Sitting of 25 June 1931

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Rotherham Rural District Council Bill [Lords],
Royston and Brodsworth Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

MERCANTILE MARINE (HELM ORDERS).
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to present a humble petition from the Mercantile Marine Service Association and the Imperial Merchant Services Guild, signed by 8,729 British-born navigating officers all in active service and afloat, including 256 licensed pilots and 5,228 certificated masters, praying that article 41 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1929, be not ratified on the grounds that no necessity exists for the proposed change in the helm orders and that it would involve grave danger of catastrophe at sea.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    DISPLACED WORKMEN.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour if she has any information about any cases other than the flour milling industry where arrangements are being made to provide workmen displaced as the result of rationalisation with assistance and the means of resettling in new careers or businesses?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): As the hon. Member doubtless knows, provision for compensation is made in legislation dealing with cer-
    588
    tain industries, for example, in the Electricity Supply Acts. Apart from such cases, I understand that there have been a certain number of voluntary arrangements of the kind referred to, but I am not in possession of information in a form in which it would be officially published.
    Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Lady say whether the Government are taking any action to assist those who will be thrown out of work through rationalisation?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That is a matter for the, employers.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Lady mean that she thinks that the Government are not responsible?
    Miss BONFIELD: No.

    WOMEN.
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Minister of Labour whether, with regard to situations offered to unemployed women at seaside boarding-houses, she has yet issued any instructions to her officers requesting that the hours to be worked and the wages to be paid shall be stated on paper; and whether, in the absence of information as to hours, no such situation shall be offered?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question on the 2nd June to which I have nothing to add.
    Mr. McSHANE: In reply to that question, the right hon. Lady said that the applicant had the opportunity of justifying herself before the court of referees, and, as it is impossible for her to do so in respect of hours, which are a vital factor, how is it possible at all for the lady concerned to refuse a situation and at the same time justify herself before the court of referees?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I do not admit the statement that it is impossible to raise the question of hours.
    Mr. McSHANE: How is it possible for the claimant to raise the question of hours, when, as a matter of fact, she does not know what the hours are, and it is notorious that they are overworked at the seaside?
    Miss BONDFIELD: If the claimant is referred by the insurance officer to the court of referees, all those are relevant facts to be brought before the court of referees.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow questions to develop into an argument.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that the girls who are sent to seaside boarding houses are compelled to sleep four in a bed when there is only room for one?
    Viscountess ASTOR: Not at all.
    Miss BONDFIELD: If a fact of that kind——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The question refers to wages and hours.
    Mr. DAY: Are any inquiries made into the sleeping conditions and whether they are taken into account in fixing the wages?

    STATISTICS (CLASSIFICATION).
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour whether she will consider taking steps to extend the period of time from six weeks to 12 before a person classified as temporarily unemployed is transferred to the wholly unemployed register?
    Miss BONDFIELD: This classification is adopted for statistical purposes and has no effect on the worker's claim to benefit. If its basis were altered, as suggested, the continuity of future statistics with those collected during the past five years would be destroyed. Such a change ought not therefore to be made without some good reason, and at present I know of none.

    COURTS OF REFEREES (WORKERS' REPRESENTATIVES).
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour whether she will again consider the advisability of legislation to abolish the practice under which a worker's representative on a court of referees is disqualified from continuing to serve in this capacity in the event of becoming unemployed?
    Miss BONDFIELD: No, Sir. I am not in favour of altering this practice.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the Minister aware that on account of a breakdown
    590
    of machinery in tinplate mills, steel works and collieries, men who are fully employed have to draw unemployment benefit, but on the particular week they draw benefit they are not allowed to sit on the court of referees?
    Miss BONDFIELD: This is a point to which I have given very great thought indeed, and I am satisfied that in the interests of the unemployed insured person it would be a mistake to vary the present practice.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is this not a great disadvantage to the unemployed, because the chairman is invariably a lawyer and does not understand anything about these particular trades?

    EXCHANGE ACCOMMODATION.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Minister of Labour if she is prepared to make better provision at the Parkhead Employment Exchange for unemployed men, to prevent them from standing in the rain and snow during bad weather?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Accommodation was provided on 16th June for men claimants, at the Congregational Church Hall in Westmuir Street, Parkhead, in addition to the premises in Sorby Street, and there should be no occasion for applicants, who observe the timing arrangements, to wait in the open.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Did the right hon. Lady say the 16th June, this year?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.
    Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Labour if she will call for a report as to the suitability or otherwise of the premises now being used as an Employment Exchange at Keynsham, and consider whether any alteration should be made to protect the unemployed on wet days when signing on in large numbers?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The premises of the branch employment office at Keynsham are provided, under the terms of this contract, by the branch manager, who is a part-time official. They have been in use since June, 1916, and are adequate for dealing with the normal work which falls to the office. The number of persons attending at the office at present is approximately 100. They are given times at which to attend in

    591
    small batches and, provided they adhere to their allotted times, there need be no delay in dealing with them.
    Mr. GOULD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is insufficient accommodation for those who attend the Exchange on wet days?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am given to understand that there is sufficient accommodation.
    Mr. BLINDELLasked the Minister of Labour (1) whether her attention has been directed to the state of the accommodation provided at the Boston Employment Exchange; whether she is aware that a part of the staff are housed in a passage-way, that congestion occurs in both the men's and women's departments, and that the building is dark and damp and unsuited for the purposes of an Employment Exchange; and will she, as a matter of urgency take steps to improve the accommodation at once?
    (2) When the Boston Employment Exchange was scheduled for new premises; whether plans for the new building were passed by her Department; and whether, in view of the inadequacy of the present building, she will at once proceed with the proposed new building?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am aware that the existing accommodation for this Exchange is unsatisfactory. It was scheduled for new premises as the result of a general survey made in 1929. Final plans of the proposed new building were passed by the Department in November, 1930, but, owing to lack of funds, it has been necessary to postpone the scheme.
    Mr. BLINDELL: In view of the statement of the right hon. Lady that she is aware that the building is quite unsatisfactory, and in view of the fact that prospective employers are now refusing to attend the premises to interview people whom they might employ, on account of the nature of the building, cannot she take exceptional steps, as a matter of urgency, to find suitable accommodation?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I will give the matter further consideration.
    Major HARVEY: Would it not be better if the right hon. Lady took adequate steps to provide work for the unemployed?

    RETURNED MIGRANTS.
    Mr. McSHANEasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that an unemployed man who seeks a situation in one of His Majesty's Dominions rather than remain unemployed in Britiain thereby ceases to be regarded as insured, she is prepared to introduce legislation to remedy this position?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to the position of such a man in this country or in the Dominions. As regards this country, I should point out that he would not necessarily be ineligible for unemployment benefit. Whilst abroad he pays no unemployment insurance contributions, but if, when he returns to this country, he no longer satisfies the full contribution qualification, he may nevertheless qualify for benefit if he can show that he fulfils the lower contribution qualification and other conditions for transitional benefit. If, however, my hon. Friend means to suggest that legislation should be introduced entitling a man to draw benefit in the Dominions, I am afraid I cannot undertake this.
    Mr. McSHANE: Is it not a fact that the man, who sooner that remain unemployed here, goes abroad, say to the Dominions, for any length of time and finds himself out of work there, and returns, is, by his virtue, penalised on returning and not able to get unemployment benefit; and will she assure the House that such a case will be dealt with under the Anomalies Bill?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I can give no such undertaking.
    Mr. BROCKWAY: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the very large number of such cases, and, if any Rill is to be introduced dealing with anomalies, surely anomalies of this character ought to be included in such a Bill?

    AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND.
    Mr. McGOVERNasked the Minister of Labour if unemployment insurance schemes are in operation in New Zealand, West Australia, South Australia, Victoria,

    593
    New South Wales and Queensland; and, if so, what allowances are made and contributions paid?
    Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is rather long and contains a table of figures, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REROBT.
    Following is the reply:
    An unemployment insurance scheme on a contributory basis has been in operation in Queensland since 1st March, 1923. At present, the scheme covers employed persons, male and female, of the age of

    Class of Worker.

    Southern District.

    Central District.

    Northern District.

    Subdivision.

    Subdivision.

    Subdivision.

    1.

    2.

    1.

    2.

    1.

    2.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    1. Individual workers, whether male or female, unmarried, or widowers, or widows.

    14

    0

    15

    0

    15

    0

    16

    0

    16

    0

    18

    0

    2. Married worker supporting his wife

    24

    0

    26

    0

    26

    0

    28

    0

    28

    0

    32

    0

    In addition, for each child under sixteen years of age (not exceeding four children) wholly supported by a male or female worker.

    4

    0

    5

    0

    4

    0

    5

    0

    4

    0

    5

    0

    In the remaining States of Australia, and in New Zealand, no schemes of unemployment insurance are in operation; but in Now Zealand, Victoria and New South Wales, as well as in Queensland, special taxation was imposed during the year 1930, the proceeds of which are used for the relief of unemployment.

    ANOMALIES.
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALLasked the Minister of Labour what is estimated to be the amount of the anomalies of each of the four classes of workers whose total anomalies are estimated by the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance to amount in all to £5,500,000 at existing rates?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The Royal Commission Report does not give separate figures for the four classes. The data necessary for a close estimate are not available, but I am advised that it may be, roughly speaking, estimated that out of the estimated total of £5,500,000 the classes comprising casual and short-time workers and married women would each account for between £2,000,000 and £2,500,000, and intermittent and seasonal workers together for between £750,000 and £1,000,000.
    Sir A. POWNALL: I could not follow the figures given by the right hon.
    18 years or upwards. In respect of each such employed persons, the employer, the worker and the State make an equal contribution of sixpence a week each. The rates of benefit now paid are as shown in the following table; but the benefit may in no case exceed one-half of the amount of wages payable weekly under any award to (or, if there is no award, in accordance with the locally prevailing rates of wages of) workers employed in the same calling as that of the unemployed worker in the locality where the unemployed worker lives.
    Lady. I took it that she said that the first two classes would each account for £2,500,000, and the others for £3,000,000, a total which is very much more than £5,500,000.
    Miss BONDFIELD: No, we cannot divide them up into each category. We have to take them in a lump. Casual and short-time workers would account for £2,000,000, and, in respect of married women, it is estimated that it might be £2,500,000. It is estimated that of intermittent and seasonal workers it would be something like £750,000.
    Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the right hon. Lady give me the approximate figures as well as the total amount of money, or shall I put down a question?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question.

    BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
    Mr. DAVID HARDIEasked the Minister of Labour whether she can state the number of applicants who have applied for, and been refused, benefit at the Employment Exchanges of Ruther-glen, Cambuslang, and Blantyre, respectively, in the last three months or nearest date?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that I cannot give figures of disallowances, as the disallowances of claims made at these offices are included in the statistics among those imposed by the Glasgow South Side court of referees. The number of fresh and renewal claims during the period 10th March, 1931, to 8th June, 1931, was 2,422 at the Cambuslang Exchange and 3,486 at the Ruther-glen Exchange. There is no Employment Exchange at Blantyre.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: If the right hon. Lady cannot give us the figures for Rutherglen, perhaps she can give us the figures of the number of votes lost by the Labour party there?

    RELIEF SCHEMES, GOOLE.
    Mr. TOM SMITHasked the Minister of Labour the position with regard to schemes of work submitted by the Goole Urban District Council for consideration by the Unemployment Grants Committee?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Since 1st June, 1929, Goole Urban District Council have submitted to the Unemployment Grants Committee eight schemes of work for the relief of unemployment, estimated to cost £39,350. All the schemes have been approved for grant from Exchequer funds.
    Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Lady say whether the building of the Humber Bridge has been taken into account in formulating these schemes?
    Miss BONDFIELD: That does not arise out of the question.

    WORK SCHEMES (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' APPLICATIONS).
    Mr. McSHANE(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Grants Committee are authorised to accept applications for schemes of work for next winter which are submitted after 30th June?
    Miss BONDFIELD: Local authorities were notified in March last that the Committee were authorised to entertain applications submitted before 30th June, provided that the work could be started on the schemes not later than 31st October. I do not think that any general postponement of these dates is either necessary or desirable. I am, however, informing the Committee that they may in exceptional circumstances entertain applications made after 30th June in respect of work to begin before 31st December, provided that good reason is shown why earlier application could not be made.
    Mr. McSHANE: Is the Minister aware that neither my own local authority nor neighbouring authorities heard of this circular at the time, and, if on inquiry it is found that such circular was not sent to them, will the time limit be extended proportionately?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I find it difficult to understand why they did not get that circular, because the usual method of circularising local authorities was adopted, but certainly that would be one reason which would weigh with the others for taking the course I have indicated in my answer.
    Mr. MILLS: In view of the probable duration of the existing state of unemployment, will the Minister be prepared to re-issue this memorandum and to extend the date by one month?
    Miss BONDFIELD: I will consider that course.
    Major MCKENZIE WOOD: Does the right hon. Lady consider that three months was sufficient notice to give?
    Miss BONDFIELD: To make application for a scheme to be considered?—certainly.

  COST-OF-LIVING INDEX FIGURE.
  Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour to what extent allowance is made for house rents and travelling expenditure in the comparative statistics from which the cost-of-living figure is compiled?
  Miss BONDFIELD: This information is given in the White Paper, recently published, on "The Cost-of-Living Index Number—Method of Compilation.'
  Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether in determining expenses rents are taken into consideration?
  Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.
  Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the right hon. Lady tell us whether there is any substantial difference between the present cost-of-living figure and any revised figure according to modern data?
  Miss BONDFIELD: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the matter, he will see that there is no revised figure.

  WOOLLEN TEXTILE INDUSTRY (WAGES).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Minister of Labour whether she is taking any action to prevent another dispute in the woollen textile industry, having regard to the further reduction of wages threatened by the employers in that industry?
  Miss BONDFIELD: I hope that any question which may arise in this industry will be dealt with in a constitutional way by the organisations concerned.
  Mr. BROOKE: If the right hon. Lady is approached by the organised workers, will she take action?
  Miss BONDFIELD: It will be my duty to do so.

  INDUSTRIAL WORKERS (HOLIDAYS).
  Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the Minister of Labour whether she will inquire into and report on the results obtained in countries in which the experiment of compulsory holidays for industrial workers on a modified rate of pay has been put into operation as a means of reducing the incidence of unemployment; and what has been the effect of any such scheme?
  Miss BONDFIELD: So far as I am aware, the only country in which a scheme of this character has been
  598
  adopted on an organised basis is Holland, where arrangements are in operation under which employers who pay wages to workers suspended from their employment may recover part of the amount so paid from the State provided that the Commune in which the workers reside also contributes. I have no information as to the effect of this or any other such scheme, but I will make inquiries on the subject from the International Labour Office.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I be permitted to give the right hon. Lady Information which apparently she has not got?

  ALIENS.

    MUSICIANS.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that British dance bands are forbidden entry into the United States and France, she will take steps to enforce similar restrictions on the entry into this country of American and French dance bands?
    Miss BONDFIELD: The admission into this country of foreign dance bands is closely restricted. Permits are granted only where I am satisfied that good cause exists, and that the grant would not be prejudicial to the general interests of British workers.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Seeing that there are so many British musicians out of work, cannot the right hon. Lady prohibit the entry of dance bands from those countries that prohibit ours from going there.
    Miss BONDFIELD: There have been very few visas issued since January.

    RUSSIAN CITIZENS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total number of visas authorised for Soviet citizens to come of this country to study methods of production of goods since the present Government took office; and what are the maximum and minimum periods authorised for their stay in this country?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): I regret that it would not be possible, without an exhaustive examination of all

    599
    the applications received, to distinguish the particular cases of visas referred to in the question. The period of authorised visits varies from one week to six months.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any Englishman having gone to Russia to study their methods?
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Home Secretary what number of visas have been granted since the present Government came into office for the purpose of bringing over Soviet citizens connected with the Russian trade delegation or the associated 18 companies that carry on trade for Soviet Russia?
    Mr. CLYNES: 243 visas have been granted for this purpose.

  LOTTERIES AND SWEEPSTAKES.
  Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of recent happenings in connection with sweepstakes organised in Ireland, and the extensive public interest taken in them, he will now consider whether a full inquiry should be instituted as to whether the existing law governing sweepstakes and lotteries should either be strengthened or relaxed?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have received no further information which would enable me to add anything to the answers which I have previously given on this question.
  Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present situation is bringing the law into ridicule, especially in view of recent decisions?
  Mr. CLYNES: I admit that there is dissatisfaction, but it does not necessarily follow that an inquiry will improve the position.

  DOG RACING (TOTALISATORS).
  Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the recent judgment of the High Court in the case of the Liverpool police versus Shand and others; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to prohibit the use of totalisators at dog-racing meetings?
  Mr. CLYNES: I have seen reports of the judgment, which related to a single enactment. As at present advised, I do not propose to introduce any legislation on the subject.

  CRIMINAL ASSAULTS.
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Home Secretary the number of sexual offences committed against girls under 16 years in England and Wales for the last 12 months; and whether the figures show an increase or decrease over the previous 12 months?
  Mr. CLYNES: Figures are not yet available for the last 12 months or for 1930. The most recent figures of crimes against women and girls known to the police are those for 1929 which, with the corresponding figures for previous years, are set out on page 15 of the Criminal Statistics for 1929 (Cmd. 3853). The numbers of cases of indecent assaults on girls under 16 that were tried summarily by consent in 1928 and 1929 respectively were 989 and 949.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Seeing the state of things, and seeing how bad things were even two years ago, would it not be wise to increase the number of women police throughout the country?
  Mr. CLYNES: The force has been about doubled but the figures show a decline.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that there are a great many boroughs where there are no women police and that until the Home Office make it compulsory——[Interruption].
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: How would you like to be a woman policeman?
  Viscountess ASTOR: May I answer that question?

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (CENSORSHIP).
  Viscountess ASTORasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the continuous widespread demand for improvement in the general standard of films, he will appoint a committee of inquiry to go into the question of censorship?
  Mr. CLYNES: The further consideration which I have given to this matter has not convinced me that an inquiry such as that suggested would be helpful.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any idea what would convince him?

  JUVENILE OFFENDERS, DEVONSHIRE.
  Mr. LOVAT-FRASERasked the Home Secretary how many juvenile delinquents have appeared before the police courts in Devonshire during 1930, and how many have been put upon probation?
  Mr. CLYNESAccording to the Police Returns of Crime, 321 persons under 16 were proceeded against during 1930 in juvenile courts in Devonshire (including the boroughs of Exeter, Plymouth and Tiverton); in addition 19 such persons were proceeded again in ordinary Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, making in all a total of 340. Of the 321 persons, 110 were placed on probation with supervision, and 16 were released on recognisances without supervision. Separate particulars are not available as to the disposal of the 39 juveniles proceeded against jointly with adults in the ordinary Courts of Summary Jurisdiction.

  EDUCATION.

    STUDENT-TEACHERSHIP SYSTEM.
    Mr. McSHANEasked the President of the Board of Education if he is satisfied with the present student-teachership system as a preparation for the teaching profession or whether, in view of the criticisms frequently made against it, he will institute an inquiry into this system as to whether it is productive of the best results for education?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lees-Smith): In 1926 the Board announced their agreement with the view of the Departmental Committee for the Training of Teachers that intending teachers should, as far as practicable, receive continuous full-time education in secondary schools up to the age of 18. Since that date a large number of local authorities have discontinued their systems of student-teachership, and the number of student teachers has decreased from 4,615 in 1926 to 1,301 in 1903. In the circumstances, I do not think that it is necessary to institute a further inquiry.
    Mr. McSHANE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the old pupil teacher system was bad because it gave too much teaching practice and killed any desire for study, the present system does not give an adequate amount of teaching practice to enable the authorities to
    602
    discover whether the student is suitable or otherwise for the teaching profession before he or she goes to the training college?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Yes, Sir, and it was on that account that the Board has discouraged the student-teachership system with the very remarkable results that I have indicated.
    Mr. McSHANE: Is it not true that the policy is preventing any effective teaching practice and that it should be increased before they go to college?

    STAFFING.
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education in how many cases during the last complete 12 months for which figures are available his Department drew the attention of local education authorities to an insufficiency of staff in individual elementary schools; and in how many such cases was the insufficiency removed?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Questions as to the staffing of schools are under the constant consideration of the Board of Education and of His Majesty's inspectors, but there are not figures available which show in how many individual cases the attention of local education authorities has been drawn to an insufficiency of staff, or in how many cases there have been increases of staff as a result of the representations made.
    Mr. EDE: May I ask whether, in spite of the fact that the staff is now mainly calculated on the area, adequate attention is given to the question of staffing individual schools in each area?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: My information is that the estimate of the staff in the area as a while, is based on the consideration of the staff necessary for each school in the area.
    Mr. EDE: Will the President of the Board of Education give his attention to the practice of some authorities of over-staffing some schools in comparison with others in order to get specimen and show schools?
    Mr. MORLEYasked the President of the Board of Education, if he is now in a position to state the response of local education authorities to administrative memorandum 82, urging increase in establishments?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The proposals submitted by local education authorities for the current year provide for the employment of some 1,900 additional teachers in excess of the establishments approved for last year.
    Mr. MORLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the increase in establishments will find employment for those additional teachers who were trained in anticipation of the raising of the school-leaving age?

    LAND SURVEY WORK.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAMasked the President of the Board of Education in view of the fact that his Department is co-operating with the advisory committee of the land utilisation survey of Great Britain in using the services of scholars and teachers in completing the Ordnance Survey maps showing the distribution of cultivated pasture, woodland, and waste land in the country, if he will say whether this work is being carried on in every county; what is the reason for the employment of these teachers and senior scholars; whether they are qualified to do the work; whether this causes their abstention from classes during school hours; and whether this policy of employing school children on Government work is to be followed in other similar cases?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The Land Utilisation Survey Advisory Committee is a voluntary organisation which is not engaged on the official Ordnance Survey or upon Government work of any kind. It has secured the co-operation of some local education authorities and schools, but its work is not being carried on in every county. The board are of opinion that the simple map-reading and home geography required by this work can be of great educational value to the children concerned, and such absences from the classroom as may be necessary for the work are only approved by His Majesty's inspector where he is satisfied, on educational grounds, that the time will be profitably used.
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Could not this work be given to unemployed in preference to school children?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: This is work of an educational character. It is not work which could be given to the unemployed.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES' PROGRAMMES.
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education how many and which of the local education authorities for elementary education in England and Wales have not received approval to the current triennial programme?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Thirty-nine local education authorities have not yet received approval of their programmes for the current three-year period. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. EDE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is time that severe pressure was put on these authorities to complete their programmes since nearly half the time for carrying them out has elapsed?
    Viscountess ASTOR: And will the President of the Board of Education point to the success that has been attained in Plymouth?
    Following are the names:

    Local Education Authorities for Elementary and Higher Education.

    Programmes not yet received.

    Programmes received but not yet approved.

    Isle of Ely.

    Bunts.

    Lines. (Holland).

    Sheffield.

    Northants.

    West Hartlepool.

    Soke of Peter borough.

    Anglesey.

    Denbighshire.

    Nottinghamshire.

    Merionethshire.

    Oldham.

    Newport.

    Wolverhampton.

    Montgomery.

    Cardiganshire.

    Radnorshire.

    Carmarthenshire.

    Merthyr Tydvil.

    Pembrokeshire.

    HANDICRAFT INSTRUCTORS.
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities for elementary education have availed themselves of the recent permission to make payments out of the marginal pool to handicraft instructors in respect of workshop experience?
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: The Board have no statistical information showing the distribution of payments made from the marginal pool according to the several purposes for which it may be used. I therefore regret that I am unable to supply the information desired by my hon. Friend.

  CENSUS.
  Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether he can now state the total population as at the recent Census?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): As indicated in reply to a previous question on the subject, it is expedient that the Census results when available should be presented as a whole; and I would accordingly ask my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who may be interested in particular Census figures, to await the preliminary report, which should be published by the first week in July.
  Commander SOUTHBYasked the Minister of Health whether any alteration in the method of taking the Census and appointing the necessary officials is contemplated in order to obviate private and confidential information having to be given to temporary employés who are not responsible civil servants?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not clear what alterations the hon. and gallant Member has in mind; but I may point out that the preservation of the confidential nature of the Census returns is the express subject of safeguarding provisions in the Census Act, 1920, which apply to all Census officials regardless of the source of their recruitment. I have no reason to think that those provisions are in any way inadequate.
  Commander SOUTHBY: Is the Minister of Health satisfied that the general public have no ground for complaint in this matter?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I can only judge from the number of complaints that have been made, and they are negligible in number.
  Mr. MILLS: Is the Minister aware that the provision made for the cost of transport in scattered areas has been widely criticised, and will he make provision in future so that the remuneration covers the cost of transport?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member has a question on that point, and I think my answer will cover it.
  Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health when the results of the recent Census will be known?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The preliminary report of Census results for England and Wales is nearing completion, and should be published by the first week in July.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Member tell the House why his Department is so much slower than the Department for Scotland?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Because we happen to have a much larger population.
  Mr. WILLIAMS: That is a previous answer, but will the right hon. Member tell me why they are so much slower when, obviously, the English Department has a much larger staff to cope with the work?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: With all due deference to the Secretary of State for Scotland, I do not think it is true.
  Mr. BARR: Is it not because they count quicker in Scotland?
  Mr. MILLSasked the Minister of Health if he will inquire into the action of the Registrar-General in the matter of enumerators' fees and allowances for the recent Census: and if he is aware that the 5s. claim made in accordance with the regulation has been struck out, without reason or injury, and that no travel remuneration has been paid in the Dartford Division of Kent?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that mileage payments have been made in the Dartford Division; but the amounts paid are few and small since the basis of calculation is intended to benefit the purely rural districts. I see no reason

  607
  to make any general inquiry, but if my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind I will look into it if he will let me have the facts.
  Mr. MILLS: Is the Minister aware that the flat rate of 5s. has been struck out without any reason; and will he make inquiries into this complaint?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I shall be very glad to inquire into any particular case.

  HOUSING.

    FURNISHED ROOMS (LETTING).
    Mr. PHILIP OLIVERasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the representations made to him by the Manchester and Salford Better Housing Council upon the profiteering in the letting of furnished rooms, which has been revealed in local housing surveys; and whether he is prepared to take legislative action in the matter, especially in the direction of setting up machinery to enable poor tenants to submit their cases in simple form and without unnecessary expense where injustice on the part of landlords is experienced or suspected?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question put last week by the hon. and learned Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst).
    Mr. BROCKWAY: Is it the intention of the Government to cover this point in any proposed legislation?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: That I cannot say; but clearly legislation must await the result of this investigation.

    RURAL AREAS.
    Mr. FREEMANasked the Minister of Health whether he is yet in a position to make any announcement on the intentions of His Majesty's Government further to accelerate the building of cottages and small houses in rural districts?
    Mr. LEESasked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to announce the Government's policy with regard to the rural housing question?
    Mr. QUIBELLasked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to
    608
    announce to the House the Government policy with respect to rural housing; and, if so, can he state the character of the machinery they propose for expediting such policy?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The Government's proposals in this matter are set out in the Financial Resolution which appears on the Paper to-day,
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to publish a Financial Memorandum in connection with these proposals?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Are these the Government's proposals about rural housing, or are they the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir T. Walters)?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I think that, if the Noble Lady will look at the Resolution, she will find that they are the Government's proposals.
    Mr. BEAUMONT: Is not the best way to expedite rural housing to drop the land tax proposals?
    Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Health whether, in relation to the housing proposals which have been the subject of conversations between the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir T. Walters) he proposes to consult the local authorities; and whether he is now in a position to make any statement on the matter?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The associations of local authorities concerned will be consulted as regards the Government proposals in connection with rural housing.
    Mr. QUIBELLasked the Minister of Health if he has any estimate of the extent to which the new proposals for rural housing will increase employment in rural areas?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not at present in a position to make any precise estimate of this kind.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    LONDON REFUSE (DISPOSAL).
    Mr. MUGGERIDGEasked the Minister of Health how many local authorities in Essex have made by-Jaws regulating the dumping of house and trade refuse in their respective areas; whether ho is aware that the Metropolitan borough councils still dump their refuse in large quantities in South Horn-church; and when he proposes to introduce legislation for the disposal of London's refuse on lines consonant with public health and amenity?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: By-laws on this subject were made by Barking Urban District Council some years ago and confirmed by the Department. Orsett Rural District Council have made bylaws but these have rot yet been confirmed. Other authorities in Essex are preparing by-laws. I am aware that large quantities of refuse are still being dumped in South Hornchurch. As regards legislation, I am not at present in a position to state when legislation will be introduced.
    Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Is the Minister of Health aware of the fact that a report made by an inspector of his Department in Fubruary, 1929, recommended as follows:—[Interruption.]—that there should he no avoidable delay in stopping the indiscriminate dumping of refuse in these localities?

    TIMSBURY SEWERAGE SCHEME.
    Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Health if he will expedite a decision in relation to the purchase of land needed for the Tirnsbury sewerage scheme in the Glutton rural district?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: A public inquiry into this proposal has boon arranged for 14th July, and I will see that the matter is decided with despatch.

    MILK.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to encourage the sale of fresh English milk in this country by restricting the sale of tinned milk, marked unfit for babies, on the grounds of health?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The tinned milk marked "unfit for babies" is so marked because it is lacking in milk fat which
    610
    is essential for babies. I am advised that it is not otherwise objectionable on grounds of health and I could not therefore take any special steps to restrict its sale.
    Mr. PERKINS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a glut of fresh English milk?
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is he also aware that a large number of people because of their inadequate wages cannot afford to buy it?
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Health if he will give figures to show the progress of the graded-milk movement during the past few years; if he is satisfied with this progress; and, if not, what further means he proposes to encourage public confidence in the purity of milk supplies?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures showing the numbers of producers of Certified, Grade A (Tuberculin Tested), and Grade A milk in England and Wales in each of the last five years. The figures show that there has been a steady increase in each grade but that the number of producers of graded milk is still very small compared with the total number of milk producers in the country. I am considering the last part of the question in consultation with my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman set an example himself?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I do.
    Following are the figures:

    MILK. (SPECLAL DESINATIONS) ORDER, 1923.

    Producers Licences (England und Wales).

    Date

    Certified.

    Grade A (T. T.).

    Grade A.

    31st March, 1927

    121

    150

    266

    31st March, 1928

    141

    188

    361

    31st March, 1929

    150

    217

    462

    31st March, 1930

    159

    224

    524

    31st March, 1931

    174

    238

    582

    INSTRUCTIONAL FILMS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to make use of talking films for the pur-

    611
    pose of giving instruction in hygiene, mothercraft, etc.?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: Cinematograph films are frequently used by local authorities and voluntary bodies for the purpose of giving instruction to the public on matters connected with health and mothercraft, but I understand that very little use has so far been made of talking films for this purpose.
    Mr. MANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to carry out experiments in this direction?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I shall be glad to consult the hon. Member as to its possibilities.
    Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Education, who is sitting next to him, in order to get his co-operation?
    Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that various health authorities are showing these films as produced and exhibited by insurance companies free of charge?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I believe that films have been produced by both voluntary bodies and private firms.

    CATTLE (TUBERCULIN TEST).
    Mr. BLINDELLasked the Minister of Health whether he will issue regulations requiring that all animals "tuberculin-tested for the purpose of the Milk (Special Designation) Order of 1923, and which react to that test, should be branded before sale in order that persons who may subsequently purchase the animals may become aware of this fact?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The adoption of this suggestion has been considered on previous occasions and has been held to be undesirable. In any case, I do not consider that it would be expedient to make any such requirement in regard to the limited number of animals comprised in herds to which the Special Designations Order applies.
    Mr. SANDHAM: If it is to be a question of destroying these cattle, will it not affect at least 40 per cent. of the beasts producing milk in this country?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: I think, if you applied this test to all cattle, there would be enormous slaughter.

  POOR LAW RELIEF.
  Mr. LONG DENasked the Minister of Health if he will issue a general circular to public assistance authorities to the effect that relief should be given according to need in all cases and not withheld on grounds of lack of private address or insufficient length of residence?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already pointed out to local authorities that a general refusal of outdoor relief to particular classes without regard to individual circumstances is contrary to one of the first principles of Poor Law administration which requires that each case must be considered on its merits: and I see no reason for issuing further instructions.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE (MINISTERS' SALARIES).
  Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state the contributions that are to be made by members of the Cabinet by a voluntary reduction of their emoluments; and whether he can now give similar information with reference to the Law Officers of the Crown?
  Mr. CLYNES: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
  Sir K. WOOD: What is the difficulty? The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced this three months ago. Is anybody backing out?
  Mr. CLYNES: On that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer urged the necessity of general sacrifices being made, and said that the Cabinet, were prepared to make a substantial contribution. I appreciate the lofty motives which have prompted the right hon. Gentleman to press now for a reduction in his own future salary, but I can add nothing to my former reply.
  Sir K. WOOD: Will interest be charged on the amount contemplated, so that we shall not lose over the matter?

  GERMANY (MINISTERS' VISIT).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to inform the House as to the

  613
  date of his proposed visit with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Berlin?
  Mr. CLYNES: As already announced the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs have accepted with great pleasure the invitation of the German Chancellor and Dr. Curtius to pay a return visit to Germany. They will accordingly arrive in Berlin on 17th July and leave again on 20th July.

  SCOTLAND.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT.
    Mr. D. HARDIEasked the Prime Minister whether he can now indicate when he proposes to review, as promised, the working of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, in its application to local government in Scotland during the first year of its existence?
    Mr. CLYNES: My right hon. Friend cannot at the moment add anything to the reply which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Mathers) on 11th May last.
    Mr. D. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the service which has suffered most under the new Act is education; and that owing to the pressure of business under some authorities only one-third of the time is being given to education that was given formerly?
    Mr. CLYNES: I shall represent that aspect of the question to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. G. HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Prime Minister that the De-rating Act has so far failed, in its application of the formula; and that moneys paid in the first year cannot be calculated, but only guessed?
    Mr. CLYNES: It is impossible to reply to questions of detail of that kind, unless they are put on the Paper.

    SCHOOL CHILDREN (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).
    Mr. D. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government propose to modify Section 4 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, so as to permit of all children who have
    614
    qualified for attendance at an intermediate or secondary school and, on the report of their teachers show promise of profiting thereby, receiving free travelling facilities without regard to the circumstances of the parents?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the hon. Member aware that great numbers of very promising pupils are deprived of secondary education because of this means test, that only 8 per cent. of the pupils who take up secondary education in the county of Lanark complete the full course, and that that is used as a general argument for advising these children to go to other centres?
    Mr. WESTWOOD: I am well aware of the disadvantages existing at present, but the modification of Section 4 of the Education (Scotland) Act would require legislation, and I can add nothing to the original answer.
    Mr. HARDIE: May I ask whether such legislation will be proposed?

    FOREHANDING RENTS.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that a practice has grown up in Glasgow of fore-handing rents contrary to custom and contract, to the prejudice of poor tenants; and whether he will take steps to deal with the situation?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): A number of instances have recently been brought to my notice in which landlords have attempted to vary the terms of existing contracts of let by forehanding rent in the case of houses which come under the Kent Restrictions Acts. As the law at present stands, attempts of this kind can only be dealt with as raising questions of civil right. If further legislation should be required in the matter of rent restriction I propose to make representations to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, with a view to ensuring that attempts to vary the terms of such contracts to the prejudice of poor tenants should be created statutory offences cognoscible by the criminal courts.
    Mr. MACLEAN: While thanking the Lord Advocate for his promise on behalf of the Government in the event of amending legislation being brought forward, I wish to ask what he is prepared to do in the meantime? Is he not aware that the courts in Glasgow are congested by cases in which tenants are being summoned to court on the allegation that they are in arrears with rent, although that is not in accord with the terms of letting?
    The LORD ADVOCATE: Those are matters which are not within my jurisdiction. If any alleged variation of existing contracts can be brought within the category of fraud it is possible for me to take action, but, if they cannot be brought within the category of fraud, I am afraid there is no remedy except the remedies which are specified by legislation.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Does not the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, make it perfectly clear that a landlord cannot act in that way?

  WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
  Mr. GOULDasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the delay and the consequent hardship caused to the widows who now come within the provisions of the amending Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, he will expedite payment at the earliest possible date?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes, Sir.
  Viscountess ASTOR: Are all the necessitous widows getting pensions? They were promised them.

  FLOODING, WALES (RELIEF).
  Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the representations sent to him from Garndiffaeth, Abersychan, and other parts of Monmouthshire, asking for financial assistance to relieve the distress and suffering caused by the recent floods; and what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Abersychan Urban District Council and one other authority applied to me for sanction to contribute from their rate funds towards relief of local distress arising from this
  616
  cause, I acceded to their applications. There are no Exchequer funds available for this purpose. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Minister of Transport has informed the county council that he is prepared to consider applications for grants from the Road Fund towards the cost of approved schemes for remedying damage to roads.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the Minister aware that the question has nothing to do with roads; that we ask for financial assistance for the loss of furniture, wearing apparel, loss of food, and other things; that this is a necessitous area, and the local authorities are bankrupt; and will he reconsider his decision and try to do something, and make it a national charge?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already pointed out that the local authorities have been empowered to give relief and that, under the existing law, I have no means of providing special assistance.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the total amount of the losses?

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. SORENSENasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to take any steps to sec that old age pensioners who omitted to claim their pensions immediately they were entitled to them are not precluded from securing payment for the period between that time and when they actually received their pensions, but are permitted to claim that genuine ignorance of correct age was a circumstance over which they had no control?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I would point out that the old age pension is a periodical payment designed to provide for the current expenses of the pensioner. The Contributory Pensions Acts accordingly authorise payment of full arrears where the claim is made within three months of the pension date but where the claim is made later, limit the amount of arrears payable to three months. I am not satisfied that a case exists for exceptional treatment in the circumstances referred to by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. SORENSEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the representations made to him with respect to individual

  617
  cases of applicants who have had to undergo considerable hardship as a result of innocently forgetting their ages until some two or three years after the required time.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid I have no power to exercise any discretion in the matter and a period of three months appears to give ample time for the making of claims.
  Mr. SORENSEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information respecting cases of this kind?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: We have a large number of cases where the applicant's ages are uncertain, and, in dealing with them, the greatest possible sympathy is always shown, but it is very difficult to keep open the time limit for an indefinite period.

  WAR LOANS (INTEREST).
  Mr. McGOVERNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to set up a committee with a view to inquiring into the question of reducing or abolishing the interest on War Loan stock?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to consider this matter further, with a view to a gesture of the same description as that which America is making, being made with regard to people in this country who own War Stock?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The answer which I have given covers that point.

  AGRICULTURE.

    FARMERS' PROFITS.
    Mr. CHRISTIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of profit earned by farmers in the United Kingdom during the year 1929–30, as disclosed by the payments under Schedules B and D; and what percentage of profit does this amount show on the estimated capital invested?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I regret i am unable to furnish any estimate of farming profits by reference to Income Tax statistics. In the case of assessments under Schedule B the assessment is not related to the actual profit made, but is on the conventional basis of the annual value of the land and in the case of assessments under Schedule D, which are related to the profit actually made, no separate statistics are collected. I have no information as to the amount of capital invested.

    FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that there is no foot-and-mouth disease in the Irish Free State, and that there is already a Customs barrier between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State, he will differentiate between exports of cattle coming from the Irish Free State and those that come from Northern Ireland?
    Mr. ROSSasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he Is aware that no cattle from County Down are shipped from Londonderry; and whether, in view of this fact and the remoteness of County Londonderry from the area of foot-and-mouth disease infection, he will consider the possibility of permitting the export of cattle from Londonderry with a certificate as to their origin being outside the infectious area?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I have no official information is to the actual places of origin of cattle originally shipped from Londonderry to Great Britain. On the 23rd June I was informed by the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland that disease was estimated to have existed unreported in County Down since the first week in June. A period of 12 days therefore elapsed before the Government of Northern Ireland were aware of the existence of the disease, and movements of animals during the interval in that county were uncontrolled. According to information received from Northern Ireland, 10 outbreaks had been confirmed up to 23rd June. In the circumstances it is too early yet to consider the question of the resumption of imports of animals from any part of Ireland.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Free State have at present a clean bill of health, that they have an embargo on the import of cattle from Northern Ireland, and that there are 3,000 cattle, 4,000 sheep and 800 pigs in lairages; and cannot he take steps to mitigate——
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how the Minister can be expected to be aware of all that.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: May I have an answer, as it is a very important matter?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The answer has been given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I was asking the Minister whether he cannot take steps, in view of this hardship, to mitigate the seventy of the Order.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has taken a long time to put that question.
    Mr. ROSBOTHAMasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress is being made in research and scientific investigation with respect to foot-and-mouth disease: and if he will consider the possibility of the isolation of animals that have been in contact with the disease instead of slaughtering?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee, which was appointed in 1924, has already published three progress reports. The investigations of that committee are being continued on the lines laid down in the committees' third report. Valuable additions have been made to the knowledge already acquired, and a fourth progress report is expected to be issued shortly. I have within the past few days discussed future plans of research with members of the committee. As regards the latter part of the question, the methods at present adopted appear to be necessary in the present state of our knowledge, and they were unanimously endorsed by the reports of two Departmental Committees which Inquired into this question in 1922 and 1925, following the extensive outbreaks which occurred in this country from 1922 to 1924.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of how they conduct these things in France?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have a certain amount of information, but it does not arise out of the question.
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any information to give the House about the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this country; and whether he can hold out any hopes of a relaxation of the standstill order for the movement of live stock, in view of the losses which it is causing?
    Dr. ADDISON: Up to 11 a.m. to-day a total of 43 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease had been confirmed in Great Britain. Twenty-four of these have occurred in England and 19 in Scotland. These cases have so far been confined to Cumberland, Durham, Westmorland, Lancashire and the North Riding of Yorkshire in England, and to Perth and Kinross, Angus, Fifeshire and Kincardine in Scotland. If no further outbreaks occur outside the existing infected areas, I will be prepared to consider the question of releasing certain parts of the country from the operation of the standstill order as from 1st July.
    Mr. PRICE: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Eve stock shows are coming on shortly, and the serious loss that will be incurred if these shows do not take place?
    Dr. ADDISON: We do bear that in mind, but the prime consideration must be to stop the spread of the disease.
    Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: How many of the outbreaks are primary and how-many secondary?
    Dr. ADDISON: It depends on what the hon. Gentleman means by "primary."
    Sir D. NEWTON: "Primary" is the original outbreak to which subsequent outbreaks can be traced.
    Dr. ADDISON: So far as I am aware, the animals affected have come from Ireland——
    Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Northern Ireland.
    Dr. ADDISON: From Northern Ireland. It is immaterial whether the outbreak is primary or secondary. The point is that the infection exists.
    Major GEORGE DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about

    621
    the rumours of an outbreak in Wiltshire, and whether it has been proved to be actually a case?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have had a case under inquiry, but up to the present time it has not been confirmed.
    Mr. McGOVERN: Can the outbreak of this disease be traced to the Soviet?

    PIG-RECORDING SCHEMES.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the burden which will be inflicted on pig breeders by the proposed withdrawal of the financial support hitherto given by the Ministry to the pig-recording system; and whether he will consider a scheme whereby the cost may be shared between breeders and the Ministry?
    Dr. ADDISON: If the hon. Member is referring to the pig-recording scheme conducted by the School of Agriculture, Cambridge, since 1927, with a grant from the Ministry, this experiment has been conducted sufficiently long to enable those participating in it to decide for themselves whether to continue it or not on a self-supporting basis. It was never the intention to continue either the experiment or the grant indefinitely, and those concerned were notified in September last that the grant would cease on the 30th September next. The Pig Industry Council recommended the general initiation of pig-recording schemes on a part payment basis, but I regret that I cannot, owing to the financial stringency, give effect to that recommendation or to the hon. Member's suggestion at the present time.
    Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: In view of the importance of helping the pig industry, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider it, and ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to transfer a grant from grand opera to the Pig Recording Society?

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY VOUCHERS).
  Sir A. POWNALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is yet in a position to state the results of his consideration of the question of railway vouchers for Members of this House?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Tuesday to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander).
  Sir A. POWNALL: Does the hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to make a statement before the Houses rises for the summer Recess?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: As far as I could judge, I thought that I had made some progress with this matter. I was in discussion with the railway companies, but the proposal I put forward proved, after a considerable time, not to be to their satisfaction, so I have started again, and I cannot say how soon we shall come to a decision.
  Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the best plan would be to leave the matter as it is?

  RATING APPEALS.
  Mr. BEAUMONTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in how many rating appeals under the De-rating Acts the Attorney-General has appeared?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would refer the hon. Member to the information given in my reply to him on the 4th June. Since that date no further appeals under the Hating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1923, have been heard in the Divisional Court.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: Was not the information which the hon. Gentleman gave me on the date he mentioned in regard to the number of cases in which the Attorney-General had been briefed? I want to know how many times he has appeared?
  Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The hon. Member does not realise apparently that when the word "appeared" is used, it bears the same meaning as the occasions referred to in the previous question.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me the legal term for "appeared in person"?

  COMMON LAND (SURVEY).
  Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the intention of the Government to undertake a survey of all land which was subject to the rights of common on the 1st of January, 1926, as recommended by the report of the National Park Committee?
  Dr. ADDISON: As stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) on the 13th May, this recommendation will receive consideration with the other recommendations of the Committee.
  Mr. MANDER: How long will it take the Government to make up their mind about this?

  TITHE RENTCHARGE.
  Mr. F. RILEYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent the conveyance of land bearing tithe rentcharge without the liability being declared to the purchaser?
  Dr. ADDISON: It is open to any purchaser of land to ascertain its liability to tithe renteharge by inspection of the original tithe apportionment at the offices of the Ministry, or the copy deposited in the parish, usually in the custody of the incumbent and churchwardens, but if a suitable opportunity arises I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.
  Mr. LAWTHERasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now in a position to state the composition and date of the conference of parties affected to consider the releasing of agriculture from the burden of tithes, having regard to the fact that homes and holdings are being sold up in order to meet this tax?
  Dr. ADDISON: As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) on Monday, I am meeting some representatives of tithe owners this afternoon, and I am asking representatives of tithe payers to meet me. My object in calling these conferences is to see if there are any administrative difficulties in regard to the collection of tithe rentcharge which could be removed, but I do not propose to introduce legislation to relieve landowners of their due liability to tithe rentcharge.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE (IMPORTED CAMPHOR).
  Sir GEORGE HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the value of the imports of natural camphor and synthetic or artificially-produced camphor for the years 1928, 1929 and 1930, respectively?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham)The declared value of the total imports of camphor into the United Kingdom during the years 1928, 1929 and 1930 was £103,077, £106,745 and £57,345, respectively. I regret that separate statistics relating to the importation of natural camphor and of synthetic or artificially-produced camphor are not available.
  Sir G. HAMILTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he gave figures in a statement which he made in the House on the Finance Bill although he now says that figures are not available?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I think my hon. Friend must be under some misapprehension. I gave certain figures, but it remains true that in the Board of Trade returns we do not separate them in the manner suggested in this question.

  WESTON-SUPER-MARE GRAND PIER COMPANY LIMITED.
  Mr. McKINLAYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what were the Terms of the case granted by his Department of part of the foreshore at Weston-super-Mare to a private company for the purpose of erecting a pier pavilion?
  Mr. W. GRAHAM: I assume that the question refers to the Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Company Limited. No lease has been granted for the purpose stated, but conveyances were granted in 1900 and 1906 in respect of the foreshore, etc., occupied by pillars and supports of the pier to be constructed under the Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Act, 1897, and of a landing stage proposed to-be erected by the Company. The conveyances were in the usual terms, of which I am sending my hon. Friend an abstract.

  SCREMERSTON COLLIERY, NORTHUMBERLAND (ACCIDENT).
  Mr. SHIELD(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information to give the House with regard to an inrush of water at Scremerston Colliery, Northumberland, resulting in the loss of two lives?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I regret to have to inform the House that an accident occurred at this pit yesterday. I am informed that the under-manager instructed a master wasteman and another workman to explore an old water level along which normally a feeder of 40 gallons of water per minute came to the shaft. Definite information of what occurred after this is not yet ascertainable, but it seems probable that the feeder of water was blocked by some obstruction, and the men were sent to find out the cause. Apparently, shortly after they had set out—it is surmised that they had not reached 100 yards from the shaft—the obstruction gave way and a rush of water occurred. Rescue operations proceeded throughout the night but so far without success. No bodies have yet been found.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: Will the Prime Minister tell us what business it is proposed to take next week; and may I also ask whether, for the general convenience of Members, he can make any statement as to the probable date of the commencement of the summer recess, and what business he proposes to ask the House to consider before that date?
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Regarding the second part of the question, if the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to repeat it next week, I shall then be in a position to make a statement. There are certain things that are uncertain——[Interruption.]—that is the flexibility of our English language—and until I have finished negotiations which are in hand just now I am not quite sure what drafts I may have to make upon the time of the House; but next week I hope to make a statement.
The Business for next week will be:
Monday: Supply [12th Allotted Day]. The Vote for the Treasury and subordinate Departments, which includes pro-
626
vision of the Committee of Imperial Defence, will be put down in order to admit of a general discussion on the Defence Services of the Empire. The Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 4) Bill will also be taken.
Tuesday: Finance Bill, Report [1st Allotted Day]. Unemployment Insurance (No. 4) Bill, Third Reading.
Wednesday: Finance Bill, Report [2nd Allotted Day].
Thursday: Finance Bill, Report [3rd Allotted Day].
Friday: Finance Bill, Third Reading.
Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: In regard to the discussion on the Imperial Defence Services, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether that is all we are to know of the lines on which the Debate is to be conducted?
The PRIME MINISTER: I do not quite understand the point of my hon. and gallant Friend's question. I understand it is the desire of the Opposition to have a general Debate upon defence questions, and the Vote will be put down to enable that to be done.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask the Prime Minister when the Unemployment (Anomalies) Bill is to come before the House?
The PRIME MINISTER: In the following week. The Anomalies Bill will follow immediately after the Money Bill. The Money Bill has to be got through by a date, and that is why there is a little bit of a rush. The Anomalies Bill will follow immediately afterwards.
Mr. BROCKWAY: There is a Motion on the Paper referring to the release of the prisoners of Meerut. Is the Prime Minister able to give the House time for a discussion of that Motion?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, we have too many important Debates.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken this day before Eleven of the Clock, and that the Proceedings on the Mauritius Loan (Guarantee) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]
The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 92.

Division No. 354.]

AYES.

[3.54 p.m.

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

Hopkin, Daniel

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)

Pole, Major D. G.

Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Potts, John S.

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

Isaacs, George

Price, M. P.

Alpass, J. H.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Qulbell, D. J. K.

Angell, Sir Norman

Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Ramsay, T. B. Wilson

Arnott, John

Jones, Llewellyn-, F.

Raynes, W. R.

Attlee, Clement Richard

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

Richards, R.

Ayles, Walter

Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Barr, James

Jones, Morgan (Caerpbilly)

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

Batey, Joseph

Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.

Ritson, J.

Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)

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

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

Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood

Kelly, W. T.

Romerll, H. G.

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

Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Rosbotham, D. S. T.

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

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

Rothschild, J. de

Benson, G.

Kinley, J.

Rowson, Guy

Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

Kirkwood, D.

Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret

Knight, Holford

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Bowen, J. W.

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

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

Broad, Francis Alfred

Lang, Gordon

Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Sanders, W. S.

Brooke, W.

Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)

Sandham, E.

Brothers, M.

Law, Albert (Bolton)

Sawyer, G. F.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Law, A. (Rosendale)

Scott, James

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

Lawrence, Susan

Scurr, John

Buchanan, G.

Lawson, John James

Sexton, Sir James

Burgess, F. G.

Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)

Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Cape, Thomas

Leach, W.

Sherwood, G. H.

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

Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)

Shield, George William

Chater, Daniel

Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Church, Major A. G.

Lees, J.

Shillaker, J. F.

Cluse, W. S.

Lloyd, C. Ellis

Shinwell, E.

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Logan, David Gilbert

Simmons, C. J.

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Longbottom, A. W.

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

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Longden, F.

Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)

Daggar, George

Lovat- Fraser, J. A.

Sinkinson, George

Dallas, George

Lunn, William

Sitch, Charles H.

Dalton, Hugh

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)

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

Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

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

Day, Harry

McElwee, A.

Smith, Tom (Pontefract)

Denman, Hon. R. D.

McEntee, V. L.

Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

Duncan, Charles

McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)

Sorensen, R.

Ede, James Chuter

McKinlay, A.

Stamford, Thomas W.

Edge, Sir William

MacLaren, Andrew

Strauss, G. R.

Edmunds, J. E.

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Sullivan, J.

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Sutton, J. E.

Edwards, E. (Morpeth)

McShane, John James

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

Egan, W. H.

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

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

Evans, capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Thurtle, Ernest

Freeman, Peter

Manning, E. L.

Tillett, Ben

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

Mansfield, W.

Tinker, John Joseph

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

March, S.

Toole, Joseph

George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)

Marcus, M.

Tout, W. J.

Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)

Markham, S. F.

Townend, A. E.

Gill, T. H.

Marley, J.

Turner, Sir Ben

Glassey, A. E.

Marshall, Fred

Vaughan, David

Gossling, A. G.

Mathers, George

Viant, S. P.

Gould, F.

Matters, L. W.

Walkden, A. G.

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

Millar, J. D.

Walker, J.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)

Mills, J. E.

Watkins, F. C.

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Milner, Major J.

Wellock, Wilfred

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Welsh, James (Paisley)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Morley, Ralph

Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)

Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)

Morris, Rhys Hopkins

West, F. R.

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)

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

Westwood, Joseph

Hardie, David (Rutherglen)

Mort, D. L.

Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)

Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)

Muff, G.

Whiteley, William (Blaydon)

Harris, Percy A.

Muggerldge, H. T.

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Murnin, Hugh

Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)

Haycock, A. W.

Nathan, Major H. L.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Hayday, Arthur

Noel Baker, P. J.

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Hayes, John Henry

Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

Oldfield, J. R.

Wilson, J. (Oldham)

Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)

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

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Henderson, W. W. (Mlddx., Enfield)

Palin, John Henry

Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)

Herrlotts, J.

Palmer, E. T.

Young, R. S. (Islington, North)

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

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Hollins, A.

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Mr. Charleton and Mr. Paling.

628

629

NOSE

Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles

Fermoy, Lord

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

Ford, Sir P. J.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Astor, Viscountess

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Ramsbotham, H.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)

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

Remer, John R.

Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Betterton, Sir Henry B.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart

Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Savery, S. S.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

Skelton, A. N.

Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

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

Boyce, Leslie

Hartington, Marquess of

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Bracken, B.

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

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Broadbent, Colonel J.

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

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Buchan, John

Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

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

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.

Campbell, E. T.

Hurd, Percy A.

Thompson, Luke

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Knox Sir Alfred

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

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

Train, J.

Christie, J. A.

Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.

Llewellin, Major J. J.

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)

Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Macquisten, F. A.

Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert

Dalkeith, Earl of

Margesson, Captain H. D.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

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

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

Muirhead, A. J.

Womersley, W. J.

Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.

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

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

Dugdale, Capt. T. L.

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

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

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

Peake, Captain Osbert

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Penny, Sir George

Sir Frederick Thomson.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

BILLS REPORTED.

  IMPROVEMENT OF LIVE STOCK (LICENSING or BULLS) Bill [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendmente, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 179.]
  GRAND UNION CANAL BILL [Lords],
  YORKSHIRE (WOOLLEN DISTRICT) TRANSPORT BILL [Lords].
  LONDON SQUARES PRESERVATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, end to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled.
"An Act to empower the Corporation of Scarborough to construct street improvements and waterworks and to confer further powers upon them in regard to their water and electricity undertakings; to make further provision for the improvement and good government of the borough, and in regard to road
630
transport therein and m the neighbourhood thereof; to confer further powers upon the Scarborough Harbour Commissioners and to make further provision in regard to the harbour undertaking; and for other purposes." [Scarborough Corporation Bill [Lords.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
RATES OF WAGES BILL,
"to provide for the sanctioning and enforcement of rates of wages," presented by Mr. Hayday; supported by Mr. Hicks, Mr. Thorne, Mr. Tillett, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Walkden, and Mr. Dallas; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 8th July, and to be printed. [Bill 180.]"
SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Hackings and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Womersley.

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Alpass, Sir Ernest Bennett, Mr. Bennett, Major Colfox, Mr. Daggar, Captain Dugdale, Captain Gunston, Mr. Herriotts, Mr. Messer, Lady Noel-Buxton, Mr. Ramsay, Colonel Ruggles-Brise, Mr. Scott, Sir Ernest Shepperson, and Mr. Charles Williams: and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hall-Caine, Major Church, Sir William Davison, Major Glyn, Mr. Kedward, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Lang, Mr. William Morrison, Mr. Perkins, Sir Cooper Rawson, Mr. Richard Russell, Mr. Strauss, Mr. Toole, Mr. Young, and Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive.
  Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Sunday Performances (Regulation) Bill): Captain Austin Hudson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Savery.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [11TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1931.
  CLASS V.
  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR SCOTLAND.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,607,203, 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 Department of Health for Scotland, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, certain Grants to Local Authorities, etc., Grant-in-Aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, Grants-in-Aid 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: £1,120,000 has been voted on account.]
  4.0 p.m.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): Those Estimates cover many important activities, and I can only hope to break the ground for discussion of some of them. Fortunately, hon. Members have available to them the Annual Report of the Department for 1930, and I think it will suit the convenience of the Committee if, in the main, with here and there an exception, I take the facts and figures for last year as read. Housing bulks largest in the Estimates; it is 65 per cent. of the total, and I shall take it first. The sum required for housing is £1,768,354, an increase of £21,372 over last year.
  I want to say a word or two regarding the progress and prospects of housing in Scotland. Since the State subsidy was introduced in 1919, a total of 121,019 houses had been built with State assistance of one kind or another up to 31st May this year. To-day the shortage of houses remains somewhere about 100,000, so that we have a long way to make up before it can be said that the people of Scotland are reasonably housed. Hav-
  646
  ing regard to the measures which I have taken to urge local authorities to proceed with the erection of further houses, and to the generous amount of Exchequer assistance available to them, I propose to examine the causes which have militated against greater housing progress being made. I find that the number of houses under construction had commenced to fall in 1928, and that the fall continued steadily until the late Government left office, and for a few months thereafter. In illustration of this, I may mention that at 30th September, 1928, the number of houses under construction was 19,058. A month later, the number had fallen to 17,777, and at the end of May, 1929, the number had dropped to 14,719—a fall of 4,339, or roughly 22 per cent. in the eight months.
  When I take the number of houses approved for erection, I find that the number approved was allowed by the late Government to fall from 18,356 in 1926 to 15,169 in 1927, and to 8,482 in 1928—a decrease of 9,874, or roughly 54 per cent., during the three years that I have just dealt with. These figures represent a very serious shrinkage, the reason for which is not far to seek. As hon. Members will recollect, the second statutory review of the housing subsidies under the Acts of 1923 and 1924 was due to take place in October, 1928. There was, therefore, a general fear among Scottish local authorities that their subsidies would be reduced when that second review took place. The inducement to them, therefore, was to complete the houses then under construction, rather than to proceed with further schemes by placing contracts for new houses for which an unknown and probably reduced subsidy would be paid. As events turned out, their fears were justified. In December, 1928, an Order was passed reducing both the Chamberlain and Wheatley subsidies for houses completed after 30th September, 1929. The effect of that Order was to put a severe check on fresh building commitments, and at the same time to speed up the completion of houses so as to make sure of obtaining the larger subsidy. On coming into office in 1929, the present Government in July of that year, that is, before the reductions became operative, restored the Wheatley subsidy to its original rate. But the damage had been done, and it

  647
  was not very easy to repair it by the restoration. Once damage has been done, confidence is not easily restored. Thus it came about from the latter part of 1928—when fear of the subsidy cut in 1929 first expressed itself—the number of houses under construction shrank steadily and rapidly.
  As I have already indicated, the effect of this shrinkage in houses under construction was not expressed in a diminished number of completed houses in 1929, because the subsidy cut was not due until 1st October of that year, and the local authorities, in order to earn the higher rate of subsidy, concentrated on completeing the houses which they had already begun. As a matter of fact, the number of houses actually completed during the first nine months of 1929 was higher than during the corresponding period of the two preceding years. In consequence of this artificial spurt in 1929, the legacy which I received from my right hon. Friend opposite and the other Members of the late Government, was a very lean one indeed, measured either by the number of houses under construction or by the number approved for erection. Ever since the present Government assumed office, a steady endeavour has been made to stimulate local authorities to renewed activity, and to restore the confidence that, as I have already stated, had been destroyed by the action of the late Government. The endeavours to stimulate interest in housing and to recover the ground lost by the late Government I am happy to say, are now meeting with some measure of success. For example, the number of houses approved for erection in 1930 was 10,145, as compared with 8,482 in 1928, the last year that the late Government was in office—an increase of 1,663, or nearly 20 per cent. But no one can rest satisfied with the present situation, and every effort is being made to secure more expedition in the erection of houses and to urge local authorities to push on with their schemes. Representatives of the local authorities have been interviewed with that object, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has personally attended conferences of local authorities in different parts of Scotland.
  As I have already indicated, the signs are that our efforts are beginning to bear
  648
  fruit, but, unfortunately, a number of local authorities have failed to appreciate the need for improved housing, even when, in some cases, it has been urged upon them by their officials. Parliament has vested the central Department with power to step in where a local authority fails to do its duty, and it is well for me to speak frankly in this matter. I have given definite instructions to the Department that further pressure is to be applied, and, if necessary, compulsory action taken against the defaulting local authorities.
  It is to the Act of 1930—the Act placed upon the Statute Book by the present Government—that we must look for any substantial advance. That Act required local authorities to submit to the Department before the end of 1930 general statements setting out their proposals for the ensuing three years. On the 15th June, out of 227 local authorities, 180 had submitted statements. These statements show that a total of 76,986 houses are required in the areas of those local authorities. The three years' programme of these 180 local authorities amounts to 52,174 houses, which represents an average of 17,391 houses a year; and, if the 47 local authorities who have not yet submitted statements make provision adequate to the needs in their areas, I think we can look forward with confidence to an average of something like 20,000 houses a year for the next three years. This would make a very substantial contribution to the rehousing of the Scottish people. I want to say one word about the cost of house-building. The fall in costs has continued steadily during the past six years, the total drop over the period I have just named amounting to £91 per house.
  It is not necessary to say much about housing under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act of 1926, as the subject was fully discussed recently in the House. At the 31st March, 1931, applications for assistance by way of grant had been approved covering no less than 7,662 houses. During the two and a half years to June, 1929, when the late Government demitted office, only 2,332 houses had been approved for reconstruction, whereas, during the two years' lifetime of this Government, 5,330 houses, or more than

  649
  double the number during the time of the late Government, have been approved.
  I turn from housing to make a very few observations regarding other activities of the Department. The first of these with which I want to deal is pensions. The contributory pensions scheme I can pass over with little more than the observation that this scheme has now taken tis place in our social organisation. Everyone who has been associated with it can testify to the good that it does. The few shillings per week to the widows, the orphans, and the old men and women, are not over generous payments from the State, but, with a very few exceptions here and there, they carry to humble homes a minimum measure of security, and, if not comfort, at least mitigation of hardship. The new Act which the Government had the pleasure of introducing came into operation in 1930, and, by removing anomalies, it has greatly increased the number of people receiving pensions and allowances. At the beginning of this month, there were 253,472 pensions being paid in Scotland under this scheme.
  The outstanding fact about the work of the National Health Insurance scheme during 1930 was, perhaps, the drop in payments for sickness and disablement benefit. The amount paid out by the approved societies was less per member than in any year since 1925. The more or less continuous increase in expenditure on these benefits from 1925 had been the cause of serious anxiety, not only to the Government, but to the approved societies, and this drop, therefore, is very welcome. On the one side, it at least relieved the anxieties of those responsible for the finances of the scheme, although I am afraid that continued unemployment, which is affecting the approved societies by reducing their income from contributions, affects the relief coming from the reduced expenditure on sickness benefits. In any effort to stop leakage of funds, the utmost care must be taken that sick persons get the benefit to which they are entitled, and that they are also provided with the medical advice and attendance that they require at the proper stage.
  During 1930, some new forms of medical records were introduced, and a system by which the Department will receive details
  650
  of all sickness occurring among insured persons. Sufficient time has not yet elapsed in which to compile complete results that will justify some generalisation. The preliminary reports which have been published in the Annual Report of the Department are merely tentative, and should be read as no more than samples of the kind of information and sickness statistics that the Department will be able to furnish once this new scheme is in complete working order.
  The administration of the Poor Law is now in the hands of town councils of large burghs and of county councils. The change under the Local Government Act took effect on the 15th May, 1930. It has, of course, created problems of its own, and these will have to be dealt with in the light of experience. In the administrative schemes which the Local Government Act requires the authorities to submit for my approval, I am pleased to say the majority provide that assistance in the form of maintenance and treatment of mental defectives, provision for the health of expectant mothers, nursing mothers and children under five years of age, the care of blind persons, and provision for the feeding, clothing and treatment of school children, will be taken out of the Poor Law. Hon. Members will have observed that during 1930, owing to the new conditions that are brought into operation for unemployment benefit, large numbers of unemployed persons who would otherwise have been on the Poor Law were receiving unemployment benefit. The effect was to reduce the number of able-bodied persons on the Poor Law, and the cost of relieving them, by roughly 50 per cent. During the later part of the year, the number and cost falling on the Poor Rate tended steadily to rise. The increase was carried into the new year, but for the last three or four months the figures have remained fairly stationary.
  I now come to deal briefly with unemployment and public utilities. In support of the view that good may come out of evil, I think one could turn to the work that is now in progress in many areas of Scotland to improve and extend water supplies and drainage facilities. That work, generally speaking, was undertaken to relieve unemployment, and is being subsidised by the Unemployment Grants Committee; but, incidentally, as the Department's report for

  651
  last year will show, it has added to the permanent assets of the nation, and Scotland will emerge from a period of distress much better equipped in these public utilites than it was before. There is no doubt, however, that in this and other directions more could be done by local authorities to improve the present occasion.
  I shall now say a word or two regarding rivers pollution. I ought to mention here the work of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Rivers Pollution Prevention. The committee, as hon. Members know, has published its first report, that on the River Tweed and its tributaries. The committee's recommendations involve comprehensive action to be taken by the local authorities in the Tweed area, and the Department is actively pressing those authorities to take such action. On the 8th May, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary met representatives of the authorities in conference at Galashiels, and on Monday last he attended a further conference at Peebles. I am hopeful that the local authorities will do what is necessary to stop the pollution of this beautiful river—a work which, on grounds of preserving beauty and health is fully justified. The second report of the committee, on the Midlothian Esk has been completed and will be published shortly. The committee is now investigating the conditions of the Fife Leven and its tributaries, and other rivers will be dealt with as soon as possible thereafter.
  While on this subject of work that presents itself as specially appropriate in these times of industrial depression, I should make passing mention of the town and regional planning movement. It will only be a passing reference, because this is a subject which is being fully discussed under the Town and Country Planning Bill. I am specially anxious to encourage the intelligent planning of all our areas and it has been disappointing to find that so little progress has been made since the Housing and Town Planning Act was passed in 1919. It seems to me that anyone who believes that Scotland has a future at all—I am one of those who believe that our future will outshine the past—must see the wisdom of planning so as to preserve amenities,
  652
  ease transport and help the development of industry. At a moment when, although there is little building development, transport and new sources of industrial power are developing and great industrial changes are taking shape, it is imperative that this planning should be undertaken. It costs little and may be worth everything to our nation in the future.
  I now come to deal briefly with the medical services. But, before saying something about their development, I want to call attention to the very satisfactory vital statistics for 1930. Measured by death-rate, it has been a very healthy year. Although some death-rates were up, cancer for example, some infections and maternal mortality very slightly, the total death-rate was only 13.2 in 1930 compared with 14.5 in 1929. The deaths of infants were 83 per 1,000, lower than the recorded rate for any year with the exception of 1923, which was 78.9. The tuberculosis death-rate was a very satisfactory record also—88 per 100,000, compared with 94 in 1929. The progress made in fighting this disease is well illustrated by the contrast between the rate of 88 in 1930 and 124, at which it stood in 1920—a very fine achievement. For the first time since 1920 the birth-rate has increased.
  The effect of unemployment on health is another very important subject. The signs of improved health refer to a year of widespread unemployment and the possible harm that the continuance of unemployment might do to the health of the people has been a real cause of anxiety not only to the Department but, I am certain, to many others who take a keen interest in the health and welfare of our people. During 1930 the Department, on my instructions, carried out a special investigation involving over 100,000 school children in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen and Lanarkshire, and its results seemed to justify the broad conclusion that our social services are warding off the worst effects of this period of difficulty. I propose to publish the report. I think the work that this committee has accomplished is a valuable work, and its results will give a considerable amount of satisfaction to a very large number of our people.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: What committee is that?
  Mr. ADAMSON: It is a committee which I appointed in 1930 to enable the Health Department to inquire closely into the health of school children whose parents are unemployed. Those who are responsible for the school health service will receive great encouragement from the comparison which has been made of school children in some of the larger centres in the sessions 1919–20, 1924–25, and 1929–30. Although on many points the material for drawing satisfactory conclusions is slender, the figures show that, on the whole, on beginning school life, and even on leaving school, children are now better clothed, are cleaner, and suffer less from malnutrition, rickets and defective teeth. That means a positive advance in the capacity of the citizens of the future.
  Another subject to which the Government are devoting special attention is the development of an adequate hospital service, adequate in beds and buildings and in quality of service. It is an urgent problem, and now that local authorities have had a year since they took over the duties of parish councils and were invested with the new powers conferred upon them, we shall expect them to go forward on a policy which will at least end the old and inexcusable differentiations between the standard of treatment in Poor Law hospitals and that in, say, fever hospitals or in the ordinary voluntary general hospitals. There should only be one hospital standard, which will be open to all. There is no justification, in my opinion, for perpetuating social differences in the treatment of the sick. Whether in one hospital or the other, the sick, to whatever section of the community they belong, should be placed on the same footing and should be provided with the same standard of treatment.
  I would now refer to medical research and to the scientific advisory committee which I set up to assist the Department in its medical administration. The estimate for investigations concerning the causes of diseases has been increased this year from £100 to £2,500. It is intended that the scientific advisory committee will guide these investigations, and I look for a large return from this proposed small expenditure. I have no time left for special mention of other important classes of work which are included in this Estimate if I am to give every member of the Committee a fair opportunity of taking
  654
  part in the discussion, but I think I have said enough to convince Members, if they require convincing, that the proposed expenditure on the Health Department is unusually worth while.
  There are those, and they are particularly vocal at present, who carp at the social services and speak and write glibly of cutting them down, but I think our condition would be wretched indeed if we could not maintain the services for which this Estimate provides. They are fundamental to a civilised State. There would be no hope for the future if we abandoned our efforts to house the people according to the standard necessary for healthy and human comfort, if we did not attempt to plan our towns with more intelligent regard for the coming generations, if we left to their own devices the sick, the old, the widows and the children, and if we did not act on the knowledge we have acquired to prevent disease and to raise a vigorous, healthy people. That the work already accomplished is justified by the results, I think, is clear from the measure of stability with which we have withstood the shocks of industrial depression, and from the figures which demonstrate a rising standard of health among our people. We are really only beginning, and there is every reason for believing that the full development of the policy that we are pursuing will carry us much further to a better and vigorous civilisation.
  Sir JOHN GILMOUR: I am sure no Scottish representative will regret this opportunity of reviewing the circumstances of the health services of our country. The right hon. Gentleman has covered a very wide field, and we are fortunate in having in our hands the report of the Health Department. It is truly a very human document. It goes to the root of the lives of our people and upon its effective administration, and upon the active co-operation and the link between that Department and the representatives of the local authorities must depend the adequate provision and the efficiency of these services. I listened with some interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who in the kindest fashion endeavoured to stir me into a feeling of antagonism on the political aspect of this subject. I look back upon the period when I, like the right hon.

  655
  Gentleman, was responsible for the administration of this great office. I recall with particular pleasure the fact that while I held that office, I could count upon the active and close co-operation upon these subjects of men and women who differ from me in political views, but who nevertheless were always ready to come together and to confer, and, if possible, to solve these problems. It is quite true that in all these matters, if there is to be a live and active current dealing with these problems, there must be differences of opinion—differences as to what may be the best method of administration and whether by this or that process we are going to arrive at the goal at which we all aim.
  The right hon. Gentleman opened his statement with an admission that on housing it was the advent of his Government which first brought the element of uncertainty into the arena. It was one of those admissions which one notes and passes by. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman speaking of the development of housing in Scotland. It is in the recollection of Members of the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman, in speaking of what is past and alluding to the most recent Act upon this subject, passed under his aegis, said that he hoped to attain an output of 20,000 houses. In view of the fact that in the period during which we were responsible this number was actually achieved, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will equal what we were able to do. The real problem in housing in Scotland is, in co-operation with the local authorities, to produce houses of a type and at a cost which will bring them within the possibility of occupation by the ordinary worker.
  It is true to say that in the early period after the War, whatever was done in the production of houses was done at a cost which placed most of those houses out with the power of the ordinary wage earner to occupy them. Those houses were necessary and they filled a gap which was empty, and that as time has gone on we have seen the production of other houses. I am happy to think of the houses, planned upon modern lines with a view to the amenities, not only of outward appearance, but of what is of infinitely more importance, namely, ade-
  656
  quate regard to air space, proper ventilation and the provision of those articles of household necessity which meet the needs of any good housewife. I readily admit, however, that with the best will in the world, with every effort which Governments may make, we must be in a large measure dependant upon the ability of the local authorities and upon their active interest and support in this matter. It was the duty of myself and of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) and those connected with me at that time, to go up and down the country and confer with the local authorities. They are well aware of the responsibilities which have been thrown upon them, and I do not feel that they will not respond to any further demand which may be made.
  I wish to say a few words about the problem of slum clearance. I hope that when next we come to discuss these Estimates the right hon. Gentleman may be able to tell us exactly what progress has been made under the Act of 1930. I hesitate to ask him now how many houses have been promised under this scheme up to date, because I recognise that the time has been very short. I think I am right in saying that in spite of the increased subsidy and all the advice and encouragement which the right hon. Gentleman has been given, so far no great activity has been shown. The slums in our great cities are, of course, well known to the city dweller; but I think also in terms of houses scattered throughout the country areas, and particularly in the outlying portions of our country. I confess that there was a period when, I felt slightly disheartened at the criticism of some people against the efforts which we were making towards the reconstitution of cottages and the additions to cottages in the country districts. I am glad to think that with the passage of time and with experience, local authorities in country districts have largely acknowledged the desirability of encouraging this work. But in this question of housing I trust that the Secretary of State will realise that many of these local authorities find it difficult to appreciate, even with the additional subsidy, that they are being sufficiently encouraged when at the same time other and additional burdens are thrown upon the development of the system by which these schemes must be carried out.

