of large-scale maps will be required, while it will also be necessary to have a considerable number of 25-inch maps of agricultural land as well as a considerable number of the six-inch maps of land not likely to be taxed. I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will tell us what map it is proposed to use and where the survey is to be started, because I feel certain that there is a great deal of leeway to be made up in various parts of the country, and if the work is to be done in time it will be necessary to make a start where the survey at present is least up-to-date.
        Mr. BENSON: We have discussed the subject of valuation quite recently under the Finance Bill at such length that I make no apology for taking the Committee away from the question of land values to something which has not been discussed for a considerable time. Under Class VI, Vote 10, the survey of the whole of Great Britain is included, and I see that that essentially civil work is, so far as the heads of the Department are concerned, entirely in the hands of the military. It is highly undesirable that a civil Department should be staffed entirely by military heads. There are 17 military officers who stand, judging by the salaries they receive, very much above any of their civil assistants. The excuse is frequently given that it is essential in the interests of military efficiency that there should be a considerable amount of survey and typographical knowledge in the Army, and that in order that we may have a staff of competent and trained men in the Army capable of dealing with this matter, the Survey Department should to a certain extent be staffed by men who are seconded from the Army.
        The point which strikes me is that the people who are in the Survey Department apparently for the purpose of being trained are the people who are in charge of the Department. Under Subhead B, we have non-commissioned officers, warrant officers and staff officers. These men no doubt require training from the point of view of their military efficiency,

        2207
        and they change whenever they have received the requisite amount of training, but what of the director, the colonel, the majors and the other military staff who are in charge of this Department? Are they changed regularly? How long has the present director been in charge? Is he there as a permanent director, or merely for training so that he may be useful to the Army? The same applies to the colonel and the two majors. Further down mention is made of the officer in charge of map sales and issues. Here is an officer in charge of the considerable sales that take place of the survey maps. What military value can there be in putting a man in charge of a sale department? Here is a purely commercial occupation in the hands of a military man. Then there is the archaeology officer. Archaeology is an important factor in our surveys. Anyone interested in the ordnance maps issued by the Government, and who is a walker or tramper or hiker, knows how important it is that we should have the objects of archaeological interest marked clearly upon the maps, but I would like to know why the archaeological expert in charge of the Survey Department need be one of the military staff.
        The issue of the ordinary Ordnance maps is purely a civil job, and the military have no right in that Department except in so far as they require training for their military purposes. Here we have the military encroaching upon a civil Department to the extent that they are entirely in possession of the highly paid positions, and this I regard as distinctly bad.
        Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: How does the hon. Gentleman gather the fact that these are military officers? The archaeology officer is connected with the survey of national monuments. How does the hon. Member get the idea that he is a military officer?
        Mr. BENSON: Why should they be called officers? In the Estimates of the other Departments there is no reference to officers. In this Estimate the civil assistants and the military officers are separated.
        Mr. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Member certain about that? Is a police officer a military officer?
        Mr. BENSON: If I am incorrect—and I hope I am—I have no doubt that the Minister will correct me, but upon the face of it, it is a natural deduction that the officer in charge of maps is military and that the archaeology officer is also military. At any rate, these are only two out of 17, and the officers who, judging from their salaries are in charge, are all military men. Do these military officers draw double pensions? Do they draw their Army pensions and at the same time Civil Service pensions?
        On page 110, under Sub-head H, the most important Appropriation-in-Aid is "sale of maps." We are familiar with the most common type of map which is sold, that is, the half-inch and one-inch map which is used by motorists and walkers. Of late years, the Government Survey Maps have spread considerably in sales, and have grown considerably in popularity owing to their excellent quality. There arc, however, a very large number of privately printed maps on the market. The survey of Great Britain is a large undertaking, and I am pretty well convinced that the only body that does any serious surveying of Great Britain is the Government. The bulk of maps issued by private individuals are based upon the Government survey. That survey is copyright, and no one is entitled to reproduce a reap which is less than 50 years old without paying a royalty to the Survey Department. The Appropriations-in-Aid include a certain amount of money received for royalties. There is a payment for royalties among the miscellaneous receipts.
        Evasion of the royalty goes on to a very large extent. The difficulty is to prove that any map issued by a private firm has been based upon the ordnance survey. If the map is correct, as it ought to be, there is nothing to prove that it is based upon the Government survey and has escaped royalty; but it is known that there is an enormous amount of evasion. The amount in royalties received by the Survey Department is nothing like what it ought to be, judging by the number of maps sold to the public, because one knows perfectly well that there is no department or body doing serious surveying except the Survey Department. Furthermore, I am fully convinced that it would be almost impossible to check this evasion of royalties, because of the difficulty of proving that any map

        2209
        is based upon the survey. One thing that could be done would be to push the sale of Government maps far more energetically.
        Although our Government maps are far and away the best of any maps issued to the public, there is not very much energy displayed in pushing the sale of them. We sell nothing like the number of maps that might he sold. What is required from the gentleman mentioned on page 108 who is in charge of the Map Sales and Issue Department is far more energy and far more initiative; if necessary there should be power to advertise and to push the sale of these maps to the utmost extent. If that be done not only will the public get a far better map than they usually buy, but by swelling the Appropriations-in-Aid we shall materially bring down the amount of money paid out on this account.
        Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT-WARD: I think the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) rather jumped to false conclusions when he stated that everybody who appears in the Estimate under the name of an officer is necessarily of military rank. Originally the ordnance survey was entirely in the hands of the military authorities, and I am not at all sure that it was not right that it should have been; but I very much doubt whether at the present time a very high percentage of the people employed there really are military officers in or attached to the Army. On the other hand, there is no doubt that surveying is a most useful training for the Engineers' branch of the Army, and it is only right that a certain number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men should be given the opportunity of acquiring a very valuable branch of military knowledge by doing survey work in this country. I do not think the hon. Member is correct, however, in saying that the civilian branch is entirely subordinate to the military, because if we look at the Estimates and compare the pay under paragraph B and paragraph C we find that 25 noncommissioned officers and 90 sappers of the Royal Engineers, 115 in all, are drawing pay to the extent of £13,500.
        Mr. BENSON: I was taking the main Estimate. On page 108 the hon. and gallant Member will find that the director draws £1,600; and then there are a colonel, two majors, six captains,
        2210
        two lieutenants and also quartermasters. The 13 head members—for the director is a brigadier-general—are definitely military men.
        Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I was referring to the Supplementary Estimate and to the more subordinate staff. As I said, we have 115 military staff drawing pay totalling £13,500, and we have 75 men of civilian rank, probably more or less in the same position, drawing pay to the amount of £13,740. As far as salaries are concerned, therefore, it does not look as though the civilian branch were subordinated to the military. If, as the hon. Member said—and I have not the information—the manager of the Sales Department is an officer on the active list, or an officer lent from the military side, that certainly does seem absurd. As to the sale of ordnance maps, whether more could be one in that way if the head of the department were definitely a civilian is open to question. Regarding what the hon. Member said about the pirating of these ordnance survey maps, it is obvious that at is a very simple thing to do it. By making certain additions or alterations to the ordnance maps, such as delimitating new roads or by-pass roads, you deprive the Government of any right to royalties, because then the map, although it is more or less based on the ordnance survey, is not sufficiently like the survey map to be liable to pay royalties. Whether anything can be done about that is, I should imagine, a matter for the legal advisers of the Crown.
        What I rose to speak upon principally on this Vote is the Supplementary Estimate for the valuation staff of the Valuation Office, this comparatively new Department. I would ask this Committee generally whether they really think this is a suitable time for increasing expenditure of that nature. Of course the provisions as to land valuation are now law, and steps must be taken to give effect to the law, but at the same time I think it is possible to go rather more quietly, and not to spend quite so large a sum as is being asked for in this Supplementary Estimate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has more than once urged the necessity for economy, and has said that unless trade improved during the past year an increase of taxation would be necessary. As far as one can see, up to the present time, trade has not improved,

        2211
        and it seems to me that an increase of taxation in the future is almost inevitable. As it is, the last Budget only just balanced—well, it balanced as nearly as possible. Since then we have incurred a very large additional commitment by sacrificing £11,000,000 of reparation payments. In addition to that, vast sums of money are being borrowed in order to finance unemployment insurance. Then, on the top, we have Supplementary Estimates of this character, asking for large sums to be granted.
        What is to be done with regard to the training of the valuers? This valuation is going to be a most difficult and technical undertaking. If I may refer to another Bill which is before the House, the Public Works (Loans) Bill, we see there a valuation that has been done by the staff of the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and when lands which they valued came up for sale, they realised only a half, or less than half, of what they were valued at. If land valuation under the Finance Act is to be carried out on those lines, it will lead not only to very intense feeling and great dissatisfaction, but also to an immense amount of litigation. It is necessary that the valuers should be very carefully trained, and I wish to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what steps are being taken to train them. Nothing is mentioned in this Supplementary Estimate, although a gross sum is down for salaries, wages and allowances. There is nothing with regard to training. In my constituency, for example, where plots of land with houses, building and factories on them have to be valued, the work is going to be most technical and complicated, and unless the valuers are given the necessary training, their efforts are certain to lead to dissatisfaction and litigation in the future. I would suggest that, while the staff of valuers is being trained, they should not indulge in the more difficult and ambitious schemes of valuation.
        Mr. SMITHERS: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in his opening speech, when he introduced his Estimates, surpassed himself in what I should almost call impertinence to the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, he talked about the vehemence of
        2212
        the Debates during the passage of the land valuation Clauses of the Finance Bill. How much vehemence came from him? He sat there all the time and let the Solicitor-General do all the vehemence. He carried the land Clauses, under which this Estimate arises, by means of the Guillotine, and though we had not the time to debate those Clauses properly and adequately, he now twits us with using vehemence. It was the only thing we could use, in the limited time at our disposal. It is pitiful of him to use arguments of that kind, in bringing forward these Estimates.
        9.0 p.m.
        I want to refer to one other remark of the Financial Secretary. He said—I am not quoting his exact words—that where there was no site value, it was not proposed that the valuers should trouble, I think he said, to value all the land. I want to know, because this is a most important point, under what powers a valuer, when he comes to value a certain piece of land, shall be able to say that he shall or shall not value it? If one of the valuers appointed by the Government can go round the country, and look at a piece of land and say, "I will value this piece of land," or "I will not value this piece of land," you are giving to those valuers the powers of a taxation authority, without statutory backing. I ask the Financial Secretary if he will say under what provision of Part 3 of the Finance Bill the valuers, for whom we are voting this money to-night, are able to get out of valuing the whole of the land of this country? Suppose, for instance, that a landowner insisted that his land should be valued. I do not suppose there are many who will do that, but suppose this landowner did; under what provision of the Act can the valuer refuse to value that piece of land? I want to know under what statutory powers the values-has the choice.
        So much for the Financial Secretary's opening remarks. Now I want—[Interruption]—I have a perfect right to reply to the Financial Secretary. The Deputy-Chairman has not called me to order. I do not want to be interrupted by rude remarks from the other side. I want to address myself—[Interruption]. I would appeal to you, Mr. Dunnico, to keep the hon. Colonel from somewhere in Wales quiet.
        Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I appeal to you to protect me, Mr. Dunnico.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?
        Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I do. I want your protection, because I never said a word at all. My province in Wales has been insulted, and I ask the hon. Member to make an apology.
        Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Further to that point of Order. I would point out that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just addressed you keeps up a constant murmur in a bass voice which is most annoying. It is a form of mental discourtesy which is very much resented, and we ask you to protect us.
        The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I always deprecate these continuous interruptions, especially if the voice is not musical.
        Mr. SMITHERS: I should like to thank you for giving a decision in my favour. I apologise for anything I might have said to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I withdraw it. I would ask him to keep his voice quiet.
        Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Once again I appeal to you, Mr. Dunuico, to protect me, because I never said a word. I never uttered any exclamation at all. Somebody from the Front Bench opposite appealed to the Chair, to say that an unmusical voice from Wales had said something, but it had never said anything at all.
        Sir DENNIS HERBERT: I do not know whether I can be helpful on this point of Order. I understood my hon. Friend to refer to a colonel from somewhere in Wales, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman thereupon complained to the Chair that he had been insulted. He has not yet explained whether the insult was in calling him a colonel, or in saying that he came from Wales.
        Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Unfortunately, I happen to be the only hon. Member who is a colonel from Wales or anywhere else, and I assumed that I was called upon to protect the honour of Wales, especially as I was the only colonel present. Moreover, I had not said a word.
        The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has protected himself.
        Mr. SMITHERS: I did not say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman said anything, but he kept on making incoherent noises which are very disturbing.
        Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I bitterly protest against that continued insult to me. I never said a word before, and the hon. Member now repeats that statement, after I have said that I did not intend any insult to him at all.
        The CHAIRMAN: I am sure that the hon. Member does not mean to attribute anything to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
        Mr. SMITHERS: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will only allow me to proceed with my speech, I will apologise, or withdraw, or do anything he likes. I want to address a few words to the Financial Secretary—
        Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Address the Chair!
        Mr. SMITHERS: I want to address a few words, through you, Sir Robert, to the Financial Secretary, on a rather wider aspect of these Estimates, and to ask him in all seriousness if it is not possible, even at this late stage, to withdraw the Estimates, because, since the introduction of the Budget on the 23rd April, the whole financial situation has changed fundamentally. The condition of this country's credit is not the same as it was six months ago. The Budget was not a balanced Budget, and the whole world is looking to this country to see in what way we shall meet the very serious international situation which has arisen, accentuated, of course, by the difficulties in which Germany finds herself at the present moment. I think that the whole financial situation must be reviewed, and, even if it is only a question of £400,000, it would be a gesture to the rest of the world if the Government would say, even at this late date, two or three days before the end of the Session, that they would ask Parliament for no more money until the negotiations between France, Germany, and the rest of the seven Powers have come to some fruition. Our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are in Germany

        2215
        to-day, and, if that statement could be made, it would show that we at least were sticking to sound principles of finance.
        The Government have set up many Royal Commissions since they came into office, and I want to quote two short sentences from the Macmillan report. The first is from the beginning of paragraph 6, of which I should like to alter one word. Paragraph 6 begins:
        "In view of the generally uninstructed state of the public on matters of finance"—
        I would like to substitute the word "Government" for "public"—
        "we have from the outset recognised that not the least important service we might render would be to act as interpreters of the working of the monetary system, and to make its main principles intelligible to the ordinary mind."
        The other sentence that I should like to quote is from the Memorandum of Dissent by Lord Bradbury. He says that part of our difficulties are due to over-lavish expenditure by the State and local authorities, and he proceeds:
        "If currency 'management' is to be U6ed to facilitate manoeuvres of this type, the sooner we return to an 'automatic' system the better."
        He puts the word "management" in inverted commas, by which he means that it comprises devices and expedients to overcome the difficulties of our time, and I would add to those difficulties the Supplementary Estimates which are being introduced to-night. He adds these words:
        "Honesty, even if stupid, is a better foundation for credit than the most adroit finesse."
        In view of the difficulty of maintaining the pound sterling at its parity with the other currencies of the world, the serious and unprecedented financial stringency, and the way in which credit has been strained almost to breaking point, it is of the utmost importance that no further expenditure should be countenanced by the Government of this country until we have put our house into better order.
        My hon. and gallant Friend the Membed for Oxford (Captain Bourne) rightly stressed the importance of uniformity of valuation. I do not know whether it would be possible to do something on the lines of the Bating and Valuation Act, 1925, in which an attempt
        2216
        was made to secure uniformity in rating and valuation. My hon. and gallant Friend pointed out a case which may easily arise. Is the land to be valued as a level site, or as in the case of a vacant site of some big factory in the City of London? This is a case which was put to me by an eminent land valuer. Supposing that you take up one of these big bank buildings, like a tooth out of a man's head, you leave a great cavity. That cavity may be of great value to the intending purchaser, because, if he wants to use the site for a bank, the excavations for the vaults and strong rooms are already there. I would ask what steps are being taken to see that, in the valuation of these different types of land, the same principles shall apply to the levelling of excavations in London or in other parts of England.
        Will any general instructions be issued to the gentlemen who are to be taken on by the Inland Revenue Department? Will there be any kind of regulations or orders with the object of ensuring as far as possible that these newly enlisted men shall work on a uniform basis throughout the country? I also want to ask, on behalf of some of my friends who are members of the valuing, auctioneering and land surveying profession, whether these gentlemen who are taken on will be whole-time servants of the Government, or whether any of them will be part-time servants, like existing local surveyors throughout the country, who will do some work for the Government and at the same time be able to continue their own practice? I want to know to what extent there is existing information which will obviate work being done by these newly appointed valuers. It is of great importance that we should be told to what extent the work of the valuation of the land is already done. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us, when it is completed, how much money the State expects to get as the result of the work of these valuers? Can he give any estimate at all of what a penny in the £ will produce for the 10,000,000 or 12,000,000 hereditaments of the country?
        Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: I notice that there is a fresh demand for £29,700. That follows on a decrease in the original Estimate of £9,033. Is that decrease in the Estimate an overhead cut or is it simply a decrease through

        2217
        the various items and the Treasury has now found that the items will require greater expenditure than was estimated and that, further, the increased expenditure is due to the valuation under the land Clauses of the Finance Bill? The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) raised a point which is very interesting on Subhead A, "Pay and Allowances to Staff." It has been increased by a small sum. I was wondering, in view of what the hon. Member asked, whether that is due to increased operations on the ground of archaeological surveys, on Hadrian's Wall for instance, or the national monuments which are in charge of the Office of Works. I should take no exception to a small sum towards the preservation of such things as Hadrian's Wall and the other national monuments which come under the right hon. Gentleman's notice. If it is not that, what is the work which occasions the extra cost under Subhead A where the original Estimate is increased?
        The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): That is not my department.
        Mr. SAMUEL: I shall be equally pleased if the Financial Secretary can tell me whether any of the expenditure in connection with surveys has any relation, for example, to Hadrian's Wall.
        Mr. LANSBURY: No, it has not.
        Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me if there is any extra expenditure connected with archaeological surveys?
        Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Gentleman is asking now solely with regard to the increases mentioned on page 8?
        Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, and under Subhead A the additional sum required is £340. Is any of that money due to extra exertions for archaeological surveys, which appear in the original Estimate at £13,380.
        Mr. EDE: It is shown on the next page that the £340 is due to the salary of one lieutenant.
        Mr. SAMUEL: That is right, but what is it for? What is the work done that
        2218
        requires this money? I should also like to ask if there has been any further appropriation from the Sales Department at Manchester, where fresh arrangements were made to bring some sort of contribution to these expenses from maps sold in the provinces. Then I want to know how it is that there are 115 officers under Subhead B in addition to 75 more technical officers under Subhead C, the two subheads together coming to £13,500 and £13,740. At the bottom of the page the 115 is dissected. Is that body of 115 plus the 75 under Subhead C—190 altogether—all due to the fact that we require their services for the survey of the land under the land Clauses of the Finance Bill? I wish to know, further, if any credit has been taken in the Estimate for the possibility of a reduction of the cost of living bonus. We have not apparently received much benefit from the fall in the bonus which must come into operation soon.
        Captain EDEN: I wish to enter a somewhat more emphatic protest than my hon. Friend who had just spoken has done in regard to these Votes. We have a confession by the Government of an unbalanced Budget. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer left himself with such a narrow margin in his financial statement, he was warned from this side that it would prove inadequate, and this Vote is already sufficient justification for that warning. We are asked here to vote sums which are in excess of the margin which the Chancellor has allowed. They are sums calculated not by any means to benefit industry, but to be spent for the benefit of a particular section of the community, such as lawyers, valuers and so on, who seem to be the particular friends of the Government. If the Government have failed to find any work for those tramping the streets, at least they have provided plenty in these Estimates for valuers and lawyers. This additional sum in itself is sufficient to overbalance the small margin which the Chancellor allowed himself on the Budget. I should like to enter a protest against the habit of the Government of asking for these sums of money in piecemeal fashion and declining to place a definite limitation on the total of their expenditure. We have a right to ask the Government how far they propose to proceed with this piecemeal asking for money.

        2219
        It would be out of order to discuss what the limits are to be, but I think it is right we should protest against the Government's habit of declining to limit their financial commitments and then asking for these recurrent Supplementary Estimates. In days like these this Committee would be better occupied than in dispensing these very large sums for purely academic purposes. Whether any good will result from this vast expenditure on valuation is doubtful enough, but that this country at present cannot afford it should hardly need saying. It would be wrong if we allowed this to pass, simply devoting ourselves to individual details of the items of which we have complained. We should rather register at such a time, a most emphatic protest against expenditure of this kind, which is of no constructive benefit to British industries and no assistance in finding work for another man among those who seek work in industry, but which will multiply work for a section of black-coated industry and which is the sole type of constructive effort which this Government can add to all their failures.
        Sir D. HERBERT: Two or three Members on this side have questioned the advisability of spending money in the present financial condition of the country, but the Government, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary know the very grave and serious position which we are in. It is a position which it is difficult for ordinary men and women in the country to understand, but those who are concerned with, and responsible for, the finances of the country must be aware of it. In these circumstances, I venture to hope that even if the Government do intend to go on and press for this Vote, they have got it in their minds possibly to refrain from spending some of this money in present circumstances. They know that if things go ill, the time will come when all these things will have to he upset and revised. There can be no question of desiring it or of it being a matter of policy, for it will be sheer and absolute financial necessity which will oblige them to cut these things down.
        There is another matter I want to bring to the attention of the Government in regard to embarking on this policy at the present time. To attempt to value land is difficult enough at any time, but it is
        2220
        more than ever difficult, and it is going to be more than ever unsatisfactory, in the circumstances of the present day. In fact, I do not think it is putting it too high to say that if a valuation of land were made at once, it would be a valuation that would be absolutely worthless. Nobody knows whether in a few weeks' time, or it may be in a few months' time, the land of this country will be worth two or three times what it is saleable for today or only one-third or one-fourth of what it is saleable for to-day. The Financial Secretary can easily find out, if he does not already know, that within the last few months and, indeed, within the last few weeks to a greater extent than ever, large landed estates in this country have been and are being offered for sale. They are being offered all over the country to-day, and there are no buyers for them. In these absolutely abnormal conditions, no valuer of responsibility—and many of us concerned in business know it—dares with any confidence to set any definite value upon a large landed estate as, for instance, what it is worth for the purpose of a mortgage loan.
        If that is the state of affairs, and so long as it continues, what can be the, use of a valuation made at the present time? Not only is it difficult, however well it may be done and however expert and experienced the valuers may be—and they cannot all of them be first-rate—but it is perfectly certain that a valuation taken in present circumstances would one way or another be hopelessly out-of-date, perfectly useless and totally unfair for the purpose of a tax to be levied two years hence. I sincerely hope—even if it is too much to ask the Government to withdraw this Supplementary Estimate—that they will realise that this is not a party question at all, and that in the interests of the nation they should keep it in mind to refrain from expending this money as far as they can until the financial position and outlook gets a little more settled and a little clearer than it is at the present time.
        Mr. EDE: I am bound to say that if I shared the views of the hon. Member for. Watford (Sir D. Herbert) with regard to the present plight of this country, I should welcome this Vote all the more heartily than I do now, because if it is a fact that we have so nearly reached the

        2221
        end of our financial resources, we ought to welcome the provision for a valuation that will open up to us fresh sources of revenue that we can tap when our existing sources have reached the melancholy end that the hon. Member foresees for them in the very near future. It seems to me that hon. Members on the other side have forgotten the exciting evenings we had here a few weeks ago when this House, by deliberate policy, decided it would set up this particular form of valuation and proceed with it as from a certain date. Nothing has happened since.
        Sir D. HERBERT: May I ask the hon. Member whether he has read the daily papers and whether he knows the great anxieties his own leaders have been going through with regard to financial matters and the great conference held in London last week? Does he know anything as to what they mean?
        Mr. EDE: I have read selected daily papers. One's duties here prevent one reading all the columns of the paper that a man born in Epsom usually reads, but I have followed that particular form of gambling to which the hon. Member made allusion just now. I repeat that the more I read, the more I welcome the opportunities that this valuation will afford us of spreading the burden of taxation elsewhere. When he asks me if I know anything, I would say that when I listen to him I am always reminded of what was once said in this House of the late Lord Macaulay. A person having listened to him deliver a speech very much like that of the hon. Member said:
        "I wish I could be as sure of anything as Tom Macualay is of everything."
        I do at least know that serious as is the plight of this country, its credit to-day is better than it was when the hon. Gentleman's Friends left office, and that we can face the future with far more confidence with my hon. Friend sitting there as Financial Secretary to the Treasury than when the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) occupied the same post. I welcome this earnest of the Government that they intend to implement immediately the policy that this House voted in the Finance Bill of this year. I hope that the valuation will be carried through with expedition and with that strict regard for thoroughness which has characterised
        2222
        all the actions of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that the result of this valuation will be that both for national and local purposes, and particularly in the near future for local purposes, we shall have available the means of raising the public revenues of this country that will inflict far less injury upon industry than the present system. I hope that in this work every effort will be made to secure the benefit of the accumulated experience that is now available in the offices of county valuation committees. They are, at any rate, beginning to find out, even in the most Tory counties, some of the advantages that would have been derived if this system of valuation had been in vogue for some time past. I am sure if they are associated in consultation with the Revenue Department and the survey that is to be carried out, a very great deal of advantage to the public good will result.
        I regret to notice that so perturbed are the Opposition with regard to these taxes that they have forgotten one thing about which they usually inquire on these occasions. I notice that some of this Vote is required for furniture for the Revenue buildings, and no one has yet inquired whether any Russian timber is to be used. I can only say, as representing a port in this House through which the Russian timber has to enter this country, that unpopular as Russian timber may be in some parts of the country, the people who live on the Tyneside and who find opportunity for employment in taking Russian timber out of ships and putting it on the quayside, will not be disappointed if they find that some of the furniture here is to be made from Russian timber. I have no doubt that there are certain other parts of the eastern side of the this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "And Scotland!"] Scotland conquered us at the battle of Bannockburn, so I do not draw distinctions like that. I am sure they will equally welcome similar action on the part of the Department. We on this side of the Committee desire to congratulate the Financial Secretary upon bringing this Supplementary Estimate before us before the House rises, so that we can go away for the Recess assured that the work we have done on the Finance Bill this year will not be wasted, and that during the

        2223
        Recess the necessary machinery will be erected to carry out the valuation in favour of which we have declared.
        Sir HILTON YOUNG: I wish that I could fall into the same humorous vein as the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and deal with the question of voting £400,000 of public money under present conditions for no useful purpose as a subject for jest before this Committee. Unfortunately, my spirits are not of the resilient character of those of the hon. Member, and I cannot but take a more grave view of situation. I think that the Committee should be able to take a grave view of the situation when it is asked to find so big a sum in circumstances of grave national difficulty, and it has no explanation whatever from the Front Treasury Bench as to how that money is to be found. This is not, of course, the time to argue, and it would not be in order to argue as to the purposes for which this money is to be found. That has been decided by the votes of the House in the circumstances of the Guillotine, with such consideration as the House was able to give to it under those conditions. There is a sense of grave dissatisfaction not only upon these benches but in the House at large, and also further than in the House at large, in the country as a whole, as to the manner in which public money is being spent.
        There are two circumstances in connection with this particular Vote with which it is right for the Committee to deal. The Budget of the country for this year does not balance; admittedly it does not balance. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer scarcely even pretends that it balances. I think that the only Member of the Government who continues to believe that the Budget balances is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with his undefeated optimism. In circumstances of an unbalanced Budget we are asked to find £400,000, for what purpose? For no immediate purposes of the year; not at all. But for purposes which cannot be fulfilled until two years hence. It is the very essence of unsound, nay, of ruinous, finance, that you should pay so little regard to the actual conditions in the year in which you are living and that in view
        2224
        of the financial condition of this country you should accumulate burdens in a year which can serve no useful purpose for the year itself. That is the first serious criticism against the Committee being asked to vote this money to-night.
        The second criticism appears to be this. We have to grant for the purposes of this discussion, that the revenue to be found by the land taxes is required. That proposition has been challenged, and I should think it could be proved, but I should be called to order were I to attempt to argue the point to-night. Let it then be granted that the revenue is required and that this expenditure in order to raise the revenue is consequently necessary. Nevertheless, the criticism remains that in the present financial circumstances of the country, if revenue is required, it ought to be raised in the most economical manner possible. An expensive tax can never be anything but a luxury. I should have said that it can never be a legitimate luxury, but with conditions of great national prosperity it might be a luxury less illegitimate than at other times. In the condition in which the country finds itself, a tax which it is expensive to raise is the most illegitimate of luxuries in which the country can indulge. Can any reasonable man doubt that this Land Tax will be one of the most expensive taxes to raise? It is not a matter of argument from theory but it is a matter of argument from the Supplementary Estimate now presented to the Committee. Two years before any money can be found, we are asked to provide a sum for the mechanical process of raising a tax which is grossly excessive on any standpoint of a tax which is economical to raise. For these two reasons, which are strictly relevant to the consideration whether we should pass this Vote or not to-night, I suggest that the Vote should not be passed. It may be said that the House has come to a decision. That is the argument advanced by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The House came to a decision when it voted the land taxes, with the assistance of the Guillotine, and the present provision is merely consequential.
        Even in the short period which has elapsed since the Land Tax was passed, has nothing happened in this country? Is the horizon any more clear of clouds than it was a month or two months ago?

        2225
        Are the Government incapable ever of paying any attention to the circumstances of the country as they arise? Can they never perceive that a process is going on which makes it more and more foolish of us to indulge in this extravagant and wasteful expenditure? If for no other reasons than the changes that have come and the gathering of the clouds since the Land Taxes were passed, one would ask that, even at the eleventh hour, the Government should see a glimmering of reason and withdraw this wasteful Estimate.
        Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not sure whether I should be in order if I went at length into the matter brought forward by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young). In the comparatively short time at my disposal I am afraid that I could not follow him into the question as to whether the Budget balances, and the criticisms that he made of the finance of my right hon. Friend and its ramifications. On the other aspect of the matter, it is true that this Estimate is to implement the policy which the House has already carried into the Finance Bill. What we are doing tonight is passing a Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of carrying out in detail the proposals to which the House has already given its consent. If we failed to pass this Estimate we should be breaking faith with the decision which the House has already made.
        I propose to deal with the principal points put to me by hon. Members. The right hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) seemed to be in some confusion with regard to the number of valuers proposed to be appointed. He was right when he said that the figures that I had put forward were for the valuers, assistants and clerks who are to be employed during the current year, but he was not correct in thinking that this was only a very small fraction of the total number who are likely to be employed. The total number that it is estimated will be employed in carrying out the valuation during the whole term for which it runs are, roughly, 1,000 technical staff and 1,000 clerical staff. What we are asking the Committee to sanction is a staff of approximately 200 valuers and 600 assistants, that is, 800 technical staff, and
        2226
        somewhere about the same number of clerical staff.
        Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: You have made it 1,000 already—200 draughtsmen and 800 temporary clerks.
        Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is practically the whole of the staff that it is anticipated will be employed. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken when he said that it is only a fraction. I think he based that on a quotation from a speech of my hon. Friend, which I have not had the opportunity to verify. He misunderstood the intention set forth in the speech to which he refers. The right hon. Gentleman further said that there seemed to be a discrepancy between the sum which was being spent on salaries', about £245,000, and the small sum which was proposed to be expended on travelling. He asked how this could be accounted for. The answer is, that we are concentrating on the urban areas. Most of the valuations that will be done first will consist of the urban and suburban valuations. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that in those cases the travelling expenses will be comparatively small. He also asked me whether the survey as distinct from the valuation has to cover the whole country. That is true, but the right hon. Gentleman must remember that the maps are largely there already, and in so far as they are not complete they will be completed by an acceleration of the ordnance survey that is being provided for in Class VI of the Estimate, on page 8, of this Supplementary Estimate. He also asked me whether I could promise that the forms will be laid before the House. I cannot give an undertaking.
        Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Do I understand the Financial Secretary to tell a Committee of the House of Commons that he is not prepared to lay before the House the forms which it is proposed to submit to the taxpayer?
        Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot give an undertaking to-night that all the forms that are going to be used will be laid before the House, before they are printed. With regard to the question of the exemption of certain agricultural land from valuation, I have already dealt with that point by way of an interruption in the right hon. Gentleman's speech.

        2227
        The decision in these matters does not rest with the individual valuers but with the Commissioners, who will have the benefit of expert advice. The Inland Revenue have at the present time a very large staff of valuers who have intimate knowledge of the country as a whole. On the technical point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), I am advised that the Subsection to which I referred does cover the case of the exemption of agricultural land and does not refer only to the exemptions in later Clauses of the Measure. Another point was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford. He asked what were the qualifications required in making these appointments. That is a detailed point into which I cannot go to-night, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that the Inland Revenue, with their very wide experience of valuing and with the 475 valuers whom they have at present, will be able to judge of the technical qualifications of the valuers who present themselves.
        The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) asked whether these officers would be whole-time officers, and the answer is in the affirmative. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford asked further, as the valuation will not commence until January, what steps will be taken to train the men in the meantime? The same point was put by another hon. Member opposite. It is true that the valuation does not commence until January, but there is a great deal of preliminary work that has to be done, and it will be done with the help of the existing valuation staff of the Inland Revenue. In those circumstances no fear need be entertained that when the valuation staff get to work they will fail to carry out their work properly. I was asked what steps will be taken to get uniform
        decisions with regard to the cultivation value and other matters. The Committee will understand that the chief valuer will first of all give instructions, and to him will be referred all questions that seem to raise large issues which require uniformity of decisions. I do not think there need be any fear of divergent views being taken as to the principle on which the valuation is to be adopted.
        Then I have been asked whether we intend to purchase or hire premises. Premises will be hired in the majority of cases. Some huts will be purchased and made available for immediate purposes. Then I was asked what kind of maps will be required. They will be the best maps that we have available, and the largest scale maps, and every opportunity will be taken to bring them up to date. We have already a very large staff who are acquainted with what is going on. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) asked whether in the Supplementary Estimate any account was taken of the archaeological question. There is nothing in the Supplementary question relating to archaeology; all that it deals with relates to land valuation. I have been asked to postpone or delay the work of this valuation office, because right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite dislike and distrust the work that is being clone. Quite naturally that appeal is made, but it does not represent the view of the House as a whole.
        It being Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.
        Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,762,980, be granted for the said Service."
        The Committee divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 252.

        Division No. 459.]

        AYES.

        [10.0 p.m.

        Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

        Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

        Campbell, E. T.

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

        Bird, Ernest Roy

        Carver, Major W. H.

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

        Boothby, R. J. G.

        Castle Stewart, Earl of

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

        Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

        Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

        Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

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

        Atkinson, C.

        Bracken, B.

        Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

        Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

        Braithwaite, Major A. N.

        Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

        Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

        Briscoe, Richard George

        Christie, J. A.

        Balfour, George (Hampstead)

        Broadbent, Colonel J.

        Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

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

        Brown, Ernest (Leith)

        Cohen, Major I. Brunel

        Balniel, Lord

        Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

        Colfox, Major William Philip

        Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

        Burton, Colonel H. W.

        Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

        Betterton, Sir Henry B.

        Butler, R. A.

        Colman, N. C. D.

        Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

        Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

        Conway, Sir W. Martin

        Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

        Hurd, Percy A.

        Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

        Cowan, D. M.

        Hunt, Sir Gerald B.

        Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

        Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

        Iveagh, Countess of

        Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

        Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

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

        Ross, Ronald D.

        Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

        Kindersley, Major G. M.

        Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

        Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

        Lamb, Sir J. Q.

        Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

        Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

        Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

        Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

        Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

        Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

        Salmon, Major I.

        Davies, Dr. Vernon

        Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

        Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

        Leighton, Major B. E. P.

        Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

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

        Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

        Savery, S. S.

        Dawson, Sir Philip

        Llewellin, Major J. J.

        Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

        Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

        Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

        Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

        Dixoy, A. C.

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

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

        Eden, Captain Anthony

        Long, Major Hon. Eric

        Smithers, Waldron

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

        Macquisten, F. A.

        Somerset, Thomas

        Fermoy, Lord

        Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

        Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

        Fielden, E. B.

        Makins, Brigadier-General E.

        Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

        Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

        Margesson, Captain H. D.

        Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

        Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

        Meller, R. J.

        Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

        Galbraith, J. F. W.

        Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

        Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

        Ganzoni, Sir John

        Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

        Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

        Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

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

        Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

        Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

        Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

        Thompson, Luke

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

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

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

        Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

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

        Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

        Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

        Nall-Cain, A. R. N.

        Todd, Capt. A. J.

        Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

        Train, J.

        Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

        Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

        Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

        Gritten, W. G. Howard

        O'Connor, T. J.

        Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

        Gunston, Captain D. W.

        Oman, Sir Charles William C.

        Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

        Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

        Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

        Warrender, Sir Victor

        Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

        Peake, Capt. Osbert

        Waterhouse, Captain Charles

        Hammersley, S. S.

        Penny, Sir George

        Wayland, Sir William A.

        Haslam, Henry C.

        Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

        Wells, Sydney R.

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

        Perkins, W. R. D.

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

        Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

        Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon. Barnstaple)

        Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

        Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

        Power, Sir John Cecil

        Womersley, W. J.

        Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

        Pownall, Sir Assheton

        Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

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

        Ramsbotham, H.

        Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

        Rawson, Sir Cooper

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

        Remer, John R.

        Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace.

        NOES.

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

        Cocks, Frederick Seymour

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

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

        Cripps, Sir Stafford

        Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

        Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

        Daggar, George

        Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

        Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

        Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

        Harris, Percy A.

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

        Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

        Hastings, Dr. Somerville

        Alpass, J. H.

        Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

        Haycock, A. W.

        Ammon, Charles George

        Day, Harry

        Hayday, Arthur

        Angell, Sir Norman

        Denman, Hon. R. D.

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

        Arnott, John

        Dukes, C.

        Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

        Aske, Sir Robert

        Duncan, Charles

        Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

        Attlee, Clement Richard

        Ede, James Chuter

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

        Ayles, Walter

        Edge, Sir William

        Herriotts, J.

        Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

        Edmunds, J. E.

        Hicks, Ernest George

        Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

        Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

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

        Barnes, Alfred John

        Egan, W. H.

        Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

        Batey, Joseph

        Elmley, Viscount

        Hoffman, P. C.

        Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

        Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)

        Hollins, A.

        Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

        Foot, Isaac

        Hore-Beilsha, Leslie

        Benson, G.

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

        Horrabin, J. F.

        Birkett, W. Norman

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

        Isaacs, George

        Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

        George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

        John, William (Rhondda, West)

        Bowen, J. W.

        Gibbins, Joseph

        Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

        Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

        Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

        Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

        Broad, Francis Alfred

        Gill, T. H.

        Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

        Bromley, J.

        Gillett, George M.

        Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)

        Brooke, W.

        Glassey, A. E.

        Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

        Brothers, M.

        Gossling, A. G.

        Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

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

        Gould, F.

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

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

        Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

        Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

        Buchanan, G.

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

        Kelly, W. T.

        Burgess, F. G.

        Granville, E.

        Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

        Burgin, Dr. E. L.

        Gray, Milner

        Kenworthy, Lt. Com. Hon. Joseph M.

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

        Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

        Knight, Hollord

        Cameron, A. G.

        Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

        Lang, Gordon

        Cape, Thomas

        Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

        Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

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

        Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

        Law, Albert (Bolton)

        Chater, Daniel

        Groves, Thomas E.

        Law, A. (Rossendale)

        Clarke, J. S.

        Grundy, Thomas W.

        Lawrence, Susan

        Cluse, W. S.

        Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

        Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

        Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

        Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

        Lawson, John James

        2230

        2231

        Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

        Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

        Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

        Leach, W.

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

        Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

        Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

        Palin, John Henry

        Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

        Lees, J.

        Paling, Wilfrid

        Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

        Leonard, W.

        Palmer, E. T.

        Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

        Lewis, T. (Southampton)

        Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

        Sorensen, R.

        Lindley, Fred W.

        Perry, S. F.

        Stamford, Thomas W.

        Lloyd, C. Ellis

        Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

        Strauss, G. R.

        Logan, David Gilbert

        Picton-Turbervill, Edith

        Sullivan, J.

        Longbottom, A. W.

        Pole, Major D. G.

        Sutton, J. E.

        Longden, F.

        Potts, John S.

        Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

        Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

        Price, M. P.

        Thurtle, Ernest

        Lunn, William

        Pybus, Percy John

        Tillett, Ben

        Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

        Quibell, D. J. K.

        Tinker, John Joseph

        MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

        Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

        Tout, W. J.

        McKinlay, A.

        Rathbone, Eleanor

        Townend, A. E.

        Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

        Raynes, W. R.

        Vaughan, David

        Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

        Richards, R.

        Viant, S. P.

        McShane, John James

        Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

        Walker, J.

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

        Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

        Wallace, H. W.

        Mander, Geoffrey le M.

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

        Watkins, F. C.

        Manning, E. L.

        Ritson, J.

        Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

        March, S.

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

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

        Marcus, M.

        Romeril, H. G.

        Wellock, Wilfred

        Marley, J.

        Rosbotham, D. S. T.

        Welsh, James (Paisley)

        Marshall, Fred

        Rowson, Guy

        Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

        Mathers, George

        Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

        Westwood, Joseph

        Matters, L. W.

        Salter, Dr. Alfred

        White, H. G.

        Messer, Fred

        Sanders, W. S.

        Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

        Middleton, G.

        Sawyer, G. F.

        Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

        Mills, J. E.

        Scurr, John

        Wilkinson, Ellen C.

        Milner, Major J.

        Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

        Williams, David (Swansea, East)

        Montague, Frederick

        Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

        Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

        Morgan, Dr. H. B.

        Sherwood, G. H.

        Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

        Morley, Ralph

        Shield, George William

        Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

        Morris, Rhys Hopkins

        Shiels, Dr. Drummond

        Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

        Shillaker, J. F.

        Wilson, J. (Oldham)

        Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

        Shinwell, E.

        Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

        Mort, D. L.

        Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

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

        Muff, G.

        Simmons, C. J.

        Wise, E. F.

        Muggeridge, H. T.

        Sinkinson, George

        Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

        Murnin, Hugh

        Sitch, Charles H.

        Naylor, T. E.

        Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

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

        Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

        Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton.

        Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

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

        Original Question put, and agreed to.

        The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several classes of the Civil Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Navy, Army, Air, and Revenue Departments, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

        INLAND REVENUE.

          CLASS I.
          "That a sum, not exceeding £1,320,904, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class 1 of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

          £

          1.

          House of Lords Offices

          25,799

          2.

          House of Commons

          244,864

          3.

          Expenses under the Representation of the People Act

          155,000

          2232

          £

          4.

          Treasury and Subordinate Departments

          189,543

          5.

          Privy Council Office

          5,099

          6.

          Privy Seal Office

          3,223

          7.

          Charity Commission

          24,827

          8.

          Civil Service Commission

          16,651

          9.

          Exchequer and Audit Department

          90,750

          10.

          Friendly Societies' Deficiency

          6,076

          11.

          Government Actuary

          22,389

          12.

          Government Chemist

          42,894

          13.

          Government Hospitality

          7,000

          14.

          The Mint

          150,000

          15.

          National Debt Office

          599

          16.

          National Savings Committee

          55,876

          17.

          Public Record Office

          25,386

          18.

          Public Works Loan Commission

          90

          19.

          Repayments to the local Loans Fund

          46,902

          20.

          Royal Commissions, etc.

          21,040

          21.

          Miscellaneous Expenses

          926

          22.

          Secret Service

          100,000

          23.

          Scottish Office

          50,842

          24.

          Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

          35,128

          £1,320,904"

          Question put.
          The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 166.

          Division No. 460.]

          AYES.

          [10.15 p.m.

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

          Groves, Thomas E.

          Montague, Frederick

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

          Grundy, Thomas W.

          Morgan, Dr. H. B.

          Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

          Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

          Morley, Ralph

          Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.

          Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

          Morris, Rhys Hopkins

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

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

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

          Alpass, J. H.

          Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

          Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)

          Ammon, Charles George

          Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

          Mort, D. L.

          Angell, Sir Norman

          Harris, Percy A.

          Muff, G.

          Arnott, John

          Hastings, Dr. Somerville

          Muggeridge, H. T.

          Aske, Sir Robert

          Haycock, A. W.

          Murnin, Hugh

          Attlee, Clement Richard

          Hayday, Arthur

          Naylor, T. E.

          Ayles, Walter

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

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

          Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

          Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

          Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N)

          Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

          Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

          Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

          Barnes, Alfred John

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

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

          Batey, Joseph

          Herriotts, J.

          Palin, John Henry

          Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

          Hicks, Ernest George

          Paling, Wilfrid

          Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

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

          Palmer, E. T.

          Benson, G.

          Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

          Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

          Birkett, W. Norman

          Hoffman, P. C.

          Perry, S. F.

          Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

          Hollins, A.

          Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

          Bowen, J. W.

          Hore-Belisha, Leslie

          Picton-Turbervill, Edith

          Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

          Horrabin, J. F.

          Pole, Major D. G.

          Broad, Francis Alfred

          Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

          Potts, John S.

          Bromley, J.

          Isaacs, George

          Price, M. P.

          Brooke, W.

          John, William (Rhondda, West)

          Pybus, Percy John

          Brothers, M.

          Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

          Quibell, D. J. K.

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

          Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

          Ramsay, T. B. Wilton

          Brown, Ernest (Leith)

          Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

          Rathbone, Eleanor

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

          Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

          Raynes, W. R.

          Buchanan, G.

          Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

          Richards, R.

          Burgess, F. G.

          Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

          Richardson, R. (Houghton le-Spring)

          Burgin, Dr. E. L.

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

          Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

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

          Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

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

          Caine, Hall-, Derwent

          Kelly, W. T.

          Ritson, J.

          Cameron, A. G.

          Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

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

          Cape, Thomas

          Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M

          Romeril, H. G.

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

          Knight, Holford

          Rosbotham, D. S. T.

          Chater, Daniel

          Lang, Gordon

          Rowson, Guy

          Clarke, J. S.

          Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

          Runciman, Rt. Hon Walter

          Cluse, W. S.

          Law, Albert (Bolton)

          Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

          Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

          Law, A. (Rossendale)

          Salter, Dr. Alfred

          Cocks, Frederick Seymour

          Lawrence, Susan

          Sanders, W. S.

          Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

          Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

          Sawyer, G. F.

          Cowan, D. M.

          Lawson, John James

          Scurr, John

          Cripps, Sir Stafford

          Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

          Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

          Daggar, George

          Leach, W.

          Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

          Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

          Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

          Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

          Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

          Lees, J.

          Sherwood, G. H.

          Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

          Leonard, W.

          Shield, George William

          Day, Harry

          Lewis, T. (Southampton)

          Shiels, Dr. Drummond

          Denman, Hon. R. D.

          Llndley, Fred W.

          Shillaker, J. F.

          Dukes, C.

          Lloyd, C. Ellis

          Shinwell, E.

          Duncan, Charles

          Logan, David Gilbert

          Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

          Ede, James Chuter

          Longbottom, A. W.

          Simmons, C. J.

          Edge, Sir William

          Longden, F.

          Sinkinson, George

          Edmunds, J. E.

          Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

          Sitch, Charles H.

          Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

          Lunn, William

          Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

          Egan, W. H.

          Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

          Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

          Elmley, Viscount

          MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

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

          Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)

          Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

          Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

          Foot, Isaac

          McElwee, A.

          Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

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

          McKinlay, A.

          Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

          Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.

          Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

          Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

          George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

          Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

          Sorensen, R.

          Gibbins, Joseph

          McShane, John James

          Stamford, Thomas W.

          Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

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

          Strauss, G. R.

          Gill, T. H.

          Mander, Geoffrey le M.

          Sullivan, J.

          Gillett, George M.

          Manning, E. L.

          Sutton, J. E.

          Glassey, A. E.

          Mansfield, W.

          Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

          Gossling, A. G.

          March, S.

          Thurtle, Ernest

          Gould, F.

          Marcus, M.

          Tillett, Ben

          Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

          Marley, J.

          Tinker, John Joseph

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

          Marshall, Fred

          Tout, W. J.

          Granville, E.

          Mathers, George

          Townend, A. E.

          Gray, Milner

          Matters, L. W.

          Vaughan, David

          Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

          Messer, Fred

          Viant, S. P.

          Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

          Middleton, G.

          Walker, J.

          Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

          Mills, J. E.

          Wallace, H. W.

          Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

          Milner, Major J.

          Watkins, F. C.

          Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

          Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

          Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

          Wilkinson, Ellen C.

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

          Wellock, Wilfred

          Williams, David (Swansea, East)

          Wise, E. F.

          Welsh, James (Paisley)

          Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

          Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

          Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

          Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

          Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

          Westwood, Joseph

          Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

          White, H. G.

          Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

          TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

          Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

          Wilson, J. (Oldham)

          Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charleton.

          NOES.

          Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

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

          O'Connor, T. J.

          Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

          Fermoy, Lord

          Oman, Sir Charles William C.

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

          Fielden, E. B.

          Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

          Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

          Peake, Captain Osbert

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

          Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

          Penny, Sir George

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

          Galbraith, J. F. W.

          Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

          Atkinson, C.

          Ganzoni, Sir John

          Perkins, W. R. D.

          Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

          Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

          Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

          Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

          Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

          Power, Sir John Cecil

          Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

          Pownall, Sir Assheton

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

          Glyn, Major R. G. C.

          Ramsbotham, H.

          Balniel, Lord

          Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

          Rawson, Sir Cooper

          Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

          Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

          Remer, John R.

          Betterton, Sir Henry B.

          Greene, W. P. Crawford

          Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

          Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

          Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

          Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

          Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

          Gritten, W. G. Howard

          Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

          Bird, Ernest Roy

          Gunston, Captain D. W.

          Ross, Ronald D.

          Boothby, R. J. G.

          Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

          Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

          Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

          Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

          Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

          Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

          Hammersley, S. S.

          Salmon, Major I.

          Boyce, Leslie

          Haslam, Henry C.

          Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

          Bracken, B.

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

          Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

          Braithwaite, Major A. N.

          Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

          Savery, S. S.

          Briscoe, Richard George

          Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

          Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

          Broadbent, Colonel J

          Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

          Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

          Smith-Carington, Neville W.

          Burton, Colonel H. W.

          Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

          Smithers, Waldron

          Butler, R. A.

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

          Somerset, Thomas

          Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

          Hurd, Percy A.

          Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

          Campbell, E. T.

          Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

          Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

          Carver, Major W. H.

          Iveagh, Countess of

          Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

          Castle Stewart, Earl of

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

          Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

          Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

          Kindersley, Major G. M.

          Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

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

          Lamb, Sir J. Q.

          Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

          Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

          Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

          Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

          Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

          Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

          Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

          Christie, J. A.

          Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

          Thompson, Luke

          Cobb, Sir Cyril

          Leighton, Major B. E. P.

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

          Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

          Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

          Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

          Cohen, Major J. Brunel

          Llewellin, Major J. J.

          Todd, Capt. A. J.

          Colfox, Major William Philip

          Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

          Train, J.

          Colman, N. C. D.

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

          Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

          Conway, Sir W. Martin

          Long, Major Hon. Eric

          Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

          Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

          Macquisten, F. A.

          Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

          Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

          Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

          Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

          Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

          Makins, Brigadier-General E.

          Waterhouse, Captain Charles

          Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

          Margesson, Captain H. D.

          Wayland, Sir William A.

          Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

          Meller, R. J.

          Wells, Sydney R.

          Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

          Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

          Dalkeith, Earl of

          Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

          Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

          Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

          Womersley, W. J.

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

          Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

          Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

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

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

          Dawson, Sir Philip

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

          TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

          Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

          Nall-Cain, A. R. N.

          Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir Victor Warrender.

          Dixey, A. C.

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

          Eden, Captain Anthony

          Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

          Question put, and agreed to.

          CLASS II.
          "That a sum, not exceeding £2,597,112, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

          £

          1.

          Foreign Office

          118,943

          2.

          Diplomatic and Consular Services

          574,644

          3.

          League of Nations

          67,500

          4.

          Dominions Office

          41,714

          2236

          £

          5.

          Dominion Services

          67,039

          6.

          Empire Marketing

          459,000

          7.

          Oversea Settlement

          164,750

          8.

          Colonial Office

          100,180

          10.

          Colonial Development Fund, etc.

          348,342

          11.

          India Office (including a Supplementary sum of £50,000)

          153,000

          12.

          Imperial War Graves Commission

          502,000

          £2,597,112"

          CLASS III.
          "That a sum, not exceeding £7,788,310, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

          £

          2.

          Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

          45,666

          3.

          Police, England and Wales

          5,429,129

          4.

          Prisons, England and Wales

          402,089

          5.

          Reformatory and Industrial Schools, England and Wales

          107,153

          6.

          Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.

          90

          7.

          County Courts

          90

          8.

          Land Registry

          90

          9.

          Public Trustee

          90

          10.

          Law Charges

          105,638

          11.

          Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

          7,560

          Scotland.

          12.

          Police

          489,958

          13.

          Prisons Department for Scotland

          70,528

          14.

          Reformatory and Industrial Schools

          35,968

          15.

          Scottish Land Court

          5,270

          16.

          Law Charges and Courts of Law

          43,387

          17.

          Register House, Edinburgh

          90

          Ireland.

          18.

          Northern Ireland Services

          5,976

          19.

          Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland

          720

          20.

          Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland

          1,038,818

          £7,788,310"

          CLASS IV.
          "That a sum, not exceeding £35,947,348, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

          £

          1.