  657
  Let me pass from housing. I read with great interest the report which the right hon. Gentleman has presented to this Committee. It deals in its different sections with town planning, maternity and child welfare. School health administration, infectious diseases and Poor Law. On each of these problems, intricate and considerable, we come back to the machinery by which it has to be dealt with. I recall the controversies in this House when those with whom I was then responsible took the course of altering that machinery fundamentally. Of course anyone who attempts to tackle a problem of that kind is bound to realise that great and fundamental changes cannot be made without criticism; nor indeed can they be made without leaving certain weaknesses and problems which have still to be solved. I am glad to observe—I say this in no party sense—that the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, speaking with authority upon this problem, admit that in the main the changes which have taken place under the Local Government Act appear to be advantageous and not disadvantageous.
  Take the problem of housing and town planning. The right hon. Gentleman truly said that town planning is being discussed by a Standing Committee upstairs; but the fact remains that by transferring the town planning powers from district committees and town councils and small boroughs to county councils, and so enlarging the unit of administration, the Local Government Act of 1929 has simplified the administration and reduced the difficulties by correlating schemes of different and contiguous local authorities. If the Act has done nothing else, that is a step in the right direction. Obviously one of the greatest stumbling-blocks to the proper planning of our country and the correlating of what is partly urban and partly county, is due to the small authorities and the very natural and obvious difficulties which arose between those authorities when joint interests were interlocked. Whatever else may come out of the Bill now being discussed by a Standing Committee, this certainly is clear—that from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, the Act has at least simplified the problem, in that the Department has to deal with fewer and larger authorities.
  658
  In regard to maternity and child welfare, again under the Act we have seen an increase of the powers and duties of those concerned in dealing with these problems. I agree with the Secretary of State that one of the most important things to-day is to see that the health treatment of those who fall under the Poor Law should be on a different and better footing. Quite obviously one of the first and most elementary steps in order to bring that about was the step taken under that Act. I would like to hear how far there is any indication of a movement on the part of the authorities to bring about correlated schemes dealing with this matter. The report, I believe, says that so far no such scheme has been brought into being. It is obvious, however, that before a great passage of time, if this problem of dealing with hospital accommodation and the treatment of those who are under the Poor Law, is to be adequately dealt with, such schemes must be evolved.
  5.0 p.m.
  I hear criticisms of the Act in so far as it deals with school administration, but one thing is clear in the report, and that is that in so far as it concerns the health of the school child, there is an improvement. Those of us who knew the circumstances of overlapping, of authorities side by side not working in complete accord, of missed opportunities and the lack of continuous treatment, must have felt that at any rate, whether this particular Act was the final solution of the problem or not, the problem was one with which it was essential to deal. Now, for the first time, the school health administration is included in the general public health administration of the local health authority. If, as the right hon. Gentleman has told us, in the present circumstances of unemployment there is a progressive improvement in the health of the children in our schools, which is demonstrated in the form of the clothing which they wear, and more certainly in the improvement in the general health of the child, in the physique of the child and in its better treatment in regard to teeth, eyesight and other matters, it is something which we may regard with satisfaction. If this new machinery is linking up these services and giving a better opportunity for greater correlation and supervision within the school, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the step of

  659
  linking the school and the public health authority will also greatly facilitate our dealing with the problem of the child of pre-school age? We who visit the schools from time to time and take an interest either in the schools in our local districts or in the constituencies which we represent, cannot help being struck when we see the conditions of the younger children when they first come into the schools. I look forward to the time when under this system there will be a great improvement in supervision and administration so far as that problem is concerned.
  Let me turn to the question of infectious diseases. Is it not true to say that the co-ordination and the responsibility must more adequately deal with the preventive measures, which are of greater importance than anything that can be done after the discovery of the infectious disease; such preventive measures as the possibility of getting information at the very first moment? I welcome the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman has made that there has been an effort, and that it will be a continuous effort, to co-ordinate scientific research in these matters of health in order that the results of that scientific research may be brought quickly to the notice of the local doctors and those who have to deal with the problem at first hand. I have always been struck, ever since I have had anything to do with administrative work in Scotland, with the importance of the scientific research which is proceeding in a great many branches of our affairs. Whether it be in agriculture or in medical research it is essential that the fruits of the research should be made available in a form in which it can most readily be appreciated and can most practically be applied.
  I will say a few words about the problem of the transfer of the Poor Law. There was no problem which caused greater difficulty to those who attempted to touch it than that problem. I realise, as I am sure most hon. Members realise, that in the past those who have been responsible for the administration of the Poor Law in all kinds of circumstances, whether in the outlying islands and highlands of Scotland, or in the great cities or in the wide parishes of the countryside, the men and women who took part in that effort, have done their
  660
  best and were doing their best in the very difficult circumstances which they had to face. But there was an over-riding problem which led myself and others to take the step of altering that administrative machine, and it was that the areas were in most cases too small and that the circumstances in which those people were placed who had the responsibility of administration were such that they could not, even with the best intentions on their part, give to those with whom they had to deal more than very inadequate treatment when it came to dealing with a great many of the problems. I trust that here, again, under the wider powers those who are being dealt with will find that the change has been made to their advantage. I observe that the report states that:
  "The change-over appears to have been effected with a minimum of disturbance so far as the poor themselves were concerned."
  I am glad to know that that is the case. I was interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the problem of rivers pollution. I agree that there is no question in our country which deserves more careful consideration than that problem. I was interested to observe that the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the beauties of the Tweed and hoped that those beauties would be preserved. He did not go so far as to say that among those beauties in which he is interested is the maintenance of the finny tribe which inhabit those waters. I am aware, as many of his friends are aware, of his interest in that pursuit, and I look forward to the time when even the Leven in the County of Fife, may be so cleaned as to return to that position which it once held as being the habitat of fish for the recreation of the great mass of people who are drawn there, and who take an infinity of interest and derive the greatest pleasure from the pursuit of angling.
  To-day, we are seeing new housing schemes and we are seeing introduced into those housing schemes sanitary provisions which were unthought of in the days that lie behind, but the problems of dealing with the sewage and avoiding deposits from our great works, whether they are old-established or new industries, are problems of great magnitude and press no doubt with great severity upon some local authorities who have for years gone along under old systems, with-

  661
  out interference. I was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the result of conferences which he has had recently hold out the hope that there will be an active co-operation and a real recognition on the part of the local authorities and of the citizens generally that it will be to the mutual advantage of all that the report of the Rivers Pollution Commission should be adopted.
  Many hon. Members in the course of the Debate will have a variety of points to raise. I will content myself by saying that I am encouraged in the belief that the executive action for which I and my friends were responsible has not been deleterious to the progress and improvement of the health of Scotland. I would urge on the right hon. Gentleman, in all sincerity, and I trust chat he may find that it will be within his power both to increase and improve those health services, whether it may be in the great cities or in the outlying parts, where men and women are working with devotion and skill, such as the outlying hospitals in Orkney and Shetland and the outlying hospital in the Hebrides, which I have had the pleasure of visiting on more than one occasion. In justice to those who are the day-to-day workers in trying to assist and improve the health of our people, we must realise that, much as we may think of the power of Parliament, much as we may grant from the public purse for the development of those things, none of them could succeed were it not for the strenuous and continuous work of the many individuals who are devoted to those services.
  Mr. SCOTT: I join in the congratulations with respect to the speech to which we have listened from the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has given an exhaustive resume of the more important items of the work of the Department of Health. While giving eulogies to the head of the Department, I, with deference, would say that he would not be in a position to present that favourable report to-day if it were not for the services, devoted and energetic, of all those in the Department of Health who are under his supervision. That service goes on from day to day. The Secretary of State has underlined some of the more important parts of their work. He dealt, first, with housing, which is of great importance. I hope that he has not over-
  662
  estimated the prospects of the future when he expressed the hope that some 20,000 houses per annum will be added to our house building in Scotland in the years immediately ahead of us. He spoke of 47 authorities who have not yet responded with housing schemes. I have no doubt that he has done his utmost to encourage them. It may be, however, that some of those authorities may not require housing schemes. I would suggest a number of authorities in my own constituency. I took the trouble to make inquiries whether they were sufficiently well equipped with houses to meet their needs, and the report that I got was that they had put certain housing schemes into operation and that up to last year they were fairly fully supplied. Accordingly, the right hon. Gentleman may not expect to get housing schemes from all the 47 authorities. We all hope that housing will be proceeded with in a sufficiently satisfactory manner, especially in the areas where it is so greatly needed.
  One of the most satisfactory parts of the report of the Department of Health is that which shows how the fell disease of tuberculosis is being stamped out, and I trust that the satisfactory figures which have been shown steadily for a number of years will continue. There is, however, one less satisfactory set of figures in the report to which I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to infectious diseases, the right hon. Gentleman will find that the average number of cases of enteric fever over a period of 10 years was 535, whereas in 1930 the figure was as high as 766. He will also see that the average figure for diphtheria over a period of 10 years was 8,907, whereas the figure for last year was 11,580. I should like to hear an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of the alarming increase in those two diseases. It has been suggested that the cause may be impure water supply, and I should like to hear whether the right hon. Gentleman endorses that view. At any rate, with all the skill which we now possess, it is somewhat discouraging to find that the figures for both those diseases are so alarmingly high.
  The right hon. Gentleman took some credit for the number of men put into employment through schemes set on foot by his Government. He might have been

  663
  generous enough to say that he was carrying out a number of those schemes at the direct instigation of the party with which I am connected, for after all, the right hon. Gentleman is carrying out Liberal ideas. It is proper that we should remind him of the fact. I wish him joy and progress in carrying out those ideas and he will certainly not lack support from these benches.
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Johnston): What are they?
  Mr. SCOTT: The unemployment schemes put on foot throughout Scotland, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. He seemed to think that they were making some serious inroads into the unemployment figures. I hope that he is right. When the right hon. Gentleman went on to speak of another part of the report of the Department of Health he seemed—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) assumed—to have no fault to find with the new machinery put into force within the last year to carry out the work of the Department in various directions. The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for Scotland rather congratulated himself upon the fact that he had had a good deal to do with putting the new machinery into effect, and he closed his remarks by saying that he was glad to think that the new machinery had not adversely affected the conduct of the Department of Health services. I think that he was rather relieved to find from what the right hon. Gentleman had said that there had been no prejudicial effects to report. I am not sure whether he has not spoken too soon. At least I reserve my judgment, because from the very first mooting of the change in machinery I opposed it, particularly in regard to Poor Law administration and to education.
  I am far from being satisfied, notwithstanding what the report of the Department of Health says, that the changes with regard to the Poor Law will be permanently beneficial. The report shows that there has been a derogation by the county councils and the large burghs of the important work entrusted to them to new committees or new district councils. It is not shown in any way, or in any
  664
  appendix of the report, what proportion of the personnel of the old councils remains in the new councils. I am afraid that there has been thrown upon the scrap heap a vast number of experienced men and women who a generation ago gave their expert services and knowledge to the Poor Law. Their services have been dispensed with. There are comparatively few of them to be found in new services, and the new councils which are conducting the administration of the Poor Law consist of more or less untried men and women. I remain of the opinion that it was a serious loss to Scotland when we were deprived of the services of those who for so long had given of their best in Poor Law administration and education. What have the new councils done? What they have done, as the report shows, is to derogate their work to the chief public assistance officer and the public assistance officers under him.
  I fear that the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for Scotland may still have something to account for. The new machinery, with the starting of which he had so much to do, may break down. Indeed, I question whether to a large extent it is not now breaking down, because on every hand one hears complaints from individual county councils who say that they are simply appalled by the extent of the work which has been derogated to them and that they have had to derogate work to committees. That work—and this is where the public interest is affected—is being handed over more and more to paid officials and is being done less and less by those who were directly responsible to the electors who appointed them to their various offices. Accordingly, the right hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me when I say that I reserve my opinion as to whether the change in machinery is or is not an improvement.
  The late Secretary of State for Scotland rather prepared himself and the Committee for coming changes when he said that no doubt with the introduction of the new machinery would be found new problems and that some problems would be left and some weaknesses would still have to be dealt with. It may be, as he argued, that with regard to housing and town planning and the health of school children, it is all to the good that there

  665
  should have been some unification and some new machinery. He suggested that the change with regard to areas was all to the good, but I should like the Committee to notice what the report says with regard to areas. The old parish is by no means eliminated. The report says:
  "The areas for which the district councils are responsible vary considerably from the single parish to the former district committee area, though as a rule the districts now comprise several parishes."
  It might be of advantage for several parishes to be united, but, if you have all the parishes in a large county put under one council, you deprive them, especially in Poor Law administration and education, of the services and the personal touch of the individual representative who in the past was always careful to take a personal interest in the work under his charge. The risk now is that it will be left too much to officials to discharge, and that is a weakness in the change in the method of government. It is correct to say that the new machinery was only started in May, 1930. Accordingly, it has run for a little more than a year, and it is probably too soon to draw any definite conclusion. The position, however, points to the urgency of a commission being appointed, such as the Government have been urged from all quarters of this House to appoint, in order to inquire into the working of machinery and to see whether the time has not come when there ought to be in Scotland—in Edinburgh—a Parliament over all our machinery.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows that to establish a Parliament in Scotland would mean legislation, and he has been long enough in the House to know that he should not introduce a subject which is not dealt with in the Estimates.
  Mr. SCOTT: I had no intention to transgress. I only wanted to get in one more sentence. At any rate, it is very desirable that there should be an inquiry, and I hope that a commission will be appointed very soon to ascertain whether the machinery which has been installed by the late Secretary of State for Scotland is working efficiently and in what way it may require to be amended. From these benches we wish the right hon. Gentleman well in carrying out the
  666
  great work which he administers through the Department of Health and any support which we can give in the entirely non-party spirit, which the late Secretary of State for Scotland desiderated, will not be lacking from us.
  Mr. DAVID HARDIE: Although I speak as a new Member of this House, I can speak with an intimate knowledge of the subject of local government, as I have spent 20 years in the work. I naturally join issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollock (Sir J. Gilmour) in his conclusions generally in regard to the working of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, because I speak from practical experience of the Act, and I know that it stands condemned from many points of view. For example, I have been interested in the question of education for many years, and I am convinced that no question suffers more under the De-rating Act than that of education. In the days of the old education authorities men and women interested in education offered their services and usually useful people were found for all branches of education. When this new Act came into being and when these good men and women discovered that they had to enter the county council and make themselves responsible for the various activities of the council as a whole, they stood out, and education in Scotland, and particularly in the county from which I come, suffers from the want of the idealist. To-day we have the education committee treated as a subcommittee of the county council, and only one-third of the time that was devoted to educational affairs in the days of the education authority is now given to them. Accordingly, I maintain that it has suffered in consequence of the change. I could quote teachers, particularly of my own county, who favoured the change but have lived to rue the day. They appreciate now that the change has not been what they anticipated. I am hopeful that a commission will be appointed to go into the working of this Act, and I live in the hope that, as a result of that commission, the old educational authorities will be restored to their former status, and in that way that education will come into its own again in Scotland.

  667
  I remember reading the White Paper issued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollock (Sir J. Gilmour) which preceded the coming into being of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, and the statement contained therein that one of the objects of that Act was to put a definite limit on what might be imposed on the taxpayer for the upkeep of local services. It was out for economy, and economy is being pursued at the expense of services in every direction. Under the 1924 Housing Act progress has been made, and only those who sit on the benches here can claim any credit for having made possible the provision of houses for working-class people, because prior to that no legislation was in being which provided for houses to be let at rents which the poorer classes could pay even with the subsidy. Rents are still rather high for the wages paid, particularly to the labouring classes. The question of rents in Scotland differs fundamentally from that of England. Under the Scottish system owners' rates, in the first place, are paid by the occupier in the name of rent to the owner. Both owners' rates and occupiers' rates are then paid in the total rent and thus we have the anomaly of rates being paid upon rates. The consequence is that rents are kept much too high, and I trust that the local authorities in Scotland will take advantage of the 1930 Slum Clearance Act under which provision can be made for the lower-paid worker.
  Many of our town and county councils are manned largely by people bearing the title of Moderates. To me, they are extremists, Tories who are manipulating the town and county councils, and in many cases endeavouring to prevent procedure under the 1930 Act. The reason is that many men on these councils would suffer, as house owners, if houses could be let at the low rents proposed in the 1930 Act. Their attitude is to be deplored. It is a pity that men, themselves well placed in life and well housed should for the consideration of their own pockets seek to keep other people less happily placed from enjoying houses at rents which they can pay.
  The Housing Committee of my own burgh have built approximately 500 houses, and I consider that it is the best
  668
  expenditure of public money I have ever seen. Not only has it afforded a standard of decency, but it has raised the people in their own self-respect, and has given them an opportunity to live in that cleanliness which they desire. The new houses are not so big as they ought to be, but still they afford conveniences and possibilities for keeping the house clean and in order. A new interest in life has been afforded to the men and women now occupying these houses. I know of many cases of men who formerly used to wander away to the street corners or on to the bowling greens and who now remain at home and are content to look after their garden. That is all to the good. When we compare their lot with those in the old Scottish tenements which offered no conveniences of this kind, no garden plots, etc., we are able to see that those occupying the new houses naturally feel that there has been a great step up. It is an improvement which is greatly appreciated by the new tenants. But we have ever the grumbler in our midst. There are many who say it is not right that public money should be spent to provide houses of this kind for only a relatively few people. As far as my borough is concerned, I can claim that when we built these 500 houses we added such a sum annually to the rateable value of the burgh that the returns from the rates are more than sufficient to meet the subsidy of the local authority.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train) made a most erroneous statement the other day when ho said that a builder who feued land at £20 an acre, and erected eight houses on the acre and charged a ground rent of £5 on each house or £40 in all, spent the added £20 in laying streets and sewers. That is not the case. In my burgh, Rutherglen, as soon as sufficient houses are erected on the land to contribute in rates a sum equal to 25 per cent. of the cost of the sewer, the whole cost of the sewer is met by the local authority and is taken over and maintained by them as a public sewer. In regard to streets, each purchaser of a house pays for the street to the extent of the frontage of his house out to the middle of the street. The builder, therefore, ultimately recovers the whole cost of the streets and sewers, and pockets the extra £20 yearly for all time. I hope that in the near future a commission of inquiry will be held into

  669
  the working of the 1929 Act for Scotland, because I am convinced from my own experience that it is not too good in its general working. In fact, I think it is the reverse. It was the most smashing blow ever delivered at local control in Scotland. It has meant the loss to us of those people of experience who had taken up a branch of public service such as the Poor Law, education, etc. The tendency has been to standardise everything and to create officialdom. I would make a plea. I have been informed and know of cases of hospitals that are under-staffed in Scotland, of lunatic asylums where wards are in charge of one nurse all night without assistance. That needs investigation. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to take note of that.
  Mr. TRAIN: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member who happens to be my Member, on his maiden speech. If there is one thing about him more than another, it is that he is consistent. He began by speaking against the Local Government Act, 1929, and he has continually in his work in local government been opposed to that Act. I want to reply to his remark in regard to what I said the other day in my speech about the man who took up land to build. His quotation was correct—that he paid £20 per acre in feu per annum and got £40. I still say that the other £20 is used for roads and sewers. In Glasgow they pay neither for roads nor sewers, but take them over.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: In the county of Lanarkshire you do not pay for the roads.
  Mr. TRAIN: What I say is that the county of Lanark pays nothing for roads. A man who develops his land and puts buildings on it makes the roads, and if they are made to specification the county takes them over.
  Mr. HARDIE: I say that the builder recovers the cost of the roads from the man who buys the house. Does not the county of Lanark take them over, and pay for the sewers?
  Mr. TRAIN: It is true that the county of Lanark takes over the sewer if there are enough buildings on the site to give a 7 per cent. return on the capital cost of the sewer.
  Mr. HARDIE: That is what I say.
  Mr. TRAIN: It may take 20 years to get sufficient houses on the land to give that 7 per cent., and in many cases there are not enough houses to-day. In the City of Glasgow they pay nothing for sewers at all. I do not wish to discuss the question of housing in any partisan spirit, because hon. Members in all parties are deeply interested in that subject. We deplore, as the Secretary of State deplores, that the erection of houses has gone down. During the years 1927 to 1929, according to the report of the Scottish Department of Health, 18,000 houses on an average were built every year, but in 1930 the number had gone down to about 11,000. We are told by this report, and by the Secretary of State, that there is still a shortage of 100,000 houses in Scotland. I am not going to criticise the policy of the Government without making some suggestions which may assist in the erection of houses. The Secretary of State has told us that local authorities are not quite so anxious to build, and that he has had some difficulty with some of them. He has had meetings with them in order to explain the Act of 1930.
  That Act is the eighth after the Addison scheme, which puts a great burden on local rates for the erection of working-class houses, and, naturally, when local rates have risen to over £l in the £, these local authorities find a great difficulty in starting new housing schemes. I have said all along, and I still say, that there are many people occupying some of the 117,000 houses which have been built during the last 10 years who can very well provide houses for themselves. In the Housing Acts which have been passed during the last 10 years there is a provision to assist people to build houses for themselves. In the 1923 Chamberlain Act, the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act was amended and local authorities were given permission to advance to anyone building their own house about 90 per cent. of the value, spreading it over 30 years. Many local authorities have taken advantage of that provision, and the county council of Lanarkshire has advanced 90 per cent. for some years to people building their own houses. About £1,000,000 has been advanced in this way.

  671
  I should like to see this policy advanced a little further. When the county council of Lanarkshire was advancing this money—at the moment they are only advancing 50 per cent.—they were borrowing the money on loan at 4¼ per cent., and advancing it to these people at 4½ per cent. They were making a profit of ¼ per cent. At the present time they are borrowing the money at 3½ per cent., but are still getting their 4½ per cent. As an old member of that county council and as a vice-chairman for nine years, I know that they have made money. They are making 1 per cent. at the present time, and they must have saved thousands of pounds by the scheme. I think it should be pointed out to local authorities that there are lots of people who would own their own houses if they were encouraged to do so, and that local authorities could make a profit which could be used to keep down the rates and provide more houses for people who cannot provide them for themselves.
  In the 1930 Act there is a difficulty when an area is declared as a suitable area to be cleared. If some of the people who are now living in these houses and who own motor cars were told that they must buy their house or clear out, there would be less houses to clear in many areas. It is alarming to think that while there are so many unemployed men in Scotland in the building trade there are still many slums to clear and 100,000 more houses wanted. Something has been said with regard to officialdom. That is not altogether bad in many cases, because the officials have to stand an examination whereas the politician who goes to the hustings and tells the tale probably knows nothing about the subject. I do not think it is altogether a bad thing that the officials should get their hand in more than they have in the past.
  Then there is the question of sewage purification and drainage. There is no doubt that with the stretching out of towns into rural areas the drainage of some large towns is in a very bad condition. If you look at some of our streams and rivers you may be reminded of the lines:
  "…. books in the running brooks, Sermons in stones,"
  but there is a whole lot of other things in the brooks and rivers of Scotland
  672
  which want attention. I notice that the Tweed is to get attention. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Welsh) is not present, because I should like to advise those in Paisley to do something to purify the Clyde. It is a shame that while Glasgow has spent millions of pounds in sewage purification, Paisley should be allowed to put crude sewage into the Clyde, and as it is a tidal river it floats right back to Glasgow. I should like a little attention paid to the Clyde. Then we have Hamilton, which is almost as ancient a burgh as Rutherglen, where Sir Henry Keith, who knows all about local government in Scotland, is a great authority. But Hamilton makes no attempt to purify the sewage poured into the Clyde. It is a shame that these people should be allowed to carry on without some control. Then as to the question of rent. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. D. Hardie) said that education is free. Apparently, things will not be right until houses are free as well as education. He said that rents were too high. Many people if they paid nothing at all would say that it is too much, but, unless we are going to get bigger grants from the State, houses will not be any cheaper. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the statement he has put before the Committee, and I hope he will go on in the work he has taken in hand, ably supported by his officials. In any step he takes in the public interest and for the health of Scotland, he will have our support.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I also desire to congratulate the Secretary of State not only on the statement he has made, but upon the interesting report of the Department of Health in Scotland which has just been issued. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should always measure his achievements in purely party terms, by comparing what has been done during his term with the work accomplished by those who previously occupied his place. To a large extent the success which has attended public health work in Scotland is due to the excellent administration of the Measures which have been placed on the Statute Book. There is no Department more sympathetic or more ready to assist in carrying out these great objects in Scotland than the Department of Health and their Secretary himself, and

  673
  his staff who are experts in all the matters with which they have to deal. I wish to refer to the question of river pollution which has already been dealt with by previous speakers. The report issued by the Scottish Advisory Committee on River Pollution dealing with the Tweed, was in every sense a remarkable document. It gave a large amount of interesting and useful information and it laid a foundation, if I may say so, in regard to the methods of treatment which ought to be adopted in dealing with pollution, showing not only that it was possible, but that it had actually been demonstrated, that both domestic sewage and trade waste could be treated in such a way as to secure the practical restoration of our rivers to a condition of comparative purity. In that report, reference was made particularly to what had been accomplished at Galashiels, where, under a very efficient local authority, successful efforts have been made in reducing, if not altogether removing, the sources of pollution. We are to have a further report upon the River Esk in Midlothian, and there is to be an investigation of the condition of the River Leven in Fife.
  With regard to the Leven, may I say that it is not only a question of river pollution. In this case we are dealing with pollution which—in this instance in a very exaggerated form—creates serious disturbance and nuisance along the foreshore as well. The pollution of the Leven in recent years has seriously affected the amenities of the town of Leven owing to the amount of sewage and other materials constantly brought up on the shore itself. There have been some interesting demonstrations to show how sewage which passes into the sea is apt to come back at certain points and create a widespread nuisance along the shore. That problem, I hope, will be settled along with the problem of the river itself. This is a direction in which the Department could move, in trying to do something to restore to their original condition those streams which, in the memory of people still with us, were beautiful pure rivers, flowing through the countryside, but which in certain cases—and I refer particularly to the Leven, have become practically sewers with sewage and effluents from
  674
  public works poisoning the water and rendering the riverside obnoxious. The Advisory Committee, I understand, is considering the question, and I hope that we shall have the advantage of some definite and direct recommendations as to the steps which should be taken to deal with the matter, not only by the owners of industrial works, but also by the local authorities, who are in certain districts the chief offenders. I understand that one can point to a good many places along the riverside where practically crude sewage is falling into the river and the local authorities themselves ought to be approached on that subject. I congratulate the Advisory Committee heartily on the results of their work so far, and I am glad to know that that work has the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  The question of rural housing has also been mentioned and I observe from the report of the Department of Health that the popularity of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act is recognised on all hands, and that every county has adopted a scheme. We are glad to know that the operation of the Act is to be continued and we hope that in the immediate future much further use will be made of it. I notice that in the report attention is drawn to the fact that a distinct handicap has been imposed upon local authorities in dealing with housing as a result of derating. Reference has been made already to the effect of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, but here is a very important matter, affecting the question of housing. On account of the reduced assessable rental a heavier rate than formerly has had to be levied to meet the local authorities' share of the costs of new housing schemes. Accordingly, many local authorities are having additional burdens thrown upon them, which is a serious matter in many districts.
  No doubt, the efforts to increase our housing accommodation which are being made under the new Act are well-devised, and I hope that they will be successful, but I associate myself with what has been said already with regard to the operation of the Local Government (Scotland) Act. We have been faced with considerable difficulties owing to the changes made, I regret that aboli-

  675
  tion of the parish councils, to whose work a very fine tribute is paid in the report of the Department of Health. Those councils were singularly well equipped and efficient in carrying out the work of administering the Poor Law. We recognise the public spirit which has been shown by their successors, the members of the public assistance committees under the new Act. But in my view the experience we have had so far under the new Act, is that the work is gradually passing into the hands of officials. The hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train) welcomed officialdom, but I hope that that is not the view of the Committee as a whole. Those who have had experience of good officials in certain Departments recognise their value, but in the administration of local affairs it is a great drawback and a disadvantage to the community that the business transacted should be of such a cumbrous, intricate and difficult character that only one or two officials can master it sufficiently to explain matters at meetings of the newly constituted authorities, while it is exceedingly difficult for the ordinary members to follow it.
  Again, it involves an immense amount of time on the part of those who give their services. I am not challenging the right, which was properly conceded, of those who give their time to be compensated for it, but the change has meant a very large additional cost. It means, in fact, that whole-time workers are required to take the place of those who in the old days were able to give a considerable portion of their leisure time to local administration. I regret that this effect, which some of us foresaw, should have been so pronounced, and I associate myself with the hope that we shall have a review of the whole administration of local government under the new Act. The time has already come when one can form certain conclusions, and the Government, which has already committed itself to the view that the matter should be reconsidered, ought to take action at the earliest opportunity. I should like to make it clear that I recognise that the new system has been administered by those who have undertaken duties under it with singular public spirit, and with every desire to make it work, but I doubt whether it can be effec-
  676
  tively carried out, or whether it will be anything like as successful as the closer and more intimate association of the citizens with their own local administration which we had formerly.
  The question of distress due to unemployment is mentioned in a separate paragraph of the report of the Department of Health, and reference is made to the extraordinary increase in the number of unemployed in Scotland. The average number registered as unemployed during 1930 was 18.7 of the insured population, and the report states that the unemployment position in Scotland was considerably worse than in Great Britain as a whole. The report also states that although the volume of unemployment was greater, there has been a considerable reduction in the expenditure of the Poor Law authorities on the relief of the destitute able-bodied unemployed during the last year or two. This, however, is explained by the placing of the burden of the relief of the able-bodied unemployed upon national funds under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. That change, which I personally welcome, has relieved the rates to an enormous extent and placed this burden where it ought to fall.
  In regard to relief, as a matter of administration, I should like to call attention to the necessity for speeding up schemes for the training of those at present unemployed, especially young men and women. Some efforts are being made in Glasgow and elsewhere for the training of these young persons in farm work and domestic service, but there is much need yet to develop a system of training for those who are at present unemployed and drawing unemployment benefit, and who might utilise the period by acquiring special experience in trades and callings for which they are fitted. I understand that the Department has this in view and I hope that the matter will be further considered. I conclude by expressing the hope that the Department which has placed before us such an interesting report will continue to achieve the success which it deserves in connection with the new housing scheme. The right hon. Gentleman and those associated with him deserve every support in the efforts which they are making to improve the housing conditions in Scotland and the health of our people.
  Mr. SULLIVAN: I wish to raise some points in connection with housing. I do not agree with the statement that we only require 100,000 houses, because the report of the Royal Commission in 1918 said that we had a shortage of 121,000 houses and that if we wanted to raise the standard of housing, the shortage was much greater. In addition, the annual output of houses required is calculated at 10,000, so that although we have built 117,000 houses, we are scarcely meeting the annual need, apart from making up the shortage. I wish to be absolutely fair. I think that the Government are trying to do their utmost in the matter, but they are up against a new set of circumstances. When we first set out to build houses, we had authorities who were anxious to help and who entered into the work in a very enthusiastic manner. They built an immense number of houses. We are now up against the fact that some public authorities have spent as much on houses as they care to, and the Department has to face the fact that public authorities are not able to do anything. There is one county in Scotland and some burghs that have built no new houses. If we want to do anything to raise the standard of housing in Scotland, we must raise it generally. It is no use centralising on one or two authorities. We must raise the standard all over Scotland, because it means so much to the people we represent.
  I would like to press on the Minister the question of the cost of housing and rents. I think that houses can be built much cheaper to-day than they could be some time ago. I estimate that they have been reduced by fully 50 per cent., and in some cases more. In Lanark, when we built houses before the War, we borrowed the money at 2½ per cent., and the average cost per house did not amount to more than £230. In saying that, I am making a general statement. The interest on the £230 was about £7 10s. per house, and with the repayment of capital, the total financial burden was about 10s. a house a year. That, unfortunately, went up under the Addison scheme to £66 per house because the interest went up to 6 per cent. Public authorities at that time were in the habit of building on short-period loans, and the raising of the Bank Rate affected the finance. If the raising of the price of money forced up
  678
  rents, the reduction in the price of money should make it possible for rents to be reduced. We have thus two facts—houses can be built cheaper, and money is cheaper in the market, and there is no reason at all why that should not affect the rent charged for houses.
  I would press the Department to make a close scrutiny of rents. One of the difficulties is that every authority does not fix the same rents. In the county of Lanark, we have different rents in different wards, and in the burghs the position is the same. I should be glad if the Government were able, through the lower price of money and cheaper building, to get public authorities to make the rents more reasonable. An hon. Member speaking to-day claimed that everybody should own his own house. I remember when I started on the housing crusade in the county of Lanark, that we had a hostile opponent who preached the doctrine that every working man and everybody else should own their own houses. We had some difficulty in beating that doctrine, because one of the greatest ambitions that Scottish people had at one time was to own their own houses. Time" change, but the feeling lies deep in them. A little while afterwards, we had a letter before the council asking us to authorise the erection of a model lodging-house. I insisted on getting the name of the writer of the letter, and I discovered that he was the man who said that everybody should own his own house. If we carried out his idea, there would be no need for model lodging-houses.
  The right hon. Gentleman opposite claimed credit for the 20,000 limit for two years, but it is fair to state that a number of those houses were steel houses. I do not criticise the rent of steel houses, but I criticise the finance of them. The previous Government advanced on loan to a public company an average of £405 per house. These houses would not have cost more than £250, yet the Government gave a loan of £405 for each. These houses are scattered in every part of the country to-day, and I am sure that somebody is getting a good picking through the foolishness of the Government. The proposed average for the next three years is given as between 17,000 and 20,000. I warn the Minister that I do not believe

  679
  that the Government can reach that point for the reasons that I have given. They have to deal with public authorities who are not willing to do anything, and unless the Government take courage and go over the heads of public authorities, they will not realise that number, and the people will suffer. I am pleased that there is little difference of opinion among the parties in the house about housing. We are anxious to raise the standard for Scotland, but I suggest that unless the Government are able to go over the heads of the public authorities where they fail to do their duty, we shall not reach the average that we should like to reach.
  When I make that point about more houses and lower rents, people talk to me about smaller houses, which they say people want. I have heard all sorts of people who object to a big rent more than a big house. I would like to tell those who want smaller houses what has happened in a case I have in mind. A property which was erected in my lifetime has been condemned. When that property was built, I tried to get one of the houses. They were built so close together and the rooms were so small, that they have become slums in 20 or 30 years. The owner let the property off into rooms instead of houses in order to get a bigger return. The local authorities stepped in, and the owner has taken action by evicting the tenants. That is his kick back. The public authority has made no provision for the housing of these people. We should set our faces against people being turned out before fresh houses are provided for them. People say that one-apartment and two-apartment houses are very popular. I admit that there is a great deal of argument in favour of them, but 50 per cent. of our houses now are of one and two apartments, and we want to raise the standard because only by so doing shall we make the race we want to make.
  In connection with river pollution, I wonder why the Government have fixed on the River Tweed? Is it because there are salmon in the Tweed? Why did they fix on the Leven and Esk, when in the west of Scotland we have the River Clyde? The county council for years tried to get something done in connection with the Clyde. The outfalls from factories run into the river, and now we have strengthened the law, but I have
  680
  discovered a new form of complaint. Only two or three weeks ago I had a complaint from a village that the public authority was running the sewage in its raw state into the river. I do not object to rivers like the Tweed being purified, but attention should first be paid to industrial centres in order to guard the health of the people, because the lives of men, women and children are much more precious than fish, even if it be the king of fish, the so-called salmon.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) made a reference to the Local Government Act, and said that by getting larger areas we had a more uniform system. There is some truth in that, but he has gone too far. In the county of Lanark we have uniformity, but between the burghs and the county there is not uniformity, and there is trouble in other parts of the country. The trouble is that although you may have uniformity of a certain kind in a certain area, the next county has different methods. We tried to fix a uniform payment for people who, owing to unemployment, had to go on to the parish. We were able to fix a scale in Lanarkshire of 23s. for a man and his wife—a wholly inadequate amount, but that was as much as we could get. That scale is not general, however, for it applies only to the county of Lanark and not to other places. We have had to relieve from the payment of rates all those people who have been struck off the unemployment register and who have had to go on the parish, and this, added to the derating, has thrown a big burden on the people who pay rates. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman about education being free is a misnomer. Suppose education is free, you have got to pay for it. The only difference is that instead of making a payment individually, you are making it in a communal way; the people of the country have to carry the burden, and they are carrying it manfully with great difficulty. I congratulate the Secretary of State upon his report, but I believe that he requires to be audacious in dealing with public authorities.
  Mr. R. W. SMITH: The Secretary of State congratulated himself on the satisfactory vital statistics of our country. On the whole, there is a marked improvement

  681
  but there are one or two black patches, and I think that by means of administration something might be done to clear them up. One especially is maternal mortality. That is rather distressing, because more care is token of expectant mothers and of the children than has even been taken before by better institutional arrangements and better nursing and medical services, and yet, unfortunately, we do not find the figure falling as we think it ought; to fall. I would make one suggestion to the Secretary of State for finding out why there is not the improvement we might expect from the services we supply. He has told us that new forms of medical record are to be made in the case of sick persons, and I suggest they should be supplied in cases of maternal mortality. The great trouble there arises from puerperal sepsis, and it seems to me that by greater care something could be done to prevent the frequency of such cases. The annual report of the Department of Health says these cases might be prevented if doctors, mid-wives and maternity nurses were to make a wider use of masks and adopt more careful antiseptic treatment for the hands, and that in hospitals there should be bed isolation by means of metal and glass screens. I suggest that the cases are due to infection coming from outside.
  If the statistics of maternal mortality were classified into "mailer groups we should be able to see the number of deaths in institutions, the number of deaths in cases where patients were nursed in the home by a nurse or attended by a doctor, and the number where patients were nursed in their own homes and attended by a midwife. That would give us some idea of where the poison comes from. I was talking recently to a country doctor. He was a man who had had no intention of becoming a country doctor. He was the son of a doctor, and had come home to help his father. He was going to be a surgeon and had done a great deal of surgery, and he told me that when he first came home he dreaded doing operations in the cottages, because he felt there were not the requisite facilities, but that he had found that fewer cases went wrong in the cottages than in nursing homes. It was his opinion that the septic germ was not in the cottages but in the nursing homes; that there was more likelihood of the germ being passed from one patient
  682
  to another in institutions and nursing homes than in cottages where there were clean and healthy conditions and the germ did not exist. I think there is a large amount of reason in that. It would be very useful, therefore, to divide up the statistics to see whether the number of cases in institutions is higher than in cottages. It is only a question of classifying these cases into different categories.
  The second point I wish to put concerns pre-school age children. In the matter of the medical attention given to the population the Local Government Act is extraordinarily useful, because it coordinates all the medical services from the time the child is born until it is of school age, and I cannot understand how the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. D. Millar) could criticise the Act and give no credit to one part of it which is extremely useful. The Secretary of State referred to the fact that the health of school children was better than was the case some years ago, but I would like to draw attention to what the report says about the children of pre-school age:
  "Many of the defective conditions found in children on admission to schools are of such a nature as to suggest that they could have been avoided or ameliorated by adequate health supervision in the preschool period."
  I suggest to the Secretary of State that something more might be done in looking after the children between the ages of one year and five years, because the report says the children are fairly well looked after up to one year. When they begin to get about on their feet parents do not look after their health so much and they suffer from various ailments and go back in health. The suggestion is also made that there ought to be more visitation of these people in their homes. I am certainly in favour of nursery schools in the towns, if we can afford them, but they are an impossibility in the rural areas. I represent a rural area and want to see our children who are below the age of five get as much attention as those in the towns, because they need it just as much. The suggestion on page 51 of the report is a very good one:
  "It is necessary that arrangements should in the meantime be made to secure that so far as practicable all pre-school children are under regular systematic medical inspection."

  683
  At the bottom of the page it says:
  "In rural areas where centres are not available there is required an improved health visitor service to secure systematic home visitation."
  This could quite easily be secured in many cases. In my own county we have a system of district nursing which covers practically the whole county. Suppose a district nurse is attending a woman in a maternity case. I suggest that she should then also make a report on any children in that household between the ages of one year and five years. There need be no great difficulty in the matter. If she is attending anybody in any house she should inquire about any children under five in that house who have not been attended to medically within the year, and make her report to the medical officer. I hope these two suggestions of mine may meet with the approval of the Secretary of State as a means of improving the health of our people. If we are to have an A.1 nation we must start at the very beginning. We must concentrate on the youth of the nation, must see that our children are strong and healthy in the early days of life, because if that be done we enable a child to throw off many diseases which otherwise it might contract in after years.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend into the interesting discussion he has raised. I have two very short points to deal with. In the rural parts of Scotland the population is very sparse, and often a doctor lives 20 to 25 miles from some of his patients. On another Vote I urged upon the Government that it is eminently desirable, if not absolutely necessary, to have a good telephone system in those parts. In reply the Postmaster-General told me that in certain localities where there is a certain amount of population the Health Department could be of great assistance, either by pressing the claims of those localities or by monetary assistance. I would ask the Under-Secretary whether the Board of Health has in the past assisted, is now assisting or intends to assist the poorly populated localities, where it is difficult to get the minimum number of telephone subscribers, to get a telephone service installed, so that the poorest of the poor may be in quick touch with a neighbouring doctor? The position is particularly bad on the West coast of
  684
  Scotland, but not so bad on the East coast. This is a point of great importance, seeing that the health service now given by the Government in the Highlands as, in my judgment, one of the finest in the world. I would like to congratulate the present Government and, indeed, the past Government on what they have done to improve the health service in the Highlands and Islands, but this question of more rapid communication with doctors is very important. I have had case after case brought to my notice of a patient dying, or being driven almost to the point of death, because it takes half a day to get in touch with a doctor. That should not be so. Why should not the Government come forward with a cheap installation, either wholly or partly provided by them, in order to enable the poorest of the poor in the remotest glens to get into touch with a doctor quickly?
  There is another point in connection with the medical services in the Highlands. The local practitioner in the Highlands is very often a man of great skill in medicine and in surgery. In my tours through the Highlands I often go into doctors' houses and I find that what is specially needed is a small additional room where patients may wait or which in an emergency might be used even for a slight operation. Often a medical practitioner has not got room in his house to provide such facilities. When these houses are erected could not the Government see to it that there should be such a room, apart from the residential rooms, where patients might wait or be treated either medically or surgically? It is a great want. If the Secretary of State were to consult his advisers they would bear me out in what I am saying, because I am speaking from first-hand knowledge. I know the great difficulty in emergency cases, when other patients are waiting, that doctors have of knowing where to put a surgical case or even a serious medical case. I would impress upon the Secretary of State for Scotland that he should consult his advisers and see what can be done in that matter. If he cares, I am quite willing to supply him with a good case of a local medical practitioner who is a man of first-class knowledge of medicine and surgery, but whose house is of such dimensions that he cannot cope with emergency cases. It would be a very great service, and it would not cost very

  685
  much, to have a facility of this kind granted in those localities. I suggest to the Secretary of State for Scotland the desirability of paying particular attention to the points that I have raised as soon as possible.
  Mr. McKINLAY: I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, for putting up a good argument for a State medical service. Rather than traverse the Highlands and Islands, and add a new wing to every doctor's house to be used for emergencies, it would be much more courageous to go in for a State medical service in those scattered area.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: We have it.
  Mr. McKINLAY: Yes, but according to what the right hon. Gentleman has said it is not sufficient. I wish to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is usually so watchful in dealing with matters relating to Scotland, where he was when the Home Secretary suspended the medical arrangements under the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis and Asbestos) Act of 1930? It appears that the victims of silicosis in Aberdeen, Orkney and the Shetland, in order to be medically examined, have to travel to Newcastle-on-Tyne. I should like to know who was responsible for this extraordinary arrangement. Silicosis is a trouble which affects the mason's trade. It is pretty rampant in Aberdeen, among the granite quarry workers. I want a definite assurance that this matter will be put right, so far as Scotland is concerned, and that the authorities will not ask men, who are unhappily afflicted with this disease, to make such a journey to England to secure medical treatment and advice.
  I am not going to join in congratulation, because it is sometimes dangerous when you receive the congratulation of your friends. I would like for a minute or two to deal with an aspect of public health which you, Sir, may possibly rule out of order as not coming within the ambit of this Vote. I want to touch upon the effect upon the health of the people of Glasgow of the tactics pursued by the factors under whom we sit. The safety regulations have been suspended. I know I am skating on pretty thin ice. The regulations have been suspended for years.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I must ask the hon. Member not to deal with that subject. The Scottish Health Department is not responsible for the suspension of the regulations.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman has said that this is a matter having a serious effect upon the health of the people of Glasgow, and that therefore the Board of Health should make representations to have the regulations restored. I think that subject would be in order if the hon. Member could prove that the relaxation had had a serious effect upon the health of the people.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would be in order if it were within the province of this Office to take such action.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I understand that it is always within the province of the Scottish Board of Health, on any question that affects health, to make representation to any Department to have a practice modified or altered.
  Mr. McKINLAY: The regulations to which I have referred covered housing. One consequence of the suspension of regulations since the War, in a city like Glasgow, is that in my own industry, woodworking, thousands of unemployed men are walking the streets who might be employed if those regulations were still in operation. Its effect on the health of the people is seen in the risk which is imposed on the housewives in Glasgow, in carrying out their house duties in properties, which, because of the suspension of the regulation, have become positively dangerous. Frankly, I agree that this is somewhat difficult to get in on this Vote.
  As a building trade operative, I want to refer to the "gentleman's agreement" which was arrived at in 1924 for a long-term housing policy. The consequence of that agreement, made with the then Minister of Health in conjunction with the then Secretary of State for Scotland, was that the building trades opened up their ranks and recruited thousands of building trade operatives. As a result of the policy pursued by the previous Government, which culminated in the slowing down in production under the threatened withdrawal of the subsidy, we have been left with thousands of operatives, to whom we have to pay un-

  687
  employment benefit. I would urge the Secretary of State for Scotland that, just as his predecessors were ruthless in their treatment of the building trade operatives, possibly quite unwittingly, by their attitude towards State subsidised housing, he should be ruthless in the other direction.
  In my division, that of Partick, and the contiguous division of Hillhead, of which we have heard a great deal these last two or three days, we have appointed a committee composed of practical building trade workers with, in some cases, the assistance of sanitary engineers, to survey property. Partick has never lost, and I hope for a considerable time will not lose, its characteristics as a burgh. We are a part of a great city, but the late burgh of Partick has many associations that we try to keep up. We have appointed this committee. I see the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) in his place, and I would like to say to him that when the inquiries are completed I will let him have a copy of the report. Hillhead is a delightful constituency, provided you only look at one half, but many properties in Partick and in Hillhead which were condemned in 1911, are inhabited at this moment by persons who are paying in some cases a rent of 10s. per week for a single room, plus 6d. per month to have the chimney swept. The remarkable thing about it is that the owner of most of the property is a very responsible office-bearer in the Hillhead Unionist Association.
  We took the step of appointing the committee, because we are satisfied that the Glasgow Corporation, although they have done much in relation to houses, are not doing as much as they might do. In the most respectable and salubrious part of my constituency, near a fever hospital there is property which was condemned in 1911. There is an open-drainage system, a dry-closet system and the refuse is emptied into bins at the same time as people are distributing milk. Alongside this property is, as I have said, an infectious disease hospital. No alternative accommodation is in the offing for those people. I am going to insist upon the Secretary of State for Scotland suspending for a moment his calm and careful consideration of the question I
  688
  am putting. I will supply him with a copy of our survey report.
  I want to appeal to the Department to take the view that it is time that this quesion was tackled, and tackled seriously. Thousands of building trade operatives in the city of Glasgow are idle and crying for work. We maintain that these men ought to be given employment to provide houses. I do not think this contention will be met with the argument which we met with in an area where a local authority will not build houses under the 1930 Act because the rents are going to be too cheap. That property was to be owned by private owners. It has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the 1930 Act put a three, four, or five-apartment house within reach of every member of the working-class, at an average rent of £12 per annum. If that is true—and it is true—it is up to the Secretary of State for Scotland to exercise the extraordinary power which he has under the 1930 Act to see that the local authorities take steps to deal with the problem. Berwick and Haddington, which has a Tory-ridden county council, takes the view that their needs for the next three years amount to 13 houses. I do not know whether we shall have to face the argument of shortage of labour to cope with that terrific problem. That is the sort of treatment which is meted out to a Government that is anxious to get on with the job. That is sufficient about houses.
  One other question is in relation to education. Working-class parents in Glasgow have a grievance against the coordinated authority, as they had against the authority before it was co-ordinated. I am willing to give credit where credit is due, but take the average working-class family, the size of which is four. You have a boy and a girl who go from the elementary school to a secondary school, and you have the other two children following on. From the moment they enter an elementary school to the day they pass from the secondary school to the university, there is not a text-book you may hand from one child to the other. I am happy in having a somewhat considerable family. The position in which I am placed is the same as that of every working-class parent in the city of Glasgow. You have to provide a new class of book for every child you send to the elementary or secondary school. Cannot steps be taken to see——
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the provision of books for school children is not within the scope of this Vote.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. McKINLAY: I am sorry if I have gone beyond the brief. I think I have said sufficient to keep the Secretary for Scotland busy for some little time. One more word and I have finished. It is in relation to health. One hon. Member on the other side said that there ought to be the same standard of health treatment in the hospitals for all classes of the community. To that I heartily subscribe. I would ask the Under-Secretary to send one of his officers to the Merryflats Hospital and the Shieldhall Hospital, where you have a distinction between the ordinary poor and the persons who are sent to a general hospital. In one case a friend of my own was sent by some mistake into the ordinary ward. There was in the next bed a person who died about half-past 10 at night, and they covered him up with she counterpane, and he lay there until nine o'clock next morning without anyone having looked after him. That happens in the city of Glasgow. The beds are old, wooden beds, and the floors are ready for the scrapheap. This is a Poor Law hospital, and consequently it comes within the ambit of my right hon. Friend and the health service of Scotland. I want to appeal to him to take the necessary steps and have the administration of this hospital looked into and as quickly as possible.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: We all agreed with the last speaker who has displayed a good deal of useful practical knowledge. I agree with him that all these matters should have the attention of the Scottish Office. I think with the powers which are in his hands, the Secretary of State for Scotland is, doing the best that can be expected of him, but we are a long way from getting what we really require in matters of health. It is obvious that the period from the first to the fifth year is one of great importance from the health point of view. Education is of little use unless there is good health with it. I have said elsewhere that it is better to be a tramp with a good digestion and sound health
  690
  and teeth than a millionaire with bad teeth and bad health. People do not realise that health is the real foundation of happiness. There is a great deal in this book here about the various medical services, the dental staffs and the medical men, and curative methods, but what I wish the Secretary of State would impress on his medical men is that there is far more in preventive methods, and that they should teach that as a proper training for the people. Dr. Murray, who used to be chairman of housing for the Western Isles, said that when he was a boy at Stornoway there were people over three score and ten years with every tooth in its socket, fit and well. He said that among the young people to-day, even those of 17 years of age, you saw very marked signs of dental deterioration.
  It is entirely due to unsuitable foods and the sophisticated devitalised and preserved stuff which people now eat. It comes often from white bread. Even in Portugal anybody who tried to sell the bread which our people have to eat would be prosecuted, because there they have sound wholemeal bread. White bread has not the same nourishment. The rising generation are fed entirely on soft foods and slops, and that makes them go wrong, because they do not get the hard tack to chew which people used to have. If you would go back to the old simple food of our ancestors it would make an immense difference to health. These primitive foods are eaten by those who live in out of the way places, and, apart from the diseases that come by air, they never suffer from many of the diseases of the people in the towns, because they take these simple foods, and chew them, and so they are fit and enjoy perfect health, with none of the civilised diseases which we have. When they come to the towns and take to the sophisticated foods, their health very soon goes.
  I would like to support the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. MacPherson) in his demand that telephones should be available all through the Highlands and Islands. You have the islands such as Tralee, Coll and Mull and there are no telephones for the people. If you send a telegraph you

  691
  often arrive in time to receive it. Telephones are an urgent necessity for health.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that is something which should be discussed on the Post Office Vote. In so far as the hon. and learned Member is urging the Department to make representations, he is in order, but he cannot criticise the telephone or telegram systems on a health Estimate.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: On a point of Order. May I point out that I have received letters from my own people and from the Post Office to say that if I applied to the Minister of Health I might get a grant for the particular locality.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): Under the Highlands and Islands services it is possible for the Department of Health to make a grant.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: Not only is it necessary for the health of the people, but it is necessary for the health of the Post Office.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is where the hon. Member is going wrong. If it is in the power of the Department to provide telephones it is in order to urge that they be provided, but it is most improper to criticise the defects of a system for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is not responsible.
  Mr. MACQUISTEN: I apologise. I am not suggesting that it is a defective system, but I do say that, if the Ministry of Health used these grants and got the telephones there, especially in the islands, they would be sufficiently used, so that the grant need be very small. I urge on the Secretary of State for Scotland that he should persuade the Post Office to enter into a bargain, with a grant in accordance with the number of calls made, because the islands are full of people who want to communicate with the mainland and that will reduce the grant. If he will stimulate the Post Office and act with courage in the health-interest of the people, I have not the slightest doubt that it will be a perfectly good bargain and that the grant will ultimately be found to be unnecessary.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I listened to the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Vote and to the discussion since that Debate was initiated, and I find on all hands a tendency to congratulate the present Administration on its efforts to bring about better health for the people through housing and various other schemes. I also find there is general agreement that the previous Administration were almost equally desirous of bringing about an improved state of health for the people of Scotland. I am sorry I must disagree entirely with the statement made to-day in relation to the general well-being of the people of Scotland, especially in housing. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Maequisten) has mentioned the great amount of ill-health due to tinned foods and white bread. The real trouble is that the people are often not able to consume any decent food at all. The hon. and learned Member also mentioned, as others have done, that an important factor in the improved health of the people, especially in the Highlands and islands, is an improved telephone service. Within the last year I have heard statements made on many occasions as to the desirability of improving the telephone service so as to bring the people of the Highlands in closer relationship with medical provision to deal with the ills that accrue from the troubles of everyday life. I must agree that it is essential, in a well-ordered state of society, that every citizen and every inhabitant should have ample opportunity of improving his general health by getting in quicker touch with those who are able to administer to his needs. I fear, however, that is only skimming the surface of the troubles that arise in society at the present time.
  I want to turn to the subject of housing and to show that housing and overcrowding, especially in our industrial areas, is one of the greatest factors, together with mal-nutrition, which contributes to the ill-health of the population of Scotland. I find in the report of the medical officer of health in Glasgow some very startling figures of the overcrowding and lack of decent housing accommodation. We have in Scotland 124,000 one-apartment dwellings and 397,000 two-apartment dwellings. Two million people in Scotland live in one apartment or two-apartment houses. In Glasgow 6,000

  693
  families live in one-apartment houses, and most of them number from six to 12 persons. Can hon. Members visualise a state of society where 6,000 families are compelled to live from six to 12 persons in a single-apartment house? It is no exaggeration to say that the condition of child life in the industrial cities, and especially in a city like Glasgow, are deplorable in the extreme. I have gone through street after street. There is the Calton area, where the destruction of child life has been notorious and where 160 children out of every 1,000 die before reaching the age of 12 months. That area, it is true, has been scheduled for complete demolition. I discovered in that area buildings that had been up for 209 years, and, when they were opened first, the rent of the houses were something like from 10d. to 1s. a week. The latest figure is 7s. 6d. for these houses that used to be 10d. or 1s a week. If we had been anxious for the real, civilised state of society that the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting in his report, the owners of these houses would have been imprisoned or would have suffered some other fate for attempting to let houses of that dencription—disease-ridden dens of the worst description, for which rent is being extracted.
  In Glasgow there are 12,000 families, numbering four or five persons each, living in one-apartment houses. I discovered, in the area which I represent, a man, his wife and eight children under 14 living in a single-apartment house. The father was unemployed, was a tee-totaller, and did not smoke. He was there not because of any vicious living, but, because of the inability of the Glasgow Corporation to supply the needs of himself and his family, he was condemned to live in that dwelling. I went to visit him, and discovered that the eight children, the father and the mother were living in a square room 3½ by 4, and the children were living in boxes. There was no furniture in the house of any kind. But the worst feature was that nine months previously a child, who had been for two years in the Rob Royston Hospital as a tuberculous inmate, had been partly cured and then plunged back among the other boys and girls to give them that horrible disease. I tried to discover why no attempt had been made to re-house this family, who were living under these horrible condi-
  694
  tions in a so-called civilised and Christian state of society, and I found that 2½ years previously the medical officer of health had reported the case to the housing department of Glasgow, in order that they might be re-housed; but, as happens in all public authorities, there were no houses at the time, and afterwards the schedule was left in the docket and forgotten. That family ought to have been re-housed, and it is the duty of this Department to see that every family in overcrowded surroundings, and especially when any of its members have that horrible disease, is re-housed in a proper and civilised manner.
  We are told that it is the function and duty of the local authority to provide houses, but I know something about local authorities. I was a member of the Glasgow Town Council and of the old parish council. There is a desperate struggle on the Glasgow Town Council as to whether they shall provide houses or not. There are two sections, even among the Liberal and Tory parties—because I make no differentiation between them; Liberals and Tories are just of the same kidney in any public body or authority; their desire is to protect the interests of that section of the community to which they belong. We have one section who, like the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train), are interested in building, and it is quite true that they are anxious to build houses so long as they are not built under a system of direct labour. So long as a profit on the production of each house goes into their pockets, they will vote for the building of houses. But in the Liberal and Tory parties, which are combined, there is another section which does not want any houses provided at all, and they can be heard shouting from time to time, "We do not want houses." The leader of that party is a constituent of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead, (Sir R. Home) and, I think, belongs to the same Unionist Association. The leader of that party in the Glasgow Town Council says, "We do not want houses," and, because he is a property owner and house factor, and owns some of the worst slums in the city of Glasgow, he says quite frankly and openly in friendly discussion, "If you build more houses my houses will be empty; the people will rush to

  695
  the good houses, and I shall be left with the old houses on my hands." That, of course, is true, but who would dare to advocate that any person should consume diseased meat or milk, and why should you allow the owner of a house to spread disease among the inhabitants of our society because he has got to take a profit out of the rent of the house? I suggest that the rules and regulations are not stringent enough.
  I discovered, also, that the medical officer of health and the sanitary authorities of Glasgow have a tendency to conform to the wishes and desires of the housing department. They say, "If we condemn these houses, if we apply a closing order to them to-morrow, the people will be required to leave the houses in six months, and we have no alternative accommodation to give them"; and, therefore, the medical officer of health and the sanitary department work in conjunction with those who desire to prevent the speeding up of house-building in the city of Glasgow. I can see no prospect of the local authorities tackling this question in the broad and courageous manner that is required in an intelligent and reasonable community. We are told that 100,000 houses are required, but Glasgow alone, in my estimation, requires almost that number, if proper and stringent conditions were applied to those who own slum property. 60 far as I am concerned, if I had complete authority in this country, there are no two ways about how I would deal with those who own these slum dwellings in the city of Glasgow or in other places. The medical officer of health states that 67 per cent. of the people living in one-apartment houses are living in overcrowded conditions. If that be true, what are the figures which the local authorities supply in their reply as to the number of houses needed? Glasgow at once requires a large number of houses to meet the needs of the people, but the needs of the poor areas cannot be met because they have not the money. There is depression and unemployment, and, although those poor areas may have democratic Labour control, they cannot build houses because of their inability to provide the funds; but in the rich areas
  696
  controlled by the hon. Member s friends they are determined that no housing progress shall be made.
  With regard to rent courts, I find that in Glasgow last year 13,000 people were summoned for inability to pay rent. Everyone desires a good house. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, you hear objections about the size of the rent, but never about the size of the house. We are building the right type of houses at the wrong type of rent. From the figures that I have obtained from the Scottish Office, I discover that, in the area of Glasgow which I represent, in 1923 a three-apartment house cost £439 to build, and in 1930 it cost £335; while a four-apartment house in 1923 cost £553 to build, and in 1930 £402. There was, therefore, between 1923 and 1930, a difference of £151 in the cost of building a four-apartment house, and of £104 in the cost of building a three-apartment house. In 1923, however, the rents of three and four-apartment houses were respectively £27 and £35, but this year they are £26 and £35. The rental of the three-apartment house has increased by £1 per year, under a public authority, at a time when there has been a decrease of £104 in the actual cost of building.
  We are told that everything has been going down. Wages have gone down; the cost of living has gone down. But what chance is there for a man or woman and their children, if there is no adult member of the family bringing in wages, to meet a rental, for an ordinary house, of £28 per year plus rates? It costs over £40, or 16s. a week. I would ask hon. Members who talk about reductions of scales and so forth, although I know I shall not be allowed to discuss unemployment insurance, what is the position of many of these decent fathers who desire to do their best for their families and take them out of sordid slum surroundings? They move into an ordinary house at a rent of £28. Unemployment comes; they have to feed their children; and, if there is a man, his wife and three children, they are drawing from the local authority in able-bodied relief 32s. a week, out of which the sum of 16s. has to be paid in rent and rates. The consequence is that the man is compelled to forego the decent house and all the claims

  697
  and desires of his family. He hangs on for some time, and then he slips out and gets back to the tenement dwelling, to the sordid surroundings, with a reduction in the standard of health of the family. All these are decent artisans who desire to do the best they can in life, and, generally speaking, that means a reduction in the standard of health of working-class families.
  The position is the same with regard to slum clearance. The previous Administration may say that they built a good number of slum clearance houses. They built quite a number in the City of Glasgow, in the Calton area, and in the Mile End area, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). They say to these people, "We are going to move you into better surroundings. You are in a diseased house, and we are going to pull it down." These people are unemployed, and they were paying 3s. 6d., 4s. or 5s. in rent, when every shilling means a tremendous amount to the man who is unemployed. They are told that their standard of health is to be improved by moving them to a re-housing scheme where the rent will cost them 9s. a week. Their standard of health is to be raised by depriving them right away of 5s. that was going for nourishment for the children. That means a gradual reduction in the stamina of the children, as can be seen in those areas. It is not only that, but they are given a modern house, with electric light and gas, and then it is discovered that all that improvement, which is a desirable and necessary requirement of a man in happy and healthy surroundings, simply means that he is going to have an increased struggle to make both ends meet. If you are going to improve the health of people in the slums, you have got to make the rent of the new houses the same as that of the slum houses from which you are taking them, because otherwise you are not going to improve the health of the children. I desire to see a vigorous extension of these slum clearance schemes, and some effort to overcome the difficulties' in relation to rent.
  It is all right to say that that there are opportunities for local authorities to put into operation by-laws under the 1930 Act but, unless it is going to be com-
  698
  pulsory, it is of no use. We get these answers, and then another Government takes the field and they give us the same answers. The game goes on and the poor inhabitants suffer accordingly. There are too many suggestions as to dealing with the disease once it has arisen. I want to see more money spent on prevention right down at the very root. The greatest asset of any nation is its healthy and happy children. When I see my child gambolling on the back lawn of a modern house and see the great improvement in its health owing to its surroundings and good nourishment I find consolation and comfort in it, but I cannot find consolation and comfort in knowing that my child only is getting that opportunity while others are entitled to the same opportunity. Political parties work in many ways their wonders to perform.
  I want to see more courageous action taken in connection with housing, and an essential of real progress is a national house-building scheme. There are 146,000 building trade workers unemployed and 135,000 drawing unemployment benefit. They want employment. They want to supply the needs of the people, who require better housing accommodation. An effort on more courageous and progressive lines is required in the interest of the health of the community. There is no use in patting one another on the back here and saying, "You fellows did your best and we are doing our best." It is the officials all the time who are doing their worst to prevent any progress.
  I should like to say a word in connection with poor law relief. Last year I put a question to the then Under-Secretary of State, now Lord Privy Seal, and he promised that, when the Public Assistance Committees had found their feet, he would have a friendly discussion with them to see how far they could secure the adoption of a more reasonable scale. I have never heard of any such conference. I got the usual stereotyped official reply the other day that the officers are doing their best and anyone who is not satisfied with his relief can make a complaint. The scales of relief are not even uniform in any parish. There is a minimum and a maximum, and the minimum becomes a maximum in almost every case. A man and woman with a family of two may be drawing 23s. or 24s. from a Lanarkshire parish with the standard of rent that applies,

  699
  and the Glasgow authority pays in the very same case 36s. for the man and woman, 5s. for the first child, 4s. for the second and house rent on top of that. That disparity ought not to exist. It is no use for the Scottish Office to shuffle off with the reply that their officers are doing their best and you can appeal if you are not getting the proper amount. If you appeal, you discover the officials again in office. There is only the regulation that compels the authority to give you relief, either indoor or outdoor, but there is no specified amount of relief.
  We only relieve after the suffering has become acute. When the suffering has become acute, we take the child into a public institution. My experience of local authorities is that their members vie with one another in their attempt to stop the rot that has set in. They are all going to give the very best in medical skill, in science, in food, in nourishment, in outdoor recreation and in good, light, healthy surroundings, and they will keep a child in a sanatorium which has contracted disease in the slum, costing the State three guineas a week. When you suggest giving a little extra nourishment on the top of 2s. relief, the same people who are prepared to spend three guineas a week on a child who has contracted the disease, because they are compelled by Act of Parliament to deal with it, are so niggardly that they are not prepared to give even 2½d. a day. Most of the people who havee to administer relief to these children are worse than the brute beasts of the jungle. A beast will tear from nature that which is required to sustain its young, but Christian civilised man will allow children to suffer starvation and misery and contract horrible disease. He will go to church on Sunday with a Bible under his arm, but all the week he will contribute to the mass murder of working class children.
  I want to see a more progressive policy adopted. It is said that this is a minority Government. I have heard it said from the Liberal benches time and time again, "Go on with a courageous housing scheme and we will back you." I have heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) say that. The Government ought to see whether he is prepared
  700
  to go the length he indicates. If he is not, they should call his bluff and expose the Liberal party and show that they stand in the same place as the party that forms the Opposition.
  I want to ask a question regarding the Scottish National Housing Company. There are two of these companies and they are run from Rosyth. One was formed by the late Government in connection with steel houses and the other was formed, I think, in 1910. I find that a subsidy was being paid to one of them of something like £30,400 in 1930 and £27,000 in 1931. It is due largely to unlet houses. I want to know what the explanation is. I should like to know what are the terms of agreement between the companies and what is the position of the House of Commons in relation to them. I have heard that we have no control. We supply the money. We guarantee 5 per cent. interest to the First Scottish National and, as to the Second Scottish National, it is too early to find out whether it is run at a profit or not. I should like to know who the directors are. There is the grossest waste of public money I have ever known in connection with these steel houses. We have three inspectors who draw between them, with expenses, nearly £40 a week in running 2,000 steel houses. Not one of them knows the first thing about houses. They were placed there probably by the late administration, but certainly not because of any ability that the had in regard to housing. One man comes from Rosyth and visits the steel houses once a month or once a fortnight and draws £9 a week for it. He has a salary, in addition, from the first Scottish National. If there is going to be a deficit, the Scottish Office ought to have control over the expenditure of the money.
  I ask the Scottish Office to see that the Government display the energy that is required and get rid of that Rip Van Winklish feeling that all Government Departments seem to develop. They seem to think in many cases that their duty is to go to the country and get elected, to get into office and then to do nothing courageous in the interests of the people who put them there. Remember the promises you made to the people. Let us try to keep faith with those who are crushed by the economic force of present-day society into misery

  701
  and starvation, who see their children pining away for lack of the ordinary decencies of life. When you go to the country, the country will judge the Government, as it judges all Governments, by their action and by their attitude. They will not condemn you because you have no been able to accomplish great things, but they will condemn you assuredly and rightly because you have never attempted to accomplish these great things. We ought to end this mass murder of working-class children that is taking place because of the complete failure to attempt courageous or drastic action for the life and well being of the nation's richest asset, namely, our glorious child life.
  Sir FREDERICK THOMSON: When the Local Government Bill was under discussion those of us who supported the then Government had to listen to much oratorical exaggeration in denunciation of that Measure. I have noted that the hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position of Under-Secretary of State for Scotland described the Local Government Bill as a Bill which "betrayed the best interests of education and the best interests of Scotland." I would invite him to turn his attention again to passages, with which I have no doubt he is very familiar, in the report of the Department of Health for this year, a report which shows most conclusively, with regard to very important services, what a great blessing the Local Government Act has already conferred and is going to confer on Scotland. Before dealing with certain points about the health services I would like to say a few words about town planning. Town planning will be much helped by the Local Government Act, because instead of small burghs and district committees being the authorities for town planning, instead of there being a great multiplicity of authorities, you will have the town councils in the large burghs and the county councils. This arrangement will insure a smoother passage for wide town planning schemes dealing with the towns and the areas around, and there is bound to be a great improvement.
  It is true, as the Secretary of State pointed out, that not much has been done during the past year in the way of town planning. That is a pity, because during a time of industrial depression people ought to think ahead and plan for what
  702
  is to come in the immediate future. There are, however, one or two interesting things in the chapter on town planning. I am interested in the Charlotte Square, Edinburgh, scheme. We not only have the duty to look to the future in planning our towns for the health of the people and the convenience of life, but we also have a duty to preserve the planning of past generations. Anyone who knows the new town of Edinburgh realises that there is a magnificent bit of planning. I rejoice in the Charlotte Square scheme, which has been approved by the Department. The frontages in the square cannot be interfered with without the consent of the corporation, nor can the skyline be altered. Therefore that magnificent square will be preserved in future as a monument of Edinburgh as it has been in the past.
  The city of Aberdeen, one of the divisions of which I represent, has, with the adjacent counties of Aberdeen and Kincardine, prepared a joint town planning scheme which endeavours to look ahead and is, I think, showing the way to other authorities in Scotland with regard to the laying out of unbuilt areas in the town and in the county immediately outside. There are provisions in this Aberdeen scheme for the zoning of buildings according to character—a residental area, an industrial area, and so on. There are also very important provisions for preserving viewpoints—one point in particular, where a magnificent view of the River Dec is obtained—preserving woodlands and places of eminence in the neighbourhood by having them declared private open spaces by agreement with the proprietors. I regard that as work of the greatest value. What happens in the ordinary course? A town grows haphazard. Beautiful wooded hills are ruthlessly destroyed, and a little later a town has to acquire further ground which is not nearly as suitable for a public park. In the Aberdeen scheme an attempt is made to preserve the amenities. You have a woodland park which is not to be destroyed, and viewpoints which are a glory to the district are to be safeguarded. All that is of the greatest importance. I hope that Aberdeen's example will be followed widely in Scotland.
  I wish to pass to the consideration of certain matters in regard to the health services. If we look at the report there

  703
  can be no doubt that much is expected from the unified system which the Local Government Act has made possible. For instance, take maternity and child welfare. We know that outside the large burghs the authorities under the old system were small burghs and district councils, and that the health of the school children was controlled by the education department. In future maternity and child welfare service will be under the control of the town councils in the big towns and of the county councils in the counties, and a unified policy will be possible. Under the old system far too many different bodies, all no doubt doing their best, were concerned with matters of health. It is a great matter in the health services to get unified control.
  I think the chapter on maternity and child welfare is very interesting as showing the progress in home visitation. In many places there are health visitors, and where that arrangement is not possible the visitation is done by the district nurse. After all, much better than to cure disease when it breaks out is the maintenance of health. By this system of home visitation in general much can be done to maintain health and prevent the bad conditions which lead rapidly to disease. There are, of course, maternity and child welfare centres where excellent work is being done. We are all gratified that the statistics with regard to infant mortality are this year better than in any year except one for which health statistics have been kept. The death rate is 83 per 1,000 for this year, which is better than for any year except 1923.
  It is interesting to observe that while there is this great improvement in the case of the children up to one year of age, the improvement is not anything like as noticeable for the first week of life. It is satisfactory, however, to have this steady improvement in the figures of infant mortality. I notice that up to about 1901 the figures ran from 108 per 1,000 to 136 per 1,000. It is a great improvement to have got down to 83 per 1,000. As regards the health of children between one and five years of age, I notice that the death rate is 10 per 1,000. That is a great improvement over past years. I notice that, comparing the two sets of
  704
  years 1911 to 1915 with 1925 to 1929, there is an improvement of 33 per cent. Those are satisfactory figures. It might have been thought that the improved conditions, the lessened mortality during the first year, might have meant that more ailing children survived only to die a little later. But that is not the case, because there is an improvement throughout.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith) referred to the maternal mortality figures of seven per 1,000. That figure is regrettably high, but if you compare it with the earlier years it seems pretty certain that a number of cases in past years which were due to puerperal causes and were not so described in the statistics are now much more carefully described. In Aberdeen between the years 1918 and 1927, 10 years, they had a special inquiry into maternal mortality, and it was found that 12 per cent. of the cases which were notified would not, but for the inquiry, have been put down to puerperal causes. It was only the special character of that investigation that led to this result. That shows that the statistics are probably compiled with much greater care to-day. Still these figures are figures which cannot give us satisfaction. Even when death does not occur we know that there are many cases of permanent bad health that are the result of bad conditions at the period of confinement.
  There are one or two other points with which I must deal. There is the question of the children between one year and five years old before they pass to school. There is no doubt that the Local Government Act will effect a tremendous improvement here. It is going to be a great thing to have the care of the child from birth right through to the conclusion of school life under the one control. I am not criticising in any way the work that has been done by the school medical officers under the old system, for they did admirable work. But they had no authority over or interest in the child between one and five years of age, and it was at the latter age only that it became the duty of the medical authorities to concern themselves with the child's health. That system was open to objection. It is a great thing that under the one authority we shall

  705
  have the care of the health of the child right through till it leaves school. We want to do a great deal in the towns for the extension of nursery schools for children between two and five years of age, and of day nurseries for children between one and two. We want to develop that system. It is quite clear from the statistics that there is a falling off in health between those years.
  Recent investigations comparing the health of the children when they enter school and when they leave school show that on the whole the health conditions are much better when the children leave school than when they come in. That shows that regular medical inspection throughout the school career has been of the greatest value. It is found that in most places, when the children are medically examined on going to school, that the parents accompany the children. I understand that there is a group medical examination when the child comes to school at five, another when it reaches the age of nine and another at the age of 12—a systematic examination. In Aberdeen no less than 95 per cent. of the parents turn up at the medical examination of the child at five years of age; 94 per cent. are present at the examination at nine years of age; and the percentage drops to 44 at the last group examination at the age of 12.
  8.0 p.m.
  Aberdeen leads the way in that matter. Naturally the town has a higher percentage figure than the country, where distances make it impossible in many cases for parents to be present at the examinations. But the figures I have given for Aberdeen show that the great majority of parents come to the medical examination of their children when they first enter school. When a child is attending school to be examined the younger members of the family might be brought and might come under medical examination. Thus there might be medical examination of the pre-school child, so that weakness or illness might be detected, and the child kept under medical observation throughout. I think there are great potentialities in this.
  I value very highly the possibility, which has been brought about by the Local Government Act, of making the care of the health of the child the concern of one authority throughout. It is com-
  706
  forting to know from the statistics that very careful inquiries were made in different places with regard to the health of the children, and that comparisons were made with previous years, and it is satisfactory to know that even in these very difficult times in Scotland there is an improvement in the health, nutrition and cleanliness of the children in the schools; and that the improvement is more noticeable in those who are leaving school than in those who are coming into school. We may, therefore, congratulate those who have done very good work in this field in the past, and we may congratulate those who are going to carry on the work in the future, because I think by the new system of co-ordination they will have a, great opportunity of producing better results.
  It is clear from the report that great benefit is anticipated from the reform of the Poor Law administration. The-parish councils certainly did admirable work, but the areas were far too small. Great improvement has been made by the removal of the discrepancies in rates between one parish and another; and many services that were carried out under the Poor Law will be, and in many cases already have been, withdrawn from the Poor Law. There is, in that, room for great advance. Looking at the whole matter, already we see that the Local Government Act has wrought great benefit for Scotland, and, as a supporter of the late Government, I congratulate very warmly my hon. Friend sitting in front of me, and his right hon. colleague, in being responsible for what was a great piece of progressive legislation for Scotland; and I think nobody who reads this report carefully, especially those overwhelmingly interesting chapters on health, can fail to realise that a great opportunity has been offered to us, so far as administration is concerned, of improving the health conditions of our children. We have now got improved machinery, and I think we can look forward to steadily improved achievement, and we can congratulate ourselves, even in this time of great difficulty, upon the results.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I rise, only for a few moments, to offer an observation or two upon the 1930 Act. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary later on will deal with other points that have been raised in the

  707
  course of the Debate this afternoon. But as I have had the responsibility, very largely, for the administration of housing affairs in Scotland for almost the past two years, and for the year covered by the report discussed this afternoon, and as I had some responsibility for piloting the 1930 Act through the Committee stage upstairs, I feel, perhaps, I ought to say a word or two upon that subject. The right hon. Gentleman asked if he could have any evidence that the Act was being operated. I happen to be able to give him assurance that whereas for eight years the old Slum Clearance Act succeeded in interesting only 39 authorities in Scotland, and in those eight years succeeded in getting only 13,358 houses dealt with, already we have promises from 113 authorities that they will operate the Act, and they state that in the course of three years they will be able to deal with 24,321 houses. No one who has ever given thought to the housing problem in Scotland believes that there are only 100,000 houses required. No one believes that all the authorities in Scotland are doing their best. My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Sullivan) has said he knew of an authority that had built no houses at all. Well, many authorities have built no houses at all, under any Act. There are county councils in Scotland that have not operated any Act.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Shame!
  Mr. JOHNSTON: There are houses in Scotland now that have been in continuous habitation, according to the date over the doorway, since the days when Prince Charlie was operating in the Highlands. There are areas in Scotland to-day where the housing conditions in which the people live are a standing disgrace to everybody connected with local government in those areas. I think it was the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) who said that this Government would be judged by the courage, the resolution, with which they faced up to the problems that were within their powers. I shall be content to be judged by the way we have attempted to face up to the housing problem in Scotland, so far as the Scottish Office is concerned. We have done everything that is in our power to get the
  708
  existing Acts operated, to induce the local authorities to operate the Acts; and we have continuously reminded those in authority in local government that in the Act of 1930 we took power under which any four local government electors in any local government area in Scotland could put compulsory powers in operation against the local authority if it was not doing its duty. Already one attempt has been made, one local government inquiry has been held: there is a county inquiry in process of being made concerning villages in the constituency I represent. I happen to know the circumstances. I put whatever powers I had in operation there. I ask Members in every part of this House to remember that in Section 37 of the Act there is power to deal with recalcitrant and unwilling local authorities; and if we cannot get four local government electors to put these compulsory powers of the Act in operation, then things have come to a dire pass indeed.
  The hon. Member for Shettleston said, quite truthfully, that 9s. rents in Glasgow and elsewhere were rents that many of the tenants in slum-clearance and improvement areas could not afford. It is utterly impossible for them to pay those rents, and when you clear an area and offer decent houses at a rental of 9s., it means that they cannot go into those houses, and that they drift away to create fresh slums by overcrowding elsewhere. But we faced up to that problem. Those 9s. rents have gone, under the 1930 Act. That Act, which is not a fifty-fifty basis at all, lightens the burden on the local authorities, and they are able to obtain grants on a unit basis. Ie means that, as we prophesied, local authorities can now provide decent, sanitary dwellings at maximum rents of £12 per annum—rents of 5s. per week—which are no burden whatever upon local rates when you consider the increased valuation. Indeed, the largest borough in my constituency where they have operated this Act can have rents of £12 on the first batch of these houses, and the local authority conveners themselves declare that the Act will in fact mean a reduction in local burdens, and that when you build these houses at £12 rents you compel the proprietors of other properties to reduce their rents.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Lord Privy Seal inform us what is the size of the proposed houses at £12 a year rent?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: As a matter of fact, it does not matter what the size is, because on the unit basis it actually pays the local authority to build bigger houses. There is actually a bigger grant for the bigger house. These particular houses to which I refer are three-rooms-and-kitchenette houses.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: With all modern conveniences?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Well, I do not believe any working-class house's yet built have all modern conveniences, but these are the recognised standard for municipal houses. I am dealing with this point, that we have the compulsory powers now if we choose to exercise them. There is no limit at all in the 1930 Act, financially. There is no limit in the number a local authority can build. I venture to prophesy that the rents that will be charged, when increased valuation is corsidered, need not be any burden whatever upon the local authorities. And if it be the case that all that stands in the way now is the fear of certain proprietors of houses in these areas that their rents will suffer in comparison, and that they will be compelled to reduce them, then I beg Members in all parts of the House to see to it that the compulsory powers of the 1930 Act are exercised.
  Mr. TRAIN: The Lord Privy Seal said that there is no limit under the 1930 Act. There is not a limit to the Exchequer contributions?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: None whatever.
  Mr. TRAIN: Per house?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: Per house, yes, but there is no limit to the number of houses that may be built. There is another Measure, to which I am forbidden to refer now, and which may, if it be passed, make for a certain advance in rural areas where no housing has hitherto been provided. Now I do not at all agree, as I have already said, that the local authorities have done their duty. I know one county where they were fighting us to get two-apartment houses. They would not build any houses unless we gave them 100 per cent. of two-apartment houses. The previous Administration—and I do not want to make
  710
  any party point—yielded under pressure to 60 per cent. of two-apartment houses in these schemes. My right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State reduced the 60 per cent. to 25 per cent., and in very exceptional circumstances we agreed to 40 per cent. of two-apartment dwellings in the schemes.
  Miss LEE: If there was not a single penny put on the rates by the building of houses under this Act, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what possible inducement any local authority would have to build two-apartment houses rather than three-apartment houses?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I explained when the Bill was going through the Committee upstairs, and I have explained it at a hundred public meetings, that the cost of an extra room at present prices is between £25 and £30 and that the value of the extra Exchequer grant is £86. Therefore any local authority which insists upon building two-apartment houses is actually throwing away something like £50, and luckily the number of local authorities which are now insisting upon two-apartment houses is very much smaller. In my view, it is a waste of public money and of human life to build two-apartment houses. It does nothing whatever to meet the terrible conditions of the overcrowding of the sexes. We have had cases of adults, brothers and sisters sleeping in the same beds. These are matters which you cannot very well discuss in public, but they are productive of so much physical and moral degradation that no amount of public money would be too great to spend upon obliterating them. The two-apartment houses are a curse; we have far too many of them now. In the area of one local authority which demanded 100 per cent. of two-apartment houses we found 13 people in one municipally-owned two-apartment house—13 human beings crushed into a two-apartment house. The matter is beyond party politics. The Act of 1930 is the law of the land, and the local authorities who do not operate it can be put in default and ought to be put in default. If you put them in default the Department has power to step in and do the building and charge them with the cost. That is in the Act which the House passed last year. The rents are within the power of the people to pay, and in regard to