          Board of Education

          29,862,377

          2.

          British Museum

          81,471

          3.

          British Museum (Natural History)

          58,771

          4.

          Imperial War Museum

          7,959

          5.

          London Museum

          4,607

          6.

          National Gallery

          16,430

          7.

          National Portrait Gallery

          5,388

          2238

          £

          8.

          Wallace Collection

          6,835

          9.

          Scientific Investigation, etc.

          135,684

          10.

          Universities and Colleges, Great Britain

          930,000

          Scotland.

          11.

          Public Education

          4,832,026

          12.

          National Galleries

          4,999

          13.

          National Library

          801

          £35,947,348"

          CLASS V.
          "That a sum, not exceeding £60,052,876, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

          £

          1a.

          Grant in respect of Employment Schemes (Necessitous Areas), England and Wales

          5,000

          2.

          Board of Control

          84,620

          3.

          Registrar General's Office

          88,948

          4.

          National Insurance Audit Department

          108,650

          5.

          Friendly Societies Registry

          30,602

          6.

          Old Age Pensions

          24,234,000

          7.

          Widows,' Orphans,' and Old Age Contributory Pensions

          7,000,000

          8.

          Ministry of Labour

          24,866,000

          9.

          Grants in respect of Eminent Schemes

          2,000,000

          Scotland.

          10.

          Department of Health

          1,607,203

          11.

          General Board of Control

          10,929

          12.

          Registrar General's Office

          16,874

          13.

          Grants in respect of Employment Schemes (Necessitous Areas)

          50

          £60,052,876"

          CLASS VI.
          "That a sum, not exceeding £6,256,461, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

          £

          1.

          Board of Trade

          100,115

          2.

          Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

          90

          3.

          Mercantile Marine Services

          216,209

          2239

          £

          4.

          Department of Overseas Trade

          280,507

          5.

          Export Credits

          90

          7.

          Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

          21,214

          8.

          Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

          1,345,152

          9.

          Beet Sugar, Subsidy, Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £225,000)

          2,225,000

          10.

          Surveys of Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £29,700)

          103,870

          11.

          Forestry Commission

          595,000

          13.

          Development Fund

          300,000

          14.

          Development Grants

          350,000

          15.

          Department of Scientific and Industrial Research

          271,004

          16.

          State Management Districts

          90

          Scotland.

          17.

          Department of Agriculture

          397,313

          18.

          Fishery Board

          49,807

          £6,256,461"

          CLASS VII.
          "That a sum, not exceeding £4,477,889, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

          £

          3.

          Housing Estates

          590

          5.

          Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

          78,650

          6.

          Osborne

          10,930

          7.

          Office of Works and Public Buildings

          382,260

          8.

          Public Buildings, Great Britain

          818,250

          9.

          Public Buildings, Overseas

          167,360

          10.

          Royal Palaces

          58,150

          11.

          Revenue Buildings (including a Supplementary sum of £78,000)

          872,900

          13.

          Rates on Government Property

          1,027,167

          14.

          Stationery and Printing

          976,982

          15.

          Peterhead Harbour

          22,000

          16.

          Works and Buildings in Ireland

          62,650

          £4,477,889"

          CLASS VIII.
          "That a sum, not exceeding £32,345,151, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the
          2240
          year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

          £

          1.

          Seamen's War Pensions

          222,488

          2.

          Ministry of Pensions

          31,039,000

          3.

          Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.

          170,680

          4.

          Superannnuation and Retired Allowances

          912,983

          £32,345,151"

          CLASS IX.
          "That a sum, not exceeding £777, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

          £

          1.

          Clearing Office (Enemy Debts), Shipping Liquidation, etc.

          490

          2.

          Australian Zinc Concentrates

          287

          £777"

          CLASS X.
          "That a sum, not exceeding £27,056,287, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the services included in Class X of the Estimates for Civil Services, namely:

          £

          1.

          Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales

          24,260,000

          2.

          Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland

          2,796,287

          £27,056,287"

        REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1931.
        "That a sum, not exceeding £37,277,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:

        £

        1.

        Customs and Excise

        3,045,500

        3.

        Post Office

        34,232,000

        £37,277,500"

        Question put.
        The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 171.

        Division No. 461.]

        AYES.

        [10.30 p.m.

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

        Groves, Thomas E.

        Milner, Major J.

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

        Grundy, Thomas W.

        Montague, Frederick

        Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

        Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

        Morgan, Dr. H. B.

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

        Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

        Morley, Ralph

        Alpass, J. H.

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

        Morris, Rhys Hopkins

        Amnion, Charles George

        Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

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

        Angell, Sir Norman

        Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

        Mort, D. L.

        Arnott, John

        Harris, Percy A.

        Muff, G.

        Aske, Sir Robert

        Hastings, Dr. Somerville

        Muggeridge, H. T.

        Attlee, Clement Richard

        Haycock, A. W.

        Murnin, Hugh

        Ayles, Walter

        Hayday, Arthur

        Naylor, T. E.

        Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

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

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

        Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)

        Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

        Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

        Barnes, Alfred John

        Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

        Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)

        Batey, Joseph

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

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

        Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

        Herriotts, J.

        Palin, John Henry.

        Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

        Hicks, Ernest George

        Paling, Wilfrid

        Benson, G.

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

        Palmer, E. T.

        Birkett, W. Norman

        Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

        Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

        Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

        Hoffman, P. C.

        Perry, S. F.

        Bowen, J. W.

        Hollins, A.

        Pethick, Lawrence, F. W.

        Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

        Hore-Belisha, Leslie

        Picton-Turbervill, Edith

        Broad, Francis Alfred

        Horrabin, J. F.

        Pole, Major D. G.

        Bromley, J.

        Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

        Potts, John S.

        Brooke, W.

        Isaacs, George

        Price, M. P.

        Brothers, M.

        John, William (Rhondda, West)

        Pybus, Percy John

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

        Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

        Quibell, D. J. K.

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

        Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

        Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

        Buchanan, G.

        Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

        Rathbone, Eleanor

        Burgess, F. G.

        Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

        Raynes, W. R.

        Burgin, Dr. E. L.

        Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

        Richards, R.

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

        Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

        Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

        Caine, Hall-, Derwent

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

        Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)

        Cameron, A. G.

        Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)

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

        Cape, Thomas

        Kelly, W. T.

        Ritson, J.

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

        Kennedy, Ht. Hon. Thomas

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

        Charleton, H. C.

        Kenworthy Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

        Romeril, H. G.

        Chater, Daniel

        Knight, Holford

        Rosbotham, D. S. T.

        Clarke, J. S.

        Lang, Gordon

        Rowson, Guy

        Cluse, W. S.

        Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

        Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

        Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

        Law, Albert (Bolton)

        Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

        Cocks, Frederick Seymour

        Law, A. (Rossendale)

        Salter, Dr. Alfred

        Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

        Lawrence, Susan

        Sanders, W. S.

        Cowan, D. M.

        Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)

        Sawyer, G. F.

        Cripps, Sir Stafford

        Lawson, John James

        Scurr, John

        Daggar, George

        Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

        Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

        Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)

        Leach, W.

        Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

        Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

        Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

        Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

        Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

        Lees, J.

        Sherwood, G. H.

        Day, Harry

        Leonard, W.

        Shield, George William

        Denman, Hon. R. D.

        Lewis, T. (Southampton)

        Shiels, Dr. Drummond

        Dukes, C.

        Lindley, Fred W.

        Shillaker, J. F.

        Duncan, Charles

        Lloyd, C. Ellis

        Shinwell, E.

        Ede, James Chuter

        Logan, David Gilbert

        Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

        Edge, Sir William

        Longbottom, A. W.

        Simmons, C. J.

        Edmunds, J. E

        Longden, F.

        Sinkinson, George

        Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

        Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

        Sitch, Charles H.

        Egan, W. H.

        Lunn, William

        Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

        Elmley, Viscount

        Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

        Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

        Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)

        Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

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

        Foot, Isaac

        Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

        Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

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

        McElwee, A.

        Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

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

        McKinlay, A.

        Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

        George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

        Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)

        Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

        Gibbins, Joseph

        Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

        Sorensen, R.

        Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

        McShane, John James

        Stamford, Thomas W.

        Gill, T. H.

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

        Strauss, G. R.

        Gillett, George M.

        Mander, Geoffrey le M.

        Sullivan, J.

        Glassey, A. E.

        Manning, E. L.

        Sutton, J. E.

        Gossling, A. G.

        Mansfield, W.

        Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)

        Gould, F.

        March, S.

        Tillett, Ben

        Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

        Marcus, M.

        Tinker, John Joseph

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

        Marley, J.

        Tout, W. J.

        Granville, E.

        Marshall, Fred

        Townend, A. E.

        Gray, Milner

        Mathers, George

        Vaughan, David

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

        Matters, L. W.

        Viant, S. P.

        Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

        Messer, Fred

        Walker, J.

        Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)

        Middleton, G.

        Wallace, H. W.

        Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypool)

        Mills, J. E.

        Watkins, F. C.

        Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

        Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

        Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

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

        Wilkinson, Ellen C.

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

        Wellock, Wilfred

        Williams, David (Swansea, East)

        Wise, E. F.

        Welsh, James (Paisley)

        Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

        Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

        Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

        Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

        Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

        Westwood, Joseph

        Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

        White, H. G.

        Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

        TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

        Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

        Wilson, J. (Oldham)

        Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle.

        NOES.

        Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.

        Elliot, Major Walter E.

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

        Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

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

        Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

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

        Fermoy, Lord

        O'Connor, T. J.

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

        Fielden, E. B.

        Oman, Sir Chafes William C.

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

        Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

        Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

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

        Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

        Peake, Captain Osbert

        Atkinson, C.

        Galbraith, J. F. W.

        Penny, Sir George

        Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.

        Ganzonl, Sir John

        Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

        Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

        Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

        Perkins, W. R. D.

        Balfour, George (Hampstead)

        Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)

        Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

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

        Power, Sir John Cecil

        Balniel, Lord

        Glyn, Major R. G. C.

        Pownall, Sir Assheton

        Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

        Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

        Ramsbotham, H.

        Betterton, Sir Henry B.

        Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

        Rawson, Sir Cooper

        Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

        Greene, W. P. Crawford

        Remer, John R.

        Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman

        Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

        Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.

        Bird, Ernest Roy

        Gritten, W. G. Howard

        Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

        Boothby, R. J. G.

        Gunston, Captain D. W.

        Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

        Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

        Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

        Ross, Ronald D.

        Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

        Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

        Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.

        Boyce, Leslie

        Hammersley, S. S.

        Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

        Bracken, B.

        Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

        Salmon, Major I.

        Braithwaite, Major A. N.

        Haslam, Henry C.

        Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

        Briscoe, Richard George

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

        Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

        Broadbent, Colonel J.

        Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

        Savery, S. S.

        Brown, Ernest (Leith)

        Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)

        Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome

        Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

        Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

        Burton, Colonel H. W.

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

        Smith-Carington, Neville W.

        Butler, R. A.

        Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

        Smithers, Waldron

        Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

        Somerset, Thomas

        Campbell, E. T.

        Hurd, Percy A.

        Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

        Carver, Major W. H.

        Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

        Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

        Castle Stewart, Earl of

        Inskip, Sir Thomas

        Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

        Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

        Iveagh, Countess of

        Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)

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

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

        Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

        Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

        Kindersley, Major G. M.

        Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

        Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

        Lamb, Sir J. Q.

        Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.

        Christie, J. A.

        Lane Fox. Col. Rt. Hen. George R.

        Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

        Cobb, Sir Cyril

        Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)

        Thompson, Luke

        Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

        Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)

        Thomson, Sir F.

        Cohen, Major J. Brunel

        Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)

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

        Colfox, Major William Philip

        Leighton, Major B. E. P.

        Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

        Colman, N. C. D.

        Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

        Todd, Capt. A. J.

        Conway, Sir W. Martin

        Llewellin, Major J. J.

        Train, J.

        Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.

        Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

        Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

        Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

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

        Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

        Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

        Long, Major Hon. Eric

        Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

        Crookshank, Capt. H. C.

        Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

        Warrender, Sir Victor

        Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)

        Makins, Brigadier-General E.

        Waterhouse, Captain Charles

        Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

        Marjoribanks, Edward

        Wayland, Sir William A.

        Dalkeith, Earl of

        Meller, R. J.

        Wells, Sydney R.

        Davies, Dr. Vernon

        Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

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

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

        Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.

        Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

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

        Womersley, W. J

        Dawson, Sir Philip

        Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)

        Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton

        Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

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

        Dixey, A. C.

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

        TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

        Eden, Captain Anthony

        Nall-Cain, A. R. N.

        Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.

        Question put, and agreed to.

        NAVY ESTIMATES, 1931.
        "That a sum, not exceeding £32,229,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:

        £

        3.

        Medical Establishments and Services

        400,500

        4.

        Fleet Air Arm

        1,126,000

        2244

        £

        5.

        Educational Services

        232,000

        6.

        Scientific Services

        482,500

        7.

        Royal Naval Reserves

        389,700

        8.

        Section 1. Shipbuilding. Repairs, Maintenance etc., Personnel

        6,427,000

        Section 2. Shipbuilding Repairs, Maintenance etc., Material

        4,683,870

        2245

        £

        Section 3. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Contract Work

        4,456,200

        9.

        Naval Armaments

        3,433,500

        11.

        Miscellaneous Effective Services

        661,230

        12.

        Admiralty Office

        1,141,200

        13.

        Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine) Officers

        3,127,500

        14.

        Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine) Men

        4,650,400

        15.

        Civil Superannuation, Compensation, Allowances, and Gratuities

        1,017,700

        £32,229,300"

        ARMY ESTIMATES, 1931.
        "That a sum, not exceeding £19,161,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services (including Ordnance Factories), namely:

        £

        2.

        Territorial Army and Reserve Forces

        5,543,000

        3.

        Medical Services

        972,000

        4.

        Educational Establishments

        850,000

        5.

        Quartering and Movements

        1,394,000

        6.

        Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts

        4,338,000

        7.

        Clothing

        1,111,000

        8.

        General Stores

        1,355,000

        9.

        Warlike Stores

        2,211,000

        11.

        Miscellaneous Effective Services

        558,000

        12.

        War Office

        829,000

        Ordnance Factories

        100

        £19,161,100"

        AIR ESTIMATES, 1931.
        "That a sum, not exceeding £4,261,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:

        £

        2.

        Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport

        1,721,000

        5.

        Medical Services

        302,000

        6.

        Educational Services

        484,000

        7.

        Auxiliary and Reserve Forces

        599,000

        9.

        Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services

        245,000

        10.

        Air Ministry

        656,000

        2246

        £

        11. Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services

        254,000

        £4,261,000"

        Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
    Resolved,
    "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, the sum of £291,366,800 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLERKS) BILL [Lords].
    As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

    GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
    Resolved,
    "That the Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1931 be approved."—[Mr. G. E. Hall.]

  GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.
  Resolved,
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Wombwell Urban District Council, which was presented on the 8th day of July and published, be approved."
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Abergavenny Corporation, which was presented on the 8th day of July and published, be approved."
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the

  2247
  Cheltenham Gaslight and Coke Company, which was presented on the 9th day of July and published, be approved."
  "That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Town of Dudley Gaslight Company, which was presented on the 7th day of July and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACTS.
  Resolved,
  "That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Kettering and Oxendon, in the county of Northampton, which was presented on the 30th day of June, 1931, be approved."—[Mr. Parkinson.]

  AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) BILL.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I beg to move,
  "That the Lords Reason for insisting on certain of their Amendments disagreed to by this House, Lords Amendments in lieu of certain other of their Amendments disagreed to by this House, and Lords Amendment in lieu of an Amendment made by this House to one of their Amendments be considered forthwith."
  It will be convenient to the House if I state what is the result of the consideration by their Lordships of the Amendments which we dealt with on Friday. For the most part I am glad to say there is accord between the two Houses. Their Lordships, however, have insisted on their Amendment to leave out Clause 1 of the Bill by which we proposed to set up a large-scale farming Corporation. They have agreed to our modifications of the demonstration farms in Clause 2, and I am glad to say they have accepted the whole of our proposals relating to the reclamation of land and dealing with neglected land in Clause 3 and the necessary following Clauses. Their Lordships have also agreed to withdraw the Amendment which authorised county councils in the judgment of this House, to place, shall we say, a veto
  2248
  on the prosecution of smallholding enterprises, and it has been agreed that the Ministry shall consult. I am glad to say their Lordships have also agreed with this House not to insist upon their deletion of Clause 10, which authorises the Minister to provide smallholdings where county councils have failed to do so. The result is that in this agreement we can truly say the way is now open, for the first time in England, for any man who is unemployed, or is an agricultural labourer or an ex-service man, to be provided with an opportunity of cultivating a smallholding. The other point of difference between us was the limitation of time in which the Bill should operate. I suggested 10 years and their Lordships suggested seven. I said finally that I was willing to compromise on eight, and it, therefore, results in the whole Bill being restored with the exception of Clause 1. Therefore, while I believe their Lordships will come to regret their action in the deletion of Clause 1 which I submit is a far-sighted and necessary provision, I do not advise the House to throw away this opportunity for an advancement in agriculture owing to that event. Therefore, I shall propose that we do agree with their Lordships.
  Lords Reason for insisting on certain of their Amendments disagreed to by this House, Lords Amendments in lieu of certain other of their Amendments disagreed to by this House, and Lords Amendment in lieu of an Amendment made by this House to one of their Amendments considered accordingly.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) BILL.
    CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Agricultural Land Corporation.)
      CLAUSE 22.—(Financial Provisions.)

        CLAUSE 23.—(Payments to and Repayments by the Agricultural Land Corporation.)
        CLAUSE 25.—(Application to Scotland.)
        Message from the Lords:
        The Lords insist on their Amendments in page 1, (leave out Clause 1); in page 20, line 38 (so far as it leaves out paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Clause 22; page 22, (leave out Clause 23); and page 23, line 7, and page 23,

        2249
        line 8, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following reason:
        Because experiments in large-scale farms involve an expenditure which is unjustifiable in the present financial situation and do not afford any prospect of assisting agriculture or of relieving unemployment.
        Motion made, and Question, "That this House does not insist upon its disagreement to the Amendments made by the Lords upon which the Lords have insisted," put, and agreed to.—[Dr. Addison.]

    CLAUSE 6.—(Power of Minister to provide smallholdings with financial assistance for unemployed persons.)
    Message from the Lords:
    They do not insist on their Amendment in page 11, line 6, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
    In page 11, line 6, at the end, insert:
    "Provided that, before acquiring land in any county for the purpose of providing smallholdings thereon under the powers conferred by this Section, the Minister shall consult the county council as to the localities in which land suitable for the purpose can be obtained."
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Dr. Addison.]

    NEW CLAUSE B.—(Duration of powers of Minister.)
    Message from the Lords:
    The Lords disagree to the Amendment proposed by the Commons to the Lords Amendment in page 19, line 36 (i.e. in line 5, leave out "four" and insert "ten"), but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
    Leave out the word "ten" and insert instead the word "eight."
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House does agree with the Lords in the, said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Dr. Addison.]

    CLAUSE 25.—(Application to Scotland.)
    Message from the Lords:
    The Lords do not insist on their Amendments in page 25, line 2 and line 4, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
    In page 25, line 5, after the word "person" insert the words "with the consent of that person."
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Westwood.]

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS AND AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Ordered,
  "That the Lords Amendment in lieu of one of their Amendments disagreed to by this House be considered forthwith."—[Mr. Westwood.]
  Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS AND AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Amendment of law at to vacant holdings.)
    Message from the Lords:
    The Lords do not insist on their Amendment in page 6 (leave out Clause 14), but propose the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill:
    In page 6, line 40, at the end, insert:
    "Provided further that if within one month after the service on a landlord of such a notice as aforesaid the landlord lodges with the Land Court an undertaking in writing that the tenant shall have the same rights to compensation for permanent improvements as if he were a landholder, the Land Court shall, after intimation to the tenant, direct such undertaking to be recorded in the Landholders Holdings Book, and the undertaking shall be recorded accordingly, and thereupon the tenant shall be deemed as regards the rights aforesaid but in no other respect to be a landholder."
    Motion made and Question, "That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Westwood.]
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

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

  RUFFORD COLLIERY, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE (INSPECTIONS).
  RUFFORD COLLIERY, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE (INSPECTIONS).
SCOTLAND.
  AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.
  AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.
  ARTIFICIAL SUN-RAY TREATMENT CENTRES.
  ARTIFICIAL SUN-RAY TREATMENT CENTRES.
  PIERS AND HAKBOURS, CAITHNESS AND SUTHERLAND.
  PIERS AND HAKBOURS, CAITHNESS AND SUTHERLAND.
  SUBSIDIES AND SUBVENTIONS.
  SUBSIDIES AND SUBVENTIONS.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (AUXILIARY CLERKS).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (AUXILIARY CLERKS).
  INTER-ALLIED WAR DEBTS.
  INTER-ALLIED WAR DEBTS.
  TIED COTTAGES.
  TIED COTTAGES.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  LEOPOLDINA RAILWAY.
  LEOPOLDINA RAILWAY.
  WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY.
  WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY.
  CARPETS (IMPORT).
  CARPETS (IMPORT).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
  POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).
  ROYAL DOCKYARD EMPLOYES, PORTSMOUTH.
  ROYAL DOCKYARD EMPLOYES, PORTSMOUTH.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, LONDON.
  ROAD ACCIDENTS, LONDON.
  GERMANY (ECONOMIC SITUATION).
  GERMANY (ECONOMIC SITUATION).
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
PERTH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (ROTHESAY WATER) CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
GRAND UNION CANAL (LEICESTER CANALS PURCHASE, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

DUDLEY, BRIERLEY HILL AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1931. ABERGAVENNY GAS ORDER, 1931. WOMBWELL GAS ORDER, 1931. CHELTENHAM AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1931.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name in reference to four Gas Orders.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.— (Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL. MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT MARLOW WATER) BILL. MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (YEADON WATER) BILL.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion in reference to three Bills that stands in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Order made on the 10th day of March last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 23rd of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a accordingly.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (CHEPPING WYCOMBE CORPORATION) CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (ROTHERHAM CORPORATION) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS AND AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons be now considered.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. (57).]
Clause 8, page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (1).
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the subsection which the Amendment proposes to leave out is required

1233
in order to afford to landholders that security of tenure which it is the object of the Small Landholders Acts to confer on them.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARE): My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I will follow the example set by the noble Earl in the brevity of his observations. I have given my view on this Amendment on the earlier stages. I think it should be insisted upon by your Lordships, and I will merely ask your Lordships to divide upon it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I should like to say that I am not in agreement with my noble friend Lord Novar in this matter. We have considered this Amendment from every point of view, and we put it forward believing it was a proper solution of the subject. If the Amendment is not passed it means really
Resolved in the affirmative: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Page 6, leave out Clause 14.
Page 7, line 22, at end insert the following new clause:
that there is a taint of confiscation left in the Bill. Small holdings will no longer belong to their owners, and it will be impossible for a proprietor to sell a holding, probably, because of this so-called security of tenure by the small holder. I should like to have seen, if possible, a compromise under which at least the small holdings which have been sold under the present conditions should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill, but I have consulted with my Scottish colleagues in this matter and—I am aware that the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, does not agree with this—most of those to whom I have talked consider that it is not a point which we should press. Therefore I do not propose, although entirely disagreeing with the Government's attitude, to press the Amendment, and I would not support my noble friend if he went to a Division.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Not although he is right?
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 9.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Munster, E.

Clwyd, L.

Plymouth, E.

Danesfort, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Stanhope, E.

Darling, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Desborough, L.

Bedford, D.

Gainford, L.

Wellington, D.

Bertie of Thame, V.

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

Bridgeman, V.

Linlithgow, M.

Goschen, V.

Hayter, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hailsliam, V.

Heneage, L.

Mersey, V.

Marks, L.

De La Warr, E.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Harrowby, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Olivier, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Lucan, E.

Truro, L. Bp.

Snell, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wavertree, L.

Midleton, E.

Arnold, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Airlie, E.

Novar, V. [Teller.]

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Bresidalbane and Holland, E.

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Morton, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Redesdale, L.

Clinton, L.

Amendment of s. 32 (11) of Act of 1911.
(". Section thirty-two of the Act of 1911 shall be amended by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (11):—
'(12) It shall be competent to the tenant not later than two months prior to the expiry of the period of tenancy current at the commencement of this Act or of any subsequent period of tenancy

1235
and after given written notice to the landlord to apply to the Land Court to be declared a landholder, and the Land Court shall so find and declare, unless the landlord shall lodge with the Land Court a written application to have it declared that the tenant and his statutory successors in the holding shall have the same rights in all respects to compensation for permanent improvements on renouncing the tenancy or being removed from the holding as if the tenant had been a landholder, and on such application by the landlord the Land Court shall find and declare accordingly.'")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
Because it is desirable that the statutory small tenants should have an option to become landholders without the, necessity of application to the Land Court, and the new clause proposed in lieu of Clause 14 does not secure this and would unnecessarily create a third hind of tenure under the Small Landholders Acts.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the Amendment to leave out Clause 14.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW had given Notice to move that the House should not insist on the Amendment, but should amend the clause restored to the Bill by the Commons by inserting at the end:
"Provided further that if within one month after the service on a landlord of such a notice as aforesaid the landlord lodges with the Land Court an undertaking in writing that the tenant shall have the same rights to compensation for permanent improvements as if he were a landholder, the Land Court shall, after intimation to the tenant, direct such undertaking to be recorded in the Landholders Holdings Book, and the undertaking shall be recorded accordingly, and thereupon the tenant shall be deemed as regards the rights aforesaid but in no other respect to be a landholder."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I am well aware that I am the only member of your Lordships' House who does not perfectly understand the procedure on these occasions, but, doing the best that I can, I understand it will be appropriate if I move now the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name. The effect of this Amendment is to do that which was achieved by the Amendment on page 7, line 22, of the Bill as it came up from the other
1236
House originally, which Amendment is printed on the Paper. I have reason to suppose that the method embodied in this Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name to-day is less distasteful to His Majesty's Government than that which at present stands in the Bill. The effect of this Amendment if embodied in the Bill would not, I think, be precisely parallel to the effect of the words standing in the Bill already, and for these reasons: whereas under the Bill as amended in this House on Report it would fall to the tenant to move in order to obtain his compensation, under the Amendment which stands in my name it will fall to the landlord to move; and whereas under the Bill as amended on Report there would in effect be no change whatever in the status of the statutory small tenant, under the Amendment which I am moving the statutory small holder does become a landholder in respect of the rights in question but in no other respect. To that extent, of course, there is a substantial difference between the effect of the clause of the Bill as it left this House and the Bill as it would stand if this Amendment is accepted by His Majesty's Government and your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
At the end of the Motion insert ("but that the clause restored to the Bill by the Commons be amended by adding the said proviso ").—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, the words which are now inserted in the Bill by another place do not, I understand, make any substantial difference to the clause which your Lordships inserted on Report. Clause 14 remains as before, but the proviso makes a very important alteration. Your Lordships will no doubt recollect that under the Small Landholders Bill, 1911, there were very substantial differences between the statutory small tenant and the landholder, the main difference being that the landholder had put up more than half his buildings, while the statutory small tenant had not done so. He may have done nothing at all, or may have put up quite a small amount of building. But the statutory small tenant had the very substantial privilege that he could get his lease renewed. He could apply to the Land Court for a fair rent, and—what is important in

1237
the present discussion—if the landowner did not put up sufficient buildings for him, he could apply to the Land Court.
In this proposed proviso we are still admitting the possibility of the statutory small tenant becoming a landholder, and we are in effect making a very considerable alteration of the land tenure in Scot-land. I admit that this clause will not apply in very many eases; that is to say. I understand that the statutory small tenants are a dwindling body, and now consist only of those who are the lineal successors, the heirs at law, of those who were statutory small tenants in 1911; yet the principle does remain the same. But the general effect seems to me that by this clause and this proviso you are making a very great alteration in the Agricultural Holdings Act. Under Part I of the First Schedule of that Act a tenant who puts up buildings can only get compensation for them at the end of the lease if he has put them up with the consent of the landholder, on the general ground—I have no doubt perfectly correct-ground—that no one could be allowed to spend another man's capital without his consent. Now you are definitely allowing that man, although he has not received consent to put up his buildings, to obtain compensation from the landowner. The only justification that I can put forward for accepting this proviso is that the body of men affected is so very small and is gradually diminishing that it will not be worth while for your Lordships to insist on any alteration in the clause; for that reason I shall not oppose my noble friend's Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARE: My Lords, it is perfectly true, as has been very clearly put before your Lordships, that this proposal of the noble Marquess is a very big advance in the direction in which the Government wish to go, but, as he has also told your Lordships, it does not go as far as we wish, the difference being that, whereas this clause does bestow the rights of the smallholder on the tenant, as regards compensation for permanent improvements, it does not do so as regards other matters, such as rights of bequest, while the security of tenure is dependent on different provisions, and it is also necessary for him to go to a Land Court before he can take advantage of the clause. An additional disadvantage is that it incidentally creates a third type
1238
of holding. But, as the noble Marquess's proposal is a very big advance in our direction, whilst not actually committing the Government to its full acceptance at the moment, I do not propose, if the noble Marquess presses it, to ask your Lordships to divide.
On Question, Amendment agreed to: the said Amendments not insisted upon and a proviso added to the restored Clause 14 accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 11 line 3, at end insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 16 of principal Act.
(". Section sixteen of the principal Act, which deals with the procedure in arbitrations, shall be amended by the omission of the words 'sheep stocks' in subsection (5) and by the addition of the following subsection:—
'(6) After the passing of this Act all valuations of sheep stocks tied to the ground and bound under a lease to be taken over from the outgoing tenant at the termination of a tenancy by the landlord or incoming tenant shall, unless the outgoing tenant and the landlord or incoming tenant otherwise agree, be made by an arbiter selected by the Department out of a panel of arbiters appointed specially for that purpose by the Lord President of the Court of Session after consultation with the Department.'")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the proposed new clause involves the altering of existing contracts by substituting a different method of valuation from that agreed on by both parties to such contracts.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist upon the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE EARL OF BREADALBANE: My Lords, since this question of sheep stock valuation was first raised in your Lordships' House I see that this Amendment has been represented as an attempt to break a contract by altering leases. I feel sure that I should not have been asked to move the Amendment which stood in my name, but for the words of which I am not personally responsible, if this were so. But if, by any possibility, your Lordships are of the opinion that this really is the case I should like to say at once—and I hope this will be reported

1239
as publicly as possible—that I would be the first to crave the permission of your Lordships' House immediately to withdraw it. I would like to dissociate myself as completely as possible from any such suggestion. Of course there can be no question of breaking a contract which has been legitimately and honourably entered into, and I submit very strongly that that view is a travesty of the true facts. I have followed as carefully as I could every argument put forward on both sides of the case and I suggest that it is the present custom which is completely and seriously departing from the spirit in which those leases or contracts were made.
The original bargain, as I understand it, was that the landlord should take over the sheep stocks at the valuation of two arbiters and an "oversman," on the assumption that the price they fixed for the landlord to pay would be the true value of the sheep on the ground. The arrangement was made in days when roads were bad and transport facilities very poor. An outgoing farmer was thereby saved the risk and loss of moving his sheep to market. But it was never intended as a means of securing to the fanner an unearned profit or of mulcting the landlord of large sums for no possible or logical reason. Valuations under the original leases were to be made by neutral men; not by farmers who were themselves personally interested in maintaining a high nominal price for sheep. That is the gravamen of the injustice. I submit that the panel of arbitrators, whether three or one or thirty, should be impartial. They should give the figures on which they work and the price they fix should bear a very close relation to the real value of the sheep.
I quoted a large number of instances in your Lordships' House to show that this is frequently not the case. I have not seen a single concrete argument produced by those opposing the Amendment to dispute the veracity of the facts I gave; merely a general plea to leave things as they are. We are told that the Farmers' Union are opposed to any change. Of course they are. But let us suppose that the current practice were to appoint a landlord as "oversman" and suppose that he habitually fixed a price much below that obtainable in the market.
1240
This might perfectly well be done without departing one iota from the exact terms of the present leases. Would farmers think that logical or fair? Would they then wish to leave the question un-investigated? Of course they would not. Nor would it be reasonable that they should. Yet it is exactly analogous to the present procedure. If a farmer's valuation is to be accepted, why not take the highest price offered by an incoming tenant? Let the outgoing farmer be paid the full value that the incoming tenant, himself a farmer, is willing to give. The present valuations are unreal. If a man has a hunter worth £300 and if, when he goes to sell it not at a forced sale but after proper advertisement, he can only get £100 for it, then the value of that horse is £100 and not a penny more. I submit that it is a flagrant injustice that a landlord should be compelled by a panel of farmers to pay 100 shillings for a lamb and ewe when a farmer will only give sixty shillings for them.
There is another aspect of this matter, which I venture to remind your Lordships is a serious question in Scotland. The Amendment came up for discussion in another place at four in the morning. Personally, I have always understood that to think about sheep at that time was a first-class way of inducing slumber, and I would associate myself with the protests that were raised at this important Scottish question being relegated to the small hours of the morning. There is a genuine and honest criticism of the present valuations that are being made, and I submit that if the demand for an impartial investigation for which I pleaded is turned down by the Government it will have further and more serious repercussions than at first sight appear. As your Lordships are well aware there is a considerable body of opinion which has grown up since the War, which has lost faith in Parliamentary procedure and which believes that the Parliamentary machine is too overloaded adequately to deal with all the difficulties and complexities of modern life. I submit that if this question is brought before your Lordships' House and then, when your Lordships' House has seen fit to approve of the Amendment without a Division, it is