  711
  the poorest of the poor who cannot pay, the public assistance committees have power to assist the housing committees in order to meet the rents, and, indeed, to furnish the houses, so that really there is no differentiation in the matter of rent.
  We say that every local authority and the State, and every public administrator will require to face up to this problem. We have now houses built under half-a-dozen Acts all in the same local government areas. We have what are called the Addison houses, probably with rents of £25 or £30, we have the Wheatley houses, probably with rents of £22 or £24, and we have the Chamberlain houses, probably with rents of £24 or £25, and so on. We have houses built in connection with slum-clearances, with rents at £18, and now we have what are called Adamson houses, with rents of £12. Sooner or later we shall require—and it will be a matter of very great difficulty administratively—to equalise the rents so that for the same standard of accommodation the same rents will be payable. That is an early problem to which we shall require to devote our attention. In the meantime the greatest public service that any member of any party in this Committee can render in his day and generation is to stir up his local authority to make use of the 1930 Act, and if the local authority will not do it, to stir up four local government electors to see that the local authority does it. If neither the local authority nor the four local government electors can be prevailed upon to demand decent houses and the abolition of the slums, then God help the people of Scotland!
  Major ELLIOT: I am sure that we are all glad to see the ex-Under Secretary of State for Scotland among us again even in the august robes of the Lord Privy Seal. He is, I think, now the fourth citizen in the realm. He is the first Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to become the fourth citizen of the realm, and it seems to be a very useful precedent. He is the first Provost of Kirkintilloch to become the fourth citizen of the realm, and we congratulate him upon having attained that high distinction. The remarks which he made upon the subject of housing are of the greatest
  712
  interest to us all. I am not quite sure whether he was speaking at the moment as Lord Privy Seal or as the ex-Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, because as one who, like himself, has had negotiations with local authorities, I would warn him that the Scots are difficult folk to drive, and that while he may be able to drive them a long way along one line he may find that he is taking their attention away from other directions. As Lord Privy Seal he has many activities in which he desires the co-operation of the local authorities, and many schemes, other than housing schemes, which he wishes to put forward. I have heard many local authorities say, "We should have concentrated more upon schemes for housing had not our attention been diverted towards other schemes for relieving unemployment which the Government have pressed upon our notice." The only word—a very mild word—of warning I would offer to him and to the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) is that more is done with honey than with vinegar. More local authorities come into conferences when they expect to find a friendly welcome than is the case when they meet with hard words at the outset.
  I sympathise fully with the right hon. Gentleman in his anxiety to push ahead with the solution of the housing problem, or the amelioration of the housing problem, in Scotland. It is not a static problem. As our standards of good housing rise, it is necessary for us to review the houses in Scotland. It is true that the cottage in which Burns was born would be condemned unhesitatingly now by any local authority as absolutely unfit for human habitation. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that houses were occupied now which, according to the date over the door, had been occupied when Prince Charlie came here. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Perth (Duchess of Atholl) is in occupation of a house with a date over the door which shows that it was occupied when Robert the Bruce was there. [Interruption.] I can assure the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) that those castles of Robert the Bruce would be unhesitatingly condemned as absolutely unfit for habitation.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: They have the bawbees to bring them up to date.
  Major ELLIOT: It may be that the house that was mentioned by the Lord Privy Seal has also been brought up to date. It is not possible for us to put a limit and to say: "These are the modern conveniences which we desire." We have always to be grading up and improving housing. It may very well be that 100 years hence the people will look upon our houses of to-day with something of the air of surprise that we look at the tenements in the Royal Mile in Edinburgh which, in their day, were the dwellings of the nobility but which to-day, whether improved or unimproved, would be regarded as very inferior habitations for the people of Scotland.
  The proposals which the Lord Privy Seal has laid before us this evening and the speech which the Secretary of State delivered earlier in the day were really testimony to the vigour and zeal with which the right hon. Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) pushed forward housing when he was in charge of that Department, because the utmost that they hope to do is that, in time, they may be able to screw up the output of houses to what it was during the Secretaryship of the right hon. Member for Pollok.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I added, I hope, that there was already on the Order Paper a Resolution indicative of an additional effort being made by the Government which will add to those figures.
  Major ELLIOT: I shall have a word or two to say about that matter, because, from the terms of the Resolution on the Order Paper and from the terms used in the report, the proposals of the Government will not add but will seriously impede those efforts. I propose to prove that. It is one of the accusations which I wish to bring against the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are bringing before the House. We all desire to see housing in Scotland progress to the level of at least 50,000 houses a year, and that it should be held there. During the three years while my right hon. Friend the Member for Pollok was responsible, the figure was put there and held there, or approximately there. In looking at the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question a few days ago, I find that in May, 1927, the houses under construction numbered 19,359, in May, 1923, 18,380, in
  714
  May, 1929, 14,719. We make a present to right hon. Gentlemen opposite of the fact that those figures show a considerable reduction, but I would point out that in 1930, their first year, there were only 10,580 houses under construction. The right hon. Gentleman may say: "We had not got going. There was a great deal of lack of confidence. It is a plant of slow growth."
  What about the year 1931? They have now been in office two years. I do not know how much longer they are to be in office before they get off the mark. During the past two years they have been a great deal slower than their election speeches would have led us to believe they would be. What are the figures for 1931? Do they get back to the 14,000 or the 18,000? No. They do not even get back to what they were in 1930. In 1930 the figure was 10,580 houses under construction. In 1931 the figure is 10,508. The Government's own report shows that there were 7,000 people employed on assisted house building in July, 1930, whereas in 1927, when assisted house building reached its peak, twice that number was estimated to be employed. Under our administration, whatever they may say about it, there were 7,000 more men in the building trade who were drawing pay for work upon housing, and under the present administration those men are walking the streets idle, without jobs. There are many explanations which it is possible to give.
  Miss LEE: Hear, hear!
  Major ELLIOT: I do not deny it.
  Miss LEE: Details like rent.
  Mr. MATHERS: Tory dominated councils.
  Major ELLIOT: These interjections show to what straits hon. Members opposite are driven in their desire to explain the position.
  Miss LEE: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that if we had gone on building houses at the rate of 20,000 a year at those rentals, we would have found tenants? The hunger for tenements made many thousands of the working classes accept rents which they could not afford. The difficulty is in getting houses built at rents which will attract the slum population and other poor people.
  Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member may give that explanation to the 7,000 builders who are out of a job and who were building houses at good wages when we were in office. The hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Mathers) talks about Tory-dominated councils, as if there were only Tories in councils when we were in office.
  Mr. MATHERS: Tories willing to assist you in carrying out your programme.
  Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member has got an ingenuous belief in the power of political comradeship which is not shared by anyone else. He seems to think that all that is necessary is to have another Tory Government in office and to let that party once more rely upon political comradeship, in order to raise the number of houses built to 20,000 a year, so that 7,000 more building operatives may be employed, without any expense to the State, except the salaries of my right hon. Friend and myself, instead of the salaries of the right hon. and the hon. Member who now hold the positions of Secretary of State and Under-Secretary. He has produced one of the best arguments for a change of Government that has ever been produced.
  The problem is not so simple as that. The fact is, that the accumulated weight of rates and public burdens, the trade depression and the fear of local authorities of increasing expenses, weigh fare more heavily upon local authorities than the mere matter of desiring to make the Act of their political friends successful or trying to make the Act of their political opponents fail. I can assure the hon. Member that if he believes that all that is necessary to solve the housing problem is that when a Conservative Government comes into power they should merely appeal to their friends, who will say: "Yes. We are all Tories together; build your houses," he is anticipating a very much easier task for us than I anticipate or that the Lord Privy Seal anticipates. The weight of public burdens and trade depression are the great arguments against that improved rate of house building which we all desire to see, and the difficulty before any Government which comes into power is that, so long as the slump proceeds, it will find the local authorities most reluctant to undertake new burdens.
  Mr. JAMES BROWN: You are giving good reasons now.
  Major ELLIOT: No one would desire us to lead this argument into the wider field of what we would do to stimulate trade and industry in this country, but I should be willing to meet my hon. Friend on that point. That is the main point upon which the discussion at the election will undoubtedly turn. When the country is prosperous, it will be possible for us to press ahead with those developments in the social services which we all desire. When the country is not prosperous we are fighting against the current, pushing upstream, and have the greatest difficulty in bringing home to local authorities those advantages which even in a time of depression are to their economic and financial advantage. We have the greatest difficulty in getting them to consider these things at all because they are weighed down by a fear of the future, which is the greatest handicap to the progress of housing in Scotland along the lines which we all desire to see.
  The arguments of the Lord Privy Seal and other hon. Members are quite familiar to most of us. They say: "What a curse this Toryism is; what a nuisance these elected bodies are which go contrary to our ideas. If we could only shatter them to bits and rebuild them nearer to our hearts desire." We all feel like that. I feel like that about the present Government. If I could only destroy them, shoot some of them, clear them out of the way, how much better for the country my plans would be than the pettifogging and niggling plans which they have brought forward. The Government feel like that about town councils and county councils, but if the Lord Privy Seal and his four colleagues find themselves committed to taking over the duties of all the local authorities in all the counties and burghs in Scotland he will have very little time for any other activities either in this House or in his private life. He is in a little difficulty here. He is advancing upon two divergent roads. The new proposals that he is bringing forward are to say to local authorities, if you cannot build, if you are too poor to build, and if you can prove to us that you are too poor to build, we will give you more money. Can you imagine a more certain way of getting local authorities to stop every other form of activity and con-

  717
  centrate upon proving that they are very poor and that the Government should give them money.
  The annual report of the Department, while casting a few bricks in our direction, refers to the uncertainty caused by the possibility of a reduced subsidy and its effect on the housing programme, but let me point out that the reduced subsidy was not more than a reduction of 30s. which the fall in the cost of building has completely wiped out. They also point to the effect of the uncertainty about future subsidies. Certainly the uncertainty of the subsidy under the new Slum Clearance Bill and the delay in introducing that Measure had a great deal to do with holding up housing schemes in the years immediately subsequent to the Government coming into power. That is over now, the Bill is on the Statute Book. Now higher subsidies are to be available for the building of houses. I fear very much the bearing of these proposals on the administration of housing in Scotland and I ask the Government to consider whether some way of dealing with these proposals cannot be found which will not have that effect. To say to a man, "If you cannot work under this I will give you better terms," whether he has been in a railway accident or not is the surest way of making certain that the man never gets better from the railway accident. The fear of depression and the promise of more money, these two things working together, will make local authorities stop the building of houses, a possibility which we should all most heartily deplore.
  The housing programme of the present Government, or shall I say the income of housing, shows a distinct rise. The figures I have received from the Department do not show any great improvement in the number of houses under construction. The number of 8,700 in January has only risen to 10,500 in May, and that is a long way below the figure of 14,700 in 1929 and still below the number of houses under construction in 1930. It may be that the building dispute in the West of Scotland has had something to do with the delay in bringing forward houses under construction, but, even so, 10,000 houses under construction in May does not auger very well for a large output of houses during the year. I do not think it is possible that we shall
  718
  get 15,000 houses constructed this year. I doubt very much if we shall get 12,000 houses constructed, although that may be possible, but it means that for two successive years the figures of housing in Scotland have been low indeed, and even if the programme begins to rise to 15,000, or even to 20,000, there will still be the leeway of these two years to make up. Can the Under-Secretary of State give us any forecast as to the number of houses which he thinks are likely to be completed in Scotland this year? It is true that there are only six months to run and if he thinks that it is impossible to give an estimate I do not wish to press him in any way.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I cannot be depressed at any rate.
  Major ELLIOT: The Under-Secretary says that he cannot be depressed. He has every right, not to feel depressed. He came in at the bottom, on the ground floor. The figures are bound to go up, and he will be able to slap his chest and say, "Look at the poor Lord Privy Seal! He could not build any houses at all, but when I came in the number of houses began to rise and has gone-on rising ever since." That is not an exaggerated statement, indeed he is only following the lead of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very poor mouth about the impossibility of doing very much because of the heritage left to him by his predecessors. He is continuing to plough with our heifer, although he says it is a very lean heifer and unable to drag the plough very fast.
  Mr. W. ADAMSON: It was a legacy, not a heifer.
  Major ELLIOT: My hon. and learned Friend behind me will correct me, but I think you can have a beastial legacy as well as a legacy in anything else. What did the right hon. Gentleman say about the Rural Workers Housing Act? He did not make any excuse about it being a poor legacy, nor did he make the excuse about Tory town councils and Tory local authorities, nor did he make the excuse of a lack of confidence. He claimed' that it was because the present administration was properly administering this Act that they had produced the result they had; that while the Tory party for

  719
  the two years they were running the Act had produced few houses in the years he had been running it he had produced double the number of houses. Either he did not administer the Act of 1924 properly or else the increased number of rural houses was due to the good administrative Act which we had left him. It is just as impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was his good administration which produced a lot of rural houses as it is to say that it was the lack of confidence which we had left which did not produce a lot of houses. The difficulty is this. These Debates are of interest to us, but they are not of such great interest to the people of Scotland, because the people of Scotland want results. They ask, "Are we going to get the houses?" and that is why I ask the Under-Secretary if he can give us a forecast for this year. Can he give us a forecast for next year of how many houses he thinks he may get? Will he get 15,000 or will he rise to his 20,000 programme next year? He says he has a programme for three years to come. Can he give us any indication as to how much of that programme he will be able to cash in during those three years? When does he think we shall get back to the 20,000 a year programme? I admit that we are asking him to prophesy, and I do not want to hold him to that question, or even to ask him to give us a figure, if he thinks that it would be unjust to ask for such a figure. But these are things which are of more interest in Scotland than discussions on whether it was the Act as operated by the present Secretary of State, or the Act as operated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pollock (Sir J. Gilmour) which produced the houses already in existence.
  Housing is important, but it is important as bearing upon the public health of Scotland, and the public health is important as reflecting the prosperity of the nation as a whole. The nation is going through a crisis of grave depression. Is the nation going through it successfully or not? I was interested to see the figures in connection with the administration of National Health Insurance Acts in Scotland. They show that the amount paid out in sick benefit was lower last year than it has been for years, and that
  720
  seems to indicate that the public health of Scotland is not suffering as a result of the depression.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Due to the cutting off of a large number of people who are entitled to benefit.
  Major ELLIOT: I will leave the hon. Member for Shettleston to bring his accusations of murder against his own Front Bench. I am always delighted when these accusations of murder are hurled against others than myself, because for four or five years we on these benches, sat under that. I am glad to find that they go on just the same, with as little relevance and may I add with as little accuracy.
  Mr. McGOVERN: Will the hon. Gentleman pardon me for saying that I do know that in the Glasgow area large numbers of people are cut off from national health insurance benefit by the doctors, although those people are admitted by the public assistance committees—with all their rigidity—and even by their medical men to be unfit.
  Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member can deal with his own Front Bench upon that point.
  Mr. McGOVERN: The hon. Gentleman questioned the accuracy of my statement.
  Major ELLIOT: Yes, and I question it still. I would rather take the evidence of the Secretary of State for Scotland than that of the hon. Member for Shettleston.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I would rather take the evidence of the patients who have been cut off and whom I know.
  Major ELLIOT: I have known the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for many years longer than I have known the hon. Member for Shettleston and I will take the word of the right hon. Gentleman until I have found him proved wrong, and I will take the word of the Department of Health until I have found it proved wrong and it will need a good deal of evidence to shake my belief in either of those two authorities. When I have known the hon. Member for Shettleston as long as I have known the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State I will take his word against that of the Secretary of State but not before.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I will take neither.
  Major ELLIOT: If the hon. Member does not take his own word then it is a very poor thing.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I say that I will take the word of the patients.
  Major ELLIOT: We find from the report that a section taken out of the 1,850,000 insured persons in Scotland shows a lower morbidity rate this year than in previous years, and that is a matter upon which we ought to congratulate ourselves. One of the important factors in that connection has been the absence of an influenza epidemic such as those which have repeatedly occurred in previous years. That is one of the important reasons for the drop in the payments of sickness benefit. In connection with the administration of these Acts the absence of an influenza epidemic is a matter of satisfaction, because we know that the recurrence of such epidemics was one of the great features in the continuous and disquieting rise which was a source of perturbation to all engaged in administering these Acts for several years past.
  My statement as to the general public health is corroborated by the tuberculosis return. The hon. Member for Shettleston will not deny that the tuberculosis return is one of the most obvious ways of telling whether the public health is good or bad and the figures have fallen to a point never touched before. I give him another instance, that of infantile mortality which is also a way of testing whether the health of the nation is good or bad. Infantile mortality also has fallen to a point never touched before. Then the special inquiry held by the Department on account of the demands of the hon. Member and his friends, into the health not of the people of Scotland as a whole, but of the children of the unemployed people showed that these people were not suffering. We have been promised the publication of that report by the Secretary of State. These are things which the country ought to know and of which the country ought to be proud. There is no reason why the country should suppose that mass murder is being committed, or that the social services are not being maintained, when it is not so. We have been able to come through these years of depression and to show at the
  722
  end of the period a lower infantile mortality, a lower tuberculosis rate, an untounched standard of health of 100,000 children of unemployed people——
  Dr. MORGAN: In spite of, not because of the depression.
  Major ELLIOT: Surely the hon. Member, who himself was a student of Glasgow University, does not suppose that Scotsmen are such fools as to believe that people get healthier and healthier, the longer the industrial depression continues. Of course it is in spite of it and not because of it.
  Dr. MORGAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is stating his argument in such a way that the general public would believe that these things were because of the general depression.
  Major ELLIOT: In London to which the hon. Member has come, the general public might believe that, but in Scotland, which the hon. Member has left, the general public will not believe it, and it is to the general public in Scotland that I am addressing my remarks and not to the general public in the constituency which has been, so misguided, apparently, as to elect the hon. Member. The fact remains that the health of the people of Scotland is being maintained remarkably well, and what do we gather from that fact? That the necessity in front of the country is a revival in prosperity. The moral of the people, the health of the people, the condition of the people, so far, remain almost unimpaired. The ambulance services of Scotland have kept the efficiency of the nation up to scratch, but we shall not get out of our present difficulty by concentrating upon the ambulance services. We must see that the health of the people is maintained, but the lesson of this report is that depression in the trade and industry of the country is the thing that is really holding back the country from the progress which we desire to see it make. Until we can clear away that depression these reports will not be fully satisfactory to our people, because they will be reports of things which are being done against the grain, done with difficulty, and done against the opposition of local authorities while the whole nation is "hanging back in the brechan" and not going forward. That, I am sure, is

  723
  because the people have a lack of confidence about the future. I agree, most heartily, with the Secretary of State. That is all that is the matter with Scotland just now, and that is why it is necessary for one party or the other to remove that cause in the near future.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: The trend of the Debate to-day leads me to the conclusion that I shall have an easy task in meeting the questions that were put to me. Not a single question has been put for the purpose of tripping up the Under-Secretary when he has to reply. Every question has been put with the desire, I believe, to gather information, and to help in the general administration of Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) has really assisted me in giving some of the reasons why there is a decline in house building. There was a point, however, to which he did not particularly refer. One of the difficulties local authorities have to face, and which may have thrown some grit in the wheels so far as house construction is concerned, is the fear of the increased cost because of decreased rating. That difficulty was intensified because of the De-rating Act, which has given them less rating value on which to collect the money necessary for housing.
  Major ELLIOT: It has also been intensified by the burden of such measures as the raising of the school age.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I am not entitled to discuss that. I am responsible in my reply only for administration, and not for prospective legislation which the other House has thrown out. I am pleased to be able to report, in reply to the question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that there is an upward tendency in house production. The test of that is not to concentrate on the houses that have been completed; if I take the number of houses that have been approved for erection by local authorities, that will be the best test as to whether there is now an upward tendency. In 1928 the number of houses approved for erection was 8,482. In 1929 it dropped to 7,740. In 1930 the number went up to 10,145, and I am pleased to report that up to the 20th June this year, we had approved of the
  724
  erection of houses to the number of 5,434.
  9.0 p.m.
  That proves an upward tendency, although it is not altogether satisfactory. We have to get still greater improvement, and every effort is being made to encourage local authorities to take full advantage of the 1930 Act. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) put to me certain questions as to the construction of houses for the next three years, the next two years and the next year. I am not able to give the figures for one year, because the 1930 Act laid down a three years' programme. Under Sub-section 22 (2) of that Act, local authorities have to submit their programme for the next three years. It is to that Act that we must look for any substantial advance. It provides a subsidy which is based on a unit grant for those persons who are to be dispossessed of insanitary houses and re-housed in a decent house which all sections of the Committee want to see accomplished as soon as possible. From the Department's contacts with the local authorities it is clear already that they are responding to the attractive terms of the Act. Under the previous Acts, the grant for two-apartment houses was £9, but under the new Act there is no real encouragement to local authorities to build that size house, because the unit grant is only £7 10s., whereas the unit grant for three-apartment houses is £12 10s., and for four-apartment houses £17 10s. Therefore the encouragement to local authorities in the rehousing of the people from the insanitary houses, from slum areas and from overcrowded houses, is to build three, four, and, if necessary, five-apartment houses.
  Mr. SKELTON: Is that tendency operating in actual fact? Do the schemes show that the larger houses are being brought forward by the local authorities?
  Mr. WESTWOOD: Yes. Not only do the schemes show that, but the Department itself has been encouraging local authorities to go in for three-apartment houses as against two-apartment houses. Let me give an illustration how the encouragement was responded to. In the

  725
  case of Dalkeith burgh, a scheme was submitted in which there was a larger number of two-apartment houses than the Department desired to grant, and the local authority were asked to reconsider the scheme. They were even asked to have fresh estimates for three-apartment houses in place of the two-apartment houses, and the local authority discovered in the new estimates that there was a difference of only £15 per house for the three-apartment house as against the two-apartment house. To the credit of the local authority, they were agreeable to provide the three-apartment houses.
  Mr. SCOTT: Has the hon. Gentleman any information as to the probable life of that class of house, and whether there is any risk of their degenerating into slum houses in a certain number of years?
  Mr. WESTWOOD: All I can say is that the grant is payable over 40 years, and the assumption is that the house will last at least for the period of the grant. The 1930 Act required local authorities to submit to the Department before the end of 1930 a statement setting out their proposals for the ensuing three years. On the 15th June, of 227 local authorities, 178 had submitted schemes. The point was made by an hon. Member that the other 49 authorities did not require schemes. The Act laid down, however, that they must submit their reports, and if they do not require the schemes "nil" will be marked against their names, so far as their requirements are concerned. My complaint is that even at this late date, 49 local authorities should not have complied with the conditions of the Act to carry through a survey and to submit their reports so that we should know exactly what the position is in Scotland.
  The statements issued by the 178 authorities show that a total of 75,992 houses are required in the areas of those authorities: 37,422 are to replace houses which are to be pulled down or closed; 21,470 are to relieve overcrowding; and 12,602 are to meet the normal growth of population. In addition, 4,500 not yet allocated into the above categories, are proposed. The three-year programme of these local authorities amounts to the provision of 51,470 houses, which will give us the 20,000 per year at which we aimed. This represents an
  726
  average of 17,156 houses per year, and if the expectations of the local authorities are realised the output during the next three years should be a substantial contribution to re-housing in Scotland. Up to the 16th May, 1,778 houses have been approved for erection under the 1930 Act. The actual number under the 1930 Act will not be determined till later—I think my hon. and gallant Friend knows the arrangements—because we may have to rehouse some of the people under the 1930 Act or under the Wheatley Act, according to which is the more suitable to the local authorities, and they are not required to make their choice until before the houses are occupied.
  So far as slum clearance houses are concerned, we are getting 50 per cent. more houses from the local authorities under the 1930 Act in the three years than we succeeded in getting before. I do not blame the previous Administration, because as representing a constituency in which the housing conditions are intolerable—I am not speaking now so much as Under-Secretary of State as the representative of that constituency—I always had the assistance of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite in bringing pressure to bear on the Tory-ridden authority there, but they took no more notice of him than they did of their present Member. We had not then got the power that we have now, and I for one am prepared to use this power if the local authority in my constituency will not carry out their duties under the Act of Parliament.
  I have dealt pretty fully with the production of houses, and will now turn to some of the other points raised in the Debate. If I do not deal with every point I promise that to-morrow I will go carefully through the report of the Debate with my officials, and any point that has been omitted will be made the subject of a reply to be sent direct to the particular Member who raised it. I realise that there has been an honest endeavour on the part of everyone taking part in the Debate not to be too critical, but to attempt to be helpful in matters concerning the administration of health and housing. The right hon. Member for Pollok raised the question of the regional survey. Industrial Scotland from the Forth to the Clyde is being covered by regional schemes, and these are now under consideration. A committee of local authori-

  727
  ties is dealing with Ayrshire, as with the whole of the Clyde Valley, and with Stirlingshire and West Lothian, and I understand they are also dealing with Fifeshire. It will be for the Department to see that each of the schemes and any others which may be submitted will fit into and be properly co-ordinated in a great town planning scheme for Scotland.
  Another question raised concerned medical research. The Secretary of State set up a committee to investigate the causes of disease and we increased the grant available for investigation from £100 to £2,500. A scientific advisory committee will guide these investigations, and with two individuals coming from Fife holding the offices we hold the Committee can be assured that we shall look for a large return from this increased expenditure. In passing I would like to point out that Dr. Smith, of the Aberdeen Health Department, has been awarded the Nichols prize of the Royal Society of Medicine, a prize given every three years, and that he has given us very valuable assistance in connection with this work. An hon. Member from one of the Aberdeen constituencies asked about the two diseases, enteric fever and diphtheria, with which we have had some difficulty during the last year. Our investigations have shown, unfortunately, that it has been most difficult to trace the source of infection, but we are continuing the investigations in the hope that whether the water supply or lack of drainage is responsible we shall be able to bring down the number of victims of those diseases, just as we have by medical science and our social services been able to bring down the numbers of people afflicted with tuberculosis.
  Before I conclude I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. D. Hardie) on the maiden speech he delivered. He put two questions to me regarding the necessity for getting into contact with the authorities. We are always trying to get into contact with the authorities, particularly in connection with housing, and also about river pollution, to which several hon. Members have made reference. I myself have been responsible for convening several conferences. We have had conferences on housing with a view to explaining the powers that local authorities have and
  728
  the financial advantages available to them under the Housing Act. We are also bringing together the authorities to discuss such evidence as we have of river pollution and are dealing with the Tweed, the Esk, and the Leven.
  Mr. SCOTT: Is it the intention of the Department to get in touch with the local authorities in regard to education?
  Mr. WESTWOOD: It would be entirely out of order for me to deal with education on this Vote. We are doing our best to get into touch with authorities on housing, river pollution and all other problems.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I asked about Poor Law relief, and the same question has also been raised by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). We want the Scottish Office to get into touch with the local authorities on the question of the Poor Law scales.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I cannot say at the moment whether any conference has been convened on that matter, but my hon. Friends may rest assured that it will be kept under consideration.
  Mr. McGOVERN: A promise was made 12 months ago, and surely the hon. Gentleman can tell us whether any action has been taken.
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I have already pointed out that I cannot give an answer at once. So far as this question and the other questions are concerned, I have given a promise that I will go carefully through the records of the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow and that every point will be dealt with, as far as is possible and useful.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I am sorry to interrupt again. I am not dealing with any statement that has been made now, but with a promise made 12 months ago on the last Scottish Estimates, in connection with the calling of a conference to consider the raising of Poor Law scales of relief to a uniform rate. Do I understand that nothing has been done?
  Mr. WESTWOOD: My hon. Friend is not to understand that nothing has been done. I do not know whether anything has been done or has not been done, but I promise to look into the matter. I cannot say yea or nay.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I feel that I cannot allow this point to go, although I am rather loath to interrupt. The Secretary of State for Scotland is here, and it was on his behalf that the promise was given by the late Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, now the Lord Privy Seal, that he had an assurance that the Secretary of State for Scotland would use his influence in order to have conferences along those lines. Surely I am entitled to know, after 12 months, whether anything has been done or not?
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I can only say that I will look into the matter and find out whether a conference has or has not been called.
  Mr. McGOVERN: I am very dissatisfied that, after 12 months, the Secretary of State for Scotland, sitting here on the Front Bench makes no attempt to tell me if a promise made 12 months ago has been carried out. Is that promise like all similar promises?
  Mr. WESTWOOD: Any promise we give, so far as the Scottish Office is concerned, we endeavour to fulfil.
  A point was raised in reference to pollution in the River Cart. The position is that the authority responsible, the Town Council of Paisley, have a scheme under consideration for complete sewage purification, and that there is a likelihood of the scheme being effected in the very near future. The hon. Member for Partick (Mr. McKinlay) put several questions about the silicosis regulations under which those who are affected by silicosis have to go from Scotland to Newcastle for treatment. My right hon. Friend asks me to assure the Committee that this matter is being looked into with a view to getting the regulations altered, and to try to give effect to what the Committee desires, namely, that no one from Scotland will have to travel to England in consequence of these silicosis regulations.
  Questions were put by the right hon. and learned Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) dealing with the assistance which might be given in the way of telephone facilities through outlying districts. In the report of the Department of Health he will find, on page 97:
  "Concessions have been made by the Post Office by way of the abolition or reduction
  730
  of the guarantees required for 10 telegraph or telephone circuits, towards the cost of which the Department formerly contributed. It was agreed to give grants from the fund towards the annual rental of six new telephone installations in doctors' houses, five on the mainland and one in Orkney; and similar assistance was also promised for certain nurses."
  If there are any particular cases to which the right hon. Gentleman desires to draw particular attention, I hope he will accept the assurance that they will be inquired into, and if it is possible, within the limited scope that we have under Post Office regulations, for us to assist in the direction suggested, he may rest assured that assistance will be given.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Will my hon. Friend say a word about the question of an extra room in doctors' houses?
  Mr. WESTWOOD: That is also a matter which, I am authorised to assure the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for Scotland will look into. It seems to be a question worthy of consideration.
  Although much work has been done by the local authorities in regard to housing, there is still more to be done. I, for one, am dissatisfied with the progress that local authorities are making in dealing with the housing problem. There are problems to which, unfortunately, they give too much time. Apart from the building of houses, there are certain duties which devolve upon local authorities, for seeing that houses are in a habitable state, and seeing that private owners give effect to the repairs that are necessary to keep houses in a habitable state. Cases carne under the notice of the Department when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) was in office in 1927, and that they remain to-day is due to the laxity and the delay of local authorities, and the refusal, in some cases, to enforce the powers which the local authorities have. Houses that could be made habitable and worthy of the name, are, in a most disreputable condition, simply because local authorities are not enforcing the law and are not calling upon private owners to put these houses into habitable repair. I want to make an appeal to the local authorities from this House, that they should assist us in dealing with this problem.

  731
  The late Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that you can coax a Scotsman, but you cannot drive him. If you have 47 local authorities standing out, while the other authorities have yielded to your coaxing, then it is the duty of the State to see that the 47 are forced to do their duty by means of the powers which lie to hand. Of one thing, this House, and the working class and the housing enthusiasts in Scotland may rest assured—the housing enthusiasts are not limited to members of the working class—that our powers of improving Scottish housing conditions and of calling upon the local authorities to use all the power that they have for the purpose of improving the present insanitary houses, will be enforced, in the hope that the local authorities will be able to provide better houses and give our people a chance of living in decent and honourable conditions which, I believe, is the desire of every member of this Committee.
  Some of the reports that have come my way since I entered office have been enough to make one feel that there is something drastically wrong with our system of society. Quite recently there was a case in which 14 individuals were living in a single apartment. Reports have come in within the last two or three weeks of houses where there were holes in the roof, and where it was absolutely impossible, when it was rainy weather, for the children to be allowed to sleep in bed. These conditions cannot be allowed to continue in Scotland. We are entitled to something better than that for the housing of our people. I think we shall have the co-operation of all parties. Among those who have persisted, with myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the calling of various conferences to discuss housing problems, we have had the assistance of Liberal and Conservative hon. Members, with the object of bringing, not pressure, but that coaxing spirit to bear, on the local authorities, in the convening of these conferences. If we can have that spirit continued, so far as dealing with the housing problem is concerned, then at the end of three years I, for one, shall not be satisfied unless, if there are 500,000 houses declared unfit for human habitation, there are 500,000 houses to take their place. That is the aim and object so far as our
  732
  administration is concerned, and I have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Estimates moved by my right hon. Friend. I feel sure that, in administering the law with regard to housing as far as Scotland is concerned, we shall have the support of all sections of the House.
  Mr. McGOVERN: May I have a reply on the point about steel houses?
  Mr. WESTWOOD: I can assure the hon. Member that I have a full reply here, but I thought I had taken a fair share of the time of the Committee, as other Members wish to speak. I will send the hon. Member a full reply, which will give him the names of the directors of the housing company and the other matters asked for, and I am sure he will be more satisfied with a written reply.
  Duchess of ATHOLL: As the hour is getting late, and there is another subject to be discussed, I shall not detain the Committee long. Most of the time has been spent in discussing houses, and there are two things I would say on that subject before passing on to another matter. First, there is one thing one can say about those who live in steel houses, and that is that they can sleep in their beds at night without the fear of anything coming through the roof. In the second place, I think I could bring some comfort to the mind of the Lord Privy Seal and show him some houses dating from the time of the '45 which, now that all modern conveniences have been put into them, are quite to the satisfaction of those who live in them, so that he need not despair if a "Prince Charlie" house is occupied, provided it is assisted by the Rural Housing Act.
  I wish to draw attention to another matter, which is insufficiently emphasised in the report, the extension of maternity and child welfare schemes in the rural areas. The need for extending these schemes is written all over the report. We see it first in the distressing figures for maternal mortality, which have been referred to. There may be many reasons for maternal mortality, but all medical opinion is agreed that one of the chief reasons is the want of more antenatal care. For this the presence in a district of a nurse health visitor is a very important factor. There are many

  733
  women who would more readily go to a nurse health visitor in matters of that kind than to a medical man. To insure that a nurse health visitor is within the reach of every woman who may be a mother is very important from the point of view of maternal mortality. As to the deaths of children within one month from birth from congenital defects, the report again emphasises the need for ante-natal care from the point of view of the newly-born child. But we are told that only one-third of the mothers of Scotland get ante-natal care, and we must feel that that is not at all a satisfactory position. When we come to the slightly older children from one year up to five years of age, we are told that only one-quarter are getting any medical care in the child welfare centres, although many of the defects found in these children when they come to school are defects which are easily remedied, but which, if left unremedied, may become serious.
  The whole of the report declares the need for the extension of maternal and child welfare schemes. In the towns these schemes consist largely of child welfare centres. In the rural centres, the report tells us the work is chiefly done by district nurses acting as health visitors in return for grants from the associations which employ them. Nothing is said as to the extent to which district nurses in Scotland are acting as health visitors, and no suggestion is made as to how we can have an extension of the scheme by which district nurses will undertake these duties. If I had spoken before the hon. Gentleman, I should have liked to have asked him in how many counties in Scotland schemes are in existence by which the district nurses are undertaking those duties and advising mothers in regard to their own health and the health of their children up to five years of age. I do not think it is a very large proportion of counties, not nearly so much as in England, where this work is being done over a very considerable area.
  One of the first things to be done for health in Scotland is to extend schemes of that kind so that every parish can have a district nursing association. This is a work in which co-operation is necessary, because it is common knowledge that the district nursing associations are provided by voluntary
  734
  bodies. The next point to note is that it is not very easy for local authorities to arrange schemes unless all the district nursing associations, which usually have come into existence on a parish basis, are co-ordinated and federated into a county nursing association. It is very difficult for a county council or big burgh to arrange anything of the kind with disconnected parish associations. The local authority naturally wants to get them all federated into one large body. That is essential in order to extend these schemes in the counties in Scotland. In the past, if any scheme of that sort was to be made effective by the local nursing associations which had federated themselves into one body, they might have to discuss that scheme with a dozen different local authorities. I can think of one case where a scheme of that kind was discussed with five district committees and 11 burghs. The scheme as it concerned district committees was quickly carried through with the county council, but it took eight years before the last of the 11 burghs had entered into a scheme with the federation. Now, however, under the operation of the Local Government Act, the whole of the scheme would be in the hands of one body, the county council. Whatever criticism may he levelled at that Act, I cannot imagine any measures of health being levelled at it in regard to county areas. If the hon. Gentleman will utilise the advantage it gives, particularly in the rural districts, by the unification of health services, he can do a great work for the health of mothers and children in the rural districts of Scotland.
  It is not always easy, however, to get district nursing associations federated into one body. There may be nobody, perhaps, who knows how to give the matter a start; one local nursing association may be afraid to step out into the open; there may be some nursing associations who want to be left alone. Therefore, it is not always an easy matter, particularly in our big scattered counties, where people are far from each other, and do not meet often to discuss things. The county councils of Scotland could give tremendous help in this way if they would approach those who are responsible for local nursing associations, and ask them to give their help in extending child welfare schemes. If the

  735
  right hon. Gentleman would appeal to the county councils to put themselves in touch with local nursing associations, and invite their co-operation——
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: You mean charity organisations?
  Duchess of ATHOLL: Most of these associations in Scotland to-day are associations to which people pay a membership fee. They are supported, besides by subscriptions and donations, and to that extent it may be said that they are charities, but whatever they are, and however their funds are provided, they are doing splendid work for the health of the people in these areas, and no one in these areas will deny that. If the right hon. Gentleman could suggest to the chairmen of county councils how much they could assist local nursing associations in federating themselves, it would make all the difference in the world, because often the people who are running these local nursing associations are shy of taking the first step. They do not know how it will be responded to by the county councils, and do not like to apply for help to the local authority, but prefer to wait to be invited. If the right hon. Gentleman could appeal to the county councils to put themselves in touch with local nursing associations, and ask them to federate themselves and then discuss with the county councils how they could carry out child welfare and maternity welfare schemes, I am certain that it would very greatly facilitate the federation of these local nursing associations. Having had to do with district nursing associations in Scotland for something like 30 years, I know that there is no work which makes so wide an appeal in a rural area as that of the district nursing association. There is nothing which people are so ready to help, and I believe that, if the county councils would appeal to the committees of local nursing associations to come forward and co-operate, they would tap a reserve of interest and helpfulness and public spirit which could be put in motion to the very great advantage of the people in those areas.
  Miss LEE: I should not have ventured to intervene at this late hour had it not been for the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal earlier in the Debate. I con-
  736
  sider that it was one of the most important and startling statements that could possibly be made in reference to Scottish housing, and I want to express my indebtedness to the right hon. Gentleman for stating in clear and unequivocal language exactly what the position is. I hope that his statement will be given the very widest publicity. Unless I misunderstood him, he informed the Committee that we could help housing by three and four-apartment houses in Scotland, to be let at a rental of 5s. per week; that county councils could build an unlimited supply of these houses so far as the regulations of the Act go; and that all this could be done for the badly housed people of Scotland without adding a single penny to the local rates. The Lord Privy Seal is now in his place, and I hope that at this point he will contradict me if I have in any way misinterpreted his remarks.
  Mr. JOHNSTON: I think that what the hon. Lady has said is perfectly correct. I would only like to say, with regard to her last sentence, that I said that the experience we have now had shows that, in the districts where this has been done, nothing has in fact been added net to the rates. I do not say that in certain isolated areas, where the cost of building may be higher, there might not be some charge, but there has been none in those cases where it has been done.
  Miss LEE: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell me where it has been done?
  Mr. JOHNSTON: In Kilsyth, for example.
  Miss LEE: That is excellent for my purpose, because the particular area with which I am concerned is Lanarkshire. I was not only startled by the Lord Privy Seal's remarks, but shocked, because you can find in any part of Lanarkshire to-day houses utterly unfit for human beings to live in. Indeed, in answer to a recent Parliamentary Question, the Under-Secretary of State informed me that there are 1,250 houses in Lanarkshire which have been condemned by the sanitary authorities, but which, nevertheless, are inhabited by families. If we take the figures for the whole of Scotland, we find that there are no fewer than 37,846 houses unfit for habitation, and, so far as the Government at present

  737
  know, taking the returns from 180 authorities, they have a promise that within the next three years the local authorities will build 24,321 houses to take the places of those which have been already condemned.
  I want to suggest that the whole of the people of Scotland should be outraged that such a state of affairs should exist when we have the power in our hands to rid Scotland of these shameful slums. As the statement has not so far been made in this Debate, although I have made it myself, and others have made it, in former Debates, it is just as well that we should avoid any complacency by remembering that, while only 5 per cent. of the population af England are living in one and two-apartment houses, very recent figures show that 52 per cent. of the houses in Scotland are one-or two-apartment houses. It is not only, therefore, that the slums of Scotland themselves are a disgrace, but also that the relative position of housing in Scotland as compared with England ought to be a challenge to every Member of the House to work harder than he has even done before to put things right in Scotland.
  But for the statement of the Lord Privy Seal, I should have been very reluctant to believe that any body of men in a responsible public position, such as the Conservative members of our county councils and other local government bodies, while understanding that they have it in their power to do this great service to their communities, would for any selfish, narrow interest refrain from using this power to the very maximum; but the facts which have been brought before this Committee force us to conclude that, simply because here and there you have a Conservative local councillor who is also an owner of property, or whose relatives, or whose wife's relatives, or someone, perhaps, who attends the same congregation as himself, may happen to own property, he has held his hand. I am still reluctant to believe that that can be so, but I am driven, by the facts which have been put before us, to come to that conclusion. I can assure the Government that in North Lanarkshire at least there will be no lack of the four citizens required in order that the maximum power may be used, and I hope that the same will be the case in every other part of Scotland.
  738
  I have in my mind very vivid pictures in innumerable small villages in my constituency, where hard-working people are living in single and two-apartment houses. They have been writing to me on scores of occasions asking when it is going to be possible for them to move into these new houses which have been promised by the present Government, and I confess that it is only now that I can go back to the county of Lanark and tell them that not only have these things been promised by the Labour Government, not only have the Government created machinery to make them possible, but that this actually can be done without adding a single penny to their local rates.
  A further thing that I feel we simply must deal with in the very near future is the need for doing something not only about the height but about the variety of present rentals. We are talking of building new houses to let at £12 per annum, but in parts of the West of Scotland working class families are, at this point of time, struggling to remove into new houses and they are having to pay £28 a year for three-apartment houses and £35 for four-apartment houses. That is quite an intolerable situation. I do not see why there should be a special economic law applying to house rent which does not apply to a single other commodity. If anyone went into a shop to buy a suit of clothes and was shown two suits identical in style and in material but one priced at £10 and the other at £6, he would think the only thing to do with the salesman was to have him mentally certified if he said that one was built earlier than the other and the material was more expensive and he had to pay for that. It applies to furniture, hats or anything. The latest material and the latest prices must determine the prices of the other things.
  It may be said that even the most expensive of these houses are State subsidised and, therefore, to some extent below market value, but I do not think that is an adequate reply, especially in these days when the Prime Minister himself has explained that, although working class wages have been reduced to a certain extent, the cost of living had been reduced considerably more and, therefore, no sacrifice was imposed. If the cost of living is coming down in everything else, it is more than overdue that it

  739
  should be brought down in these new houses, and particularly in the steel houses, which are not as good as ordinary stone houses according to those who are living in them, but for which the inhabitants have to pay excessive rentals of £28, £24, and more than £30.
  The Noble Lady expressed some concern regarding mortality figures among very young infants. In every disease we have seen a certain improvement. Even in these figures there has been a certain improvement, although nothing like what we should wish to see. I am very troubled by a statement which I find in the report of the Department, where we are told:
  "Maternity homes are intended for normal confinements but, owing to the shortage of maternity hospital accommodation, they have been used to some extent for abnormal cases, for which, however, they are neither adequately equipped nor staffed."
  I feel bound to bring this point again before the Committee because I have had women constituents of my own complaining to me that there was even a scarcity of hospital places in the West of Scotland for abnormal cases where there were particular medical difficulties present. I hope the matter will have the immediate attention of the Scottish Department, because it is rather a disgrace to any Scottish Committee to allow such a state of things to go on.
  I should like to thank the Secretary of State for the work he has done for some of the nurses. I brought to his notice cases where nurses in public institutions were being under-fed, and certainly overworked, and I think I express their feelings as well as my own when I thank him for the very careful attention he gave to the matter, which in one large institution was responsible for a very marked improvement. I beg that the good work he has begun should be continued. There is very great need of its continuance, because I am far from satisfied with the condition of things in our voluntary hospitals. In the first place, it is ridiculous that we should talk in terms of voluntary hospitals at all at this late time. We have our schools. The children go there as a matter of right. They feel that there is no moral shame of any kind in getting the cost of their education paid through the rates instead of directly by the parents. In the interest not only of
  740
  the nurses, in order that they may get decent trade union conditions, but also in the interest of the patients I hope the Secretary of State will take very big steps in that direction. The Lord Privy Seal has brought before our notice that machinery has been created to remove the slums and it now remains for Members of the House, and for the interested public outside, to see that that machinery is used to the fullest possible extent.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLASS VI.