1241
cursorily dismissed in another place at four o'clock in the morning it is, to say the least of it, a most regrettable result.
I pleaded originally for an impartial panel and a fair valuation just to landlord and tenant alike. If the present system gives this result why should the Government appear anxious to avoid a thorough investigation? If there is nothing to conceal I should have thought they would welcome it. It would be a most helpful solution of a difficult matter if they would undertake to appoint a committee or conference at which all parties interested could be represented. It would be of assistance to Hear the views of the Forestry Commission and of the Scottish Board of Agriculture. I would ask why they are so silent seeing that they, too, are largely affected. It is not by any means only he private landlord who is being unfairly hit. The long-suffering taxpayer is also penalised; perhaps he is regarded as being inured or, one might say, acclimatised to this process. I would once more ask the Government to appoint a committee to go into the whole matter.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this matter was vary thoroughly discussed before and I think it would be very difficult for me to re-argue the case without repetition. All I can say is that the Government have considered this matter very thoroughly. that they retain their original opinion that it would be impossible to introduce legislation in this or in any other Bill affecting existing contracts without legislating for the breach of contract, and that there is nothing in the existing law to prevent new contracts being drawn up on a different basis. On the point as to whether or no there should be an inquiry, I am afraid I cannot say anything except that the matter has been gone into thoroughly and I really cannot see at the moment that there would be any case for recommending my right hon. Friend to have an inquiry. Most certainly if the noble Earl or any other noble Lord or anybody else makes a recommendation for an inquiry and can support the case by giving examples demonstrating the need for such inquiry, I can give him the assurance that my right hon. friend will consider the matter. I am afraid—
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Earl say in what way the matter has been enquired into up to the present? The noble Earl said it had been enquired into.
EARL DE LA WARR: The matter has been before His Majesty's Minister and the Minister's advisers, and the matter has had considerable discussion as the result of that consideration.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I rise with some hesitation to interfere in a matter of Scottish law of which I confess that I am profoundly ignorant, but I have listened with considerable attention to the speech of my noble friend this afternoon and I also remember the discussion which took place in your Lordships' House when the Amendment was originally introduced. I do not think—the noble Earl will forgive my saying so—it is quite fair to say no case has been made for an inquiry. My noble friend did on the last occasion, and again to-day, on this point out in what ways he suggested that the law was working unfairly—that an injustice was being done; that a sum was being extracted from the landlord in many cases and from other persons who had to pay by reason of the fact that the tribunal was, as I understood him, not satisfactory in its composition and biased in its nature, and that a wrong basis of valuation was often adopted. Those are rather serious complaints. He gave actual instances of the way in which it worked. While I am not in the least suggesting that we should differ from the Motion which has been proposed by the noble Earl who speaks for the Government with regard to this Amendment, I would ask him to persuade his right hon. friend the Secretary of State to be a little more sympathetic to the request for an inquiry which, after all, can hurt no one, and, even if it shows there is not a grievance, will do a great deal of good by relieving a sense of grievance which certainly exists at present. I hope, therefore, he may see his way to be a little more sympathetic in the way in which he represents the matter to his right hon. friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
First Schedule, page 14, line 30, at end insert:
("(18) The eradication of bracken, whins or gorse growing on a holding at the commencement of a tenancy")
Page 15, line 11, leave out from the beginning to ("in") in line 12.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
Because it is desirable that the improvement specified in the proposed new paragraph should be one which the tenant is entitled to make without being required to give prior notice to the landlord.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist upon these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments not insisted upon accordingly.
Bill returned to the Commons.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Submission and approval of schemes]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the Amendments down in my name to this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("thereof") to ("may") in line 10.
Page 3, lines 9 and 10, leave out ("this section") and insert ("the last foregoing subsection")
Page 3, line 25, after ("shall") insert ("(subject to the provisions of this Act)")—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3:
Poll an question whether scheme to remain in force.
3.—(1) Every scheme except a substitutional scheme shall require a poll of the registered producers to be taken, within such time as may be specified in the scheme, on the question whether the scheme shall remain in force.
(2) If the poll aforesaid shows that there have voted in favour of the scheme remaining in force—

(a) not less than two-thirds of the total number of registered producers voting on the poll; and

(b) registered producers who are capable of producing not less than two-thirds of the quantity of the regulated product which all the registered producers voting on the poll are capable of producing;

the provisions of the scheme, the operation of which is suspended (under the provisions hereafter contained in this Act) until the expiration of the suspensory period, shall come into force at the expiration of that period, but in any other case the scheme shall cease to have effect at the expiration of that period and the provisions of paragraphs 7 and 8 of Part II of the First Schedule to this Act shall apply as if the scheme had been revoked.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "expiration of that period" and to insert "date on which the result of the poll is declared." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is that where the poll goes against the scheme, the scheme will cease to have effect at once, without waiting till the end of the suspensory period. This Amendment really restores a proviso that was originally in the Bill when it was introduced into your Lordships' House. The words in question were altered by an Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, because it appeared to be consequential on one of his Amendments to provide a suspensory period during which the Minister might revoke a scheme. On reconsideration, however, it appears to be clear that in a case where a poll goes against a scheme there is no reason to keep the scheme in force any longer.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("expiration of that period") and insert ("date on which the result of the poll is declared ").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the next Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("found") and insert "proved").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Information to be furnished for purposes of register.
(2) The Minister, as soon as practicable after any scheme approved by him (other than a substitutional scheme) comes into force—
(b) if he has not sufficient information at his disposal to enable such a list as aforesaid to be compiled, shall inform the board accordingly.
EARL DE LA WARE EARL DE LA WARE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
"(b) if it appears to him that he has so little information at his disposal that the list aforesaid would serve no useful purpose, shall inform the board accordingly."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this really is a drafting Amendment. It is a direction that is employed in the Bill, and it is clerical. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 13, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5:
Regulation of marketing and encouragement of co-operation, education and research.
5. Subject to the approval of the Minister, a scheme may provide for all or any of the matters set out in one or more of the following paragraphs, that is to say:—
(f) for regulating the manner in which the regulated product is to be graded, marked, packed, stored, adapted for sale, insured, advertised or transported by or on behalf of registered producers;
EARL DE LA WARE EARL DE LA WARE moved, in paragraph (f), after "product," to insert "or any kind, variety or quantity thereof." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this and the following Amendment are partly consequential upon the first Amendment to Clause 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, after ("product") insert ("or any kind, variety or quantity thereof").—(Earl De La Warr.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl why he leaves out these Amendments throughout the Bill? It seems to me, reading the Amendments this morning, that they seem to be rather contradictory to the Amendments made in Clause 1. I do not quite understand why the noble Earl leaves them out throughout the rest of the Bill, and then alters Clause 1 the other way.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this particular Amendment and the next one really are to make it clear that paragraph (f) of Clause 5 applies not only to the regulated product, but also to any kind, variety, grade or quantity thereof. I think it is necessary to have these Amendments to make that point clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, after ("graded") insert ("by or on behalf of registered producers, or the manner in which the regulated product or any kind, variety, grade or quantity thereof is to be").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Miscellaneous provisions of schemes]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 6, leave out the third ("the") and insert ("a").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SWINFEN LORD SWINFEN moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
"Provided that no provision of a scheme made in pursuance of this subsection shall be deemed to empower the board to establish any market or slaughter-house unless that provision in terms confers on the board a specific power to establish markets or slaughter-houses, as the case may be."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Swinfen.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Financial powers and duties of boards.
(2) Any scheme may empower the board—
(a) to lend to any registered producer sums not exceeding the amount which the board estimate that he will receive from the sale of any quantity of the regulated product produced or in course of production by him;
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), to leave out

1247
"sums not exceeding" and insert "a portion of". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, lines 20 and 21, leave out ("sums not exceeding") and insert ("a portion of").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
EARL DE LA WARE: My Lords, I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9:
Consumers' committees and committee of investigation.
(5) If a committee of investigation reports to the Minister that any provision of a scheme or any act or omission of a board administering a scheme is contrary to the interest of consumers of the regulated product, or is contrary to the interest of any persons affected by the scheme and is not in the public interest, the Minister, if he thinks fit so to do after considering the report and consulting the Board of Trade—

(a) may by order make such amendments in the scheme as he considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of rectifying the matter;

(b) may by order revoke the scheme;

(c) in the event of the matter being one which it is within the power of the Board administering the scheme to rectify, may by order direct the board to take such steps to rectify the matter as may be specified in the order, and thereupon it shall be the duty of the board forthwith to comply with the order:

Provided that—
(i) every order under paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of this subsection shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid before each House of Parliament, and if either House, within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat after any such order is laid before it, resolves that the order shall be annulled, the order shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order; and
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in paragraph (i) of subsection (5), after "subsection," to insert "made with the consent of the board administering the scheme." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has taken the place of an Amendment I had on the Paper in Committee stage which it was felt went too far. This is really a very important matter, and one that requires a good deal of consideration as to what ought to be done. Your Lordships will
1248
see, if you look on page 15 of the Bill as amended in Committee, that under subsections (a) and (c) the Minister, as the Bill is drafted, reserved to himself the right to give such effective instructions to the board as he thinks proper and that an affirmative decision of Parliament is not required. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in Committee stage, represented that it was necessary that the Minister should have such powers in order to give his protection to any individual trader who might be in the process of suffering in the course of his business by some action of the board.
Personally, I retain the opinion that it is certainly desirable that these powers should be accorded to the Minister in cases where he and the board are in agreement that improper or undue hardship is being inflicted, and where it is desirable that some speedy method should be at the disposal of the Minister and the board for redressing any such grievance. I am entirely in agreement with that. But where the Minister and the board are at variance the Bill proposes that the Minister should have an overriding power. Now it is not to be forgotten that these boards are constituted in part on the nomination of the Minister himself. Two nominees of the Minister will sit on every board. Moreover, it is a certain fact that no board will be able to function unless it has among its membership in all probability a banker, a member of the banking firm which is financing the operations of the board. This is not going to be a board merely composed of farmers who might—not at all probably, but I will grant not impossibly—be actuated by motives not of the broadest kind. It is going to be a business board composed as I have already described. Is it right that the Minister should have these over-riding powers, moved—as we made clear at the Committee stage—to exercise those powers by in all probability a consumers' committee, which has in turned moved the committee of investigation, which in turn moves the Minister?
I ventured to submit at the Committee stage that it was really almost exposing the Minister to a kind of pressure of which it would be to a kindness to relieve him. It would be better that the Minister should be able to say "I cannot exercise these over-riding powers" rather

1249
than "I will not exercise these overriding powers." My Amendment stands on the Paper and unless much stronger arguments are brought to bear against it than have hitherto been expressed I propose to adhere to the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 35, after ("subsection") insert ("made with the consent of the board administering the scheme").—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this point, you will remember, was discussed at fairly considerable length on the last stage of the Bill. I think there is one point on which the noble Lord is misinformed. He asked your Lordships to remember that the Minister was to have two of his own representatives on the board. The Minister only has power to have two representatives on the board during the initial year, the first year, and that, as was explained, was because really until the poll is taken—and the poll is going to take a considerable time—the Exchequer is responsible for any expenditure. On the general point I really think it is very difficult to add anything to what was said before. We feel that the powers which are given under this Bill to a board—rightly given, we think—are very drastic powers. For instance, if you look at Clause; 5 (e) (ii) you will see that the board is given power to determine to whom to sell. This is an essential power, because if the board have to go to an association of traders to fulfil certain regular contracts it is essential that they should be in a position to direct the produce to the right quarter. But at the same time it might mean that a board did unjustifiably keep off supplies. That is a case that would have to be enquired into by a committee of investigation. The Committee would have to report to the Minister and the Minister would then have to act.
The noble Lord said he wants to free the Minister from the necessity of saying "I will not." I venture to suggest that a Minister who cannot say "I will not" on certain occasions should not be a Minister, and there is no reason for not giving him the necessary power to protect the public. Your Lordships will remember the example I gave was of a board coming to a decision at the end of July and then, because the Minister
1250
was not able to take any action until October or November when the House was sitting, nothing could be done. During that three, four or five months period the traders or the minority interests or whatever interest was aggrieved would have no opportunity of doing anything. I really see no other way round the difficulty than to give the Minister on these occasions power to say "I will" or "I will not." If he has either made a mistake, or if—as the noble Lord suggested he might have done—he had succumbed to undue political pressure, then he would have to lay his action as soon as possible before Parliament, and I venture to suggest that he would very soon get rapped over the knuckles by Parliament if he had acted unwisely or unjudicially. For these reasons I am afraid we really cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW: My Lords, it is quite clear that there are two points of view in this matter, and I myself prefer the view advanced by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, for reasons which I will give. I will take a concrete case which I think is perfectly possible. A board is doing something which is going seriously to prejudice the interests of a group, let us say, of middlemen. That is quite conceivable. As I understand it, the middlemen, the distributors, will not be able to seek protection from the' Courts by asking for an injunction to restrain the board, provided the board was acting within the four corners of the Statute. The damage that was being done to the distributors might be considerable. Week by week their monetary interests or their good will might be seriously affected and prejudiced. Is it really reasonable to suggest that in those circumstances the Minister ought to be compelled to stand idly by until Parliament could step in and prevent the middlemen suffering further damage? That sort of case seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable possibility. I am pretty certain that in experience something of the kind in connection with this scheme or that will arise. For that reason, if the Amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall support the noble Earl opposite.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, we have heard the case of the middleman

1251
put forward, but if your Lordships look at the Bill you will see that as it is drawn at present the Minister may by order make such amendment in the scheme as he considers necessary or expedient. There is the other side of the question—the point of view of the board. Arguments which apply to the middlemen apply with just as much force to the board. The Minister under acute political pressure might be persuaded to make such amendments in the scheme by order at the end of July as he thought fit, and in the next two or three months the board itself might be broken financially. The argument tells both ways. I think It really resolves itself into this—that we are rather inclined to assume that either the board or the Minister is going to behave like a fool. I do not think your Lordships' House is entitled to assume this in either case.
It therefore comes down in my mind to a question of principle, as to whether these boards are to have the overriding powers of the Minister hanging over their heads or not. I think your Lordships should assume that both the Minister and the boards are going to behave as reasonable human beings and in the best interests of the organisations which they represent. It comes down to the question whether the board should have the Minister over their heads and in the position to break them financially or whether the board should be in the impossible position of being in conflict with the distributors. I personally favour Lord Hastings' Amendments very strongly indeed, because in my experience the distributors are well able to look after themselves, and I am quite convinced that these boards, in their own interests, will find it very undesirable to come into conflict with any distributor to whom they hope to sell their produce.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, forty years experience of either House of Parliament compels me to disagree with the noble Earl who has just sat down in his assumption that either the Minister or the board would be reasonable. My experience is that they are certainly not reasonable.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 13 [Short-term loans]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, my next Amendment is really consequential
1252
upon the introduction of the suspensory period.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 8, leave out ("as the result of the initial poll") and insert ("at or before the expiration of the suspensory period").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15:
Constitution and functions of Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commissions.
(5) If any such Commission reports to the Minister—

(a) that it is necessary for the discharge of its functions under this section that it should inquire into a definite matter specified in the report, and

(b) that it has reason to believe that information with respect to that matter relating to the volume, quantity, destination or channels of distribution of a product, is being, or is likely to be, with held,

THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (5), after "report," to insert "being a matter relating to the place of origin, use, channels of distribution or destination of any agricultural product or of any commodity produced from such a product, or to the quantity of any such product or commodity which is being or has been produced, sold or otherwise dealt with." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the words as printed are a substitute for the words which I persuaded your Lordships to insert in the Bill. Again I have reason to suppose that these words, and the Amendment that follows, may be accepted by His Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 8, after ("report") insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 10, leave out from ("matter") to the first ("is") in line 12.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, my Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 30, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Expenses of commissions and committees]:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 33, leave out ("every") and insert ("any").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18:
Interpretation.
18.—(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned, to them:—
"Minister" means—

(a) in relation to a scheme applicable both in England and in Scotland, or in relation to the Agricultural Marketing Facilities Committee, consumers' committee or committee of investigation for Great Britain, or in relation to the Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission for Great Britain, both the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland acting in conjunction;

EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved in paragraph (a) in the definition of "Minister," in the reference "the Agricultural Marketing Reorganisation Commission," to substitute "an" for "the." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this and the following Amendments are intended to correct a mistake that was made on the Committee stage. Lord Cranworth moved Amendments altering "an" to "the" as being consequential on another Amendment that had been made in the Bill. As a matter of fact, they were consequential on an Amendment which had been withdrawn. The noble Lord will forgive my saying that the Government did mention this at the time, but they were corrected.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 3, leave out ("the") and insert ("an").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 24, line 13, leave out ("the") and insert ("an")
Page 24,line 21, leave out ("the") and insert ("an")
Page 24, lines 29 and 30, leave out ("or any kind or variety of any product")
Page 24, line 33, leave out ("kind or variety")
Page 25, line 8, leave out ("comes into force") and insert ("is approved").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
First Schedule:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, my Amendments to this Schedule are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 30, line 8, leave out ("or of any kind or variety of such a product ")
Page 30, line 11, leave out ("kind or variety")
Page 30, line 14, leave out ("kind or variety")
Page 32, lines 8 and 9, leave out ("expiration of the suspensory period") and insert ("date of the declaration of the result of the initial poll").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule:
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, my Amendments are consequential on a point with which we have already dealt.
Amendments moved—
Page 33, line 35, leave out ("other")
Page 34, line 3, at end insert ("by reason only of his being of having been a registered producer or a member of the board").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) BILL.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered.— (Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, perhaps it would not be inconvenient, if the noble Earl does not dissent, if I say a few words on the general position that we are taking up in respect to this Bill. This will save time later on, when we come to the discussion of Amendments in detail. I am the more inclined to suggest this course because some of your Lordships may have seen in the Press statements as to the conversations which

1255
are alleged to have taken place between the Minister and myself as to the conclusions which it was alleged had been reached. I should like to tell your Lordships that it is quite accurate to say that I have had some conversation with the Minister of Agriculture. Some time ago he communicated with me in order to let me know something as to some of the matters to which the Government attach importance in this Bill and to see to what extent there was a real difference of opinion between the Party to which I belong and the Government. But I was very careful to explain to the Minister that in seeing him I was doing so merely because I was responsible in this House to the Conservative Party for some of the Amendments that had been moved; that I did not purport in any way to represent your Lordships' House and could not of course in any way bind your Lordships' House; and that your Lordships must take your own decision as to any matters that were brought up here from the Commons. I think it is important that I should state this, because an impression might otherwise have been raised that I was arrogating to myself an authority which I certainly do not possess.
As a result of the discussion which the Minister had with myself, certain rather substantial concessions have been made which have been embodied in the decisions of the other House last Friday. In the second Clause—I am dealing with them as they came from the Commons—a clause which dealt with the demonstration farm, the Minister has inserted Amendments which very much limit the size of these farms and make it quite clear that he cannot, under colour of acting under Clause 2, do any of the things which he was proposing to do under Clause 1. In Clause 3, which deals with the reclamation of land by agreement and with the compulsory acquisition of land where it has been seriously neglected, the Minister has inserted in another place provisions as to the work being economical, to which your Lordships attached considerable importance when the matter was discussed, and the Amendment was inserted, in Committee. In addition to that, though not in the form which we originally proposed, the Minister has inserted among the matters which the arbitrators can take into
1256
account and which can be raised as an objection before the arbitrators by any landowner on whom notice is served, the fact that the work required to be done involves an unreasonable expense. I think those are all matters to which this House attaches considerable importance, and in regard to which our point of view has been accepted.
In Part II of the Bill your Lordships will remember that exception was taken, especially, I think, by my noble friend Lord Dynevor, to the provisions which in effect made the Minister judge in his own case when he had made an order for the taking of land. You will remember that a proviso was inserted with regard both to small holdings and to allotments, and the Minister accepted both those proposals of my noble friend. In addition to that we pressed for a limitation of the time during which the Act was to remain in operation, and the Minister has met us to the extent of accepting the time limit, though he has asked for ten years and we originally suggested four. I think that the concessions which have been made are important, and that it is right I should say so at the earliest opportunity, but at the same time I am sorry to have to say that I do not think the Minister has gone quite far enough in another place in meeting the points of view expressed here. It is for that reason that I have ventured to put down four matters on which I am going to ask your Lordships to insist upon further steps being taken in the direction in which this House urged the Ministry when the Bill was first before us.
The first and most important is the deletion of Clause 1. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 1 is a clause which deals with the experimental large-scale farms. I am not at this stage—obviously it would be inconvenient and out of order—going to develop the merits of the case, but this clause is one to which we attach great importance and to which we have great objection, and I am proposing to ask your Lordships to insist upon this clause being deleted. Then there are three other matters. In Clause 6, which deals with the acquisition of small holdings, this House had inserted a provision which gave county councils a veto on the Minister exercising powers in any particular