    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £397,313, 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 Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including Grants for Land Improvement, Agricultural Education and Research, Loans to Co-operative Societies, a Grant under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, a Grant in respect of the Hebridean Drifter Service, and certain Grants-in-Aid."
    Mr. SKELTON: I hope that the hon. Lady who has just spoken did not curtail her most interesting speech earlier than she meant to do, in order to let me address myself to the new Vote, because we listen to her always with interest, and I should be sorry to think that she had cut short her remarks. The question to which I want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to devote his attention is the question of the probable situation during the coming crop season of the small fruit-growers of Scotland. I start, of course, with the view that it is impossible for the Government to handle the subject by way of tariffs or restrictions of any sort, and that the question must be discussed as to what can be done. I should like to know what the Secretary of State is proposing to do in what is a very serious and very urgent crisis. It is serious because it is quite clear that this is going to be the second season in which the whole Scottish industry will be completely unremunerative, and it is urgent because the time of the cropping season is so nearly upon us.
    The situation is this: Although I refer exclusively to one form of small fruit cul-

    741
    tivation, it is not the only one. I take, for instance, the raspberry crop. There is a crop of many thousands of tons, a very valuable crop, to the cultivation af which large numbers of men who have been settled on the land have been encouraged to devote themselves, and to which for a number of years they have devoted themselves with great success. It is a highly intensive crop. Up to last year a profit of £50 or £60 an acre was made. Therefore it will be seen that the cultivation of quite a small parcel of ground was sufficient support for a family. In my own constituency, in the Carse of Gowrie, and in the neighbouring constituencies of Angus and Fife, it is a local industry of very great importance. It is an industry of far more than rural importance, for one of its most remarkable features is that it is one of the bridge s between country and town.
    The cultivation of raspberries alone means that some 20,000 town workers get what is really a country holiday, for which, unlike most of us, they get adequate pay. I know from my own experience that very valuable results have come to mill workers in Dundee, who go out to the neighbouring districts for a fortnight or three weeks and engage in raspberry picking. I have often seen them, and I know how extraordinarily valuable the crop is, what a valuable industry it is from the point of view of the town worker as well as the country dweller. What has happened in the last two years is that pulp has been imported from a country which it is always better not to name in this House, and of which I shall certainly not mention even the initial letter—let us call it X—pulp is being dumped at prices which are less than half the minimum at which the cultivation of raspberries can be made to pay in this country. The price of this pulp last year dropped to £11 or £12 a ton, whereas the bare cultivation costs in Scotland are only covered by a price of about £30 a ton.
    10.0 p.m.
    There is every reason to suppose that this year there will he a recurrence of exactly the same situation, and, indeed, that the situation will be worse, because there is a certain amount of pulp left over from last year's crop, both home and foreign. The price is already, three or four weeks before the crop begins, down to a figure which spells disaster.
    742
    That is a situation of the gravest sort. I hope and believe that the Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland have at least been considering what steps can be taken inside the limitations of the general fiscal policy of the Government. It is not easy to suggest what these steps can be, but it would appear that there could be some assistance given with regard to transport, with regard to the organisation of sales and by way of pressure upon those who buy the crops to buy if possible British fruit even at a higher price. I say that such pressure might be brought to induce purchase at a higher price, because so far as I know the very low figure of last year's price was not fully reflected in the price of the finished article, the raspberry jam. I think the Secretary of State really might see whether he can bring some pressure to bear upon those who buy the crops and persuade them to give first preference to the Scottish crop. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to relieve the growing anxiety of the fruit growers of Scotland as to whether this year's crop is to prove as disastrous as that of 1930.
    Mr. MCKINLAY: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us the number of growers who are also dealers, and what is their primary function, growing or dealing, and how far they determine the price paid to the rest of the growers?
    Mr. SKELTON: I cannot give any general answer to that, but I know that in the district in my own constituency they are almost exclusively growers, and the question of dealers does not come into it at all. It is not a question of the dealer at all; it is a question of a foreign pulp coming into this country at £11 or £12 a ton, whereas the British crop must bring in £30 a ton to pay its way. In these figures the operations, good or bad, of dealers, in my judgment have no part at all. I hope that the Secretary of State will not attempt to ride off by throwing mud at the dealer, because this is not a question into which the dealer comes.
    Mr. McKINLAY: I ask the hon. Member because he comes from a constituency which is engaged in the growing of this fruit.
    Mr. SKELTON: I have no doubt that the hon. Member's question had some relevance, and that he would not have dragged in the dealer unless he thought that the dealer had something to do with the price problem. We are all familiar with the question of middlemen and dealers in regard to a lot of products, but I merely say that the crisis of the moment has not been caused by dealing operations, but by dumping. Whatever be the cause, there it is, and the position is serious. There is another element of seriousness. The raspberry crop is very largely grown by men and women who have been settled under the Land Settlement Act of 1919. To a very large extent they are ex-service men. Most of them came into their settlements at a time of high prices, about 1920, and most of them immediately had to encounter the slump of 1921. Most of them, if not all, successfully encountered the difficulties of that slump, but they have had only a very few years of such conditions as make success possible, and now they are faced with a new problem: a problem which they cannot handle themselves, which is not their fault, and in regard to which I think—particularly in the case of these men whom the State has settled on the land—the State has some duty to attempt to assist.
    One other word. The importance of intensive cultivation of the land for this crop is of a degree almost peculiar to Scotland and cannot be over-estimated. Intensive cultivation of the land is a thing which we are all aiming at. It is what the party opposite, while in Opposition, were constantly urging. The importance of land settlement has been urged from all sides of the House. Although, personally, it has more often been my claim to urge a continuous land settlement policy, it is quite clear that the policy of the moment is one of looking after the people who have already-been settled on the land for this particular form of cultivation. Further, it is a problem which will not brook delay, for this reason, that it is in many ways such an expensive crop to cultivate; a crop which in the absence of proper cultivation goes back very quickly. The condition of a raspberry cane which has not been properly cultivated for 12 months is hopeless, and no raspberry-growing would survive two years' neglect unless it was possible to expend a large
    744
    sum of money on labour. Therefore, bad years create in this case a problem even more urgent that the bad years of ordinary farming. I hesitate to consider what will be the fate of this really important rural industry in Scotland if another season is allowed to go by without any assistance being given and without a facing of the problem.
    I spoke a moment ago on the subject of the smallholder, the man settled under the 1919 Act. It may be that I do not myself greatly favour chat form of assistance. It may be that, if we only had to deal with them, then something in the way of a remission of rent might be possible. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say what is the position in the matter of rents: whether there have been urgent demands for some relaxation of rents during this bad period, and whether he proposes to do something in that line. The cultivation of raspberries is not confined to men settled on the land since 1919. There are large numbers of smallholders who were there before, and there are the larger-sized holdings; and no remission of rents is possible in their case, nor would it solve the problem for them. It is extremely difficult for them. It is very easy for us to say that the Scottish raspberry is very much better than the foreign raspberry and that no foreign raspberry shall come in; but the Government cannot do that. I do not wish to criticise them on that point now.
    I merely say that the raspberry is an intensively-grown article, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me he has in fact studied the question and has some hopes of bringing some assistance to the growers, both great and small, of the forthcoming crop. I hope he will not tell us that we are exaggerating the situation of last year, because there are a large number of persons who went out from the towns to gather the crop. The truth of the matter is that, though large numbers may have gone out, most of them stayed a very short time, and most of them were not asked to deal with the usual quantity, with the result that hundreds of tons of fruit remained ungathered and large sums were lost to the pockets of the urban pickers. Do not let my right hon. Friend ride off on any such suggestion as that, because there are too many Members in every

    745
    part of the House who know that that cock will not fight. I do not wish to delay the Committee any more. The matter is very urgent. If it has not been considered already, there is very little time to consider it now. If nothing has been done already, I think the right hon. Gentleman must really tell us what he proposes to do.
    Major DUDGEON: I have studied with care the last report of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, and I think there are very interesting features of the report. I think, generally, the history of the Scottish Department of Agriculture justifies its creation. I remember many of us fighting very strenuously over 20 years ago, in order that Scotland should have a Department of Agriculture of its own. I wish to deal with a matter of local importance. Before passing on to that matter I must just refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Skelton). In my constituency I am not concerned so much with raspberry growers, but I have a small number of raspberry growers who settled under the Land Settlement Act of 1919, and I know the serious position that they are in at the present time. The only suggestion I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is this: There seems to be a growing demand for raspberries for canning purposes. There is a very marked increase in the consumption. I am told by retailers in London especially that the demand has increased in the last year for canned raspberries. I think it might be of some assistance to raspberry growers if facilities were set up in the raspberry-growing areas for canning raspberries.
    I really want to bring before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee a matter in connection with the Land Drainage Act of last year. I think my right hon. Friend knows that very serious damage was caused by the flooding of the River Nith, a very important river in South-West Scotland, in 1929. Two farms were practically submerged. No action was taken at that time. It was known that the Government were promoting the Land Drainage Act. That Act was ultimately passed at the end of last year, and its rather slow, cumbersome machinery was started in connection with a scheme for getting this
    746
    very serious flooding remedied. In the last few weeks there have been further floods, and two large farms have been very seriously damaged. The matter is one of extreme urgency, and it does seem an anomaly that we have this serious damage being ever extended by further flooding of valuable agricultural land, and in the same year the highest ratio of unemployment we have known since the War. Surely some means could be taken whereby an acceleration of this drainage scheme would be achieved.
    The unemployed men, many of whom have been out of employment for a number of years, could be put on to this useful work. Every day that is lost in dealing with this matter is causing additional damage and, ultimately, additional expense. I press upon my right hon. Friend to use all his powers, and perhaps go beyond the strict letter of the Statute, in getting this matter dealt with at the earliest possible moment. Surely the Committee realise that, in a case of this kind, delay is most unfortunate. If a breach had been effected on the Western Front during the years of the War, there would not have been a reference to the War Office to see what scheme was to be developed or what practical operations were to take place to remedy the breach. Immediate action by those on the spot would have been taken. I impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should get into consultation with those interested—the landowners and the organisations in the area who have taken up this matter—and see if something cannot be done to get this very serious and ever-increasing damage dealt with at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: I wish to say a few words upon the general question of agriculture before the right hon. Gentleman replies. I do not wish to stand for any length of time between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton), who has put a specific point to the right hon. Gentleman regarding the fruit growers, but we do not get many opportunities in this House of discussing Scottish agriculture as a whole, and it is not an unimportant subject.
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: We have discussed it within the last fortnight.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Yes, but at inadequate length, and the right hon. Gentleman had no opportunity upon that occasion of replying to many of the questions addressed to him. I hope that he will give satisfaction to all hon. Members who have addressed the Committee upon the subject of Scottish agriculture since the last Debate, and, in particular, to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth. There is real urgency about the question of the fruit growers. It really exceeds the urgency of the position of beef and cereals and the general position. I understand that if the matter is not dealt with in the course of a very few weeks, the position of the fruit growers in Scotland will be worse than it was last year, and that numbers of them will find themselves faced with complete ruin and bankruptcy. I do not know what action the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take, but I hope that we shall hear something from him before the evening is out.
    It is, I am afraid, a characteristic of this Committee at the present juncture that we are precluded, under the rules of debate from discussing remedies for the two main causes of the trouble both with regard to the production of fruit in Scotland and the position of agriculture generally. The two main causes of the trouble, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State would obviously admit, are, first of all, the general fall which has taken place in all commodity prices during the last two years which, as on every previous occasion that it has happened in the economic history of the world, has hit agriculture harder than any other industry, and, secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman was careful to point out to the Committee upon the last occasion he addressed it, the fact that, exclusive of cereals, no less than £230,000,000 worth of foodstuffs is imported into this country every year. We are precluded from discussing the main methods by which, and only by which, those main causes can be remedied.
    But there are one or two minor aspects of the general question of agriculture to which I would like to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the question of marking, I am sure that Members of the Committee will have read with great interest the report of the Departmental Committee on the
    748
    Grading and Marking of Beef which was issued the other day. Scottish Members of all parties will be particularly gratified by paragraph 36 in the report, which says:
    "The quality of Scotch beef in particular seldom fell below a very high level of excellence."
    But there is one paragraph in the report which deserves attention, paragraph 30, on which I should like to ask a question—
    "Nevertheless, a gap remains in the scheme in the London area owing to the fact that a limited number of pieces, usually roastings, and a few short sides, come unmarked to Smithfield from Scotland. Up to now there has bees no provision for grading and marking these supplies. Wholesale and retail buyers on Smithfield offered a considerable amount of evidence to show that this gap gave rise to various difficulties out of proportion to the actual amount of beef involved."
    The sooner that gap is filled the better, and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has any proposals to make in regard to it. There was also a question which was addressed to the right hon. Gentleman on the last occasion that this Vote was under discussion by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith) with regard to the question of marking which is of such vital importance and has been so successful in Aberdeenshire. He pointed out that at the present time there are different marks for the marking of beef in the various counties, and that the opinion of graders as to what is Class 1 beef may vary. The result is that you may get beef graded as Class 1 in the county of Forfarshire and Class 2 in Aberdeenshire, going up to Smithfield and all being graded together as Class 1 meat. That, obviously, is not fair, and steps should be taken to check the marking of the meat as between the different counties so that there shall be no unfair disparity between them. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen on the last occasion but no answer has so far been vouchsafed to us from the Government.
    The question of agricultural credits has been a long drawn out controversy, and we can all unite in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman most sincerely upon having at last induced the four banks concerned to put up the necessary capital. It has been a long battle and I do not think that the negotiations reflect

    749
    any very great credit upon the four other banks who thought fit for so long to hold up a scheme which, I believe, will prove of very great value to the agricultural industry. On the question of drainage, almost every hon. Member who has addressed the Committee has expressed the opinion that the progress at the moment is too slow, and each hon. Member, speaking for his own constituency, has pointed out that at the present time the drainage operations are not going on so effectively, so efficiently or nearly so fast as we would like. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to take any action to hurry up the drainage operations in Scotland, which are certainly lagging behind.
    On the question of research, one of the latest and certainly I think the best research institute in Scotland is the Rowat Research Institute near Aberdeen, which commands the admiration of the whole agricultural world. Anything that the right hon. Gentleman can do to help, facilitate and further the work done by that institute will be doubly repaid. There is one aspect of the question of research that causes some of us anxiety, and that is the method by which the results obtained at the Research Institutes can be communicated to the ordinary practical farmers. That is an aspect of the question of research which deserves very serious attention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, because, however valuable the results may be that are obtained in the laboratory or in the fields belonging to the research station, they are not going to be of much immediate use to the Scottish farmers unless those results can be placed at their disposal as effectively, as cheaply and as speedily as possible.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, if he can, what steps the Department of Agriculture is taking to secure that any valuable results obtained at any research station are brought to the notice of practical farmers at the earliest possible moments? It would be out of order on this Vote to draw attention to the lack of electricity and facilities for light and power in the various agricultural districts in Scotland, but in that respect we are miles behind our principal competitors on the Continent of Europe and consequently our costs must suffer. On the general question of electrification I would point out the desira-
    750
    bility of doing everything we can to increase the means of communication, especially telephone communication, in our rural areas. I also want to draw attention to one particular grievance which is felt more keenly in Aberdeenshire than in any part of Scotland, and that is the condition of accommodation roads to farms. They are not placed upon the classified list and, therefore, are not looked after by the county authority or by the State, in fact they are looked after by nobody, and the farmer who is in many cases heavily overdrawn is unable to raise the capital required to bring these roads up to the level of efficiency required before they are taken over by the county authority. They cannot afford it, they cannot raise the capital, and the result is that in many cases these accommodation roads, which are vital to the existence of the farmer, have been allowed to fall into such a condition of disrepair as to become almost impassable.
    Finally, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to spare us a few words as to his general views about the future direction of agriculture in Scotland, where he thinks we are going and what ought to be our ultimate goal. I myself do not believe that there is any great future for cereal farming in Scotland or in Great Britain as a whole. We had better leave that to those vast countries which contain facilities for doing this work upon a scale and at a cost with which we cannot compete. Our future lies, as more and more people who have been studying this question have been pointing out, in stock fanning upon the most intensive possible scale, I was much interested in the figures given by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) in the last Debate, in which he pointed out that if you took the expenditure upon foodstuffs of the ordinary citizens of this country you will find that over 50 per cent. goes on animal products of various sorts and kinds and only 10 per cent. upon foodstuffs and cereals. I should like to see us concentrate far more upon the production of animal products and, as the hon. Member pointed out in his speech the other day, limit the vast importation which takes place every year of animal products into this country, stuff which we can and ought to be able to produce

    751
    as efficiently ourselves. There was an interesting article by Dr. Orr in the Scottish Journal of Agriculture in which he pointed out the necessity for concentrating on mixed farming.
    We have heard a great deal about the five-year plan of Russia. I should like to see the Secretary of State initiate a five-year plan for Scottish agriculture. Let us have a five-year plan designed to treble the production of meat, bacon, cheese, eggs, butter, and, above all, of milk. There is the germ of a constructive agricultural policy for Scotland, and I would like the Secretary of State to sketch in a few words, if he can, whether he agrees with the main lines I have suggested and, if so, what steps he is taking to implement the policy I have ventured to indicate.
    Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: In regard to the question which has been raised about fruit-growing, I notice in this statement submitted by those concerned in the industry one very important point which is generally left out in the consideration of this question, and that is the cost of transport. We are told, for instance, that the freight upon fruit pulp from the Baltic to London is actually less than half the cost of sending produce from Blairgowrie to Manchester. One of the things which we have to face in connection with this question, is the cost of transport. It is no use coming along with arguments which, in the end, mean Borne form of Protection until you show that you have done everything possible in the organisation of transport to bring down costs. If we are going to deal with this question, we have to keep in mind exactly what is meant by transport costs and keep in mind the fact that there are other elements to be considered apart from those actually engaged in fruit-growing. We are all anxious to do our best to develop every industry in the country, but it cannot be done in a lopsided way. If we are going to help one section, such as the growers of fruit, and then allow the costs of transport to take away the advantages of any help that is given, it will not solve the problem. Again reference has been made to electricity. In 1926 the Conservative Government put through an Electricity Act and we heard glowing accounts of what
    752
    was going to happen under that Act and how it was going to help the rural areas.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have been looking through this Estimate and I can find nothing in it concerning electricity. I should like to know what the Ministry of Agriculture for Scotland have to do with electricity?
    Mr. HARDIE: I was replying to a statement made by the previous speaker. If we are to deal with the competition of other countries in agriculture, we are surely entitled to discuss why those other countries are able to do things which we cannot do.
    The CHAIRMAN: We are at present confined to the Estimate. The hon. Member must await a further opportunity to deal with the wider issues.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it not the case that we are dealing with the administration of this Department?
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes, but the Department has no power to deal with electricity supply.
    Mr. HARDIE: But if the Minister is part of that organisation called the Government——
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has been long enough a Member of the House to know that on an Estimate we are confined to the Department concerned and to the responsibilities of that Department.
    Mr. HARDIE: Then, leaving out electricity, may I say that the arguments used to-night have all tended to show that there has been something lacking. I have mentioned the question of transport which is referred to in the statement put out by those whose case has been pleaded.
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member is referring to transport from other countries, again I think that is a matter on which the Minister cannot very well be criticised.
    Mr. McKINLAY: On a point of Order. The argument is simply used in relation to the cost of production. Arguments were put from the other side in regard to raspberries being dumped here.
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that argument was proceeded with, be-

    753
    cause I looked directly at the hon. Gentleman who was raising it indicating that he could not go further with it, and he stopped.
    Mr. HARDIE: In the statement to which I have already referred, we are told that strawberries in 1928 were £40 a ton and in 1930 £24 a ton; that raspberries which in 1928 were £38 per ton, in 1930 were £14 per ton, and that black currants which, in 1928 were £63 per ton, in 1930 were £32 per ton. I take it, that it is in order to deal with the question of price and if I am to deal with the price, I must deal with all that goes to make up that price including transport charges.
    The CHAIRMAN: It is in order for a Member to ask the Minister about the price of a particular crop and the difficulties that have arisen, but it is not in order to go into the question of transport from another country, which is not under his control at all.
    Mr. McKINLEY: The hon. Gentleman raised the question of roads and transport——
    The CHAIRMAN: Farmers' roads.
    Mr. MACLEAN: If the Minister is asked to obviate certain difficulties which have led to fluctuations in prices, and the Minister makes a statement in regard to the cost of transport, will you rule the Minister out of order when he is dealing with that as one of the factors in the fluctuations of price?
    The CHAIRMAN: The Minister has no power over transport, and therefore he cannot discuss it.
    Mr. G. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that the Minister has power to deal with other things that contribute to the prices which I have quoted? Has he power to do anything at all in relation, say, to the cheapening of labour in the production of raspberries, currants and strawberries?
    The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that he has anything to do with the price of those things at all.
    Mr. HARDIE: Why should it be in order for the Minister to listen to the appeal from the other side of the Committee to do something?
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must understand that the Opposition can put forward a statement that prices have varied, and ask the Minister if he is able to do anything in the interest of the fruit-growers, so far as his administration is concerned, but not beyond that.
    Mr. HARDIE: If the administration of the Department can deal with everything that qualifies prices, and leaves out transport, we must deal with a separate Department.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been long enough in the House to know that in dealing with the Estimates of a Department, the administration of the Minister who is responsible is under review. I must also inform the hon. Gentleman that he must accept my Ruling.
    Mr. HARDIE: To continue——
    The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member means to continue to call my Ruling in question, he cannot continue.
    Mr. HARDIE: I only want to continue what I was going to say. When fruit growers come to see us as Scottish Members, we have to take a statement of their case, and any statement that is to be considered by the Scottish Department has to take in everything that has relation to it, and I hope that the Secretary of State will not be misled by anything that has been said from the other side, but that he will take in purview all the facts. I hope that he will not be misled because certain things cannot be touched by his Department. If we take the cost of fruit from the time when it is put into the basket, leaving out transport, we are bound to find out from the Secretary of State whether anything can be done to help the industry. The question of the rents came up. That is always brought in, I notice, when the land is not in the hands of private owners.
    Mr. SKELTON: So far as I know, the great bulk of these fruit growers are not settlers under the Department of Agriculture, but are owners of the raspberry lands they cultivate. That is why I suggested a possible remission of rent as a partial assistance.
    Mr. HARDIE: I was not referring to the hon. Member. I was referring to a statement that the Government might

    755
    forego rents in certain cases. That is the kind of thing that means we are only going to have a lopsided consideration of this matter, not taking into account all the other factors which enter into the situation, and I hope the Secretary of State will not be misled by those statements and keep to the main point.
    Mr. R. W. SMITH: There is a point I wish to put to the Secretary of State arising out of the report of the Department of Agriculture. There is a reference on page 101 to the Scottish Horticultural Advisory Committee. I wonder whether any further information can be given to supplement the statement made there that among other matters considered were the canning of home-grown fruit and vegetables and the restriction of imports of horticultural produce. It would be interesting to have a little information as to what the Committee advised on those points. A second question I wish to put concerns the grading of meat. The Committee which reported on meat marking stated that in England, for the purpose of securing uniformity in grading, a chief grader ought to be appointed to supervise from London the work of graders in those centres in England and Wales, where the scheme is in operation. I wish to know whether any such suggestion has been made in regard to Scotland. Finally, I would like to reinforce the inquiry of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) as to what steps are being taken to see that the results of research work are brought before our farmers.
    Mr. W. ADAMSON: When these Estimates were submitted to the Committee on 3rd June I took the opportunity of making a comprehensive survey of the position of Scottish agriculture and the work of the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, and therefore it is not necessary for me to trouble the Committee tonight with another survey of agricultural affairs; but I may be permitted to touch on a few points raised in the course of the last discussion, notwithstanding the fact that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary covered, I think, nearly every point that was put in the Debate. In the first place, I would like to refer to an important agricultural event which is taking place in Edinburgh this week, the centenary show of the Highland and Agri-
    756
    cultural Society. The show was honoured to-day by the presence of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who has evinced, as he so often does, a real personal interest in our premier industry. It is, indeed, unfortunate that an event of such importance as the centenary show of the Highland and Agricultural Society should have occurred at the same time as the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, an extremely inopportune moment. I am sure that hon. Members will agree with me in sympathising with the society in the difficulties in which they are placed. Notwithstanding the absence of the greater part of the livestock exhibits, there is, I understand, much of interest to be seen in the exhibition, and particularly in the special exhibition that has been organised by the Department of Agriculture in order to illustrate various aspects of its work and the many activities in which it is engaged, particularly in the field of education and research, to which the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) made reference in the course of the present Debate.
    I have been asked by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) to say if any steps can now be taken to assist the small fruit-growers of Scotland in the struggle with which they find themselves faced at the present time. I have had an opportunity already of discussing the difficulties with which the raspberry growers particularly are faced with a representative of the Fruit Growers' Association. I have informed the association that, in my opinion, a considerable amount can be done to help by the setting up of a joint marketing organisation. Quite apart from the advantages that such an association would give them, are the advantages to be secured through the Agricultural Marketing Bill, which, I hope, will soon become law. It would not be in order for me to discuss the advantages that the Agricultural Marketing Bill would give to the raspberry growers, in which the hon. Member for Perth is particularly interested, but I wanted to inform him that I have discussed this matter very fully with the representatives of the Fruit Growers' Association, and have pointed out the advantages that would be given by the Bill to which I had referred, in the way of enabling them to organise their marketing.
    Mr. SKELTON: The raspberry grower, unlike the Government, does not have an Autumn Session.
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am sure the hon. Member for Perth will realise that I do not need to be reminded about the difficulties of the raspberry growers and of the straits in which they are placed. He particularly referred to the position of that section of smallholders engaged in the raspberry industry who are tenants of the Department of Agriculture itself, and asked if there was any particular proposal which either the Department or I had in view that would help them. As he knows, most of the smallholdings to which he referred are situated in the Dundee district. I am informed that the smallholders are in negotiation with the canning factories which have been established at Dundee, and I have every hope and expectation that these negotiations between the smallholders and those in charge of the canning factory may turn out satisfactorily. I trust they will be able to make a bargain with that factory that will at least help them over the difficulty.
    Another point which the hon. Member put to me was whether anything could be done by way of reduction of rent to help them in this time of difficulty. I am informed that, so far as the payment of rent by that section of the smallholder tenants of the Department of Agriculture is concerned, it is quite satisfactory, and there is little or no uneasiness so far as these particular tenants are concerned. But I need hardly say that, in any proved cases of hardship, the Department would give consideration to that, just as they have been in the habit of doing in the past to the cases of their tenants who are engaged in any other form of agriculture. I would say, however, to the hon. Member who is interested in the raspberry growers, that I have already asked the Lord Privy Seal, who is chairman of the Marketing Committee of the Empire Marketing Board, to examine any application from the Scottish raspberry growers for assistance on the lines, which have already proved so successful, of British and Empire butter marketing shops by which the proportion of shops stocking this butter has risen from 54 per cent. to 74 per cent. I am discussing with my night hon. Friend the possibility of the raspberry growers being assisted
    758
    through the medium of the Empire Marketing Board, and if I can do anything for them through that medium, I shall be more than pleased to do it.
    I have deliberately kept off the debate-able ground of tariffs, although those who are putting questions to me were coming dangerously near it. There are other methods of helping small fruit growers in Scotland, just as there are other methods of helping other sections of agriculture than by tariffs, but if I began to discuss the other methods, I would very quickly come into conflict with the Chairman's Ruling, and I do not want to do that. I can assure those Members who were tempting me to discuss certain things to-night that I should be most happy to oblige them if we had more time at our disposal——
    The CHAIRMAN: Even if the right hon. Gentleman had the time, it would not be in order to do so on this occasion.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Given freedom and time, I would have been most happy to oblige some of my hon. Friends. In the meantime, I content myself with saying that I have been examining the position of the small fruit growers of Scotland as closely as it is possible for the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) to examine it, and I repeat that, if it is possible for me to do anything to help them, I shall be more than pleased to do it.
    With regard to the question of drainage, which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Galloway (Major Dudgeon), I do not know whether he was present when I was making a survey of the agricultural position in Scotland on the 3rd June, but, if he was, he will remember that I said that the surveys and inquiries necessary for the preparation of schemes of arterial drainage works under Section 3 of the Act are being actively undertaken. The chief schemes under examination are the Kelvin Valley Drainage Scheme, the River Annan Drainage Scheme, and the River Nith scheme, and surveys are also in progress for the preparation of schemes of works to prevent flooding of the River Lossie. [Interruption.] The question of telephones was raised by the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Aberdeen. That, however, is not a matter for me, but for the Post Office, and the hon. Member should take ad-

    759
    vantage of the Post Office Estimates, when they come up, to put that question. There have been a number of other questions which time will not permit me to discuss, but possibly on some future occasion I shall have the opportunity and the time to cover some of the points which have been put.
    Mr. R. W. SMITH: May I inquire, for the third time of asking, if it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give me a reply to the question which I raised?
    Mr. ADAMSON: We have made arrangements for the grading and marking of beef in the Aberdeen, Moray and Banff divisions, and we have also made arrangements recently for grading and marking of beef in the Smithfield Market. I may say that those arrangements have not been taken much advantage of at present, but they have been made.
    It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MAURITIUS LOAN (GUARANTEE) BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Dr. MORGAN: This is a Bill to provide certain moneys to tide the island of Mauritius over the damage done by the hurricane in March last. In Clause 2 there is a provision that a guarantee shall not be given under the Act until Mauritius has provided, to the satisfaction of the Treasury and the Secretary of State, for raising sufficient money to meet the charges. That enables us to ask the Under-Secretary to see that, if possible, the money is raised in a certain way. It is difficult to get any information about the island from the Colonial Office list and the Annual Report. The financial details given us in the statistics are very meagre. You have difficulty in knowing how the revenue is raised. But we have ascer
760
tained from a question I put a few days ago that the Colony has for many years been giving to Great Britain a sum of nearly £50,000 a year, and I want to ask whether, during the period of this loan, this grant for military purposes may not be remitted and a moratorium granted, having regard to the dire economic state of the island, to the fact that the hurricane has practically ruined every one associated with the one staple industry, having regard to the very low state of health of the workers, and also to the fact that the military occupation is for our benefit as a strategic centre in the Indian Ocean and not so much for the benefit of the Indo-Mauritians. A similar thing happened in 1892 and the Colony is still burdened with the payment of interest and provision for a sinking fund for the repayment of the loan. Since 1892 they have been paying interest and making provision for the sinking fund also for this military grant, and now, in addition, they have to shoulder this big burden.
This is a Crown Colony. It is not allowed to raise money in its own way. There is a majority of official and nominated members against the 10 elected members. I would like to see another way provided for the island to raise the money. Having regard to all the facts, particularly the fact that the public debt of the Colony is over £2,000,000, cannot the Colonial Secretary consider other means? The acreage under sugar cultivation is 157,000 acres. The large estates, individual owners and companies, have under cultivation 83,760 acres, or a little more than half, and the smallholdings cover about 72,240 acres. These smallholdings are in the main owned by descendants of the Indian emigrants brought to Mauritius, who represent nearly 70 per cent. of the population.
In granting loans and making advances for the repair of the damage done by the hurricane to the land under sugar cultivation, I ask that great care should be taken that the advances are not made purely to those with big estates, but that the small men have an equal chance of trying to repair any damage that has been done. I make the plea for this reason: The smallholders, I understand, have workers who work under them, and

761
that it is not only on the large estates that men are employed. I want to see that with the loans and advances that are made proper housing accommodation may be provided, as housing was gravely damaged by the hurricane.
The Bill makes provision for financing certain schemes. There are certain water schemes, for example. The capital of Port Louis is now provided with water from the Grand River. That scheme is not really satisfactory. The supply was damaged by the flood of December, 1928, and the Mansergh scheme, dating as far back as 1921, has not yet been fully carried out. Will that scheme be given particular attention in the finances provided by the Bill? The water supply of Port Louis from the Grand River is bad. Cannot Port Louis be supplied with water from the Mare aux Vacoas scheme which provides water for the garrison in Port Louis and the districts of Moka and Plaines Wilhelm? I do not know whether it is completed yet. If not, that scheme should be carried forward with as much rapidity as possible.
Mr. SPEAKER: This Bill only deals with the problem of damage done by the hurricane. It has nothing to do with schemes in operation in 1921.
Dr. MORGAN: I thought that under the schedule public works and any purposes incidentally connected therewith might be included. If you rule that it must be connected with the hurricane——
Mr. SPEAKER: It must be in connection with damage done by the hurricane.
Dr. MORGAN: I would ask whether any of the irrigation works of the island La Ferme and La Nicoliere—have been damaged by the hurricane, and, if so, would they be provided for under this Bill? With regard to fair conditions of labour, there is a Clause in the Bill which says that the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that fair conditions of labour are observed in the execution of all works carried out under this Act. Seeing that there are no workmen's compensation Acts or trade union laws, and no factory Acts in connection with the sugar factory damaged by the hurricane, I ask how is the Under-Secretary going to know or to insist that fair conditions of work are being carried out? I hope that he will see that as soon as possible
762
laws are passed for the protection of workers engaged in any of the works damaged by the hurricane dealt with in this Bill.
Finally, I would refer to the houses of the workers which have been damaged by the hurricane. I want to stress this because there is great economic distress, which existed before the hurricane and which is worse now. I earnestly urge the Under-Secretary to see that in any provisions which are being made under this scheme great care is taken to see that the workers' are properly housed, and that fair conditions of labour are provided. I am sure the Under-Secretary will not mind my raising these points at this late hour.
Mr. McSHANE: I am not going to apologise for raising my voice to-night in connection with this Bill. We have been asked to raise a loan of £750,000 to help a Crown Colony about which frankly and truthfully it may be said we do not know enough yet. In saying that, I am not making any allegations against the Under-Secretary, who is always courteous and willing to help, but my complaint against the Bill being passed as it is is that it is on a parallel with a man who is suffering from cancer and falls downstairs, and immediately there rush to his aid half-a-dozen doctors who seek to find, out his bruises and to cover up his abrasions without paying attention to the cancer itself.
In the Schedule to this Bill appear three main purposes for which the loan is to be raised. It is perhaps natural that first things should come first, and so Government property is put down as the first thing to be attended to by the loan—the repair and replacement of Government property. The second item in the purpose of the loan is the making of loans to planters or other persons to defray their expenditure. I said formerly, and I say it to-night—I know I am not allowed to enter into the merits of the question at all—that this sum of money, in the way in which it is being given, will be totally inadequate to meet the necessities of the case. The Island, as I said on a former occasion, is sadly impoverished apart altogether from the hurricane. We could have hoped—though we are not allowed to go into the matter—that a totally different method would

763
have been adopted than the present one. In that sense I regret that a good deal of this money is being wasted because, being inadequate, it will not achieve the expected aims. The Under-Secretary said in introducing the Bill that the Legislative Council had approved the loan. That is quite true, but along with the loan there is to be a financial commission established to inquire into the financial matters of Mauritius. It is significant that all the elected members of the Legislature took exception to the sending of a financial commission of experts. My hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Dr. Morgan) put in a plea for a moratorium. This indeed seems to be a very fitting time in view of the world wide proposals with regard to moratoriums.
Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think we can go into that matter. I allowed the hon. Member considerable latitude at a former stage, but on the Third Reading we must confine ourselves more closely to the Bill itself.
Mr. McSHANE: I am asking whether, as a matter of fact, this island needs the loan at all? I have said that, generally speaking, the position of a portion of the people, and in particular the working class, shows that it is urgently needed, but I was going on to say that had another method been adopted it would not have been necessary.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not discuss other methods on the Third Reading.
Mr. McSHANE: I was only going to make reference to it because I know that it is not in order to go into details with regard to it. I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State the following question. This loan is going to be given to an island where there is a vast amount of hardship on account of a hurricane. Is emigration being allowed at the present moment into Mauritius, because if it is, obviously it will mean that the money will be largely dissipated.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is really taking advantage of this Bill to bring forward all sorts of things which have really nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with immigration into the country.
Mr. McSHANE: I can assure you that I am in no sense attempting to get beyond your Ruling. I was merely making the point that, if further immigration was allowed at the moment, while the island is over-populated, a grant at this moment would be largely dissipated.
Mr. SPEAKER: That is going beyond this Bill altogether.
Mr. McSHANE: I wish to finish with this. Not only is the loan inadequate, but I think it will be agreed by those who have followed this matter that the information is seriously inadequate. It is exceedingly difficult for us to discuss this Bill to-night because of the lack of a knowledge of the circumstances at the present moment. I shall certainly do what I can in order that we can get much more intimate knowledge of what happens there, and see whether it is not possible to get a much closer system of communication established between this country and that Crown Colony.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I ask the House to give a Third Reading to this Measure. We have had two fairly prolonged discussions on the Bill, because, it being a Money Bill, there was the additional opportunity of Debate on the Financial Resolution, and I think that most of the points were covered. I take no objection to the intervention of my two hon. Friends who have spoken to-night, because it is an indication of an interest in this particular Colony, and in Colonial matters generally, which I very gladly welcome. I shall be very glad to see a greater interest in the conditions in the Colonies than has prevailed in the past. I think the points which my hon. Friends have made, in so far as they were relevant to the Bill, have been pretty well covered before. In regard to the adequacy of the loan, I would point out that it is what Mauritius has asked for, the sum is that which is estimated to be what is necessary, and the conditions have been accepted by Mauritius as suitable.
Dr. MORGAN: How can Mauritius have asked for this when she has not an unofficial majority?
Dr. SHIELS: I would not like it to be thought——
Dr. MORGAN: On a point of Order. I made a very pertinent observation. I asked, how could Mauritius have asked for this when she has not an unofficial majority? The Parliamentary Secretary is not entitled to tell me that I should not make a remark of that kind, when I am exercising my ordinary rights as an elected representative of the people.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): I made no observation or suggestion that the hon. Member should not put his question. He is entirely mistaken.
Dr. SHIELS: I would not like it to be thought that the Governor and the Legislative Council of Mauritius do not express the will and the desire of Mauritius in this as in other matters. We have responded to the need of Mauritius in a way and to a degree which we believe is sufficient to meet their needs, and we know that this gesture has been very much appreciated by the people of the island. I do not think that it is necessary to cover all the ground that has been covered by my two hon. Friends to-night, but I would say in regard to the question of smallholders that their value to the general population is very well appreciated, and there is no question but that their interest will be very carefully safeguarded in the spending of this money. I am not able to go into the details of the various matters referred to by the hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Morgan), because I did not know that he was going to raise them, and I am not aware of the details, but I am confident that the money under the various heads set out in the Schedule will be expended not only in an economic and wise way, but in a way which will be for the general advantage of Mauritius. It is obvious that the object of the Bill has the full sympathy of every section of the House. By this gesture to this part of our Empire, which, we can be sure, will be much appreciated, we shall be helping to cement the good relations which exist between Mauritius and the Mother Country.
Mr. MACLEAN: There is one point on which I would like some information, in view of the Ruling that has been given. I do not question the validity of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I want to find
766
out the actual scope of the Bill. Would the Under-Secretary inform the House of the nature of the public works which are mentioned in the Schedule in order that we may know the manner in which the money will be expended, and realise how wide the scope of the discussion might have been.
Dr. SHIELS: These are works of public utility, such as roads and water schemes and other things, which were either in process of construction or have been projected and which cannot be proceeded with without the assistance given by this Bill.
Mr. MACLEAN: That is the point I wish to bring out. Hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate were ruled out of order on the ground that the money was to be devoted solely to the purpose of making good the damage done to the island by the recent hurricane. You, Sir, naturally and quite rightly ruled that out of order because of the actual wording of the Bill. I suggest that the words of the Schedule make it appear that the public works were incidental to or connected with the purpose of repairing the damage to works which were in progress before the hurricane, and that it was necessary to devote some of this money to these public works. The reply of the Under-Secretary now makes it clear that in addition to restoring the damage done by the hurricane we are being asked to guarantee money which is necessary for carrying out public works which were projected or which had been started before the hurricane occurred, and consequently I submit that the two hon. Members who were attempting to deal with matters relating to employment were entitled to develop that argument.
Mr. BROCKWAY: I am sure that the Under-Secretary is anxious that any works done under this Bill shall be done under fair labour conditions, and indeed the Bill contains a clause to that, effect. The difficulty, however, is that there are no trade union standards or ordinary standards by which fair conditions can be judged. I think there are precedents to justify the point which I am putting to him, namely, that while these schemes of work are being put through in Mauritius, a representative of the Colonial Office ought to be there with the particu-

767
lar duty of seeing that the conditions of work are fair, according to the standards which the hon. Gentleman himself would desire to see applied. The hon. Gentleman, I suggest, should also see to it that the smallholders and the poorer of the population receive their fair share of any work which is carried out under these schemes. In doing so, he will be rendering a service to the population of Mauritius and I submit it is a proposal which is practicable and worthy of his consideration.
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.

UNEMPLOYMENT.
  INSUEANCE FUND.
  INSUEANCE FUND.
  BENEFIT.
  BENEFIT.
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  WORK SCHEMES, DEYONPORT AND PLYMOUTH.
  WORK SCHEMES, DEYONPORT AND PLYMOUTH.
  FACTORIES BILL.
  FACTORIES BILL.
  COURTS OF REFEREES, GLASGOW.
  COURTS OF REFEREES, GLASGOW.
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  TEACHERS' SALARIES.
  INDIA (IRON AND STEEL TRADES).
  INDIA (IRON AND STEEL TRADES).
  MUI-TSAI SYSTEM.
  MUI-TSAI SYSTEM.
  ROYAL NAVY (CADET ENTRY).
  ROYAL NAVY (CADET ENTRY).
  TITHE.
  TITHE.
TRANSPORT.
  OMNIBUSES (PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE).
  OMNIBUSES (PASSENGERS' LUGGAGE).
  HEAVY MOTOR CARS (DRIVERS, AGE LIMIT).
  HEAVY MOTOR CARS (DRIVERS, AGE LIMIT).
AGRICULTURE.
  IMPORTED PLANTS, SHRURS AND TREES (DISEASE).
  IMPORTED PLANTS, SHRURS AND TREES (DISEASE).
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  FARM PRODUCE (VALUES).
  FARM PRODUCE (VALUES).
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  HERRING FISHERY.
  HERRING FISHERY.
  DISTEMPER (INOCULATION).
  DISTEMPER (INOCULATION).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COUNTY DISTRICTS, REVIEW).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COUNTY DISTRICTS, REVIEW).
  HOUSING (CAMBERWELL).
  HOUSING (CAMBERWELL).
PUBLIC HEALTH.
  TUBERCULOSIS HOSPITAL, LONDON.
  TUBERCULOSIS HOSPITAL, LONDON.
  VACCINATION.
  VACCINATION.
  INSURANCE BENEFIT AND POOR LAW RELIEF.
  INSURANCE BENEFIT AND POOR LAW RELIEF.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Stuart of Castle Stuart (E. Moray)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to repeal subsection (3) of Section 61 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 1a. —(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of this Bill.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I beg to move in the terms of the Motion which stands in my name upon the Paper that Lord Stanmore be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House during the ensuing week in the absence of the Earl of Onslow. Our Lord Chairman has been asked by the Prime Minister to go to Paris on important public business, which will take up his time next week, and this is a Motion which we have to make when our Chair-

383
man of Committees is taken away from us for a time. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Lord Stanmore be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House during the ensuing week in the absence of the Earl of Onslow.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (ACCRINGTON AND LEICESTER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
WALLASEY CORPORATION (TROL LEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, in moving that this report be now received, I think time will be saved if I say a word or two on the general position and on the point at which the matters under discussion between the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, and myself have arrived. If your Lordships have the Paper of Amendments to be moved on Report before you, you will see a very long Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. Except in one particular, I am prepared to agree on behalf of the Government to all the proposals made by the noble Earl. They are partly a compromise, partly matters arranged in a conciliatory spirit, and we need not discuss them again. At least, that is my view. I accept the Amendments and I accept them in the noble Earl's language. But I would like to say at the outset that if the one outstanding point between us cannot be settled—by Division, if necessary, or by agreement—then I am bound to state quite frankly that when this matter goes to another place it must be understood
384
that the Government will consider the whole question open, in the sense that they may ask that the Bill be put back into its original form, and the arrangement between the noble Earl and myself will not have any validity. I am a believer in conciliation and I hope that may not be necessary.
Your Lordships will see that the point between us will be raised by an Amendment which I propose should be made in subsection (1) of the new clause to be moved by the noble Earl, which is on pages 2 and 3 of the Amendment Paper. The difference between us may appear to be a small one, but as I have said on various occasions it is in our opinion an important one. The new clause to be moved by the noble Earl contains in subsection (1) the words "whether made before or after the passing of this Act." I propose to move as an Amendment to leave out those words and to insert "and made after the passing of this Act." I must say a few words—and I think it would be convenient to say them now—to explain why we consider this a very important matter. The noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, asked a question about this on a former occasion and I said that we must keep alive what I called our pioneer powers. That is the object of the Amendment which I shall move. For instance, various powers for the protection of passengers on passenger ships have been in operation now for many years, some of them I am told for nearly forty years. There has been no question as to the value of those powers and no question has been raised in any way seeking to repeal or alter them. Then the Convention comes along. A Convention properly considered is of course an agreement as to certain minimum regulations to which all the Powers party to that agreement have agreed to give their assent. It is not in any way a disabling Act which we are dealing with but an enabling Act, and indeed if no enabling powers were necessary we need not have any Act at all but simply ratification.
Particular countries have their special pioneer position on particular points. For instance, the Italian Government have what I call the pioneer position as regards wireless telegraphy. Your Lordships will appreciate that of all

385
safety improvements of modern times, a proper system of wireless telegraphy is the most important. When the question was being discussed, no one ever suggested that any alteration should be made as regards our existing powers or that there should be any change in regulations already in operation. It was never suggested, nor would it be really in accord with what is meant by the Convention, because if by acceding to a Convention you intended at the same time to cut down powers as regards public safety which you already possessed, people would not assent to it. It is an entire misunderstanding in our view of what the meaning of a Convention is. Therefore the purport of my Amendment is that as regards those powers which have been in force under regulations made in some, cases nearly forty years ago there should be no change of any kind. But as regards powers which come into operation after the Convention, we accept the suggestion made by the noble Earl. That was the matter to which the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, called attention on Second Reading, and I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Atkin, did the same.
Let me say one further word as to how this matter stands. As I have pointed out more than once, this Convention was not arranged by us but by our predecessors in office. It was arranged by Sir Austen Chamberlain, quite properly, in order that we might get from the humanitarian standpoint provision for passenger safety and also, what is of interest to us particularly, that as regards ships clearing at foreign ports—whether our own ships in foreign ports or foreign ships in our ports—a certificate under the Convention should be given which would prevent any further question being raised so that those ships could be dealt with in the ordinary way. I may mention that the general effect of the Convention is to bring ships of other countries up to a higher level because we were, as a rule, in a pioneer position. When this matter was before the Conference I am told that reference was made to this point once or twice. It was said at once that none of the Governments concerned would allow any interference with their national powers as regarded legislation or regulations already
386
passed. That was accepted and it is all that I am asking now.
Your Lordships will recollect that this matter was first brought forward in November last, but this point was not raised then. I am sure the noble Earl will agree with me on that. Two points were raised. One was the question of helm orders, which we have disposed of, and the other was the question of having the two Conventions in one Bill. On that latter point the noble Earl convinced the Government that his suggestion was right and we assented to it. That was why the matter stood over for so long. It was in order that the Bill might be drafted in that way. But this proposal came to the Board of Trade as a surprise. We thought that having settled the question of helm orders, there were certain concessions which the noble Earl wished to have. We went through them all with the greatest care, and also the drafting, which took some time, and wherever we could we tried to meet him, as I am sure he knows. We have met him on a great many points, but on that point we cannot. I will not argue it again for I have argued it very often, but if we have to go to a Division upon it and we me beaten, the matter will have to be discussed and settled in another place. We have tried for days and there is this one point left over between us. I think that will tell your Lordships how the matter stands, and I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 1:
Construction and survey regulations to secure compliance with Chapter II of Safety Convention.
1.—(1) With a view to giving effect to the provisions relating to construction, machinery, equipment and the marking of load lines which are contained in Chapter II of the Safety Convention and the Regulations referred to therein, the construction regulations applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages shall (except in so far as effect is otherwise given to the said provisions by the Merchant Shipping Acts) include such requirements as will, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, secure that when a passenger steamer complies with the construction regulations so

387
applicable, the steamer will also comply with the said provisions of the Safety Convention:
(3) With a view to giving effect to the provisions relating to tests and surveys which are contained in Chapter II of the Safety Convention and the Regulations referred to therein, the survey regulations applicable to steamers plying on international voyages shah (except in so far as effect is otherwise given to the said provisions by the Merchant shipping Acts) include such requirements as will, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, secure that when a passenger steamer has been surveyed in accordance with the survey regulations so applicable the steamer will also have been surveyed in accordance with the said provisions of the Safety Convention.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words down to "Provided that" and to insert:
"( ) The construction regulations applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages shall include such requirements as appear to the Board of Trade to implement the provisions relating to construction, machinery, equipment and marking of load lines which are contained in Chapter II of the Safety Convention and the Regulations referred to therein (except in so far as the said provisions are otherwise implemented by the Merchant Shipping Acts)."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the first few Amendments on the Paper are really very much of a drafting character. I believe the Government on the whole prefer the wording of the Bill, but are willing to agree to the wording that appears in my name.
LORD PARMOOR: Certainly.
EARL STANHOPE: We prefer those words because we think they are clearer and also shorter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 20 to 32 and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, if I may speak for one moment, only to be sure upon the matter, I would suggest if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would put the Amendments on the Paper down to the end of the Amendment to Clause 6, the Amendments that I propose to the noble Earl's Amendment would then arise and we could discuss them. Down to that point I do not want to raise any criticism.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not quite understand. Surely the first Amendment to my Amendment is on my proposal to insert a new clause after Clause 34. We have to get through the earlier Amendments first.
LORD PARMOOR: I see the mistake that I made in one respect. I thought those could be carried en bloc, but they have to be carried in the form in which they have been put down.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, leave out subsection (3) and insert:—
("( ) The survey regulations applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages shall include such requirements as appear to the Board of Trade to implement the provisions relating to surveys which are contained in Chapter II of the Safety Convention and the Regulations referred to therein (except in so far as the said provisions are otherwise implemented by the Merchant Shipping Acts).")—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Rules for life saving appliances to secure compliance with Chapter III of Safety Convention.
4. With a view to giving effect to the provisions of Chapter III of the Safety Convention and the Regulations referred to therein, the rules for life-saving appliances applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages shall (except in so far as effect is otherwise given to the said provisions by the Merchant Shipping Acts) include such requirements as will in the opinion of the Board of Trade, secure that when those rules have been complied with in the case of any such steamer, the said provisions of the Safety Convention will also have been complied with in the case of that steamer:—
Amendment moved—
Page 5, leave out lines 27 to 37 and insert:—
("( ) The rules for life-saving appliances applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages shall include such requirements as appear to the Board of Trade to implement the provisions of Chapter III of the Safety Convention and the Regulations referred to therein (except in so far as the said provisions are otherwise implemented by the Merchant Shipping Acts).")—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6:
Wireless telegraphy rules to secure compliance with Chapter IV of Safety Convention.
6.—(1) With a view to giving effect to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Safety Convention, the wireless telegraphy rules applicable to ships plying on international voyages shall (except in so far as effect is otherwise given to the said provisions by the Merchant Shipping Acts) include such requirements as appear to the Board of Trade, after consultation with the Postmaster-General, to secure that when those rules have been complied with in the case of any such ship, the said provisions of the. Safety Convention will also have been complied with in the case of that ship.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 15, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
("( ) The wireless telegraphy rules applicable to ships plying on international voyages shall include such requirements as appear to the Board of Trade, after consultation with the Postmaster-General, to implement the provisions of Chapter IV of the Safety Convention (except in so far as the said provisions are otherwise implemented by the Merchant Shipping Acts).")—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:
Certain miles and regulations to be laid before Parliament.
".—(1) Where, any of the construction regulations, survey regulations or rules for lifesaving appliances applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages, or any of the wireless telegraphy rules applicable to ships plying on international voyages, being a regulation or rule in force at the commencement of this Part of this Act (whether made before or after the passing of this Act), contains a requirement which is at variance with any specific requirement of the Safety Convention the regulation or rule as the case may be shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after the commencement of this Part of this Act.
(2) Where any of the construction regulations, survey regulations or wireless telegraphy rules, being a regulation or rule applicable as aforesaid and made after the commencement of this Part of this Act, contains such a requirement as aforesaid, it shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.
(3) All rules for life-saving appliances made after the commencement of this Part of this. Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, together with a report stating whether any, and if so which, of the rules applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages contains such a requirement as aforesaid, and all rules for
390
life-saving appliances made before the commencement of this Part of this Act, which have not come into force at the commencement of this Part of this Act by reason of the provisions of subsection (2) of Section four hundred and twenty-seven of the principal Act, shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after the commencement of this Part of this Act, together with such a report as aforesaid.
(4) If either House within the next subsequent twenty days on which that House has sat after any regulation or rule is laid before it in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this section resolves that the regulation or rule shall be annulled, the regulation or rule shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the malting of a new regulation or rule:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any rule for life-saving appliances laid before either House of Parliament after the commencement of this Part of this Act unless the rule is applicable to passenger steamers plying on international voyages and contains such a requirement as aforesaid.
(5) Subsection (2) of Section four hundred and twenty-seven of the principal Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any rules for life-saving appliances made after the commencement of this Part of this Act and with respect to any such rules made before the commencement of this Part of this Act which have not come into force before the commencement of this Part of this Act by reason of the provisions of that subsection."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships have quite grasped the point of difference between myself and the Government on this matter, but it has now resolved itself into a very small point in some respects, though it raises a matter of principle. When the Bill was introduced, those for whom I am speaking—I am not speaking from a Party point of view at all—were very anxious that anything that was outside the Convention should have to come before Parliament and pass by means of a Bill. We have receded from that because we thought it was imposing too severe difficulties on any Government. We then suggested that it should be by affirmative Resolution. We have receded from that, too, and I was prepared to agree with the noble and learned Lord and the Government on the Committee stage that we should then submit all regulations at variance with the Convention to a negative Resolution of bath Houses of Parliament.
Then arose the question raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin, as to whether that applied both to regulations in force at present and to regula-

391
tions which would be made. That is the point of difference. The Government are now prepared to agree that new regulations shall be submitted to both Houses of Parliament for a negative Resolution, and that will include regulations made after the passing of this Act, which do not therefore come into force until later, and it will also include regulations made before the passing of this Act, which have not come into force because the first Part of this Act does not come into force until five nations have ratified the Convention. At present two have ratified, and we shall make three, but we know very well that a large number of other nations are simply waiting for us to ratify and then they will follow our example. Accordingly the date when ratification is to take place is likely to be very soon after the passing of this Bill. All that is now left are the rules and regulations made before the passing of this Act, which are now in operation.
This is not a very large point, because I am informed that practically the whole of the previous regulations will require to be re-modelled, but it does raise a very large point of principle as I shall explain. I and others for whom I speak are extremely anxious that this Merchant Shipping Convention shall be the bedrock on which the whole principle of safety of life at sea stands. We know perfectly well, as the noble and learned Lord has said on several occasions, that we are the leading country in this respect and that what we do other countries will do also. Accordingly, if we accept the Convention but keep the other powers in our own hands, except, of course, by saying that Parliament is always supreme, as Parliament must be supreme—if, apart from Parliament, we say that this Convention is the bed-rock by which we are going to stand and which applies to British ships, then if we sign the Convention, other nations will follow suit. Otherwise we might have cases, such as were referred to by the noble and learned Lord of a country applying its own regulations to its own ships, and you will get differences of all sorts. We think that probably, when we ratify, countries with these differences will probably come into, line with us.
This raises a difficult question in many respects. Your Lordships have several times had before this House the ques-
392
tion of the way by which Ministers, by Ministerial order, would be allowed to over-ride Parliament, and so on. This is really a very curious situation. The Government have said to masters and mariners: "It is quite true that you now use indirect helm orders, but in order to come into line with the Convention we think it necessary to change those helm orders, and this House has agreed with the Government on that point." Then the Government says, in this Bill, that Parliament must change the law. If your Lordships will turn to the last Schedules you will find that there are various laws which are to be cancelled when this Bill comes into force. Therefore, you are going to change the law in order to bring it into line with the Conventions. But when it comes to Ministerial orders, then we are told that the Minister has made an order; that is sacrosanct and they see no reason why it should be changed.
That is an extraordinary attitude. If there were anything of real importance in it, I should agree that the orders that are at present in force should continue to be in force, but I have asked and I have utterly failed to find any single rule or regulation, which would have to be changed in order to bring the rules and regulations into line with the Convention, that is going to conduce to the safety of life at sea. I am told by shipowners and others that if there is any such rule or regulation which the Ministry wishes to retain, because they can use it for safety of life at sea, they would be prepared to consider it most carefully, and probably without any difficulty it would be made an exception to the Convention; but to allow the Board of Trade to be in the happy position of requiring two things to be proved really means that the equality and uniformity of the Convention goes by the Board. Let me illustrate. It will be necessary to prove that the order proposed by the Board of Trade is contrary to the terms of the Convention, and it will be necessary to prove that the order proposed by the Board is not already in force under some ancient order, which may have been in force but not really followed for a large number of years.
Just consider. Here is an order which is at present in force. The Board of

393
Trade have the power to require a ship which is engaged in foreign trade "to carry in lieu of, or in addition to, davits, some other approved form of launching apparatus, or some arrangement for launching boats, which may be in their view effective." That may mean anything, and it is impossible, if new rules or suggestions are brought forward, to prove that the new rule is not in accord with the rule already in force. That is why we lay such stress on the fact that anything which is at variance with the Convention, whether old or new, shall come before Parliament, and Parliament shall say whether it shall be kept in force or not. Parliament, of course, remains supreme, and if Parliament thinks it is necessary for safety at sea Parliament will enforce that. Parliament will do that with its eyes open, and knowing that it will then be enforced upon British ships and British ships alone.
I have said that I think the whole of these regulations will require redrafting. I think so for this reason. Under present conditions the Board of Trade have regulations for two types of ships—(1), ships engaged in the home trade and (2), ships engaged in foreign-going trade. The home trade includes all coasting vessels and all ships going between this country and Europe between Brest and the Elbe—a very nasty piece of sea. The Convention differentiates between the home-going and coasting trade, the short international voyage and the long international voyage. It is quite possible that the short international voyage will impose obligations upon ships going from this country to Brest and the north of Europe, perhaps rather more severe than those existing at present, but which will bring these ships into line with the rest of the world. There is, however, a real fear that if the Board of Trade say that where ships are engaged in trade away from this country—that is, not leaving the shores of this country but going between ports neither of which are in this country—they may possibly allow exceptions for voyages similar to those in the home trade (obviously not a very accurate phrase to describe exactly what kind of voyage is meant), and you may get other countries saying: "Very well, we also are going to make exceptions for similar voyages." We might have the case of ships going
394
from the coast of North America down to the coast of South America. That is why it is really important you should stick to the terms of the Convention, which have been carefully framed, and not attempt to apply our rules for quite a different outlook and try and attach them to the Convention.
If you are going to get uniformity it is really, from the point of view of the Government, a small point, but from the point of view of making the Convention the centre round which these rules should pivot, it is a very big point. This clause which I am proposing is an extremely complicated-looking clause and I do not know whether you would desire me to explain it a little further. Perhaps I had better do so. In subsection (1) we deal with the regulations which are in force at the commencement of the Act. In subsection (2) we deal with the e6nstruction regulations which come into force after the passing of this Act. Subsection (3) deals with rules as to lifesaving appliances which come into force after the passing of this Act. It is pro posed now that instead of lying upon the Table for forty days they should lie on the Table for twenty days, but should become subject to a negative Resolution. I think the rest of the clause is fairly clear. Subsection (5) rescinds subsection (2) of Section 427 of the principal Act, which enacts that these lifesaving regulations should be on the Table for forty days.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: No question arises with regard to that, I understand.
LORD PARMOOR: No.
EARL STANHOPE: There is this alteration, that if they are already in force they come under that. There is no point of difference with regard to their lying on the Table for twenty days. The only point of difference is that where regulations are already in force we propose that they should come before Parliament if they are at variance with the Conventions. The Government are opposed to that. I hope your Lordships will agree to support my Amendment as it stands, and then agree to oppose the Amendment to my Amendment, which is to be proposed by the Leader of the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, after Clause 34, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, to leave out "(whether made before or after the passing of this Act)" and to insert "and made after the passing of this Act." The noble Lord said: My Lords, it now becomes my duty formally to move my Amendment to the noble Earl's Amendment. After the statement which I have already made I only desire to say a few words. I ask your Lordships to recollect that this is the only point between us. Earl Stanhope said it was desired to abrogate the existing rules dealing with the question of safety at sea, which is a matter of extreme importance to us. The point between us can be very well isolated in this way. We say that you ought not to abrogate these rules. They are rules which have been well tried and found to be of great value, and it is not the intention of a Convention of this kind that you should abrogate rules which the Board of Trade proposed nearly forty years ago. The purpose of the Convention is not to disable the powers which we now have nor to reconsider them, but to give new powers, and the new powers are those which the Convention will bring into force. How does the matter stand with my Amendment? It stands in this very simply way. We have assented to the proposition that powers, are given—and must be given; that is the meaning of the whole Bill—in order that the Board of Trade may enforce upon our own ships the Convention proposals. There is not the slightest question about that. You give the same power to Italy, to Germany or to France, but none of those countries would for a moment assent to the abrogation of the rules and regulations which they may now have—and such rules may be considerably in advance of the general standard up to which they have persuaded other people to go.
EARL STANHOPE: I only suggest that the rules should come before Parliament for Parliament to decide, and not to the Department.
LORD PARMOOR: You used the word "abrogate," and therefore I used it as a convenient word. Whatever the powers of the Board of Trade now are as regards these rules and regulations, they have come into force under powers which the Board of Trade now possess. What we
396
say is that these Conventions are not intended to cut down the national powers of any country.
EARL STANHOPE: I am sorry to interrupt, but I really must insist that they are not national powers which are being cut down, but Departmental powers.
LORD PARMOOR: But Departmental powers are for this purpose national powers. These Departmental powers or regulations have been exercised under legislative provisions, and when so exercised they have just the same authority as if they were in the original Act of the Legislature itself. There is no difference whatever. They are powers which we have at present in order to deal with the safety of passengers in our own ships. But we cannot of course enforce those rules against other ships which only come in under the Conventions. That is quite clear. But surely it must be obvious, I think, to any one that in a Convention of this kind, which does what is possible to raise the level, you do not at the same time intend to abrogate rules under legislative authority, which have been in operation for a long time, which are in advance of the Convention regulations, and which, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, have acted admirably. But that is the principle. In Conventions of this kind if you were to allow the fact of a Government entering into a Convention to abrogate powers which that Government already had, I think you would have very great difficulty in getting any Convention settled at all. It was mentioned during the proceedings of this Convention, but I was told at once: "Of course we do not touch those matters." It is all the better for us if individual countries are in advance. What we desire is to bring the backward countries up as far as we can, in order to ensure the general safety of passengers at sea.
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
In subsection (1) leave out ("(whether made before or after the passing of this Act)") and insert ("and made after the passing of this Act").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD ATKIN: My Lords, I ventured to raise this point last time, arid I am rather interested to find that the Lord President on consideration does not find it a technical point. He was rather inclined to think it was on the last occasion. As a matter of fact, it does

397
appear to me to involve a very serious question. I am bound to say that I speak with very little knowledge of the details of the actual regulations, but the position at the present moment, as I understand it, is that the Board of Trade has power to make, and has made regulations, which have been in existence for generations, under the Merchant Shipping Act, which deal with questions of the construction of ships, survey regulations and life-saving appliances. Those regulations are the existing law of England, and they have statutory authority. Now, the Convention provides that there shall be now a certain standard of safety involving construction, survey regulations and life-saving appliances, but. I think it cannot be disputed that in some respects our existing law provides a higher standard of safety, both as to construction and life-saving appliances and survey regulations, than is prescribed in the Convention. The Convention is the minimum—call it the minimum or the maximum as you choose; it does not matter—to which some fourteen countries are prepared to agree; and some countries are in advance of that agreed standard, and one of those countries is this country.
The noble and learned Lord naturally disclaims any suggestion of reducing the standard of safety in this country to something which is the Convention standard, and if he did make that proposal I do not suppose that the Legislature in this country would be prepared for a moment to embark upon such an undertaking. Why should our safety standard be reduced to the safety standard to which foreign Powers have bound their own ships? So the question is this. There is a law at the present moment which provides for certain safety rules. Now, there is nothing in this Act which abrogates the existing law. I want that made quite plain. The only provision is that the Board of Trade shall have power to make regulations to implement the provisions of the Convention, and that would mean that, except in so far as such regulations, so made, are inconsistent with the existing regulations the old law stands. Now the words that are used in this Amendment are that existing regulations that are at variance with the provisions in the Con-
398
vention are to come before Parliament. I do not think that is a very happy phrase, because it may cover regulations that provide for less safety or more safety, or safety in a different way. I am not quite sure how it would be construed, but I want the House to bear this in mind. First of all, this proposal is a proposal that the existing standards of safety shall come up for review, and, secondly, it provides the means as to how they are to be reviewed.
In the first place, I do not know of any case where it has been enacted that an existing law or existing regulation shall be brought up to Parliament for confirmation; because there is no provision as to what is to happen if it is not brought up to Parliament for confirmation. It has its present statutory effect and value, and it would appear that something was necessary, such as was provided in the first proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope—namely, that all the old rules should be swept away and new rules should take their place. That I understood. That would be a very logical way of doing it. But that is not the present proposal. And may I point out another objection as it appears to me? This is an existing law. It is to be brought to Parliament, but, according to the suggestion made now, it is to be annulled on the Resolution of either House. Surely, that must be an entirely new proposal.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
LORD ATKIN: How comes it that either House of the Legislature is to have power for the first time to annul that which is in fact an existing law? One understands the proposition when it is directed to new proposals which are to have statutory power only if they are approved by both Houses of Parliament. That is constitutional and in order; but it seems to me to be an entirely new provision to suggest that you are to bring up to Parliament regulations the qualification of which for review is rather vague, and then provide that this House or the House of Commons alone can decide that any of those regulations is no longer to be in force. This seems to me to be an objection that is worth consideration. But on the general position I venture to suggest that your Lordships' House should not lend its Support to a

399
proposition that may result in reducing the existing standards of safety in this country.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, we are dealing with a matter to which your Lordships' House is capable of applying its mind very successfully. We are in no sense involved in any Party discussion. What we are seeking is the best that can be obtained from the Convention, and also that British ships shall not be placed at any unnecessary disadvantage. It may be that there are things upon which we in this country should insist which do not appeal to other countries. If that is the case, obviously it must be within our power to do them, and nothing I have heard that has fallen from the noble Earl who moved the Amendment to-day contravenes that principle in the slightest degree. Indeed, I think, we are all agreed upon the main propositions which may be stated perfectly simply and so as to get rid of all matters except one point which is in controversy. We are all agreed that there must be power in this country either to enforce what is in the old regulations or to enforce new regulations, if we think necessary, which go beyond the Convention or are in some form at variance with the Convention—whichever, may seem to be the better course. There is no dispute about that.
As has been said, we are the pioneers of the provisions for the safety of passengers and crews and ships at sea. We adhere to that, of course. The only question that arises upon the Amendments which have been passed and the one which is now before your Lordships is whether the Departmental rules, which have been in existence for a considerable time and may be at variance with or extend beyond the requirements of the Convention, should remain in force without being submitted to Parliament. That is the real question. A question which arises largely upon the constitutional point taken by my noble and learned I friend Lord Atkin, is as to whether it should be done by either House or whether any change would have to be made by the two Houses of Parliament. What I would like to say on the first point to my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House in reference to the whole question we are now considering—that is, the rules and regulations that
400
are to apply—is this: Is it not worth while for the Board of Trade, which has hitherto been very successful undoubtedly in the way in which it has dealt with ships and ship owners, to reconsider all its regulations? Is it not, indeed, absolutely necessary that the Board of Trade should do so before allowing these new regulations to be brought into operation or to be laid upon the Table of Parliament in order to meet the requirements of the Convention?
What we want is to give the British shipowner and all the British ships every advantage we can from the Convention. Now that we have more uniformity by means of this Convention than we have had hitherto we do not want, if we can help it, British ships to be placed at a disadvantage if it is for no real purpose. Where, on the other hand, it is of sufficient importance that there should be a departure from the Convention or a requirement in addition to those in the Convention, then I agree that not only is it proper but that we should take the matter in hand. All that we ask (I follow the arguments with the noble Earl who moved the first Amendment) is that Parliament should have power of negativing, if it thinks fit, any new rule or regulation that may be introduced. Would my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House consider this?
There are, of course, many rules and regulations and all those who have had to make them know it is sometimes difficult to find a particular rule. Some of them have existed for a very long time. As I think my noble friend pointed out, there are means of saving life at sea now which were not known in the days when the regulations were framed, more particularly those relating to wireless telegraphy and so forth. When the Board of Trade are considering these rules and regulations, is it not desirable that they should go through all that would apply? I am not asking them to do this in reference to matters other than those dealt with in the Convention.
If I were for the moment to place myself in the position of the President of the Board of Trade or of those who are advising him in this matter and had to consider what should be done in ful-

401
filment of the obligations under this Statute, if it becomes one, the first thing I should require to know is: What is it that must be done under the Convention? What is the purpose of the Convention and what are the obligations upon us under it? What are the things we really must see enforced? In order to do that the Board of Trade must go through the various rules to see what rules are already effective and where they require to pass new ones. In considering the whole of this matter, is it not worth their while to re-consider all the rules applying to the Convention, those applying to life-saving appliances and other matters dealt with in the Convention, and in a word to codify them and bring them in that way before Parliament? It would be an immense advantage to shipowners as it would be, I think, to all those engaged in any way in shipping. That would be one way of doing it.
I do not know what the difficulties may be. I would ask my noble and learned friend, if it has not already been considered, to examine this proposal with the Board of Trade and to see whether it offers any serious obstacle. I would point out that there can be no difficulty. It preserves all the rights that are needed for adding to the requirements of the Convention and maintaining the highest standard. That can all be done. There is nothing to prevent it, and they are not at variance in any way with the Board of Trade. As a rule the Board of Trade challenges what it desires in the way of regulations because it is trusted and has done very well in the past, certainly in regard to shipping. I suggest to my noble and learned friend that this may be the better way of doing it, and that with the desire we all have of trying to reach a conclusion acceptable to all sides of your Lordships' House, it is really a proposition which I think is worthy of examination.
Suppose my noble and learned friend says that cannot be done, for some reason which, for the moment, I do not know. Then the only question outstanding is on the Amendment of my noble and learned friend whether or not it should be necessary to bring existing regulations, which may be extensions of the requirements under the Convention, or additions to them which have been
402
already in existence, before Parliament, or whether they should be left merely to the Board of Trade to deal with. That is the whole question involved in the Amendment. I understand my noble and learned friend says we ought not to interfere because they do make certain requirements of a high standard which we ought to try to maintain. I agree with regard to the maintenance in every way, and I am not seeking in the slightest degree to interfere with it. If these regulations were brought before Parliament the same question will arise upon them—that is to say, is there any reason why Parliament, or either House as it stands now, should wish to negative a rule of that kind? Many of the rules with regard to life-saving dealt with in the Convention must be obsolete. Many of them were necessary thirty or forty years ago, but cannot be required now. If they are required, I cannot imagine that either House of Parliament will raise any objection to a rule that the Board of Trade brings before it and satisfies Parliament is necessary in order to maintain a high standard such as the Board of Trade wish. I would suggest, if that is the case, that no great harm can be done.
I confess I do not take a very strong view on this matter, because I cannot help thinking it is not a very large point which is dividing the noble Earl and the Leader of the House. It simply relates to those rules which were in existence before the passing of the Convention. I am sorry there has been no agreement. I think my noble and learned friend has met the demands that were made on the last occasion very fairly, but he does not see his way to accept this. I can only say for myself that whilst I am very anxious everything should be done which would place the British shipowner on an equality with any other shipowner, still I would not insist if the Board of Trade really feel it is necessary to hold these rules. In that case I should prefer them to hold them—and they must take the responsibility—rather than have any division which might perhaps endanger the Convention. I would suggest to my noble and learned friend again that this question of the reshaping of all rules is well worthy of attention, and I hope that at any rate the Board of Trade will be able to give it attention.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, would it be convenient if I answered the question asked of me, because I have no right to speak again? As regards the redrafting of the rules, there would be no difference between the noble Marquess and myself, but that is not the question we are on at the present moment. The question is whether rules already passed under legislative powers should be abrogated. That is a matter concerning the general organisation of the Board of Trade which we consider very important, and a Convention of this kind is accepted on the ground that there is no interference with existing legislative rights or obligations. The new legislation that we are dealing with now is only of an enabling character so that the terms of the Convention may be complied with. That is what the other countries require. Before we ratify they want to know that we have taken what we consider to be sufficient powers to put the Convention rules into operation. No country asks another to abrogate existing rules. I do not think the noble Marquess asks for that.
THE MARQUESS OF BEADING: I do not think my noble and learned friend has appreciated the point I was putting. I was not suggesting there should be any interference with that right. What I was suggesting was that when they come to reconsider the rules, as they must do for the purpose of drafting new rules, they should then consider whether there are any old rules which should now be abrogated, and, after they have done that, whether it is not possible to put all the rules and regulations into one code. Then the rules should be placed in that way before Parliament, whether old or new, and dealt with, and, if there is no objection, they would receive Parliamentary assent.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if I may I should like to add my plea in support of the suggestion of the noble and learned Marquess, and for this reason. I do not think—the noble and learned Lord will forgive me saying so—that he is quite right in thinking the effect of the Convention is not to interfere with any existing legislative rights. As I understand the position, since 1906 the rule has been that under the Merchant Shipping Acts the Board of Trade can make and must make regulations dealing with safety, and those
404
regulations of necessity apply to all ships which ply from our ports, and it is of the essence of those regulations—indeed I think it is laid down in the Merchant Shipping Acts—that they must apply equally to British and foreign ships. Under the Convention all foreign ships are exempted from any safety regulations made by the Board of Trade outside the Convention regulations. The Board of Trade, in fact, loses the right which it at present has to impose any regulations in excess of the Convention stipulations upon foreign ships. If, therefore, the Board of Trade in any given case maintain a regulation in excess of the Convention requirements they can only maintain it in respect of British ships, and, therefore, there will be created in future a difference, disadvantageous of course to our ships, a burden laid upon our own ships which cannot be paid upon foreign ships. Therefore our right to legislate has been interfered with, although it has only been interfered with in so far as it regards foreign ships which come to our ports.
I do hope the Government will not think I am putting this from any kind of partisan view. I am only trying, as my noble and learned friend has tried, to state the position as it comes to my mind. If I am right in that statement of the legal position, the result is that after the Convention, one of the factors which the Board of Trade must consider with regard to any safety regulations in excess of the Convention regulations is that it is imposing upon our ships a burden which the foreigner competing with them from our ports does not have to bear. I am quite sure no one wants to reduce our safety regulations. Nobody wants to treat the Convention as a maximum instead of a minimum requirement, but when the Board of Trade is considering some requirement which is not included in the Convention but which is included in our existing code, they have, I suggest, to take into account the new fact that in future that regulation cannot be imposed on foreign ships, and, therefore, that if it is maintained it is maintained only in respect of British ships, and to that extent operates as a handicap against British ships and in favour of foreign ships.
That is a material factor. Is it unreasonable—because that is all my noble