1257
locality. The Minister has thought that that unduly hampered him in his actions. At the same time I have felt that it would be all to the good if at any rate the county councils were associated in a consultative capacity, and therefore I have put down a proviso making it necessary for the Minister to consult the county council, although that does not go quite so far as we originally proposed.
Then, with regard to the duration of the Act, we had originally inserted a time-limit of four years. The Minister has put in ten years. Quite frankly, I think that perhaps four years is a little short. Obviously it will take a very considerable time before these small holdings are put into operation, and one wants to give a reasonable opportunity to see how they work, but I do not think that we want to give more than what is a reasonable opportunity before the matter is reviewed by Parliament. I shall, therefore, ask your Lordships to say that seven years is quite long enough.
The last is a matter which particularly affects Scotland. I hope I am not stating the matter improperly, because I know that we have amongst your Lordships a number of noble Lords who are experts in this matter, but as I understand the difficulty the Bill proposes that the Ministry should have power compulsorily to use for smallholding purposes lands which do not belong to them, but which they merely take on lease. It was said that that was a very unreasonable provision, because it enabled the Ministry to take land on lease, erect buildings on it, and perhaps destroy its value for purposes for which it was originally intended and then hand it back to the landowner, with no compensation. The answer was that that was the existing law, but I doubt if that is a sufficient answer, and I am proposing as an Amendment that the Ministry shall only use land which does not belong to them with the consent of the real owner. I think that that meets the point which my friends from Scotland made. I thank your Lordships for the indulgence you have given me, in allowing me to make my statement at this stage, but I thought it would shorten matters when we come to consider the Amendments in detail.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. (43).]
Page 1, leave out Clause 1.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because they consider it desirable that an Agricultural Land Corporation should be constituted for the purpose of promoting agricultural development and of conducting large scale farming operations.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist upon this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM,VISCOUNT HAILSHAM, who had given Notice that he would move that the House doth insist said: My Lords, this is the matter to which I have just referred, and I do not propose to make a very long speech about it. I have very carefully read and re-read the discussions which took place in Committee in this House, and the careful argument of the Minister in another place. Quite frankly, the arguments adduced in another place do not seem to me to meet the objections which your Lordships took to Clause 1. The clause seems to me to be unjustifiably extravagant, in making experiments which we think are very unlikely to succeed, which even if they do succeed would not prove very much, because the conditions of climate and so on infinitely vary, and which, if they do succeed in proving anything, would not be of assistance to the farmers who are not in a position to carry on large-scale farms, and which would not assist employment, because they are more likely to put people off the land than on the land. In my view, the suggestion that we should set up a Corporation to carry on large-scale experimental farms is not justified, and so far as this clause is concerned we do not see our way to agree to the proposals of the Government. We must therefore insist, if this Bill is to pass into law with the assent of both Houses, that Clause 1 shall disappear from it.
EARL DE LA WARE: I am very sorry the, noble and learned Lord should still feel irreconcilable to this clause, to which the Government attach so much importance. We did feel, in putting this clause into the Bill, and we still feel,

1259
that this clause does really offer in the future one way out for certain areas or districts in this country. It is perfectly true to say that it does not make an immediate contribution to the immediate agricultural problem. Experiments of this character must of necessity be conducted on a long-term basis, but at the same time, when we realise that we are told again and again that there are certain areas in this country which cannot continue in farming without a very large subsidy, either at the expense of the taxpayer or the consumer, and then in the same breath are told that it is gross extravagance to experiment and attempt to evolve methods of farming which may make it unnecessary in future years to have these subsidies, then I cannot help feeling that there is very considerable contradiction here.
We propose—I say this because of the charges of extravagance—to spend one million pounds of capital in an effort to bring by experiment the methods of farming in these districts, where we are told that farmers must stick to arable cultivation, into a state to compete with those with whom at the present moment they are unable to compete. That is proposed to be done by placing, as I have said, a million pounds of capital at the disposal of the Corporation, which, whilst fully controlled, so far as it is necessary from the point of view of safeguarding the public interest, should be allowed to run their experiments completely divorced from all political influences. That suggestion requires a million pounds. If any of your Lordships think that you are going to get out of assisting these arable areas to persist in their present efforts for a million pounds, or even a million pounds a year, then I am afraid that some of you are living in a fool's paradise. It is for that reason that I do rather quarrel with the noble and learned Viscount for getting on the high horse of public economy and asking your Lordships to turn down this clause.
We do feel that there are very large possibilities in an experiment conducted in a businesslike manner on these lines, not only in regard to cereal cultivation—and, after all, we cannot disregard that. It is very important. It is essential to certain areas. And how we are ever going to compete again in cereal cultivation I really do not know, unless
1260
we are prepared to adopt some new method. It may well be that we can never compete. Very well, if we cannot compete let us accept that fact. Let the taxpayers, if at the behest of noble Lords opposite they like to at a later stage, say that they will support these growers at the public expense. But I think we can be pretty sure that, if the taxpayers do say that, if they are to be asked to support these growers at the public expense, the very least condition they will make is that at any rate they must be satisfied that those growers are cultivating in the most economical way possible.
I think we all agree really that the present method of corn growing as pursued in this country is not the most economical. And I think that has been admitted on the Conservative side when it was said that if this experiment were a success it might result in fewer men being employed on the land. It is perfectly true that, as regards corn growing, that may be so, but I remember on Second Reading I ventured to put this point to your Lordships: are we therefore, in order to keep men employed in cereal growing, to subsidise farmers to enable them to continue employing more men than are really needed for the growing of corn? We all of us know there has been a controversy in the last year or two in the cotton industry as to the number of looms that one man could work. Would it not be just as logical to say that the State should subsidise the cotton industry in order that it may go on employing more men than are really needed for the control of their looms?
But there are other sides of the agricultural industry which require investigation and advance. It has seemed to me sometimes that perhaps too much emphasis has been put on the cereal side of the problem in relation to this clause. There is an immense work to be done, for instance, in experimenting—and it has been started already on a small scale—with some of the Welsh hill grazings. Then, there is the growing of fruit run in conjunction with a canning factory—I think rather on the lines suggested in a letter to The Times by the noble Lord, Lord Ernie. Surely, it might be a very profitable and useful experiment for this Corporation to be allowed to set up a large demonstration fruit farm in one of the depressed areas,

1261
with a canning factory in the middle of it, and on the outskirts a number of the small holdings which are intended to be set up under Clause 2. I should have thought there were immense possibilities of development for a scheme of that kind, in an attempt to get certain areas of this country, which at the present moment are attempting to grow crops which it does not pay them to grow, to turn over to different methods and the production of different commodities.
For these among other reasons I would suggest to your Lordships that the step that you are asked to take this afternoon, once more to eliminate Clause 1 from this Bill, is a retrograde step, and a step that years hence we shall look back upon with regret, because years hence we shall still need to make this experiment. But then you will have to start right from the beginning, having lost all the years that will have intervened. For these reasons I hope that your Lordships will not agreed to the proposal of the noble and learned Viscount.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Earl has advanced to the House many reasons why his scheme for the setting up of this Corporation, with its large-scale farming, should be permitted to pass into law. He has avoided with the greatest care touching upon the human aspect of the case, and it was one which made a tremendous appeal to those who live in the country and have a regard for the interests of those who are already established on the land. On the Second Reading, now so long ago, I ventured to say that there could be only one consequence of the success of the scheme of large-scale farming, and that consequence would be that it should be followed up; and, if it were to be followed up, it would mean the displacement of hundreds, nay even thousands, of small farmers and labourers who are already established upon the land. No noble Lord could conscientiously vote for the insertion in the Bill of a clause which was going to have that effect. No matter how sound the business reasons that might be advanced for it, yet those business reasons must stand down in favour of the human aspect of the case. I cannot believe it possible that any noble Lord could bring
1262
himself to vote for the inclusion of such a clause when the risks are so great, if that clause, when carried into operation, were as successful as the noble Earl expects and hopes it will be. How on earth a clause of this kind ever emanated from a Labour Government, I am totally unable to understand.
When we were children a certain king was held up to us in execration for enclosing a large area of England that he might be able to hunt the deer therein. Surely, the Labour Government does not propose to devastate large areas of England of their existing population, not that deer may live there, but in order that tractors may hold sway? It is an impossible proposition; and, if there were no other argument but the one which I have referred to, I personally, and I believe every other noble Lord in this House, would vote against this clause; and I trust greatly that the House will follow the advice of the noble and learned Viscount who leads the Opposition.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has advanced very strong reasons from the human point of view for disagreeing with the proposal of the noble Earl opposite. May I advance some reasons from the business point of view? We all know that a Government after the War started farming in different parts of the country. They lost large sums of money on every farm, and the result was that they were obliged to give up the scheme, cease farming, and let private individuals continue the operation of farming. With that experience behind us, what likelihood is there of the present Government doing any better than the last Government which undertook farming operations? The noble Earl asks us, at a moment when the financial position of the country is about as serious as it possibly can be, to venture a million of money in starting this Corporation, to be followed by the expenditure of another five millions for the purchase of land. I cannot conceive anything more futile than for a Government to attempt to start farming operations under the idea that they are going to be successful where private individuals have failed. The arguments of the noble Lord who has just sat down are to my mind absolutely conclusive even supposing that I thought the Government were going to make a success of it. As

1263
I am quite certain they will only lose money and as I do not want to hand over any more money to the tax collector than I have to hand over at present—which, in my opinion, is a great deal too much—I shall certainly support my noble friend below me. I am glad that he has taken this line and I hope he will take a similar line on other occasions.
May I remind the noble and learned Lord who leads the House that last May when he wished to alter the date of the Third Reading of this Bill from June 9
Resolved in the negative: the said Amendment insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Leave out Clause 2.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment, but have amended the words so restored to the Bill as follows:—
Page 4, line 16, at end, insert "land or to take land on lease by agreement and to"
Page 4, line 18, after "farms," insert "conducted on an economic basis"
Page 4, line 23, at end, insert—
Provided that no farm conducted under the powers conferred by this section shall exceed two hundred and fifty acres in extent unless the annual value thereof was at the date of the acquisition of the land by the Minister assessed for the purposes of Income Tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, at an amount which did not exceed two hundred and fifty pounds.
and to ante-date it, one of his reasons was that it was Wanted in another place? This is July 28 and nearly two months have elapsed since that date. Therefore, if he had yielded to my request and had taken the Third Reading on the day on which it was put down nobody would have been hurt and members who wished to speak would have ben able to speak.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Arnold, L.

Olivier, L.

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

Passfield, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Marks, L.

Snell, L.

De La Warr, E.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bedford, D.

Stanhope, E.

Desborough, L.

Wellington, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Dynevor, L.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Faringdon, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Forester, L.

Elibank, V.

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

Airlie, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Greenway, L.

Harrowby, E.

Goschen, V.

Hastings, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Hailsham, V.

Hayter, L.

Liverpool, E.

Novar, V.

Heneage, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Howard of Glossop, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Aberdare, L.

Lamington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Merthyr, L.

Midleton, E.

Biddulph, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Morton, E.

Clinton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Minister, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Redesdale, L.

Peel, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Remnant, L.

Plymouth, E.

Cranworth, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Poulett, E.

Danesfort, L.

Swinfen, L.

Radnor, E.

Darling, L.

Trenchard, L.

Wavertree, L.

EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on its Amendment and doth agree to the Commons Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, and doth agree to the Commons Amendments.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD CLINTON: My Lords, with reference to this clause, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, explained in his preliminary remarks the effect of the additional words that the Government propose to put in. I admit that they make a very great difference. Perhaps, in passing, I may be allowed to congratulate the noble and learned Viscount upon his successful diplomacy in being able to persuade the right hon. gentleman (the Minister of Agriculture)

1265
to accept matters which he would not accept across the floor of the House. Perhaps I might also be allowed to say a word in favour of the right hon. gentleman who has been prepared to meet the noble and learned Viscount in several respects with regard to this particular clause. The noble and learned Viscount explained that the Government are now prepared to reduce these demonstration farms to farms not exceeding 250 acres in extent, and, in so far as there is the possibility of this clause being utilised for large-scale farming, I think I would not expect any more than perhaps an indication that these farms shall not be used for large-scale farming. But you can duplicate and triplicate 250 acre farms till you get a farm upon a large scale.
In speaking of this clause, I do not think it was the desire of your Lordships, in the earlier stages, to show any objection to a demonstration farm as such. We recognise the enormous advance that there has been in agricultural research during recent years, and that demonstration is a necessary complement of research. Research has shown us how to work land scientifically, and it has been upon demonstration farms that practical application has been made of scientific knowledge. In this clause the Government puts some reliance upon these farms being conducted on an economic basis. I do not understand how far that will take us. It seems; to be the intention to work the farms economically, but in the event of their not being economic I am not certain what will happen. It is more than probable, I think, that farms worked by Universities and big bodies will be unlikely to show a profit. In every case, demonstration charges are too high. It is the object of these farms to show the farmers how their land can be worked profitably, and, even in the unlikely event of these farms being profitable, I am afraid the experiment will not be very convincing to the ordinary practical farmer.
A farmer has a suspicion—a perfectly natural one I think—that farms conducted at University research stations and by other bodies with large command of capital, and with any amount of advice, scientific, economic, practical and agricultural, are enabled to be worked under conditions which are not analogous in
1266
any way to those which are found on the ordinary farm worked by a practical farmer. I am quite certain that the best method in which the demonstration can be effective in inducing improved agriculture is by some method of carrying out the results of scientific research upon an ordinary farmer's farm. It is done to quite a considerable extent under county councils and it is also done under many other bodies. The Rothamsted experimental station has a very large number of farmers who every year are carrying on experiments for it on the lines of results which have been proved as far as they can be proved at the station itself. We have found farmers very willing to do this. It does not require a very great deal of money, and it will not require much addition to the ordinary work of the stations. I am not quite certain, but I believe under this new clause it will be possible for the Government to work their demonstration farms in that way. I shall be glad to have some assurance upon that. If we can have some assurance of that kind I can very willingly support the clause as amended.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that the noble Lord, subject to certain qualifications, does now feel that this clause might be acceptable at any rate to him. Very considerable changes, as he has already told your Lordships and indeed as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, told your Lordships, have been made. Perhaps I might deal first with the noble Lord's last point. He has asked whether provision has been made for work to be carried out on farmers' land. What we have done is to insert an Amendment to enable us to take land on lease without purchase, but on the question of carrying out experiments on farmers' own lands I do not think there would be any necessity for inserting that in a Bill. With regard to the words "conducted on an economic basis," of which the noble Lord asks for some explanation, I do not think they mean neceesarily that if a demonstration farm were to lose money for one year it would have at once to be closed down. What they mean is that it is definitely laid down that the Ministry of Agriculture is not to be allowed to run experimental farms except under a general instruction that the farms should

1267
be run on an economic basis—that is for commercial demonstration. If they are a commercial success, no doubt that will be taken as proof that the system of farming which they are attempting to demonstrate is not a failure.
As to the other point, that again has already been mentioned. I am asked to give an assurance that Clause 2 shall not be used in a roundabout fashion for doing what we wanted to do under Clause 1. Of course, your Lordships know that we would not think of trying to do such a thing. At any rate, this Amendment shows your Lordships how sincere we are on that I think the noble Lord is a little unfair when he suggests we are going to add a lot of farms together. Apart from anything else, what we are after is a large unit and a large number of separate units would not meet the point. We have made very big concessions in regard to this clause. Therefore I hope your Lordships will agree with the Commons Amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the Lords Amendment not insisted upon and Commons Amendments agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Leave out Clause 3.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment, but have amended the words so restored to the Bill as follows:
Page 4, line 34, after "satisfactorily," insert "and economically"
Page 5, line 1, after "satisfactorily," insert "and economically"
Page 5, line 18, leave out "relating to arbitration"
Page 5, line 25, after "notice," insert "(not being requirements determined by arbitration to be unreasonable)"
Page 6, line 43, leave out "are," and insert "would involve unreasonable expense or are otherwise"
Page 8, line 9, after "instrument," insert "but after giving reasonable notice in writing to the occupier"
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on the Amendment to leave out Clause 3 and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, and doth agree with the Commons Amendments.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; the said Amendment not insisted upon and the Commons Amendments agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 9, leave out Clause 4.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clauses 2 and 3 which the Commons have amended and restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 10, leave out Clause 5.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clauses 2 and 3 which the Commons have amended and restored to the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 6, page 11, line 6, at end insert:
(" Provided that no holding shall be provided under this section unless the council of the county report to the Minister in writing in respect of each holding that a person possessing in the opinion of the Minister the qualifications mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection may reasonably be expected to earn a livelihood on that holding.")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it would render the successful operation of the clause impracticable.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved that the House do not insist on their Amendment in page 11, line 6, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 11, line 6, at end insert:
Provided that, before acquiring land in any county for the purpose of providing small holdings thereon under the powers conferred by this section, the Minister shall consult the county council as to the localities in which land suitable for the purpose can be obtained."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I have an addendum to move, and that is that on page 11, line 6, we insert at the end the words printed on the Paper. I really developed what I had to say a little earlier. The original proposal we made was to give county councils a veto. The Minister has refused to accept that. I think it is important that county councils should be taken into the Minister's confidence, that he should avail himself of their local knowledge, and that the Bill should expressly provide that the Minister should at least consult them beforehand as to the localities in which there is land suitable for the purpose. I do not think it would do, as I originally thought, to provide that the Minister should consult the county council about each particular plot of land before he buys it, because if the Minister tells too many people that he is going to buy a particular plot of land it is not always very economical for the taxpayer, but I think he should consult the county council as to where small holdings can best be situated in the county. Therefore, I propose that we should not insist on the veto originally inserted, but that we should insert this proviso. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist upon the said Amendment, but proposes an Amendment in lieu thereof.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
EARL DE LA WARE: My Lords, I agree to the noble and learned Viscount's proposal.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the original Amendment not insisted upon and the new Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 13, leave out Clause 10.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because they consider that it is advisable to retain the powers conferred by the clause to meet cases which might arise.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 19, line 27, at end, insert the following new clause:
Procedure as to validity of orders.
(" . Subsection (3) of Section thirty-nine of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908 (which relates to the procedure for compulsory acquisition of land), is hereby repealed and the following provisions shall be substituted therefor:

(3) (a) An order under this section shall be of no force unless and until it is confirmed by the Minister, and the Minister may, subject to the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, confirm the order either without modification or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit.