405
friend, the noble Earl suggests—to say, if the Board of Trade think it necessary to maintain in respect of British ships a requirement which is not in the Convention and which therefore will not in future apply to foreign ships, that the Houses of Parliament shall be consulted as to whether or not that is a right handicap to impose? That is really, I think, the suggestion of the noble Earl and while I agree with the noble and learned Lord that, of course, we do not want to treat the Convention as abrogating the standards which we have already reached, yet, when the effect of the Convention is of necessity to create a differentiation which at present does not exist between British and foreign ships, I would suggest that it is not unreasonable that Parliament should be allowed to have a voice as to whether that differentiation is necessary in the interests of safety before the handicap is finally imposed upon British ships.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, I have been very much struck by the speeches made by my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin and by my noble and learned friend the Marquess of Reading and by my noble and learned predecessor. I think it will be a great pity if we do anything in a hurry this afternoon which we subsequently find is wrong. I am sure that I am speaking not only for my Party, but for the whole House. Nobody here wants in any way to minimise the rules for safety at sea. I must say that I think there is considerable difficulty in the constitutional point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Atkin. I would venture therefore to ask whether it would not be the best thing for us not to try to deal for the moment with this new clause, but to bring it up again on Third Reading. We can do that. We can go into the matter with the advantage of being able to consider all the arguments placed before us to-day. No one's position will be prejudiced, and I would venture to suggest that it is far better to hold over the matter for a little time, rather than try to deal with it in a state of unpreparedness, not quite appreciating all the points. Let me confess that I do not myself appreciate all the points. It would be far better to have a little time to think over the matter rather than act in a
406
hurry and regret it afterwards. I would suggest, therefore, to the noble Earl that for the moment he should not press his new clause, but bring it up on Third Reading after all the points raised to-day have been considered.
LORD PARMOOR: May I say, as your Lordships are dealing with my Amendment, that I fully assent to the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and that I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment. I feel strongly that in this House, with all the legal ability in it, this is really a matter which we ought to be able to settle finally. There is a good deal to be thought over, and I hope that the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack may be adopted.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, may I be allowed to say that I fully agree with the course suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but I should like to say a few words before that course is adopted. I think I used a wrong word in speaking about abrogating rules because what I understand is really proposed is, as the noble and learned Marquess suggested, that they should be redrafted. That is really the difficulty that arises. May I say, in addition, that I have made myself a perfect nuisance to anybody who I thought was likely to be able to tell me whether there is anything in the old rules which tend to safety but which are outside the Convention and will therefore drop. I have failed to discover one. There are differences in powers, but as far as I can see, there would be no reduction in safety. Indeed I am convinced that when the Convention is once in force ships and passengers at sea will be a great deal safer than at the present moment.
LORD PARMOOR: I said that I would withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that we should assent at this stage not to carry the matter further, but to let it wait until Third Reading. I do not want to contradict the noble Earl, but he is making statements which I cannot accept.
EARL STANHOPE: I was entitled to speak on the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, but I have not done so,

407
and therefore I thought I should be justified in making my position plain. I apologise to the House.
LORD PARMOOR: No, no, it is only a question of procedure.
EARL STANHOPE: May I say that I have taken a great deal of trouble over this Bill and I thought that perhaps your Lordships might like to know the conclusion at which I had arrived.
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52:
Inspection and control of Convention ships not registered in United Kingdom.
(2) If a valid Load Line Convention certificate is produced to the surveyor on any such demand, the surveyor's powers of inspecting the ship with respect to load line shall be limited to seeing—

(a) that the ship is not loaded beyond the limits allowed by the Load Line Convention;

LORD PARMOOR: All the other Amendments on the Paper we accept. There is no other contentious matter.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in sub section (2) (a), to leave out "Load Line Convention" and to insert "certificate." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a point which I raised on the Committee stage. It is not of great importance, but the position is that this country has to accept a certificate given by a foreign country to its own ships. The power under the Bill would be to see whether the certificate was in accordance with the Convention, whereas it ought to be in accordance with the certificate. I understand the Government accepts the Amendment, arid therefore I will not say anything further. The drafting is not my own but it has been submitted to me and I understand that it is acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 26, leave out ("Load Line Convention") and insert ("certificate") —(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: The other Amendments which I move to this clause are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 41, line 2, leave out from ("loaded") to ("the") in line 3, and insert ("beyond the limits allowed by the certificate").
Page 41, line 33, at end insert:
("( ) For the purposes of this section a ship shall be deemed to be loaded beyond the limits allowed by the certificate if she is so loaded as to submerge in salt water when the ship has no list, the appropriate load line on each side of the ship, that is to say, the load line appearing by the certificate to indicate the maximum depth to which the ship is for the time being entitled under the Load Line Convention to be loaded.")—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 56 [Submersion of load line on ships not registered in the United Kingdom]
EARL STANHOPE: There is a consequential Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 16, leave out ("indicating or purporting") and insert ("appearing by the certificate").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SENTENCE OF DEATH (EXPECTANT MOTHERS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

RELATIONS WITH PERSIA.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government for the latest information as to our relations with Persia; also as to what steps have been taken to protect British commercial interests in connection with exchange control and also with the recent establishment by the Persian Government of a trade monopoly, and as to the present condition, of Persian affairs; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as long ago as 1902 I raised the question of our interests in the Persian Gulf and on that occasion I obtained from the late Lord Lansdowne an historic declaration about our position in the Persian Gulf and the way in which we should regard the position if a first-class Power tried to obtain

409
a recognised position in the Gulf. Since then, unluckily, our harmonious relations with Persia were rather interrupted by the Anglo-Russian Convention and then by our operations in the War, which the Persians did not altogether realise were for their own protection. After that, we tried to obtain the Persian Government's assent to the Anglo-Persian agreement. Although on several occasions I have raised questions about Persia, I have not done so since 1925. Only the other day Lord Passfield showed his appreciation the importance of the question of Persia and the Persian Gulf by the fact that, when the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trenchard, in regard to the air position in the Central East was under discussion, he said that policy concerning the Persian Gulf was not a matter of Departmental inquiry or decision but was always put before the Cabinet as a whole. I think I have some reason, therefore, for troubling your Lordships this afternoon in regard to our relations with Persia. At the same time I admit that I have no policy to suggest, still less do I wish to criticise the conduct of the Government in their relations with Persia.
There are two countries interested in Persia at the present time: the Russian State and Great Britain. Economically, politically and geographically, we are the two Powers that really have a great stake in that country. Our methods of treating our interests there are diametrically opposed. Our interest is always to see Persia independent, prosperous and friendly. The Russian policy, whether in the days of the Tsar or at the present time, has been quite opposed to this. They are always trying to seek their own aggrandisement, whether territorial or commercial. In 1921, after the War, the Soviet Government, as first established, made very generous and liberal concessions to Persia in matters connected with Russia's stranglehold upon her prosperity up to that period, but after 1921 these liberal concessions gradually disappeared. For instance, in 1926 Russia placed an embargo on all Persian imports, except cotton, into Russia. At the same time she raised her duties on the export of oil, and inconvenienced Persia to such an extent that Northern Persia had to try to get supplies from the Muzzid-i-Suleiman oilfields in the South. These could only be obtained at
410
great expense, owing to the very heavy cost of haulage over the rough and wild country that lies between Northern Persia and the Persian Gulf.
Two years after this there was a strike at Abadan, where the Anglo-Persian oil refineries are, with great disorder. This appeared to be at the instigation of the Soviet. A plot was discovered by which they had apparently intended to burn the refineries and develop a revolutionary movement in that part of Persia. In Northern Persia Russian clubs have been established, together with Russian subsidies to the Persian Press in Teheran and elsewhere, and they have started five schools, both in Teheran and in other places. It was discovered by the Persian Government that a very large consignment of revolutionary literature had come into Persia for the distribution of propaganda in these schools, and this was seized at the Northern ports on the Caspian Sea. Russia also set up large commercial organisations all over Southern and Central Persia. They established a Russian bank with various branches. I gave private notice to the noble and learned Lord the Lord President that I would ask him whether it is true that in 1928 Persia refused to enter into a Central-Asian Mahomedan League in alliance with Moscow.
When Russia established a Communistic system of trade and commerce in Persia, the managers of these transactions always kept a very large balance in Persia, and were thus able to buy sterling, which accrued to their practical use for the purposes of the five-year plan throughout the world. The result was that Persia had to take charge of all exchange operations, and Russia was left with a large sum of Persian currency which she was not able to convert into sterling. I think it was about this time—I dare say the noble and learned Lord will be able to say—that the National Bank was established in Persia as a State Bank. That position had previously been held by the Imperial Bank of Persia, which was practically a British institution. This year the trade agreement between Persia and Russia expired, and Persia told the Soviet Government that she intended to exclude all Russian trade organisations from Persia. Russia retorted to this that, by the liberal Treaty of 1921, to which I have already referred,

411
Persia was not able to do this, though on her side Russia could properly exclude Persian merchants.
All this time Russia had been dumping her goods to the greatest possible extent in Persia. I believe it is true to say that the match industry has been practically destroyed. Apparently Russia is determined to exploit Northern Persia ruthlessly, to help in developing the five-year plan, and to do this at the expense of the trade in Southern Persia. As a last resource against these measures taken against Persian commercial interests, on February 25 of this year the Mejliss, which is the Persian Parliament, passed a Bill to give the Persian Government a monopoly of all foreign trade, so that they could compel Russia at the frontier to take foreign goods on equal terms with those applying to Russian exports. This, I imagine, has had a very deleterious effect upon Persian trade, and possibly also on foreign trade, particularly our own trade in regard to Persia.
Our own policy with regard to Persia is very different. We are most conciliatory in all our efforts to bring back her friendship and develop a good understanding. We have just concluded a Treaty of Commerce, and we have also in other respects, as much as we can, made friendly concessions. There are one or two subsidiary questions in addition to those which appear on the Paper of which I have given notice to the noble and learned Lord. One is regarding the payment of £2,000,000, or even mare, in respect of the Southern Persian Rifle Force which we formed during and after the War. I do not know what the position of that £2,000,000 is. I should like to know also whether he could say anything about the position of the Bahrein Islands, which your Lordships may remember the Persian Government recently claimed as coming under their suzerainty, which we denied. Then there is the matter of the abolition of the capitulations. I do not know whether the noble Lord is able to say anything about that, and what is the present position. Also, as I read in The Times, not long ago, there is a question of Turkey making a road from the Black Sea, from Trebizond, into North-West Persia, so as to avoid commerce going to Persia having to go through
412
Soviet Russia, where all these impediments are put in the way of Persian trade.
I was going to ask a question about the Imperial Airways, but only two days ago the Secretary of State for Air gave us a very clear exposition of the position of Imperial Airways in traversing Persia. It is, however, very noticeable that Jonkers, the German Company, have been for some years operating in Persia, to the great advantage of Persia. I think they have traversed about 4,000 miles of the country and have carried 10,000 passengers without any serious accident. In fact German influence in Northern Persia is becoming very considerable. The chief financial adviser of Persia is a German. Again, the French are very busy indeed in forming educational establishments in Persia, and are operating a big wireless station in that country. In fact our position and influence in Northern Persia has considerably lessened, compared with that of other countries. In saying this I am not doing so by way of complaint against His Majesty's Government. I suppose there may be various causes which have led to this rather humiliating position.
Certainly it is very remarkable that in the reign of Shah Pahlevi very great improvements have been made in Persia. There is now, I understand, no brigandage, and the roads are not only safe but about. 6,000 miles of road can be traversed with reasonable comfort. About 7,000 motor vehicles are now to be found in Persia. In 1928 1,300 cars and 1,700 lorries were imported. When it is remembered that formerly transport in Persia was almost entirely by camel it is a remarkable development in a short space of time. The condition of the people has also been improved. Medical regulations have been adopted and steps have been taken to deal with child mortality and the regulation of the hours of labour for women and children. Other matters that have been dealt with include dyes for their carpets. All these things have been accomplished very largely at the instance of His Majesty the Shah, who put a final touch to all that he is doing by the assistance which he gave to the Persian Exhibition in this country—a wonderful exhibition of Persian art.
Therefore I hope the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be able to say that our present relations with Persia are satisfactory. In 1924, when I moved for Papers, I was told the matter would he considered. No Papers have been published with regard to Persia since thee, and it does seem to me important that at the present time, with this very vexed question going on with regard to the intrusion of Soviet trade in Persia, we should be able to know what is taking place. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will be able to lay Papers with regard to affairs in Persia.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I would wish at the commencement to deal with the last matter to which the noble Lord refered. I am not aware of any Papers that could be laid, but I can assure the noble Lord that all inquiries will be made, and if there are Papers in the direction indicated they shall be laid. The speech of the noble Lord was partly general, and partly referred to four or five particular points of which he had given me notice. On those points I am able to give him the information which I have derived from the Foreign Office. I will for one moment, however, refer to the general question. It was stated in reply to a Parliamentary question in the House of Commons on July 25, 1929, that the "one desire" of His Majesty's Government "is to see Persia prosperous and peaceful under a strong and independent Government." It has, in fact, for many years been the policy of His Majesty's Government to do their best to strengthen and assist the Central Persian Government in every possible way, and to establish friendly and cordial relations between the two countries. If I understand the purport of the general observations of the noble Lord, that is what he would desire. Obviously that is so, judging from the interest which he has taken in Northern Persia.
Negotiations for a general treaty and a commercial treaty between the two countries have been proceeding for a considerable time through His Majesty's Minister at Teheran. Agreement has been reached on a number of points, but certain difficulties are still outstanding. His Majesty's Government have given every indication of their readiness to reach an equitable settlement of these questions also, and they are confident
414
that if the Persian Government so desire the negotiations could without difficulty be brought to an early and successful conclusion. Unfortunately, it has nut been possible of late to make further progress in these negotiations, although His Majesty's Government are not without hope that the Persian Government will in time come to realise that a settlement of outstanding questions is in the mutual interests of both countries. I think everyone here will realise the importance of that settlement.
The principal measures regarding exchange control and a trade monopoly, to which the noble Lord has referred, are as follows: The exchange control law of February 24, 1930, set up a Commission for fixing the rate of exchange, and placed stringent restrictions on all dealings in foreign exchange. Of course, that was not favourable to foreign trade, or to the trade between this country and Persia. The so-called foreign trade monopoly laws of February 25 and March 11, 1931, are in reality in the nature of import restriction measures. Under these laws the import of certain goods (luxuries and articles competing with local products) has been prohibited and that of others seriously curtailed. Such imports as are admitted, within the limits of fixed quantities, are only admitted against a guarantee to export foreign produce to an equivalent value.
LORD LAMINGTON: Does this apply to all Persia, South and North?
LORD PARMOOR: I understand so. Yes, certainly to Northern and to Southern Persia. These restrictions have undoubtedly placed all foreign traders in Persia in a position of great difficulty. The restrictions imposed last year on exchange transactions prevented foreign traders in Persia, in most cases, from transmitting any money out of Persia. Representations have been accordingly addressed by His Majesty's Minister at Teheran to the Persian Government on the general question of these exchange regulations, and their adverse effect on trade, and further representations have repeatedly been made on behalf of individual British firms whose interests have been affected by-the difficulty of transmitting to this country the proceeds of their sales in

415
Persia. The further legislation passed in February and March of the present year—the so-called monopoly law—has in fact brought all trade to a standstill.
EARL PEEL: Is that foreign import and export trade?
LORD PARMOOR: I think both, because there is a great restriction of import trade, and, as regards export trade, money was not to be taken out of the country. The conditions on the Persian market are so unsettled that for the present no orders for foreign goods are going forward. As soon as His Majesty's Government learnt of the intention of the Persian Government to introduce such legislation, His Majesty's representative at Teheran was instructed to inform the Persian Government of the apprehension with which His Majesty's Government viewed such a proposal, and of their desire to be reassured as to its effect upon British traders in Persia and on British trade in general. The Persian Government replied to this note that their decision to adopt this policy had been taken on account of the acute economic crisis prevailing in the country, and added an assurance that they would exert their utmost care to ensure that no unlawful preferential treatment would be accorded to the detriment of any of the countries in commercial relations with Persia. Of course, our special interest was to see that we were not subject to special disadvantages under this general restriction of Persian trade.
Upon the entry into force of the monopoly law, His Majesty's representative at, Teheran was instructed to request the Persian Government to allow the unrestricted admission into Persia of goods which had been shipped before March 1, and so to deprive the law of its retroactive effect. The Persian Government, however, have not seen their way to comply with this request The general attitude of His Majesty's Government towards this Persian legislation has not yet been defined, and its effect upon British trade is being closely watched by His Majesty's Government. It will be realised that, short of violating international obligations, countries are at liberty to introduce such economic measures as they may consider necessary for the protection of their national interests. That is to say that Persia, as
416
an independent country, can take the attitude which it is taking in these commercial matters within the rights which she possesses as an independent nation. Moreover, Persia's treaty obligations do not prevent her from imposing, as a temporary measure, restrictions for the purpose of protecting, in extraordinary and abnormal circumstances, the vital interests of the country. There is no reason why Persia should not do it.
Whether the present very elaborate restrictions, which are bound to result in a great dislocation of normal trade relations, can properly be reconciled with Persia's treaty obligations is a question which is still under the consideration of His Majesty's Government, who do not desire to do anything which would seriously embarrass Persia in meeting her difficulties, provided that the restrictions imposed upon British trade do not last longer than the emergency which they are designed to meet., and provided that in practice British trade is not handicapped in competition with the trade of other countries. His Majesty's Legation at Teheran is in constant touch with individual British firms whose interests are affected, and in this country the Department of Overseas Trade have endeavoured regularly to keep those British firms and banks concerned familiar with the Persian regulations, and to assist them generally, through the medium of the Commercial Secretary to His Majesty's Legation at Teheran, in the difficult economic conditions which have arisen.
That is all the information of a general kind which I can give. But there were some incidental, but very important, matters on which the noble Lord asked me for special information. I beg to thank him for giving me notice. I could not have given him the information had I not known what the nature of his inquiries would be. The first matter on which he asked for information was with reference to Soviet activities. He desired to know whether Persia in 1928 refused to enter into a Central-Asian Mahomedan League in alliance with Moscow. Reports have reached His Majesty's Government to the effect that the Soviet Government some years ago were exploring the possibility of arranging for some kind of combination with Moslem States. While there is no reason to suppose that such

417
a project was welcome to the Persian Government, His Majesty's Government are clearly not in a position to state what precisely was the attitude adopted towards it by the various Governments concerned. So far as we know, therefore, it was not very favourably entertained by the Persian Government.
The second question is whether a statement could be made as to the effect of the abolition of the capitulations. Since the abolition of the capitulations on May 10, 1928, all foreign nationals in Persia have been subject to the jurisdiction of the Persian Courts, and the fact that few, if any, serious complaints from British subjects of injustice have been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government tends to show that the Persian authorities are fully alive to their responsibilities in this respect, and are endeavouring to the best of their ability to establish an efficient and adequate judicial system. In matters of taxation British subjects receive the same treatment as Persian nationals. I hope that that, at any rate, will be a satisfactory answer to the noble Lord.
His third inquiry was for information as to the agreement with Imperial Airways. It is assumed for the purpose of my answer that Lord Lamington intended to refer to the arrangement under which Imperial Airways have been permitted by the Persian Government to run a service along the Persian coast of the Persian Gulf. This arrangement was concluded for a period of three years, which expires on March 31, 1932. The Persian Government have recently indicated a new route across Central Persia to be used for international aviation between Iraq and India. Imperial Airways have been permitted to survey this proposed route.
The next question that the noble Lord asked me was about payment in connection with the South Persia Rifles. I think this is a point upon which there has been some misapprehension and I will try to make it clear. The South Persia Rifles were a local force raised by the British authorities during the War. They were disbanded in 1921. It is not understood to what payment the noble Lord, Lord Lamington, refers. No payment is due to His Majesty's Government from the Persian Government in connection with the South Persia Rifles.
418
The noble Lord's next question was about the Bahrein Islands. I think I am right in saying that those islands are off the Arabian coast but quite close to it. It is public knowledge that the Persian Government have revived an ancient claim to the Bahrein Islands From which they were expelled in 1783 by the ancestors of the present Arab rulers. The Persian Government have in the past few years addressed several communications to His Majesty's Government on this subject and have sent copies of those communications to the League of Nations. His Majesty's Government gave a full and detailed statement of their reasons for refusing to admit this claim, which they regard as quite untenable, in a Note addressed to the Persian Minister in London on February 18, 1929, of which a copy was also communicated to the League. In that sense, it has been published. There have been no subsequent developments of importance in connection with this matter.
I am glad to say that I have now come to the last of these questions. The noble Lord asked whether information could be given about the suggested road in Turkey, and enclosed a cutting from The Times to save trouble. This is the information I can give him about that road. His Majesty's Government's information is to the effect that the Turkish Government have decided to repair the old route between Trebizond and the Persian frontier. Repairs were to have been begun at the end of May or early in the present month, and it is proposed that the work, which has been entrusted to a Turkish company, mild be completed in two years.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Could the noble and learned Lord give us further information about that road? It is the road, I suppose, from Trebizond to Rowanduz?
LORD PARMOOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: It was never a metalled road at all.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope the further information I am about to give will meet what the noble Viscount is asking me about. The Rowanduz route between Iraq and Northern Persia is at present under construction. That is an alternative way between Northern Persia and

419
Iraq. When the work on these roads is complete and they are open to motor traffic, North-Western Persia will have new and important means of communication with the West, which should much facilitate trade with that district. That is the information which I have obtained on this special point about which lord Leamington asked for information. I do not say that he will approve of the information, but I hope he will consider the information given satisfactory to him. It is the best I have been able to obtain and, I think, is all that can be obtained at the present time. I will not go back to the general question but I might emphasise, in conclusion, that it is the great desire of His Majesty's Government to be on a friendly footing with the Persian Government in order that together and for their mutual advantage they may do what is necessary for all forms of prosperity so far as Persia is concerned.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I think the House is very much indebted to my noble friend Lord Lamington for introducing this subject again. As he says, we have not had an opportunity of being informed upon or of discussing the affairs of Persia for the last six years. I remember very well that before that period my noble friend, who has long taken a great deal of interest in Persian matters, raised,, I think, an annual discussion upon this subject, partly because, as an old Governor of Bombay, he fully realised the great importance of a prosperous and independent Persia not only to us but to the Indian portion of His Majesty's Empire. But I am bound to say, though we are much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the detailed information he has given us, one cannot regard it as very satisfactory information. The whole story that he has told us, with some parts of which we were familiar, as to the monopoly of trade, the difficulty of exporting money and the great difficulties that are laid before traders, both British and others, may be rather depressing in the present situation when, of course, we are met with so many difficulties in other parts of the world. But I understand from what the noble and learned Lord says that His Majesty's Government are doing their very best by representations and otherwise—
LORD PARMOOR: Hear, hear.
EARL PEEL EARL PEEL—to see that, first of all, no discrimination is exercised against British trade and, secondly, that everything is being done to try to bring about a situation in which trade will commence again. I think he realises himself that the picture he has drawn is, on the whole, rather a melancholy one. He told us something about the exchange in Persia at the present time, but I do not think he told us what changes have been made in the exchange. The last figures that I have show that the rate was fixed recently at 89½ krama to the £ sterling, the rate last year being 59½. From those two facts alone your Lordships will see what difficulties have been introduced into trade by that de-valuation of the krama.
I do not think I have much comment to make on many of the observations of the noble and learned Lord, but I do not think he told us very much about the operations of the Soviet Government in Persia and the points that were put by my noble friend as to the extent of the propaganda that was being carried on there both in Teheran and elsewhere. He did, however, say something about the arrangements that had been come to, and was able to give some degree of information in regard to them. I was also very interested to hear the definite line that has been taken about the claims of Persia to the Bahrein Islands. That has been looked into at different times, and His Majesty's Government and others always come to exactly the same conclusion that the claims for the Bahrein Islands were shadowy and dated back to a period of nearly two hundred years ago.
On the general question on which the noble Lord dealt, our attitude towards Persia is an extremely simple and plain one. It is highly to our interests, and to the interests of India, that we should have an independent Persia, a Persia which is enabled to negotiate on free and equal terms with all her neighbours, and a country which, by maintaining her stability, adds very much to the stability of the East. That is our attitude. We should be very glad if there was some reciprocity shown as regards our trade by the Persian Government itself. We can only wish that the friendly attitude we maintain towards Persia, and our

421
desire that she should retain her independence and her position, was followed by the other neighbours of Persia.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, if I may add a word to what has been already said it is this. I think that possibly the noble Lord the Lord President might reconsider what he has said about laying no Papers. I do not say that he should lay Papers at this moment, but we are extraordinarily ignorant nowadays about what is going on in Persia, and I think that the four suggestions at any rate which have been mentioned this evening would bear a great deal more detail than has been given, and particularly the possibility of getting trade routes by avoiding Soviet Russia. That, I think, could certainly be examined into. Would it not be possible for a Despatch to be called for from His Majesty's Minister at Teheran at some future date, and be laid on the Table of this House?—a Despatch that would give information both to this House and to the trading community, and would be more valuable, I think, than the speech, informing as it was, which the noble Lord has just delivered. I do not mean to press for it at this moment, but perhaps later on, in two or three months time, we might have fuller information in detail. It would be appreciated by those persons who are interested in Persia and who know something of their own knowledge about it, and would be useful also to the trading community at large.
LORD PARMOOR: I will certainly represent those views to the Foreign Office, and will then communicate with the noble Viscount.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I have to thank the Lord President for the considerable amount of information which he has given us. After a silence of six years it will elucidate many problems for those who are interested in Persia. The noble and learned Lord was very tactful in the remarks he made. He never referred to the commercial oppression to which, I understand, Persia is being subjected at the present time. She has had to impose this monopoly to save herself from commercial tyranny. All other countries, as the noble Lord said, suffer accordingly. I understood him to say in regard to the Trebizond road that it is being made in conjunction with or on the same footing
422
as the one from Persia. The two roads will meet, and form one trunk road between Turkey and Persia. If there is an understanding between the two countries that is an important matter. It is very satisfactory indeed to hear that the abolition of the capitulations have not given a cause of grievance to any British subject. It shows what an enlightened policy Persia is now taking, placing herself among the great nations of the world and recovering her old prestige. It was very satisfactory indeed to get the assurance from His Majesty's Government that what we desire in our own interests is a strong, independent and prosperous Persia. I would ask whether the noble Lord would, if possible, see whether Papers could be laid about the commerce of Persia at the present time. I think we are entitled to that information.
LORD PARMOOR: I cannot do more than say I will make inquiries at the Foreign Office to see if there are such Papers.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CATHEDRALS MEASURE, 1931.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Cathedrals Measure, 1931, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, I have to move that you give your consent to this Measure being submitted to His Majesty for his assent. It is an important Measure. I am rather sorry I am obliged to put it before your Lordships at a time when it is inconvenient for many members of the House to be present. It is important because it deals with the cathedrals of this country, beyond all question one of our greatest glories and perhaps the chiefest heritage that has been bequeathed to us from the past. Nothing, I think, is more remarkable in recent history than the revival of the life of our cathedrals in every part of the country.
The authorities of our cathedrals are eager not only to maintain, as I hope they always will, the regular sequence of divine services, but to adapt the

423
cathedrals to the needs and desires of a different age, to do everything possible to interest the people in their cathedrals, to encourage their visits, to teach them about the treasures that are contained within them, and to make them real centres of religious life. But they are always hampered, at least the older cathedrals, by their Statutes. Many of these Statutes are still of value, still more of them are obsolete and archaic, yet it is extremely difficult to know how they are to be changed. In many cases even the authority to change them is doubtful, and long experience shows that unless some means are taken by which the cathedral authorities can be assisted in the revising of their old Statutes, or the framing of new Statutes, very little advance can be made, and they are still bound to labour under Statutes which very largely have become useless. Then again there is a new problem created by the number of new sees which of recent years have been created. There are no less than seventeen entirely new cathedral churches, a list of which you will find in the First Schedule of the Measure, and for the most part these are parish churches, and they have either only extremely provisional Statutes or no Statutes at all.
Accordingly, in 1924, the Church Assembly acting on the recommendation of the very weighty Revenues and Properties Committee over which the late Lord Cave presided with great ability, appointed a Commission of Inquiry to visit all the cathedrals in England, and to consider their constitution, their needs and their requirements. The Commission sat for two years, from 1925 to 1927, and I had the honour of being its Chairman. Through seven sub-committees we visited every cathedral church in the country. In 1927 we made our Report, and this Measure is the result of the Report which we presented.
It has been before the Church Assembly since that year, 1927. It has been subjected to a great deal of careful criticism. When your Lordships realise that there are forty-three cathedral churches, all of them with their own customs, traditions, wishes, all of which were amply represented in the Assembly, you may well suppose that this was a Measure which did not escape a great deal of very anxious criticism.
424
Gradually, however, suspicions were allayed, and fears were removed by judicious amendments. The result was that last February the Assembly, after three previous revisions, gave its final approval to this Measure, which I now put before your Lordships, by a unanimous vote. Therefore it may be regarded as coming before your Lordships as an uncontroversial Measure.
If your Lordships have been able to look at it, you will no doubt have been impressed by its somewhat complicated and elaborate appearance, but in reality its main features are clear and simple. Let me emphasise two. The primary purpose of the Measure is the appointment of a body of Cathedral Commissioners. Their manner of appointment is dealt with in the First Schedule of the Measure. They are to be not less than seven in number. By desire of the Church Assembly, they may be increased to a limit of ten. The names of the first six, together with one appointed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, are in the Schedule. They are to be appointed for seven years, or if the Assembly so desires, for other periods up to and not exceeding twelve years. Thereafter, if any particular cathedral desires the assistance of the Commissioners in revising Statutes or framing new Statutes or amending Statutes which have been obtained, then the Assembly has the power to appoint ad hoc Commissions with all the powers that are given to the Cathedral Commissioners in this Measure but only appointing those special Commissions—called "appointed Commissions"—at the request of the authorities of the particular cathedral.
The principal function of these Cathedral Commissioners and their powers and duties are set forth in Clauses 2 and 4 of the Measure. Put shortly, they are to be appointed in order to assist the cathedral authorities to revise their Statutes, to frame new Statutes, to prepare schemes which may embody many desirable reforms, and to enable the cathedrals more perfectly to adapt themselves to the needs and opportunities both of the present and of the future. It is to be noted that they are specially charged to have in regard the traditions and customs of each of these venerable cathedrals. The length and apparent

425
elaboration of the Measure is really due to the fact that it includes within it various recommendations of the Cathedral Commission of which I have spoken and various suggestions made by the Church Assembly. Many of these would not require legislation, but it was thought convenient that all the matters with which the Commissioners would have to deal in their various schemes should be included within the Measure which gives them statutory powers.
The second main feature of the Measure to which I call special attention is in Clause 8 and it governs the character of he whole Measure. It is not proposed to set up a body of inquisitors who are to go round all the cathedrals of the country and impose their own opinions upon reluctant Chapters. On the contrary, it is provided in this clause that no proceedings can be taken on any scheme framed by the Commissioners unless it has received the consent of the authorities of the cathedral and of the Bishop of the diocese. The consenting bodies are defined in Clause 3. They are, in the case of the older cathedrals, the Dean and Chapter as at present constituted, and in the case of what I may call the new cathedrals—for the most part parish churches now converted into cathedrals—a special body consisting of the Bishop, the incumbent, the canons and two representatives of the parochial church council of the church. I want to impress upon your Lordships that, elaborate as the provisions of the Measure may seem to be, wide and indeed at first sight drastic as the powers of the Commissioners may seem to be—so much so that at first they rather alarmed the Church Assembly—they are all governed by this one consideration, that they must have received the consent of the authorities of the cathedral and of the Bishop of the diocese, so that nothing can be forced on any of the cathedrals against its will.
There are indeed two exceptions to what I have said, and exceptions of some importance. The first is that the Measure proposes the compulsory transfer of landed property in the hands of the Deans and Chapters to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, except, of course, the site and fabric of the cathedral church, residence houses and houses or property within or adjacent to the precincts of
426
the cathedral. This recommendation is made after an exhaustive inquiry by that Revenues and Properties Commission of Lord Cave of which I spoke and it seems to me in these days entirely right.
Just in proportion as the spiritual activities of the cathedral church are increased as we should all wish them to be, so the time of the Dean and Chapter must be and ought to be taken up more and more by those activities. They have less time to devote to the management of landed estates. However highly qualified they may be for the spiritual work for which they ought to be appointed, it does not follow that they are equally qualified to act as landlords in the management of landed property. Lastly, it is of immense importance to the cathedrals that instead of a variable income depending upon the risks and chances of management of landed property, they should have a fixed income upon which they can rely. In return for the land thus transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the cathedrals will have a fixed annual income for the maintenance of their services and the payment of their officers. I need scarcely remind your Lordships that this is at present the position in fact of the majority of our cathedrals. The Measure now proposes to make it the arrangement which will govern all the cathedrals throughout the country.
The second exception to the governing clause that the consent of the cathedral authorities must be obtained refers in Clause 13 to what are called the minor corporations, consisting of ecclesiastical or lay members of the cathedral staff apart from the Dean and Chapter. I need not remind your Lordships how in the Middle Ages persons were accustomed to protect themselves by forming themselves into corporations which gradually acquired properties and various rights behind which they entrenched themselves. In some of our cathedrals these minor corporations survive. They are interesting, their constitution is sometimes pictureque, the members of them are much attached to them, but I think it will be plain that it is inconsistent with the efficient administration of the cathedrals in these present times that there should be within the one building two bodies with their own special characteristics and powers and owning pro-

427
perty which may be within the very precincts of the cathedral itself. It is therefore proposed that the property of these minor corporations, whether clerical or lay, should in some cases be transferred to the Cathedral Chapter for the good of the whole cathedral, or, in the case of landed property, as in the case of the cathedrals themselves, to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
I dare say your Lordships may have observed that this provision caused some disquiet among the junior clergy of the cathedrals, who felt that their rights were being unduly interfered with and gave expression to their grievances in the Press. I can only say that ample opportunity was given to the members of these corporations to bring their case before the Church Assembly. On many points, it was fully considered and, after all, it is to be noted that there is no proposal for the compulsory dissolution of these corporations. On the contrary, it is provided that, even though any landed property is transferred, they themselves may be reconstituted for other functions which they have to fulfil within the cathedral. I should like to say here that I appreciate the desire of these ministrants of the cathedral that they should have some security of tenure. I have no doubt that this will be secured, where it is necessary, by the schemes which the Commissioners will draw up.
Let me call your Lordships' attention to Clauses 5 and 6, which describe the procedure which the making of these schemes is to follow. Clause 5 makes it plain that the Commissioners, before they seal any scheme, have to submit it to all the persons concerned. They have to obtain the necessary consents, and they have also to obtain the approval of the Church Assembly. Then it is provided, in Clause 6, that when all these steps have been taken, and the scheme is approved and sealed, it is to be submitted to His Majesty in Council. There will then be a period of three months within which appeals from any aggrieved person may be heard. These appeals will be considered by a Committee of the Privy Council, and either dismissed, or allowed or referred back to the Commissioners. In the case of the appeal being dismissed, there comes into play another, and I think a rather interesting provision, which is meant to recognise
428
the fact that the whole nation has its own interest in these cathedral churches. It is provided that, if the scheme has been allowed, it is still to lie for twenty days on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament, so that either House, if it sees fit, may move an Address that it be not approved. If such an Address is not presented, then the scheme goes before His Majesty and is confirmed by an Order in Council.
At this hour it would be quite impossible for me to enter into all the details of the matters with which these schemes are to deal. Some of them are of very general interest and, at another time, it would perhaps be interesting to your Lordships to consider them. I will merely illustrate for a few moments the character of some of them. There is, for instance, in Clause 9, the requirement of the Commissioners to frame schemes regulating the position of the Bishop in his own cathedral church. It may seem strange that such a matter should require regulation, but those of your Lordships who are familiar with ecclesiastical history will be aware that there are few things that have been more creative of friction and less edifying, though they have given ample material for the gossip of the close, than the relations between the Bishop and his Dean and Chapter. It is now proposed to state these things once for all, and to secure to the Bishop his position as a Visitor to the cathedral and his own personal rights of celebrating the Holy Communion and having services for confirmation and ordination, and other additional services; and all that will be laid down by the schemes.
Then again there is a very interesting question, which takes us right away back to the very origin of these cathedral churches, about the proper constitution of the Cathedral Chapter. I dare say your Lordships are aware that among the ancient cathedrals there are two classes—those of what are called the old foundation, which were always cathedral churches, and those of the new foundation, which were once the churches of monastic establishments. In the cathedrals of the old foundation a very large place was given to the whole Chapter, consisting not only of the residentiary canons but also of the honorary canons and the prebendaries. In the cathedrals of the new foundation practically all was

429
done by the Dean and Chapter. It is now proposed that schemes should lay down, again subject to the necessary consents, that there should be a general Chapter consisting of all the canons, and an administrative Chapter which would be responsible for the character of the services and for the fabric and monuments of the cathedral.
Here again I might have called your attention to the very interesting proposal about the age of retirement of residentiary canons. Sometimes it must have appeared to many, even perhaps to some of your Lordships, that Cathedral Chapters have a way of becoming companies of very elderly gentlemen, not conspicuous for their energy or activities. It is now proposed, in view of the increasing importance of our cathedrals, that schemes should provide for the retirement of residentiary canons at the age of 75, unless the Bishop, as Visitor, after consulting the Chapter, requests that they should continue. Again there is the very interesting creation of new Chapters in the parish church cathedrals; a general Cathedral Chapter including the incumbent—who is henceforth to be designated by a new title in the ecclesiastical world, the title of Provost, which has its own associations—not Dean (because we have no wish to interfere with His Majesty's patronage), the canons and archdeacons and, in some cases, the Bishop; and also a Cathedral Council specially appointed to look after the relationship of the cathedral church to the diocese, consisting of the Bishop, the Provost, representatives of the Cathedral Chapter, of the parochial church council of the church, and also of the laity of the diocese.
Finally, I might call your attention to the fact that henceforth, under Clause 24, there are to be no freehold offices outside the Chapter in any of our cathedrals. It is the existence of these freehold offices that has sometimes led to great abuses by which lay clerks who have
430
long since ceased to be able to do anything but make a discordant noise in the cathedral retain their right to sing, if it can be called singing, because they hold these freehold offices. Henceforth, while retaining existing interests, they are to be abolished. These are only examples of the contents of schemes which the Commissioners will be called upon to prepare, and this very long Measure consists simply of various matters which directly and indirectly affect the internal life of our cathedrals. I only call your Lordships attention once again to the consents which must in every case be obtained. Your Lordships will remember, as I have said before, that all these complicated matters have been the subject of the meticulous criticism of the Church Assembly during three revisions. They have been before the Ecclesiastical Committee, and no objection, I think, upon any point has been raised.
I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will allow this important Measure to be submitted to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. If you do I think you will take your part in enabling our cathedrals ever more adequately to fulfil their great functions, to be the mother churches in deed as well as in name of their dioceses, to be the homes of religious learning and art, and above all by their own beauty and the religious services held within them to bear witness, in our increasingly hasty and heedless times, to things unseen and eternal and to offer continuous and reverent worship to Almighty God. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Cathedrals Measure, 1931, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before seven o'clock.

ROTHERHAM RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
  ROYSTON AND BRODSWORTH GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  BETHLEM HOSPITAL (AMEND MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
  GRAND UNION CANAL (LEICESTER CANALS PURCHASE, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported, with Amendments.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
OKEHAMPTON AND TAVISTOCK ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1931.
  WARRINGTON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1931.
    WIMBORNE AND DISTRICT ELEC- TRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1931.
    Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House; Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.