(b) So soon as may be after an order has effect the Minister shall publish in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as ho thinks best adapted for informing persons affected, a notice stating; that the order has come into force, and naming a place where a copy thereof may be seen at all reasonable hours.

(c) If any person aggrieved by an order made by the Minister under this section, desires to question its validity on the ground that it is not within the powers of this Act or that any requirement of this Act has not been complied with, he may, within six weeks after the publication of the notice mentioned in paragraph (b) hereof, make an application for the purpose to the High Court, and if any such application is duly made, the Court, if satisfied that the order is not within the powers of this Act or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of this Act not having been complied with, may quash the order either generally or in so far as it affects the applicant.

(d) Subject to the provisions of the last preceding paragraph an order shall not at any time be questioned by prohibition or certiorari or in any legal proceedings whatsoever.

(e) Except by leave of the Court of Appeal no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal in proceedings under this section.")

The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Season:
Because they consider it unnecessary in view of the Amendments made by the Lords in page 14, line 42, and page 16, line 26, to which the Commons have agreed.
EARL DE LA WARE.: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I should like to explain my position with regard to this Amendment. The words on the Paper were my proposal during the Committee stage of the Bill. I asked your Lordships to take away those terrific powers that were given to the Minister under the Small Holdings Act of 1908. Your Lordships agreed with my suggestion, but when we came to the Report stage new provisos were put in the Bill insisting on the Minister working under Provisional Orders. You could not in a Bill of this kind have two alternative methods—the method of my Amendment and the method of the provisos put in on the Report stage. I only want to say that I stand by every word of my Amendment which was put in the Bill, but in the circumstances, owing to the new provisos put in, I do not feel that I can insist on my Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 19, line 36, at end insert the following new clause:
Duration of powers of Minister.
(". The provisions of Sections six, seven and eight of this Act, and, so far as they confer power upon the Minister to provide allotments or to acquire land therefor, of Section fourteen of this Act, shall have effect for the period of four years from the commencement of this Act, and no longer:
Provided that the expiry of the said provisions shall not—

(a) affect the previous operation there of or of anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

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

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

and any such legal proceeding, arbitration, remedy or investigation may be instituted, enforced or continued as if the provisions aforesaid had not expired.")
The Commons agree to the above Amendment, with the following Amendment:
Paaage 19, line 5, leave out ("four") and insert ("ten").
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM had given Notice to move, That this House doth disagree with the Amendment proposed
1272
by the Commons to the Lords Amendment in page 19, line 36 (i.e., in line 5, leave out "four" and insert "ten") but proposes the following Amendment in lieu thereof: leave out "ten" and insert "seven". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this matter relates to the duration of the time limit, and with regard to this again I have said what I desire to say. This is a real concession on behalf of the Government, and I accept it as such. They have accepted a time limit. The time limit which this House inserted was four years. The time limit now suggested is ten years. I am suggesting to your Lordships that seven years would be the right period to insert, and I do it for this reason. Nobody suggests, of course, that at the end of seven years this Bill must necessarily come to an end. That is not the proposal. The suggestion is that at the end of seven years Parliament should review the position and either continue or not continue the provisions of the Act according to whether they have proved successful or unsuccessful. In order to do that there must be a long enough interval provided to give the experiment a fair chance. It will take same two or three years to get the thing going. In agricultural matters you cannot decide on one season. Obviously seasons vary very much, and it will take a little while for small holders themselves to get established and to get experience.
According to such advice as I have been able to obtain from some of your Lordships whom I have consulted, seven years is a sufficient time to enable Parliament to form a fair opinion about the success or non-success of the experiment. That was why I intended to suggest seven years instead of ten years. I hope I am not betraying a secret when I say that the noble Earl, whilst I have been speaking, has passed over a note in which he says, "We will settle at eight." As I am met in that spirit of reasonableness it is a little difficult to insist on seven when we are so close together. Therefore, with the permission of your Lordships and of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I would like to move my Motion in the form that we leave out "ten" and insert "eight."
Moved, That this House doth disagree to the Amendment proposed by the Commons to the Lords Amendment in page 19,

1273
line 36 (i.e., in line 5, leave out "four" and insert "ten") but proposes the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Leave out ("ten") and insert ("eight").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the Commons Amendment disagreed to and the substituted Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 20, page 21, line 18, after ("sums") insert ("not exceeding in the aggregate ten million pounds.")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it imposes a limit on the sum which may be expended on holdings to be provided under the Bill, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Wan.)
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I think this was one of the most important Amendments that your Lordships put into the Bill. We put a limit on the expenditure of the Government on small holdings. When the Bill came to your Lordships there was no limitation at all to the capital expenditure which might be made on small holdings, although there was a limit to the capital expenditure under a good many other items. I understand that another place has said that they will not have this limitation of expenditure to £10,000,000, and the reason given is that it would limit the number of small holdings. Surely that is not the right way to look at the question. It is a question of how much we can afford to spend on small holdings.
I do not want to repeat the arguments that I used before, but I remember stating on the Second Reading that a very reasonable estimate of the expenditure of small holdings would be that it might amount to £200,000,000, and I see no reason for changing that figure. We have had a warning from Mr. Snowden on the financial position of the country, and he asked the whole country to come to his aid, to help him and to practise economy. We have tried our best in this House by putting a, limit of £10,000,000
1274
to this expenditure, and we have just now passed an Amendment saying that the Government shall have eight years in which to run this Bill. But how many million pounds will they spend on small holdings during eight years? It seems to me that the limit of eight years is going to encourage the Government to go in for an enormous number of small holdings at once and get them through before the eight years have passed. I shall be very sorry if we let the Commons objections stand in this House and allow an unlimited amount of expenditure under this Bill. I hope I shall get some backing, and I should like to hear what your Lordships have to say.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord in his contention that we should not agree to the proposal of the Commons. The arguments used when we inserted the limitation of £10,000,000 have all the more force to-day, considering the lack of improvement, and in fact the deterioration, of the financial state of this country and of Europe as a whole. Your Lordships will remember that your principal reason for inserting the Amendment was that we did not wish to give any Minister a blank cheque for expenditure in this direction. After all, £10,000,000 is a biggish sum. It might, perhaps, be reasonable to consider some slight increase, in view of the number of years over which the Bill is to run, but surely, should small holdings be a financial or a social success, there is no doubt that, when the Bill comes to an end, there will be no difficulty in obtaining from Parliament the necessary additional moneys to spend on their extension; whereas if they are not a success, then under the proposal of the Commons, with the blank cheque that it is proposed to give to the Minister, there is no limit to the money that he might spend in the pursuance of a will-o'-the-wisp attempt to make them a success. I hope your Lordships will insist on your Amendment and will leave the limitation in the Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I earnestly desire to support the proposal of my noble friend, which was supported by the noble Earl who has just spoken. Let us consider for a moment the financial position of the country. The Budget did not balance; since the arrangement has been made with Germany

1275
there is a further deficiency of £11,000,000; and further sums have been spent in addition. Therefore the next Budget must meet a deficiency of something like £20,000,000. In those circumstances we propose to give a Minister power to spend an unlimited sum of money. As my noble friend says, it might be £200,000,000. Even in the most prosperous times I have always contended that it was not business-like to give any Government unlimited power to spend. Parliament has always reserved to itself the right to sanction and limit expenditure. The Minister and the present Government—I am not at all sure that the Liberal Government was not somewhat of the same opinion—have held that the Government should have power to spend other people's money to as great an amount as they desire. In fact, as I once told a Liberal Financial Secretary, that power which Parliament refused to the Kings we would not give to a Radical Government. Nor would I agree to give power to spend unlimited money, either to the present Government or to my noble friends who sit below me, if they were sitting opposite. I should be just as insistent upon not giving them unlimited power to spend money.
This is really a very serious thing. Only two or three days ago I saw in the Press a notice from several eminent people—mainly, I think, Liberals; I should like to draw the attention of the Liberal Peers to this—pointing out the vital necessity for economy at the present moment, and saying that unless we were very careful we should go the way of Australia. Yet here, at the present moment, after your Lordships have put in a limit which, after all, is a very large sum of money—£10,000,000 is a very large sum—I understand that further powers of spending to an unlimited amount are to be given to the Government. I think the noble Earl who spoke last raised the possibility that in two or three years time, if the small holdings turn out to be a success and there is no financial loss, it would be perfectly easy for the Government to come down and ask for further sums; but at this moment to grant them unlimited power is, to my mind, disastrous, and if my noble friend goes to a Division (I do not care if there is nobody in the Lobby) I think this is such an important point that we ought
1276
to show that there are at any rate some of us who, understanding something of financial matters, view with dismay the position of the country at the present moment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Dynevor will not press his objection, for this reason. Your Lordships will remember that, when the Bill was discussed in Committee, Amendments were put down, first of all to limit the time during which the Bill should operate and in the second place to limit the amount of money that might be spent under it. When these Amendments were first brought before your Lordships' House I took it on myself to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he would give us a time limit or a money limit, because I thought one or the other was most important and we were anxious to meet him as to which it should be. At that time the noble Earl was not in a position to give us either. Since that time, I will not say wiser counsels but different counsels have prevailed, and he has at any rate met us to the extent which we have just seen.
The difficulty which I ventured then to point out to your Lordships was that any limitation, certainly of money and I think of time, was obviously a Privilege Amendment, and I called your Lordships' attention, I think in Committee, and afterwards on the Report stage, to the fact that that Amendment was clearly privileged. It was one of the difficulties which confronted us. We have now what is a substantial concession on the part of the Government in accepting the limitation of time, and I think it would be unfortunate if we then insisted upon a limitation of money. The objection taken by the House of Commons is constitutionally a good objection—namely, that as a Privilege matter, not under the Parliament Act but under a constitutional rule which has existed for a great many years, it stands outside the powers of this House. I think it would be very unfortunate to come into conflict with the other House on a matter in which clearly we should be claiming to infringe the Privileges of that House, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
EARL DE LA WARR: After what has been said by the noble Viscount, it is not

1277
necessary that I should add much. If the Amendment is pressed, in addition to the fact that it is really dealing with a matter of Privilege, purely on the question of merits the Government regard this matter as absolutely vital to the Bill, and it would virtually mean the loss of the Bill if an Amendment of this character were carried. We intend to push forward with this smallholdings policy, as far as circumstances permit, and by circumstances we mean choice of applicants, choice of land, and fully adequate arrangements being made for settlement and training. Those are to be our only limits apart from the matter of time, which has already been discussed and settled, and the Government could not accept this Amendment.
LORD BANBURY OF SQUTHAM: With the leave of the House, may I say that, as my noble and learned friend has said, this is not a question of the Parliament Act. It is a question of a statement made some two hundred years
Resolved in the affirmative: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Clause 20, page 21, line 25, after ("sums") insert ("not exceeding in the aggregate seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds")
ago by the House of Commons, that the power of imposing taxation was entirely in their hands. Your Lordships have never agreed to that, and there have been many occasions when it has suited the Government of the day to impose taxation in this House. But this is not imposing taxation. This is putting a limit to expenditure, which I venture to say is a different thing altogether. In either case there has been no Act of Parliament. There has been nothing but a Motion in another place many years ago, not agreed to in this House, and, therefore, I venture to say that we are perfectly within our rights in insisting upon this Amendment, which we put in when the Bill was before us a short time ago. If we were wrong to put it in then, we ought never to have put it in, but having done so we ought not to run away from it.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 10.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Dickinson, L.

Poulett, E.

Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Stanhope, E.

Faringdon, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wellington, D.

Greenway, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hastings, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Bridgeman, V.

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

Linlithgow, M.

Elibank, V.

Reading, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Heneage, L.

Goschen, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Ancaster, E.

Hailsham, V.

Marks, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hood, V.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Harrowby, E.

Mersey, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Passfield, L.

Liverpool, E.

Arnold, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Lucan, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Sanderson, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Snell, L.

Midleton, E.

Clinton, L.

Stanmore, L.

Munster, E.

Cranworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Onslow, E.

Danesfort, L.

Wavertree, L.

Peel, E.

Darling, L.

NOT-CONTENT.

Airlie, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Lamington, L.

Radnor, E. [Teller.]

Biddulph, L.

Merthyr, L.

Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Novar, V.

Forester, L.

The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it imposes a limit on the sums which may be expended on holdings to be provided under the Bill and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting the above Season may be deemed sufficient.
EARL DE LA WARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 20, line 38, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 17, page 21.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because they consider it desirable that an Agricultural Land Corporation should be constituted for the purpose of promoting agricultural development and of conducting large scale farming operations.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved that this House doth insist on the said Amendment. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is really consequential on the leaving out of Clause 1, on which the Government were defeated. It ought not to read quite as I have it on the Paper, because the lines which we left out were lines relating to Clauses 1, 2 and 3. We have kept out Clause 1, and we have allowed Clauses 2 and 3 to go in a modified form. Therefore, I move that the House doth insist on its Amendment in page 20, line 38, so far as it leaves out paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 22.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 22, leave out Clause 23.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because they consider it desirable that an Agricultural Land Corporation should be constituted for the purpose of promoting agricultural development and of conducting large scale farming operations.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved that the House doth insist on the said Amendment. The noble and learned Viscount said: This again is consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendment.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 23, line 1, leave out ("two, three").
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clauses 2 and 3 which the Commons have amended and restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this is consequential.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Page 23, line 7, leave out ("sections one") and insert ("section")
Page 23, line 8, leave out ("and twenty-three").
The Commons disagree to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they consider it desirable that an Agricultural Land Corporation should be constituted for the purpose of pro moting agricultural development and of conducting large scale farming operations.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, this again is consequential on leaving out Clause 1. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth insist upon the said Amendments.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendments insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 23, line 11, leave out from ("Department") to the end of line 16.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clause 4, which the Commons have restored to the Bill.
Moved, That the House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 23, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clause 4, which the Commons have restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 24, line 15, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e).
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clauses 2 and 3 which the Commons have amended and restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 25, page 25, line 2, leave out from ("1918") to ("on") in line 3.
Clause 25, page 25, line 4, leave out from ("department") to ("a") in line 5.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
Because it is desirable that the existing powers of the Department in relation to the creation of small holdings should be made available for the settlement of unemployed, persons, agricultural workers, and ex-members of His Majesty's Forces on the land.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM VISCOUNT HAILSHAM moved that this House doth not insist on its Amendments, but proposes the following Amendment in lieu thereof: Page 25, line 5, after "person" insert "with the consent of that person". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Amendment I have proposed will be found at the back of the page of Amendments standing in my name. The object, as I explained before, is to ensure that in Scotland, when the small holdings are
1282
set up on land which does not belong to the Department, it shall only be done with the consent of the owner. It meets, I think, the point to which my noble friends from Scotland attached importance.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments, but proposes an Amendment in lieu thereof.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendments not insisted upon, but another Amendment made in lieu thereof.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 26, leave out line 9.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clauses 2 and 3 which the Commons have amended and restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 26, line 11, leave out from ("eighteen") to ("shall") in line 12.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Season:
Because it is consequential on Clause 4, which the Commons have restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENTS.
Page 26, line 14, leave out ("Part II of")
Page 26,line 17, leave out ("the said Part II") and insert ("this Act")
The Commons disagree to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they are consequential on Part I which the Commons have restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendments.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendments not insisted upon accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT.
Page 27, leave out the First Schedule.
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
Because it is consequential on Clause 4, which the Commons have restored to the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Amendment not insisted upon accordingly.
A Committee appointed to prepare a Reason for the Lords insisting on certain
1284
of their Amendments, the Committee to meet forthwith.
Report from the Committee of the Reasons to be offered to the Commons read and agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons returning the Bill with the Amendments and a Reason.

ISLE OF MAN LOANS BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BRITISH SUGAR INDUSTRY (ASSISTANCE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at half-past five o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Great Marlow Water).
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chepping Wycombe).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL.
Committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER(GREAT MARLOW WATER) BILL. MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (YEADON WATER) BILL.
Committed for to-morrow.